[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
SENSITIVITY OF COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS AND WILDLIFE TO SPILLED OIL, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Larry C. Thebeau, Timothy W. Rana, and Daniel D. Domeracki Research Planning Institute, Inc. 925 Gervais Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 This project, made possible by a Coastal Energy Impact Program Grant, established under the CZM Act of 1972, as amended, and administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA. This project was prepared for the Office of the Governorn, Division of Natural Resources. RPI/R/81/9/10-20 QH Contract No. EQC-1-197 105 September 1981 .S6 T543 1981 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER EXECUTIVE SUf*1ARY This report is an explanatory text for a series of 50 irtaps which cover the coast of South Carolina (Fig. 1). These maps delineate the sensitivity oil coastal environments to oil spill impact. The classifi- cation system used, the Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) , ranks coastal environments on a scale of 1 to 10 in increasing order of sensi- tivity (i.e., 1 is least sensitive, and 10 is the most sensitive). Bio- logical considerations, such as the location of bird colonies and shellfish areas, are indicated on the maps. -Field work was carried out between January and June 1981. A shore- line assessment technique called the integrated zonal method was used to classify the coastal environments present in the study area. The tecli- nique included aerial reconnaissance of the shoreline, site-specific stud- ies at approximately 100 shoreline stations, and an extensive review of available literature. Using this information, 14 different coastal envi- ronments were identified and assigned ESI numbers as listed below. 1) Exposed vertical seawalls .2) Not present in South Carolina 3) Fine-grained sand beaches 4) Medium- to coarse-grained sand beaches 5) Exposed tidal flats (low biomass) 5a) Mixed sand and shell beaches 5b) Sheltered erosional scarps 6) Shell beaches 6a) Exposed riprap 7) Exposed tidal flats (moderate biomass) 7a) Erosional scarps in marsh 8) Sheltered coastal structures 9) Sheltered tidal flats (high biomass) and oyster beds 10) Marshes Basic strategies for spill response and protection are briefly out- lined in the text. Of all the habitats present, salt marshes, sheltered tidal flats, and sheltered coastal structures are considered the most sensitive to long-term, oil spill damage and should receive the highest priority for protection in t@e event of a spill. In contrast, exposed seawalls and fine-grained sand beaches (ESI 1, 3), which are quite common throughout the study area, would be cleaned rapidly by wave action and, therefore, would require less protection. E EACH ATLE /Y @ELL@ '@LET SOUTH CAROLINA 9 @ I LAND T ISLA.0 "ULL .1 22 g@- 'ISLE O@ @.L.S 26 2 EDISIC IS, IN 30 BEAUFO T 'd @@ G A"I .31 @ILT;. -E-D 15L-D FIGURE 1. Map of South Carolina showing the location of each ESI map. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was conducted with funds provided by the South Carolina epartment of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), Contract No. EQC-l- 197. Ronald Kinney and Russ Scherer of DHEC made many helpful suggestions in the development of this project. Trish Jerman of the Governor's office was of great help with the contractual arrangements. We wish to thank John Hodge, Robert Tye and Jacqueline Michel for assisting with the aerial mapping. Graphics and map layout were prepared by Starnell Perez, Gene Speer, Len Mangum, Karen Tidwell, and Jerry Cole. Starnell Perez designed the cover and drew the illustrations. Typing and report layout were completed by Diana Gaines and Phyllis Carter-Frick. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SLT.%MRY .................................................. I ACKNOWLEDC-M-ENTS ..................................................... iii I14TRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 PHYSICAL SETTING ................................................... 3 Geology .......................................................... 3 Coastal Geomorphology ............................................. 3 Arcuate Strand ................................................... 6 Winyah Bay Estuary and the Santee Delta__. ... 6 Barrier islands .................................................. a Coa-stal Sediments ................................................ 9 Physical Processes ....4 .......................................... 10 METHODS OF STUDY ...................................................... 12 Shoreline Mapping ................. ............................ 12 Ground Surveys ................................................... 12 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY INDEX (ESI) .............................. 19 1) Exposed.Vertical Seawalls .................................... 22 2) Not Present .................................................. 23 3) Fine-grained Sand Beaches .................................... 24 4) Medium- to Coarse-grained Sand Beaches ....................... 26 5) Exposed Tidal Flats (Low Biomass) .................. ......... 28 5a) Mixed Sand and Shell Beaches .................................. 30 5b) Sheltered Erosional Scarps .................................... 32 6) Shell Beaches ................................................ 33 6a) Exposed Riprap ............................................... 35 7) Exr>osed Tidal Flats (Moderate Biomass) ....................... 37 7a) Erosional Scarps in Marsh .................................... 39 8) Sheltered Coastal Structures ................................. 41 9) Sheltered Tidal Flats (High Biomass) and Oyster Beds ......... 43 10) Marshes ............. ........................................ 45 CRITICAL SPECIES ANTD HABITATS ...................................... 48 Marine Mammals ........... ........................................ 48 Coastal Marine Birds ............................................. 50 Reptiles ......................................................... 54 Finfish .......................................................... 56 Shellfish ........................................................ 58 Critical Intertidal Habitats ..................................... 59 Marshes (ESI=10) ............................................... 60 Sheltered Tidal Flats (ESI=9) .................................. 61 Sheltered Coastal Structures (ESI=8) ........................... 61 PAGE Habitats with Variable to Slight Sensitivity ..................... 61 Exposed Tidal Flats (ESI=5, 7) ................................. 61 Beaches (ESI=3, 4, 5a, 6) ...................................... 62 Erosional Scarps (ESI=5b, 7a) .................................. 62 Exposed Riprap (ESI=6a) ........................................ 62 Exposed Vertical Seawalls (ESI=l) .... ......................... 63 PROBABLE PI@F-7@S OF OIL SPILL OCCCURRENCE AND IMPACT .................. 64 Effect of Tides and Winds ........................................ 65 GENERAL STRATEGIES FOR INLET AND HARBOR PROTECTION ................. 67 Lines of Defense ................................................. 67 Types of Tidal Entrances ......................................... 68 Jettied Harbor Entrances .......................................... 72 *Sounds and Bays .................................................. 73 medium to Large Tidal Inlets ...................................... 73 Small Inlets ...................................................... 73 REFERENCES CITED ................................................... 75 APPE14DICES I. Master Species List ......................................... 80 II. Species List of Infaunal Organisms .......................... 92 INTRODUCTION. The state of South Carolina, like many other coastal states, has be- come increasingly aware of the problems related to oil spills and their long-term impact. Recent interest in offshore oil exploration further increases the future risk of oil pollution along the South Carolina coast. In response to this need, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) in. coordination with the United States Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) has@ prepared a contingency plan for dealing with possible@ oil spills in the state. As part of this program, DHEC asked Research Planning Institute, Inc. (RPI) to, prepare a set of Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) maps which classify the various coastal environments of South Carolina in terms of their sensitivity to spilled oil. The ESI has evolved since 1975 from oil spill research *conducted by RPI in numerous locations around the world. The index was originally re- ferred to as the Oil Spill Vulnerabilit.y Index (Gundlach and Hayes, 1978) which classified coastal environments primarily in terms of their physical response to spilled oil. The ESI (Hayes et al., 1980) was developed to add biological and socioeconomic components to the'geomorphic considera- tions. Since 1977, the Vulnerability Index and ES1 have been applied to extensive coastal regions (Fig. 2), including much of Alaska, Puget Sound (Washington), and the states of California, Florida, Massachusetts, and Texas. Similar projects are planned for other coastal states. The ESI was applied to South Carolina to aid in the preparation of oil spill con- tingency planning. The index, developed from oil spill case studies, field research, and extensive literature review, classifies coastal envi- ronments on a scale of 1 to 10 in order of their increasing sensitivity to spilled oil. This report provides a synthesis of study methods, the envi- ronments classified by the ESI, and suggestions for shoreline protection strategies.. There is also a summary of geomorphic parameters, major bio- logical resources, and socioeconomic considerations and a description of their probable response to oiling. In total, 50 maps (1:24,000 scale; 7.5-minute quadrangles) were prepared. (Note: The only available maps at the time of this report for Nixonville and Myrtle Beach were 15-minute quadrangles.) 2 -.*-19 8 0 1981 `V-1 9 7 9 1977/78 1980 ALASKA 19 7 67 8 1980 1979 19 7 8 1977 1975 1980 FIGURE 2. Map of the United States indicating environments mapping stud- ies for oil spill response planning conducted by RPI personnel." ,PHYSICAL SETTING Geology The eastern portion of the South Atlantic seaboard states is composed of a seaward- th ickening wedge of sedimentary deposits known as the Atlan- tic Coastal Plain Province. In South Carolina, these deposits range in age from Late Cretaceous (100 million years old) to Recent and lie on top of much older crystalline rocks of the Piedmont Province. They vary in thickness from a feather edge at the Piedmont/Coastal Plain contact near Columbia, called the Fall Line, to over 800 meters (m) at C*harleston. The Atlantic Coastal Plain has its present dimensions because it formed on the trailing edge of the North American.plate and has been rela- tively stable with respect to global tectonics since the 'Cretaceous peri- od. Thus, the position of the shoreline at any point in time-is primarily controlled by sea level changes with i-ocal effects due to sediment supply. The sediments are derived from weathering and erosion of the Piedmont rocks, and they are composed predominantly of unconsolidated sand and clay with lesser amounts of gravel and carbonate. The depositional units which make up the Coastal Plain are very similar, to those forming today: gravel to silt deposits carried by rivers and deposited on floodplains, shoreline deposits of sand and mud, sediments of fine-grained sand and mud deposited offshore, and chemical precipitates in deep water. Although the depositional history of the Coastal Plain is complex, it can be divided into three belts which roughly parallel the present shore- line: (1) the upper Coastal Plain with surficial sediments of Cretaceous to Miocene age, (2) the middle Coastal Plain with deposits of Miocene to Pleistocene age, and (3) the lower Coastal Plain with surficial deposits of Pleistocene to Recent age (Fig. 3; from Colquhoun, 1971). The surface of the lower Coastal Plain is one of primary topography, whereas fluvial and aeolian erosion has nearly obliterated the original landforms of the middle and upper zones. On the lower Coastal Plain is a @eries of scarps which get progressively younger seaward and reflect interglacial, high sea level stands. Between the scarps, deltaic depos- its, remnant barrier island chains, marshes, and individual beach ridges are readily visible on aerial photographs. Thus, the modern coastal sedil- mentation and morphology are similar to processes which have been active along the South Carolina coast for tens of thousands of years (Hayes et al., 1981). Coastal Geomorphology The South Carolina coast is composed of barrier islands, strandline beaches, estuaries, deltaic headlands, and some of the most extensive marsh/tidal flat systems in the United States. * The coastal morphology is a transition between that of North Carolina and Georgia. North,Carolina's coast is predominantly made up of long, thin barrier islands separated by a few tidal inlets and backed by extensive open lagoons or bays. The Georgia.coast, in contrast, is dominated by tidally generated deposits and UPPER COASTAL PLAIN MIDDLE COASTAL PLAIN LOWER COASTAL PLAIN WHITE SAND HILLS-RED SAND HILLS ORANGEBURG PARLER PLEISTOCEml OL I GOCENE- EARLY AND w f SCARP SCARP MEDIAL MIOCENE Q F. COBBLY FOSSIL OLIGOCENE-EARLY HORIZON 10 MEDIAL MIOCENE PLIOCENE PLEISTOCENE LATE C MIOCENE eQ0 84,?Alv A I 4fe 4A, SURRY OETHERAI SCARP SCARP 4430 7z KAOLIN CODDLE ItOnIZON OCALA CAITLI: 0 "'1 YNE L lt"E'STONE ON $200 N WA S4'q'EE L UIC 10 6,/ F 6 N 0 )a 14044 '14 7-1 y x 80* ro&M4 0 0 Major eme.,r ed-submerged 0IV Ito'. unconform stye s N VN 41, 'S, 01@ Physiography MIDDLE COASTAL Majot facies fronsilion PLAIN Hiatus FIGURE 3 Stratigraphic cross-section of the South Carolina Coastal Plain (from Colquhoun, 1971). zz contains numerous tidal inlets and broad expanses of marsh between seaward barriers and the mainiand. The morphology of the South CarolinA coast is dominated by a mixture of wind- and tidal-generated controlling forces, which produces a variation between the North Carolina and Georgia deposi- tional settings. On the basis of geomorphology, the South Carolina coast can be classified into the arcuate strand, cuspate delta, and barrier island zones (Brown, 1977). The barrier island zone is further divided into islands that have beach ridges (beach-ridge barriers) and those that have no beach ridges (transgressive barriers) (Fig. 4) . Each of these f our zones has its own characteristic sediment type, bathymetry, and erosional/ depositional history. VARIATIONS IN SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL MORPHOLOGY MYRTLE BEAC14 '*'WINYAH. BAY CHARLESTON BEAUFORT ARCUATE STRAND HILTON HEAD CUSPATE DELTA 25 0 25km BEACH RIDGE BARRIER r= 25 0 25mi TRANSGRESSIVE BARRIER FIGURE 4. Map of the South Carolina coast showing the four major morpho- logical zones (from Brown, 1977). Arcuate Strand The arcuate strand (Fig. 4) forms a gentle crescent between the North Carolina border and Winyah Bay, a distance of approxim ately 100 km. Few tidal inlets breach the coast in the northern section, but the number of inlets increases south toward Winyah Bay. Inlet size also increases southward (Brown, 1977). This portion of the coast is normally backed by a well-developed dune system. Salt marshes are either poorly developed or totally absent in the north and central portions of the st-rand, but become more prominent in the southern section. The beaches of this area are characteristically wide and flat, showing general, long-term shoreline stability. The shoreline owes its stability to the barrier sands of the Myrtle Beach Formation which formed before the Wisconsin glacial period, approximately 100,000 years ago (Johnson and- DuBar, 1964). The present shoreline configuration generally parallels the orientation of these resistant relict beach ridges (Hayes et al., 1981). There is moderate seasonal variability in the strand beaches although the net charges are small except around inlets. The nature of the back shore varies greatly throughout this area. Well-developed and vegetated dunes up to 3 m high occur locally. These dune systems act as a buffer zone, taking the brunt of the short-term changes in the beach without threatening man-made structures. Dunes provide the versatility for han- dling the short-term erosional/depositional events which occur each sea- son. Back beach seawalls and riprap have been constructed along portions of the arcuate strand to protect developed property. in some cases, how- ever, they pose additional problems and increase erosion rates. Winyah Bay Estuary and the Santee Delta South of the Grand Strand Is Winyah Bay, a drowTied river estuary of the Pee Dee, Waccamaw, Black, and Sampit Rivers. The drainage basin of these four rivers encompasses 36,000 km2 including almost one-third of South Carolina and a large portion of central North Carolina. Winyah Bay is bordered by extensive salt marshes and relatively undisturbed maritime forest including several publicly and privately owned wildlife preserves. Mixing of fresh water discharged from rivers with salt water from the ocean produces a seasonally variable stratified flow, typical of partially mixed estuaries (Pritchard@, 1967). The resultant estuarine circulation pattern in Winyah Bay partially controls surface transport of contami- nants. During high runoff periods, there is a tendency to flush intro-. duced floating contaminants out the estuary in the less dense, surface fresh waters (Zabawa, 1976). The Santee River delta adjoins Winyah Bay, extending 30 km along the South Carolina coast (Fig. 5). As the largest deltaic complex on the east coast of the United States (Brown, 1977), its shoreline components include (Fig. 5) : (1) a cuspate foreland, Cape Romain; (2) an eroding beach/ barrier complex, Raccoon Key; and (3) distributary mouth sand bars and mud flats. The lower delta plain is presently covered by salt marsh. Wash- over terraces and truncated beach -ridges along the shoreline of the delta attest to its ranid retreat. Erosion of the Santee delta complex has been mm@@@ all ------ ------ NORTH CHARLESTON COUNTY.@::@-.: BULL BAY 4 -qcc, ('q'0 vkoov #0 Zz 'Po INA tes C@- 10414f MILES FIGURE 5. Central South Carolina barrier islands between the Santee delta and Charleston. This area contains several, major East Coast wildlife preserves and would be highly sensitive to spilled oil. Cape Romain is a cuspate foreland backed by extensive marsh and tidal flats. related to the decreased sediment supply after damming of the Santee River in 1942 (Aburawi, 1972). Prior to the 1930s, the delta was in a stable or constructional phase. Af ter that, the delta entered a destructive phase which presently continues. Sequential, vertical aerial photographs reveal that, in some cases, over 215 m of erosion have. occurred since 1941 along Cape Romain (Stephen et al., 19115). Along Raccoon Key to the south, ero- sion of up to 275 m was noted at some localities. South Carolina's cuspate foreland, Cape Romain, owes its origin in part to the sediments supplied by the Santee River. Subsequent erosion by predominantly northeast storm waves has given the cape its characteristic shape. Sediment eroded from the vicinity of the cape moves away in two directions, forming recurved spits to the north and west. Beach profiles in this area reflect a general shoreline instability. The cape is domi- nated' by beach erosion and washover deposition. A steep beach f ace (medium- to coarse-grained sand) and extensive washover terraces are typical for much of -the central portion of Cape Romain (Stephen et al. 1975). Erosion of the cape headland has caused its northern flank to change orientation dramatically during the past century, shifting from N-S in 1886 to its present NNE-SSW oreintation. Since 1886, the northern arm of the cape has elongated approximately 1.8 km, while the westward arm has grown a length of 3.7 km (Shepard and Wanless, 1971). Barrier Islands Between Bull Bay and the Georgia border, a distance of approximately .160 km,.multiple barrier islands front the'coast. They average about 7 km in length and are separated from the mainland by numerous tidal inlets and creeks and a zone of salt marsh which generally increases in width toward the south. These islands are of two types, beach-ridge barriers and transg ressive (erosional) barriers. Beach-ridge_barriers form the majority of the central and southern portions of the South Carolina coast. These islands are characterized by extensive beach ridges, formed as the shoreline prograded. The morphology of beach-ridge barriers is characterized by a bulbous updrift (northern) end, a straight to crescentic central position, and a downdrift end which elongates and progrades through the formation of recurved spits (Hayes, 1979). Shoreline stability of these barriers is greatly affected by the adjacent tidal inlets. Wave refraction and storm protection afforded by the ebb-tidal delta in front of the inlet can cause accretion on the adja- cent beach, producing the bulbous updrift end of the island (Hayes, 1979). In areas where the barriers are shorter (Capers, Dewees, and Seabrook Islands) or where the inlets are much larger (Hilton Read Island), this pattern becomes more complex. The shorter islands are more influenced by the changes due to migration of the inlets and their associated offshore sand shoals.. Transqressive barrier shorelines are of lower relief and exhibit typically high-ar rates of erosion than beach-ridge barriers. They are characteristically straight with a thin veneer of sand which retreats 9 landward as a succession of washovers. Transgressive barriers are pres- ently changing at an extremely rapid rate with erosion rates of up to 15 m/yr documented at Morris Island (Stephen et al., 1975). Evidence of such rapid rates of erosion can be observed in the outcropping of marsh sedi- ments along some of the transgressive barrier beaches. Coastal Sediments When sand grain size and sorting parameters are plotted on a state- wide basis, three distinct groupings can be seen which correspond to the arcuate strand, cuspate delta, and barrier island zones (Brown, 1977). The sediment types of these zones reflect three different sources of beach material. There is presently no direct source of fluvial sediments on the arcuate strand, although several rivers in this area emptied into the ocean -during the relatively recent geological past (Johnson and DuBar, 1964). While some sand is being transported alongshore into the area, most beach sands on the arcuate strand are apparently derived from ancient deposits lying directly behind the shore as the area continues to erode. Sediment samples from the arcuate strand show a wide range of size and sorting,values. The cuspate delta area sediments are supplied by the Santee River and since the delta lies near its fluvial source, sediment samples from the area are generally coarser than those found elsewhere on the coast. This proximity to the source also results in sediments that are "immature," showing a wide range of size and sorting values. The barrier islands of the central and southern portions of the coast are further removed from their fluvial sediment sources and are presently receiving very little sand. Sediments from this area have undergone a great deal of reworking and, hence, are much better sorted than sediments to the north. Due to lower wave energy along the southern portion of the state (and- the constant reworking), these sediments are significantly finer than those to the north. These fine-grained sands pack very well, providing a hard pavement over which most motor vehicles can easily drive. Sheltered bv the barrier beaches themselves, the back barrier envi- roninents of South Carolina consist of a complex suite of fine-grained sediments. Marshes and sheltered tidal flats are predominantly muddy (silt and clay) with admixtures of carbonate shell material, sand from overwash deposits, and coarser channel lag deposits. Distribution of back barrier sediments follows the morphology of the marsh and tidal creeks with finer grain sizes in the most sheltered areas away from major tidal entrances and coarsest sediments in the channels. Tidal creek point bars generally contain fine-grained sand or silt. Biogenic activity generally decreases with increasing exposure to wave action. Extensive colonies of Intertidal oysters (Crassostrea virginica), which fringe many of the tidal creeks, as well as cluster on the surface of mud flats, add an important carbonate component to sediments along the coast. 10 Physical Processes South Carolina's climate is mild with an average temperature for the coastal region of 18.70C, ranging from 10.10C in December to 27.20C in July. The coastal plain, which makes up 40 percent of the state, receives an average of 118.4 cm of precipitation annually (Landers, 1970). Hurri- canes and tropical storms affect the coast at a frequency of two storms every three years (Crutcher and Quayle, 1974). Seasonal wind patterns occur in conjunction with the summer Bermuda High and extrat-ropical cyclones common in fall and winter. As the wind roses of Figure' 6 indicate, south and southwesterly winds prevail in spring and su-imner, whereas northerly winds predominate in fall and winter. Seasonal offshore wave energy similarly varies (Fig. 6) with a net long- shore energy flux directed to the south (U.S. Naval Weather Service Com- mand, 1970). Breaking wave heights along exposed beaches generally decrease from Myrtle Beach to Hilton Head with a typical mean of 60 cm for the central South Carolina coast (Kana, 1977). Complex nearshore bathym- etry associated with tidal deltas produce considerable local variation in wave energy. Tides are samidiurnal (twice.daily ranging from 1.5 m to almost 3 m due to geographic and temporal variations. For example, tide range in- creases from north to south due to effects of a widening continental shelf into the Georgia embayment. The fortnightly cycle produces periodic vari- ations in range between neap tides (lowest) and spring tides (highest). Occasional astronomic events superelevate tides as much as 30 = above the spring tide level. Storm surges associated with extratropical or tropical storms further alter the predicted astronomic tides, causing super tides which have ranged as much as 3.5 m above normal in historic times (Myers, 1975). The most recent hurricane which affected the coast was DAVID in September 1979 with a storm surge Iestimated at 1.0-1.5 m at Edisto Beach (pers. comm., Geoffrey Scott). The increasing tidal prism from north to south along the coast has several effects, including modification of the shoreline and back barrier morphology. Tidal inlets become more frequent and are larger to accommo- date greater tidal flow. Salt marshes become more extensive, and ebb- tidal deltas (seaward shoals of inlets) become much larger off inlets in the southern portion of the state. WIND ROSES mom,-_ M@ SPRING SUMMER @E 2 N, KM ANNUAL V 'N@ 10p,N FALL WINTER WAVE ENERGY FLUXES SPRING SUMMER 4 3 '2 1 0 ANNUAL KM FALL WINTER FIGURE 6. Seasonal and annual wind and wave energy roses for the South Carolina coast derived from shipboard.observations (U.S. Naval Weather Service Command, 1970). . The length of any bar is a relative measure of the wind or wave energy coming from that direction (from Brown, 1977). 12 METHODS OF STUDY To undertake a project covering a shoreline as extensive and complex as South Carolina., a technique is 'required that can be used to assess large sections of shoreline rapidly, and synthesize the findings onto maps of a suitable scale (1: 24,000 in this study) . The method employed in this study is called the integrated zonal method, developed by Hayes.and others (1973) to classify large sections of t'@e Alaskan coast for the Office of Naval Research. This method has been used to classify shore- lines in other 'areas including Massachusetts, South Florida, and Texas. The addition of biological components to these geologically oriented field studies provides an integrate'd approach to determine priorities for envi- ronmental protection. Shoreline Mapping For the present study, field survey data were combined with existing socioeconomic, biological, and geological baseline data to prepare a set of 50 maps indicating the distribution of environmentally sensitive shorelines in South Carolina. Base maps are standard 7.5-minute, U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps at 1:24,000 scale. (Note: Two quad- rangi-es, Nixonville and Myrtle Beach, are older 15-minute series.) The classification of various coastal environmepts is given as a color-coded border along each shoreline. Table I contains a list of quadrangles used to prepare ESI naps for the present study. The methods used to collect the information presented on these maps are described below. A combination of literature review and ground and aerial surveys was used to prepare the final product. During all stages of the project, the literature was reviewed for regional and local information pertaining to ecologica 1 setting, geology, climate, and socioeconomics. This baseline data, as well as RPI's extensive experience in South Carolina coastal studies, was used to establish the ESI criteria for the state. During low tide on various days between January and June 1981, aerial reconnaissance of, the entire coastal zone was conducted. Observations and shoreline classifications were recorded onto USGS topographic maps using a standard color code. Aerial photographs were taken with a 35-mm camera, and de- scriptions were re corded on tape. Ground Surveys Ground study sites were selected on the basis of all information available, including accessibility, socioeconomic, and environmental importance. A total of 100 stations were surveyed to provide a fair geo- graphical and environmental distribution along the coast (Fig. 7). Two types of ground stations were established: (a) rapid-survey sites, and (b) detailed profile sites. At the rapid-survey sites, assessment of the biological and geomor- phic character istic.s of the ground station was conducted. 'A series of 13 TABLE 1. List of U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps used,in prepara- tion of ESI maps. Note: Nixonville and Myrtle Beach are out- dated 15-minute series. (*orthophotomap) ESI SURVEY DATE ESI SURVEY DATE MAP QUADRANGLE NAME (update) MAP QUADRANGLE NAME (update) 1 Nixonville, 1937 26 Adams Run 1960 (1972) 2 Wampee 1943 27 Wadmalaw Island 1960 (1971) 3 Little River 1943 28 Legareville 1959 (1971) 4 Myrtle Beach 1937 29 James Island 1959 (1971) 5 Brookgreen 1943 (1973) 30 Bennetts Point 1960 (1971) 6 Georgetown, N 1943 (1973) 31 Edisto Island 1960 (1972) 7 Waverly Mills 1942 (1973) 32 Rockville 1960 (1971) 8 Magnolia Beach 1942 (1973) 33 Kiawah Island 1959 (1971) 9 Georgetown, S 1943 (1973) 34 Laurel Bay 1962 (1972) 10 North Island 1942 (1973) 35 Beaufort 1958 11 Santee 1943 (1973) 36 Frogmore 1956 (1972) 12 Minim Island 1943 (1973). 37 St. Helena Sound 1956 13 Santee Point 1942 (1973) 38 Edisto Beach 1956 (1972) 14 Awendaw 1943 (1973) 39 Jasper 1958 15 McClellz@nville 1943 (1973) 40 Spring Island 1958 (1972) 16 Cape Romain 1942 (1973) 41 Parris Island 1956 17 North Charleston 1958 (1971) 42 St. Phillips Island 1956 (1972) 18 Cainhoy 1958 (1971) 43 Fripp Island 1958 19 Sewee Bay 1959 (1973) 44 Limehouse 1955 (1971) 20 Bull Island 1959 (1973) 45 Pritchardville 1955 (1971) 21 Ravenel 1960 (1971) 46 Bluffton 1956 (1971) 22 Johns Island 1958 (1971) 47 Hilton Head 1956 (1971) 23 Charleston 1958 (1971) 48 Savannah 1978* 24 Fort Moultrie 1959 (1971) 49 Fort Pulaski 1975 25 Caper's Inlet 1959 (1973) 50 Tybee Island, N 1978* 14 JORTH MYRTLE BEACH H V RRELLSINLET SOU TH GEORGETOWN CAROLINA I CATISLAND C) UL is 4 Y CAARLESTON EDI TO ISLAND BEAU ST, HEL@NAISLAND HILTON HEAD ISLAND SAVANNAH FIGURE 7. Approximate distribution of detailed profile (squares) and rapid-survey (circles) sites monitored for baseline environ- mental information. photographs were taken at various pos-Itions to document the biota and shoreline morphology present at the station. in addition, -a detailed de- scription of the ground site was recorded on tape, At the detailed profile stations, the following methods were used to collect pertinent data: a) A topographic profile of the shoreline was surveyed using the Emery (1961) method. Descriptions of geomorphic features, sediment types, and biological information (e.g., species, densities, and abundance) were recorded along the profile. b) Sediment samples were collected at selected locations along the profile. These samples were later.checked for grain-size characteristics. The location of each sample.was recorded on the profile data sheet. Because of an extensive sediment data base provided by other studies (e.g., Brown, 1977), sediment samples were not collected at all ground stations during this study. c) Macroflora and macroep2i fauna were censused within three ran- domly selected 1/25 m quadrats within each interval. The abundance of macroflora was recorded as percent coverage of the surface area, whereas macroepifauna were recorded as.num- 2 bers of individuals of each taxa per 1/25 m . These data are presented in discussions of oil-sensitive environments. d) Macroinfauna were censused with triplicate cores (core diam- eter = 10 cm) driven 15-20 cm. into the substrate within ran- domly selected 1/25 m2 quadrats. Samples were placed in 500- micron (0.5-mm) mesh Nytex bags and sieved in the field. The bags were placed in ten percent formalin containing rose ben- gal to preserve and stain the infauna. The bagged samples were then sorted in the laboratory and the organisms were placed in 45 percent isopropyl alcohol to preserve them for later identification. Identification was to the lowest taxo- nomic group. These findings were used to describe biological utilization at coastal environments sensitive to oil. e) A sketch was ma de to illustrate all aspects of the profile site. Sample locations as well as biological and geomorphic features were located on the sketch. f) Photographs were taken at several angles to document the mor- phological and biological aspects of each station. g) Detailed verbal descriptions of the biological and geomorphic characteristics of the site were recorded on tape. These data were compiled and used to characterize and describe each envi- ronment with respect to its sensitivity to damage by spilled oil. Each environment type is represented on the maps by a color corresponding to its number rank in the ESI; the higher the number, the greater the sensi- tivity of that environment to spilled oil. 16 In addition to characterizing the shoreline classifications, areas of special biological importance were identif ied. The localities of oil- sensitive, protected, or commercial species and communities are noted by colored circles. The information provided on each circle is illustrated in Figure 8. The color of the circle allows rapid identification of the type of organism present: yellow,= marine mammals; green = birds; red reptiles; blue = Einfishes; and orange = shellfish. The silhouette in the center of the marker refers to the ecological groups listed in Table 2. The number refers to a species or species group as listed in Appendix I. Seasonality data, indicated on the outer perimeter of the color-coded marker (see Fig. 8) , are shown to indicate the seasons of the year that a particular species or group of species (i.e., mixed bird colonies) are present and susceptible to oil impact. Consideration is given to such factors as reproduction, migration, and feeding behavior (Getter et al., 1981). COLOR CODED SYMBOL TYPES OF ORGANISM ECOLOGICAL TYPE (e.g.green for birds) (e.g. pelican) 118 NUMBER SPECIES DOTS-= SEASONALITY (from regional lists) WJA) SUMMER SPRiNG 0 1A11 (MAM) (SON) FIGURE 8. A key to the information appearing on wildlife markers, which includes type of organism, ecological type, species, and seasonal utilization. As described earlier, an extensive literature search was conducted to provide this baseline information. Primary data resources utilized in- cluded Fish and Wildlife Service resource atlases (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978; 1960a; 1980b) and South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources fisheries guides (Moore et al., 1960). 17 TABLE 2. Symbols of critical ecological groups used on the South Carolina ESI maps. RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS Bottlenose dolphin - Feeding grounds manatees - Summer grounds BIRDS Gulls and terns - Rookeries and critical feeding areas. Wading birds - Rookeries and critical feeding areas Shorebirds - Nesting, wintering, and feeding areas waterfowl - wintering grounds and critical feeding areas diving birds - Rookeries and critical feeding areas Raptors - Critical nesting and feeding areas Passerine birds - Critical habitats REPTILES Sea turtles - Critical nes ting beaches Alligators - Critical habitats FINFISH Anadromous fish - Spawning areas or runs Commercial and sport fishes - General habitats SHELLFISH Oyster - Abundant oyster areas Clams - Abundant clam areas crabs - Abundant crab areas Shrimp - Abundant shrimp areas 18 Socioeconomic resource information was presented to provide special- ized,data and to augment the decision-making processes in the"case of an oil spill. The socioeconomic information appearing on the base maps does not affect the ESI numerical rating, but is designed to be used in the same manner as the biological resource information--to highlight espe- cially sensitive areas. Socioeconomic information which is not of direct importance for consideration during an oil spill is excluded from these maps. The physical boundaries appearing on the maps are as exact as possible with a scale of 1:24,000. Since some of the base maps are con- siderably outdated, an attempt was made to sketch in important unmarked shorelines, tidal flats, or man-made structures. For example, a recently constructed jetty system at Murrell's Inlet (ESI map No. 5) has been indi- cated. Numerous tidal flats, creeks, and inlet shorelines have naturally shifted since the U.S. Geological Survey mapping was completed. It was considerably beyond the scope of the project to correct and update all shorelines. 19 ENVIRONMEENTAL SENSITIVITY INDEX (ESI) The ESI for oil spills is based on field investigations of four mas- sive oil spills (METULA, URQUIOLA, AJAOCO CADIZ, and IXTOC 1) and several smaller incidents (including spills under both tropical and ice condi- tions) , plus an extensive literature survey. A list of the studies of major oil spills that have provided the most information on this subject is presented in Table 3. The first application of the concept of a sensitivity index by our research group was made during mapping of the geological sensitivity of the coastline of lower Cook in let, Alaska, in 1976 (Hayes et al., 1976; Michel et al., 1978). That study defined an Oil Spill Susceptibility In- dex, which was based primarily on "the physical longevity of oil in each environment in the absence of cleanup efforts" (Michel et al., 1978, p. 109). This same principle was used by Nummedal and Ruby (1979) to map the Alaska coast of the Beaufort Sea. Gundlach and Hayes (1978b) expanded the concept to include some biological considerations. This expanded indefc, called the Oil Spill Vulnerability Index, was used to map several addi- tional areas in Alaska (e.g., Ruby and Hayes, 1978). The ESI used in this report integrates geomorphic and biological fac- tors. Getter and others (1981) added living resource information to the index while retaining its relative simplicity. This was accomplished by indicating areas critical to fish, reptiles, birds, and marine mammals for feeding and reproduction with color-coded wildlife symbols. Access points to the shore and facilities such as marinas and boat ramps are 'also indi- cated on the maps. These refinements were applied to ESI maps used In energy port planning projects (Hayes et al., 1980). - ESI maps were first tested during a major oil spill following the IXTOC I blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. - The ESI maps became an integral part of the overall federal response plan to protect the Texas coast, providing the scientific basis for setting protection priorities and cleanup strategies. Since then, ESI mapping has been carried out in Massachusetts, South Carolina, the remainder of Texas, southern Califor- nia, Puget Sound (Washington), and Shelikof Strait, Pribilof Islands, and Norton Sound (Alaska). In addition to combining geomorphic and biological aspects into the index, socioeconomic information was superimposed graphically on the ESI maps. Detailed descriptions of biologic and socioeconomic information are presented later in the text. The following section outlines the ESI* for the state of South Caro- lina in order of increased potential for damage by oil spills. 20 TABLE 3. The ESI predicts sensit-i vity of coastal environments and wild- life to spilled oil. These predictions are based upon observa- tions made during studies at the following key oil spills. OIL SPILLS DATE TYPE AND AMOUN'T STUDIES WW Il Tankers, Jan.- Various; Campbell et al.(1977) United States June 533,740 tons East Coast 142 TOP-REY CANYON, Mar.167 Arabian Gulf crude: Smith(1968) Scilly Isles, 117,000 tons total; U.K. 18,000 tons onshore Santa Barbara Jan.169 California crude; Foster et al.(1971) blowout 11,290 to 112,900 tons total; 4,509 tons onshore ARROW, Cheda- Feb.'70 Bunker C; Owens(1971); bucto Bay, 18,220 tons total I Nova.Scotia METULA, Strait Aug .174 Saudi Arabian crude; Hann(1974); of Magellan, 53,000 tons total; Blount(1978); Chile 40,000 tons onshore Gundlach et al.(1981b) URQUIOLA, La May 176 Arabian Gulf crude; Gundlach and Hayes Coruna, Spain 110,000 tons total; (1977); 25,000-30,000 tons Gundlach et al.(1978) onshore AMOCO CADIZ, Mar.178 Arabian Gulf crude; Gundlach and Hayps Brittany, 223,000 tons total (1978b); France Hayes et al.(1979); Gundlach et al.(1981a) HOWARD STAR, Oct.178 Crude and distillate Getter et al.(1980b) Tampa Bay, approx. 140 tons PECK SLIP, Dec.178 No. 6 oil; Getter et al.(1980a); Eastern 1,500 tons Gundlach et al.(1979) Puerto Rico IXTOC 1, June'79 Crude oil; several Getter et al.(1980c); Gulf of to Apr. hundred thousand Gundlach et al.(1981c) Mexico 180 tons BURMAH AGATE, Nov.179 Crude and refined Thebeau and Kana(1981); Texas product Thompson et al.(1981) 21 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY INDEX STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA SHORELINE TYPES (ES1 1) Exposed vertical seawalls 2) Not present 3) Fine-grained sand beaches 4) Medium- to coarse-grained sand beaches 5) Exposed tidal flats (low biomass) 5a) Mixed sand and shell beaches 5b) Sheltered erosional scarps 6) Shell beaches 6a) Exposed riprap 7) Exposed tidal flats (moderate biomass) 7a) Erosional scarps in marsh 8) Sheltered coastal structures 9) Sheltered tidal flats (high biomass) and oyster beds 10) Marshes *ESI=2 is wavecut platforms which are common in tectonically active areas such as Alaska. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE INFORMATION Nbl- Birds Reptiles -4v- 4*4 Pinf ish Shellfish SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION Parks,and wildlife refuges Boat ramps Ac, Commercial fisheries (in Marinas conjunction with finfish @ alck and shellfish symbols) Each environmental classification is discussed in the following section. 22 1) tXPOSED VERTICAL SEAWALLS Descri2tion oPhysical -'Man-made structures with little to no beach face at all tidal levels - Exposed to strong waves and currents along open ocean shorelines Plants Dominant plants are attached green algae such as Ulva and Enteromor2ha I - Zonation is controlled by exposure to waves - Surface plant coverage is moderate to high (mean coverage 85%) .eAnimals - Barnacles are dominant animals - Barnacles have maximum densities in the upper intertidal zone - Infauna are minimal due to solid substrate - Low diversity, moderate to high density, and'low species richness Predicted Oil Behavior OAlong vertical seawalls: - most oil would be held offshore by reflected waves deposited oil would be removed rapidly by waves - some oil splash or overtopping may occur Potential Biological. Dama2es. * Greatest exposure would be to upper intertidal organisms 0 impact to fauna and flora would be low due to short-term oil persistence * Mortalities may be caused by smothering in cases of heavy oiling Recommended CleanU2 Activity - In general, little or no cleanup would be necessary; however, high- pressure spraying would be effective ancl convenient in most areas where exposed vertical seawalls are present -Cleanup recommended for aesthetic reasons only, since most seawalls are located in high recreational-use areas 23 @ov 4 FIGURE 9. Exposed vertical r seawall at Folly Beach with7 view looking north. -. 77@ x, FIGURE 10. Section of vertical seawall over 3.0 m high above narrow low-tide beach. Note the intertidal band of algae and attached bar- nacles. 4. %5% 2) NOT PRESENT IN SOUTH CAROLINA Note: ESI #2 is exposed wavecut or rocky platforms which are com- mon in tectonically active shorelines such as Alaska; or along tropical coasts where cemented carbonate beach sands form rocky intertidal ter- races. 24 3) FINE-GRAINED SAND BEACTIES Description 0 Physical - Usually gentle slope with broad, flat profile - Often exposed to moderate and high wave energy Shell accumulations may be present in the lower intertidal zone or back beach area Plants Scattered beach grasses and plants growing at the base of natural dunes Beach wrack composed of.decayinga@ti@na grasses Animals - Insects and amphipods associated with beach wrack are present - Burrowing amphipods and polychaete worms are present in the upper and mid intertidal zones - Some burrowina clams are present in the lower intertidal to subtidal zones - Diversity, density, and species richness low to moderate Ghost crabs are common at base of dunes.along back beach areas Predicted Oil Behavior Large accumulations would cover entire beach face Small accumulations would be deposited primarily along high-tide swash lines The compact sediments of this beach type prevent deep penetration of oil 044.1 may be buried to a maximum of 10-20 cm along the upper beach face Potential Biological Damages * Biological damage would be limited * Intertidal organisms would have short-term exposure because oil would be deposited over berm crest; impact may occur to supratidal organisms such as beach hoppers (Talorchestian amphipods) Recommended Cleanun. Activirt * Cleanup should begin only after majority of oil is'deposited onshore a Cleanup should concentrate on removal of oil from upper swash zone * Mechanical methods should be used cautiously, but fine-grained sand beaches are generally among the easiest to clean mechanically because of their hard, compact substrate eRemoval of sand should be minimized 25 /V ,Tr LT ;i Tj jr@T'F' 407 @71/ tjv PW t/7 FIGURE 11. An oblique aerial t@ f view looking northeast o r'L Garden City showing a wide, fine-grained sand beach at low tide on 3 February 1961. Note the partially buried intertidal groins at lower right of-photo. Ilk Ir- FIGURE 12. Fine-grained sand 7x beach at Pawleys Island, looking south. Photo taken at low tide on 5 April 1981. 2.6 4) MEDIUM- TO COARSE-GRAINED SAND BEACHES Description Physical Usually displays a short, steep beach face with a wide back shore or washover terrace Sediments are loosely compacted Beach morphology responds, rapidly to changing wave and tidal condi- tions Plants Beach wrack is predominantly decomposing Spartina Animals Low species diversity, density, and richness - A few polychaetes, amphipods, and clams are found at or between low and mid intertidal zones. - Beach wrack provides habitat for amphipods and insects Predicted Oil Behavior a Large accumulations would cover entire beach face 9 Small accumulations, would be deposited primarily along high-tide swash lines a Oil may be buried deeply along berm and berm runnel Potential Biological Damages - Biological damages would be minimal e Supratidal organisms would suffer only short-term exposure unless oil penetrates substrate Where oil penetrates substrate, some die-offs of infauna would be expected Recommended Cleanu2 Activity * Cleanup should cormence only after majority of oil is deposited onshore * Cleanup should concentrate on removal of oil from swash zones 0 mechanical methods should be used cautiouSly 9 Sediment removal should be minimized 27 77 7 7- FIGURE 13. Beach face at Cape Romain looking south. Note well-defined berm crest (near right tire track) and broad back beach/washover area. J@cm -S@ FIGURE 14. Close-up view of beach trench through coarse sand on Cape Romain. Photos by C. H. Ruby. 28 5) EXPOSED TIDAL FLATS (LOW BIOMASS) Descri2tion Physical - Sediments are generally fine-grained sand - Sediments are very mobile due to waves and tidal currents - Associated with tidal deltas and, in some areas, front sand or mixed sand and shell beaches Plants - Very little flora present - Mobile substrate prevents attachment of algae *Animals - When present, benthic infauna. are dominant organisms - Species diversity, density, and richness vary with substrate - Clams, polychaetes, and burrowing crustaceans are th@ most common macroorganisms - Faunal density is lowest at high intertidal zone, increasing at mid and low intertidal zones - In sand-bottorn flats exposed to high wave energy, deep-burrowring clams dominate simple benthic communities - Birds utilize exposed flats as roosting and foraging areas Predicted Oil Behavior Most oil would be pushed across tidal flat surface onto adjacent shores by wave and tidal activity Mobile sediments in coarser-grained flats would prohibit long-term accumulation Light fractions of oil may contaminate the interstitial waters Potential Biological Damages Oil would impact organisms at high-tide swash zones and in pools left . during receding tide Oil left on substrate during receding tide would: penetrate burrows of clams and other burrowers come in contact with or be ingested by these organisms be incorporated into the sediments Birds foraging on the flats would be exposed to oil by: - feather oiling - ingestion of immobilized or weakened organisms resulting from oil con- tamination Recommended Cleanup Activity o No cleanup usually necessary in areas where oil accumulation is low * Removal of sediment should be avoided 29 F-77-77-1@@:7@@--,, 777--!--.-- FIGURE 15. Oblique aerial view of large, exposed tidal flat at Skull Inlet near Fripp, Island.. Photo taken by J. Michel on 2 April 1981. _@A m FIGURE 16. Exposed tidal flat (low biomass) at the north end of Hunting island at the mouth of John- son Creek. Note the small-scale ripples super- imposed on large-scale sand waves which are indicative of highly mobile sediments. 30 5a) MIXED SAND AND SHELL BEACHES Descri2tion Physical - Sediments may be either dominantly mobile or stable, dependent on location of beach with respect to wind and wave conditions - Generally composed of medium sand and broken shell - Natural sorting processes may form sand "stringers" at lower inter- tidal zones Plants Because of sccuring action from active movement of beach sediments due to waves, plants are unable to survive Animals Few macrofaunal organisms are able to survive in mobile sand/shell beaches Low species diversity, density, and richness Predicted Oil Behavior Oil would be deposited primarily high on the beach face Only under heavy accumulations would oil be deposited over the lower beach face Burial may be deep along berm Long-term persistence of oil is dependent on incoming wave energy; in sheltered areas, oil would remain for several years Potential Biological Dama2es Roosting birds would be affected by oiled feathers and possible inges- tion of contaminated prey Recommended Cleanu Activity Oil should be removed primarily from upper swash lines High-pressure spraying may be necessary Mechanical reworking of sediment into the surf zones effective if oil accumulations are heavy enough to require it Removal of sediment should be restricted 31 n @f,@c i@ 0, lij, V T! 4, bV -40 A XD 27,,'T FIGURE 17. A mixed sand and shell beach at Edisto. Note 77@ cuspate shell concentrations near the high watermark. View looking south. -A FIGURE 18. Close-up view of mixed sand and shell sedi- ments along Edisto Beach. V 32 5b) SHELTERED EROSIONAL SCARPS Description Physical Occur along tidal creek environments where erosion is occurring to relict (mostly Pleistocene) sediments Includes dredged channel escarpments along the Intracoastal Waterway * Plants Terrigenous nonmarine detritus, trees, roots, and grasses exposed along shoreline due to slumping of lana along erosional scarp * Animals Infaunal diversity, density, and- richness are very low - Only a few insect larvae were found Predicted Oil Behavior -Oil would be deposited on detritus and at base of scarp *Long-term persistence is dependent on incoming wave energy and erosion rates Potential Biological Damages o Biological damages would be minimal Recommended Cleanup Activity * High-pressure spraying may be effective o Good place to corral oil if adjacent areas are higher in sensitivity k' 4,NZ A-Y z FIGURE 19. Erosional scarp in Pleistocene sedi- ments along the Intracoastal Waterway near Myrtle Beach. Narrow low-tide beach is littered with foSS41 molluscs and detritus from terrestrial A plants. 33 6) SHELL BEACHES Descri2tion Physical - Sediments may be either dominantly mobile or stable, dependent on location of sho.rel-4ne with respect to wind and wave activity - Composed mostly of oyster and/or quahog shells; generally less than ten percent sand Common along banks of dredged channels including the Intracoastal Waterway; reworked spoil banks o Plants - Shell beaches are generally devoid of vegetation e Animals Shell beaches are generally devoid of fauna Predicted Oil Behavior * Oil would be deposited primarily on the upper beach face a Oil would percolate easily into the sediments * Burial may be exceptionally deep along the berm otential Biological Damages a Damages would be minimal e Chronic leaching of oil after percolation into the beach would continue to affect adjacent, more sensitive environments Recommended CleanuT)-A-C * Most shell beaches are formed from dredged spoil material and are gener- ally of limited extent and quite narrow, aligning with channels 9 Since they are generally associated with more sensitive marsh and tidal flat areas, they would provide a preferred zone to beach incoming oil o Cleanup may require removal of oiled shell to minimize oil leaching into adjacent salt marshes 34 7, FIGURE 20. An oblique aerial view of the shell beaches (arrow) along the tidal --tle River. creeks near Lit Wave action leaches fine sediments from the accum- ulations which are often associated with reworked dredged spoil. ...... 7' FIGURE 21. A washed shelli beach/berm along the Intra-@_ coastal Waterway (to right) ....... @:. between Beaufort and Hilton--_,@ . ..... Head Island. 5'1 7@2 LJ FIGURE 22. Close-up of the shell beach sediments, show- ing predominance of oyster shell. rY 35 6a) EXPOSED RIPPAP Description Physical Predominantly gravel to boulder-sized riprap revetments Riprap is composed generally of quarried Piedmont granite or high- grade metamorphic rocks (e.g., gneiss) Most common along back beach areas as shore protection for developed property Plants -'Green filamentous algae and Ulva observed on some riprap in the intertidal zone Animals - Infau.nal densities are moderate to high - Barnacles are patchy with densities ranging as high as 19,500 individ- uals/m 2 (based on 1/25 m2. sample) Predicted Oil Behavior 0 Oil would percolate easily between gravel and boulder elements of riprap 0 Heavy oils would adhere to irregular surfaces of boulders, whereas light oils would be removed by wave action Potential Biological Damages � Barnacle community would have short-term impact, primarily from smother- ing � Recolonization would occur relatively quickly after boulders are natu- rally cleaned of oil Recommended Cleanup Activity, may require high-pressure spraying: - to remove oil - to prepare substrate for recolonization of barnacle and oyster commu- nities - for aesthetic reasons Since riprap is often associated with developed, recreational beaches, cleanup would be advisable to minimize chronic leaching of oil trapped in the rocks 36 4P S,@,e OA 7' z -7 A FIGURE 23. An oblique aerial -view of Sullivans Island Z-N, inside the Charleston Harbor Note zigzag rip- entrance. rap and groins along shore- line in foreground. Photo taken at low tide 4 February@@... 1981. 4 F-77@- !77F@7@@-7@-7n "IT7MM, 71-3'@- FIGURE 24. An exposed riprap revetment fronting the con- crete seawall at the north- ern end of Fripp Island. Extensive intertidal commun ity of barnacles and oysters covers the lower ortion of the structure. 37 7) EXPOSED TIDAL,FLATS (MODERATE BIOMASS) Description Physical Sediments range from mud to coarse shell - Generally, sediments are less mobile than those of E-131=5 - Associated with tidal deltas and prograding spits, Plants - Very few flora are present Animals Benthic infauna are dominant organisms Species diversity and density vary with substrate, which ranges from mud to mixed sand and shell As in ESI=5, clams, polychaetes, and@ burrowing crustaceans are most common macroorganisms, but are found in greater abundance Faunal'density is lowest at high intertidal zones, increasing at m-ld and lower intertidal zones Species diversity is low and richness is moderate to high Deep-burrowing clams dominate simple benthic communities Birds utilize exposed flats as roosting and foraging areas Predicted Oil Behavior o Most oil would be pushed 'across tidal. flat surfaces onto adjacent shores by wave and tidal activity 0 Mobile sediments in coarser-grained flats would prohibit accumulation Potential Biological Dama2es Oil would impact organisms at high-tide swash zones and in pools left during receding tide Oil laid down on substrate by receding tide would: - penetrate burrows of clams and other burrowers - come in contact with or be ingested by these organisms be incorporated into the sediments e-B-irds foraging on flats during low tide would be exposed to oil by: - feather oiling ingestion of oil from preening of contaminated feathers - ingestion-of organisms which have. been immobilized or weakened by oil contamination Recommended Cleanu2 Activity No cleanup usually necessary where oil accumulation is low Removal of sediment should be avoided Use of heavy machinery would tend to mix oil into sediments; however, in areas where fine-grained, compacted sand occurs, heavy machinery can be used In cases of heavy oiling, the beach side of the flats should be cleaned of oil 38 _77777MI r7@_, FIGURE 25. An oblique aerial view of North Inlet showing exposed tidal flat with mod- erate biomass in foreground at the confluence of two tributary channels (arrow). View looking seaward at low tide on 3 February 1981. t FIGURE 26. Exposed tidal fla ......... (moderate biomass) at the west end of Raccoon Key at low tide on 4 April 1981 Tide pools would trap oi during portions of the tidal ;% cycle. FIGURE 27. Close-up of ex- posed tidal flat sediments showing mud and organic detritus in troughs of rip- ples. 15CAA 7q 39 7a) EROSIONAL SCARPS IN MARSH Description o Physical - Eroding scarps along tidal creeks and rivers in cohesive marsh sedi- ments; sometimes a combination of a narrow tidal flat, a narrow beach, and an erosional scarp - Commonly associated with less saturated (with water), high marsh sedi- ments and dredge-spoil deposits - Most common on the southern half of the coast a Plants Roots and rhizomes of fpartina alterniflora would be exposed and even- tually slump into the water e Animals - Would be similar to organisms in ESI=7 tidal flats - Few.organisms would be 'found in erosional scarps, but Uca burrows would be exposed by.the erosion Predicted Oil Behavior e Little oil would penetrate cohesive, f ibe-grained sediments, but would affect intertidal communities or animals o Erosion processes would naturally remove oil Potential Biological Damages * Damage to erosional scarps would be minimal o Oil coating exposed roots and rhizomes of S. alterniflora might kill off fringe plants Some impact may occur to organisms in sheltered tidal flats fronting scarps Recommended Cleanup Activity oErosional scarps in high marsh sediments would provide a better location to corral oil due to lower sensitivity-than adjacent marshes and tidal flats eCleaning and removal may be necessary to protect adjacent, more sensi- tive areas 40 @44 V FIGURE 28. Oblique aerial view of erosional scarps in marsh near Calibogue Sound. Er Z 'My FIGURE 29. Oblique aerial View of an erosional scarp in marsh (foreground) near Beaufort. These features are more common along the southern por- tion of the state. 41 8) SHELTERED COASTIkL STRUCTURES Description Physical - Includes bulkheads, riprap, piers, and docks - Typically a low-energy environment, dependent on seasonal storm activ- ity - Generally associated with more sensitive, back-barrier environments e Plants Low to moderate growths of Enteromorpha and Ulva o A-nimals Intertidal zones contain moderate to heavy populations of oysters and their associated biota Predicted Oil Behavior a Long-term (1-2 years) persistence of oil, especially between rocks and boulders * Oil would penetrate more deeply into porous structures Potential Biological Damages a Oysters would be impacted by oiling; mortalities would be high in heavy oiling o Oil persistence would be long-term because of low wave energy In cases of heavy oiling, mortalities would be great throughout the intertidal zones Recommended Cleanup Activity High-pressure spraying may be effective in removing oil and clearing substrate for recolonization 42 '777' FIGURE 30. An oblique aerial 4M@ view at low tide of dredged C anal system and shoreline structures at Garden city. Note the numerous piers and bulkheads. Photo taken on 3 February 1981, r -1- FIGURE 31. Ground view of the ... .. ......- Garden City canal system and shoreline structures. Wood . ... . sheet pile bulkhead is typ- ical of structures in this area. FIR sw" 2T11M FIGURE 32. Beaufort water- F7-74- front showing vertical con- Crete and timber wharf. An extensive, attached oyster coMMunity grows along mid to upper intertidal zone. 43 9) SHELTERED TIDAL FLATS (HIGH BIOMASS) AND OYSTER BED1,3 Description Physical - Composed of mud or silty sand - Sheltered from major wave and tidal. activity Usually located in back barrier areas Occur with extensive oyster colonies in many areas �Plants Mud flats are generally devoid of vegetation �Animals - Macroinfauna species diversity, density, and richneo3 - Extensive clam and oyster populations are present At high tide, these flats support a large epibenthic@ cOimunity of blue crabs, flounder, channel bass, spotted sea @rout, and other vertebrate and invertebrate species At low tide, may species of birds feed on tidal flato Predicted Oil Behavior -Long-term (several years) persistence of oil due tO of wave and tidal activity 0Long-term oil incorporation into sediments is common oOil would be deposited primarily along high-tide swasch zone, Potential Biological Damages Extensive die-offs of infauna would be expected e-Mortalities would be caused by smothering and ingestion oOil would penetrate burrows, mixing in with sediment several centimeters below the surface *Recovery would be slow; oil persistence would be long-term oStressed clams move to the surface, attracting birds and other scaven- gers who can become affected Impact to birds through ingestion of contaminated food or through preen- ing of oiled feathers Recommended Cleanup Activity.. * Where sediment is compact, manual and mechanical cleanup may be eff tive for massive accumulations ec- e Traffic over the flat should be limited 7 .7-7 r _'n FIGURE 33. An oblique aerial view -@z ;.7 of a sheltered tidali flat and numerous oyster mounds behind Isle of Palms (Hamlin Sound). 44 M10 nl"Lf -7 7"7-7, FIGURE 34, Intertidal oysters fring- FIGURE 35. Extensive sheltered tidal .ing a Spartina marsh which is a flat at Beaufort showing dense pop- 7 common assoclation in South Caro- ulation of oysters. lina. FIGURE 36. Sheltered tidal flat with scattered oyster mounds at the mouth of Harbor River near Hunting Island. This tidal flat, composed of soft mud, has a large population Z:.@_ of Littorina snails. @-7 4- - -P* A r1GL)RE 37. A broad tidal f lat- FIGURE 38. Small sheltered tidal flat at the mouth of Harbor River devoid of oysters near Harbor River. showing extremely soft sedi- TIOnts. 45 t 10) MARSHES Description * Physical Over 500,000 acres of' coastal marsh of which 334,000 are considered salt marsh - Occur as broad areas between barrier islands and the mainland Generally fronted by a sheltered tidal flat - Well sheltered from extreme wave and current action - By far, the most common shoreline type in South Carolina * Plants Three types of coastal marshes present: 1) Low marsh - predominantly na alterniflora occurs in the mid to upper intertidal zones 2) High marsh - occurs in the upper intertidal to supralittoral zones;- some common high marsh plants are S2artina patens, Salicornia virginica, S. bigelovii, Batis maritima, Limonium carolineanum, Sporobolus and Distichlis spicata 3) Brackish freshwater marsh dominated by Juncus roemerianus and S2artina cynasuriodes 0 Animals - Associated invertebrates include marsh periwinkles, fiddler. crabs, pulmonate snails, polychaetes, amphipods, clams, and mussels - Densities of both epifauna and infauna range f1rom moderate to high - Marshes utilized by numerous birds, alligators, raccoons, and rodents for feeding and reproductive habitat Predicted Oil Behavior * Long-term (5-10+ years) persistence of oil is common with heavy accumu- lations * Oil in small quantities would be deposited along outer fringe * Oil in large quantities may cover entire marsh Potential Biological Damages e Oil would.be persistent in sheltered marsh areas a Long-term exposure to oil would damage marsh plants * Epifauna and infauna would be affected by long-term exposure Recommended Cleanup Activity - Under light oiling, the best practice is to let the marsh recover natu- rally o Cutting of oiled fringing grasses or low-pressure flushing may be effec- tive a Vehicles and cleanup crews should avoid activity on marsh surface, where possible a Under heavy oiling, complete scraping of the impacted marsh followed by soil renourishment, replanting, and fertilization may be necessary 46 ------------- @Ym X" V P 7 AZI rl. FIGURE 39. An oblique aerial view of Spartina, marsh and d6ndritic drain- age channels-near Edisto Beach. ZF " Z7 A, FIGURE 40, Fringing marsh along Cali- FIGTjRE 41. -Extensive [email protected] marsh bogue Sound at Hilton Head Island. along Johnson Creek near Hunting I L 'View is looking north at low tide on Island. View is looking south on 19 .17 January 1981. january 1981. so 00 10 U3 gpg gg 48 CRITICAL SPECIES AND HPJ31TATS The ESI maps outline the location of critical areas in the study area with respect to oil spill impact. Location.of feeding and breeding grounds of certain important species are also indicated. This section presents five major groups of wildlife: (1) marine mam- mals, (2) marine birds, (3) reptiles, (4) finf-ish, and (5) shellfish. Summaries are given for major species present along with information con- cerning species distribution and the effects of oiling. In addition, a species list of infaunal organisms collected from the ESI habitats is found in Appendix 11. MARINE MAMMALS Resident Populations Bottlenose dolphin -Year-round; nearshore; major bays and inlets West Indian manatee -Intermittently summers as far north as North Carolina Protection Status Protected by Marine Mammal Act of 1972 Endangered Species Act@of 1973 (manatee) Endangered Species, South Carolina (manatee) Predicted Impact Bottlenose dolphin Stress may occur through ingestion of oil-contaminated food, oil intake through blowholes, eye irritation, and skin absorption West Indian manatee Digestion of oil-contaminated vegetation Eye irritation Possible ingestion into nasal passages when they surface to breathe RecommendedResponse Measures 0 Bottlenose dolphin Hazing to change swinming pattern e I-lest Indian manatee - Hazing to change swimming pattern - Possible capture and removal to uncontaminated waters 49 GULLs Tep N8 DIVING amos -PASSE BISDS WADIjvG j3IRDS so; WATEnFov RAPTOnS 50 CO ASTALMARINE BIRDS Resident Populations (species of special concern) 9 Pelagic Birds -Year-round; offshore *Diving Birds - Double-crested cormorant -Resident; winters; coastal -.Brown pelican -Resident; coastal; endangered species Common loon -Winters; nearshore; major bays and inlets Red-throated loon -Winters; nearshore Red-necked grebe -Winters; nearshore Horned.grebe -Winters; nearshore; bays and inlets 0Waterfowl Lesser scaup -Winters; migratory; nearshore; bays and inlets Redhead -Winters; migratory; bays and inlets Canvasback -4inters; migratory; bays and inlets Bufflehead -Winters; migratory; nearshore; bays and inlets. Ruddy duck -Winters; migratory;.bays, inlets,.and estuaries Red-breasted merganser -Winters; migratory; bays, inlets, and estuaries Raptors - Southern bald eagle -Resident; nesting; endangered species Peregrine falcon -Migration; endangered species - Osprey -Resident; nesting; state-protected Wading Birds Common egret -Resident; nesting;. estuarine Snowy egret -Resident; nesting; estuarine Cattle egret -Resident; nesting; estuarine Great blue heron -Resident; nestinq; estuarine Louisiana heron -Resident; nesting; estuarine Little blue heron -Resident; nesting; estuarine Green heron -Resident; nesting! estuarine Black-crown night heron -Resident; nesting; estuarine Yellow-crown night heron -Resident; nesting; estuarine Glossy ibis -Known to nest only on Pumpkinseed Island White ibis -Resident; nesting; estuarine Black rail -Resident; nesting; estuarine - Clapper rail -Resident; nesting; estuarine - American coot -Resident; nesting; estuarine *-Shore Birds - American oystercatcher -Resident; nesting; winters - Black-bellied olover -Winters; migrates Piping plover -Winters; migrates - Semipalmated plover -Winters; migrates - Wilson's plover -Resident; nesting; migrates 7 Killdeer -Resident; nesting - Whimbrel -Winters; migrates - Willet -Resident; nesting; winters - Lesser yellowlegs -Winters; migrates - Short-billed dowitcher -Winters; migrates 51 -Ruddy turnstone -Winters; migrates -Knot -Migrates -Dunlin -Winters; migrates -Sanderling -Non-nesting resident; winters; migrates -Least sandpiper -Winters; migrates -Semipalmated sandpiper -Winters; migrates Gulls and Terns -Great black-backed gull -Winters -Herring gull -Winters; migrates -Ring-billed gull -Winters; migrates -Laughing gull -Resident; nesting -Bonaparte's gull -Winters; Migrates -Least tern -Resident; nesting; threatened species -Common tern -Resident; migrating; nesting -Royal tern -Resident; nesting -Caspian tern -Winters; migrating -Black skimmer -Resident; nesting Passerine Birds -Bachman's warbler -Summer resident; nesting; endangered species Predicted Impact Pelagic Birds -May become contaminated at night when roosting on water -May attempt to feed in contaminated waters -Because of pelagic nature, birds dying from oil contamination may sink to bottom or may be eaten -Impact would be difficult to determine Diving Birds - May dive or swim into oiled waters - Sometimes form large fooding flocks- these would be especially suscep- tible to mass oiling Waterfowl -Coastal species would be especially vulnerable -Ducks dive for food and are found in coastal or offshore waters:. 1) Contamination could result from swimming in oiled waters 2) They may land in oil-calm waters for evening roost 3) They sometimes form large rafts which may result in massive oiling 4) They may dive through or surface in oiled waters Raptors -Bald eagles feed on fish and seabirds; they may capture oil-weakened sea birds or contaminated fish for food -Peregrine falcons feed on waterfowl, shore birds, and sea birds: 1) They are attracted to weakened birds 2) They may feed on oil contaminated prey Shore Birds - May feed or roost on oil-contaminated beaches - May ingest contaminated food - May ingest oil when preening contaminated feathers Gull and Terns - Form large colonies on isolated islands when nesting -May attempt to feed in oil-contaminated waters -Oil on feathers can be transferred to eggs 52 May roost in oiled waters or on contaminated beaches May ingest oil when preening contaminated feathers Passerine Birds - Bachman's warbler 1) Major impact would be destruction of habitat Recommended Response Measures o Hazing of birds froat oiled waters may be effective oDuring nesting season: If still early in season, birds should be driven from rookeries and a watch maintained to insure that they do not return If young in nests, attempts should be made to boom around colony; how- ever, minor distur@,ances may drive adults from nests e Human disturbances should be kept to a minimum aAircraft should not be operated over or near colonies 53 ATL NT C LOGGERHEAD TURTLE AMERICAN ALLIGATOR 54 REPTILES Resident Populations i Atlantic loggerhead turtle -Nesting; mating American alligator -Resident; nesting Protection Status o Atlantic loggerhead - Federal threatened species - Endangered Species Act of 1973 - State-protected American alligator - Federal threatened species south of Georgetown - Federal endangered species north of Georgetown State threatened species east of U.S. Highway 17 State endangered species west of U.S. Highway 17 Predicted Impact Atlantic loggerhead - Some juveniles have been found asphyxiated with tar balls in their throats (tar balls appear similar to food juveniles eat) - Recent data indicate newly hatched turtles may spend first year in salt 'marshes; if salt marshes are impacted by oil2 1) Young t-urtles may be asphyxiated by oil when coming to surface to breathe; oil may clog nostrils .2) Intake of oiled food may cause impact Atlantic loggerhead nest on sand beaches; females may become covered with oil when crawling ashore to lay eggs If oil covers beach after egg laying, black oil would raise tempera- ture, overheating and killing eggs If oiled beaches occurred during hatching period, you ng hatchlings would be-covered by oil while crawling out to sea American alligator - Possible -effects may be due to ingestion of contaminated prey (e.g.,, dead oil-covered birds) - Juveniles may be affected when coming to surface to breathe; oil may clog nostrils or irritate eyes - Eye irritation to adults may occur Recommended Response Measures Atlantic loggerhead Clean nesting beaches as rapidly as possible.of all oil Use hand-intensive methods; the weight: of vehicles on beach may destroy eggs If nest locations are known, remove eggs to incubators Remove oiled turtles to cleaning stations; clean and return to water beyond area of oil spill American alligator Capture and remove to unimpacted areas AMERICAN SHAD V7,21 F'k Xi 40, SUMMER FLO UNDER @@,v zn5s 7i SHORTNOSE STURGEON 56 FINFISH Resident Po2ulations o Shortnooe sturgeon -Anadromous; endangered species e Atlantic sturgeon -Anadromous o Alewife -Anadromous; spring; summer; fall o American shad -Anadromous; winter; spring; summer 0 Blueblack herring -Anadr6mous; spring; summer; fall o American eel -Catadromous o Spotted seatrout -Estuarine resident; year-round, o Red drum (channel bass) -Estuarine resident; year-round e Flounder -Estuarine resident; spring; summer; fall e Black sea bass -Estuarine nursery; spring; summer o Striped bass -Anadromous; spring; fall; winter Protection Status, Shortnose sturgeon Endangered Species Act of 1973 South Carolina Law 50-17-2200 Predicted Im]2act 0Shortnose sturgeon Benthic feeders; oil mixed with detritus that sinks to the bottom can be ingested during feeding Fish fry are extremely sen'sitive to oil con-11-amination; shortnose stur- geon fry exposed to oiling may be affected aOther species - Oiling of marshes and estuaries could have strong impact to species that use. them for nurseries (e.g., spotted sea trout, channel bass, flounder) - Anadromous fishes would be most susceptible during migration period to or from salt water General - Fish are sensitive to contamination from oil - Studies on eggs, larvae, and adults have been well documented (Ruhn- hold, 1972; Lachotowich et al., 1977; Rice et al., 1977; and others) Recommended Response Measures 9 Oil should be deflected away from major fish runs and tidal creeks * Open-water skimmers with paravanes should be used to remove oil before it strikes fish run areas -07 No SHRIMP N'@ V5, 7- 15 OYSTER QUAHOG X BLUE CRAB All 58 SHELLFISR Species of Special Concern o American oyster -Estuarine;.commercially important o Quahog -Estuarine mudflats; commercially important e Blue crab -Estuarine; bays; inlets; commercially important e Brown shrimp -Estuarine; open ocean; bays;,inlets; commercially important * White shrimp -Estuarine, open ocean; bays; inlets; commercially important e Pink shrimp -Estuarine; open ocean; bays; inlets; commercially important Predicted Im2act Oysters and Quahogs - Planktonic larvae would be impacted by oil in the water column - Adults can be smothered or ingest oil during filter feeding and respi- ration - Long-term impact can occur due to the persistence of oil in sheltered tidal flats and marshes Sublethal oil contamination of oysters and quahogs would make them un- palatable, impacting local commercial fisheries Crabs and Shrimp - Marshes and estuaries used as nursery grounds; juveniles may be im- pacted from contamination of these areas - Sublethal oil contamination of shrimp and crabs would make them unpal- .atable, impacting local commercial fisheries Recommended Response Measures � Removal of oil from water surface by open-water skimmers GBoom protection of sheltered tidal flats and tidal areas � High- and -'low-pressure spraying may remove heavy oil accumulations from oyster beds; though this would impact organisms present, it would pre- pare the substrate for future recolonization 59 Critical Intertidal Habitats The shoreline habitats that rank highest on the ESI a@e salt mar shes (10)p sheltered tidal flats (9) and sheltered coastal structures (8) . Therefore, these areas should receive the highest priority for protection in the event of an oil spill. Exposed tidal flats are ranked lower (ESI=5, 7) on the index, dependent upon the density of the biomass present. The population numbers of biological communities are strongly controlled by exposure to wave and current activities. Diversity, density, and species richness levels are indicated in Table 4 for each of the ESI types dis- cussed. TABLE 4. Diversity, density, and richness of South Carolina habitats, based on infaunal sample, epifaunal count, and percent vegetation cover estimates. DIVPPZITY DENSITY RICHNESS L M H L M L M H 1 2 Not present in South Carolina 3 4 5 5a 5b 6a 7 7a 8 9. 10 60 Marshes (ESI=10) Tidal marshes comprise the largest portion of shoreline in South Caro- lina. Over 504,000 acres of tidal marsh exist (Tiner, 1977). Three tyPes of tidal marshes occur: (1) salt marsh, (2) brackish water marsh, and (3) freshwater tidal marsh. Salt marshes comprise 77 percent of the tidal marshes in the state. They provide habitat for a large fiddler crab population, marsh periwinkles, and ribbed mussels. Marsh infauna are comprised of polychaetes, bivalves, and crustaceans. The most common polychaetes are Streblospio bombyx, Nereis sp., and Glycera sp. Fiddler crabs (Uca sp.) and amphipods are the most common infaunal crustaceans, while crabs from the families Tellinidae and Vener- idae are most common, especially along the marsh fringe. Marsh(--s-.have-.:"O-TfvL*.,,@-,-@@. of the highest densities of organisms/ml (Table 5). Marshes are considered. the most sensitive habitat because long-term biological damage can result after oiling, especizilly where oil penetrates roots of marsh plants and kills new growth, inhibits gas exchange, and/or' alters sediment/ microbial relationships. These effects may have long-term duration (exceeding ten years in some cases), especially following multiple spillages of oil (Baker, 1971; Gundlach and Hayes, 1978b'; Gundlach et al., in press). TA13LE 5. Estimated, populations of major macrofaunal groups, shown as num- 27 ber of infaunal organisms/m o These estimates are low, based on head count only. **Hard substrates (seawalls, riprap, etc.); no infaurial samples taken.. ESI STATIONS POLYCHAETES* BIVALVES CRUSTACEANS TOTAL ----- ----- ----- 2 ----- ----- ------ 3 382 913 lr04O 2,081 4 42 169 lr444 1,656 5 85 1,466 63 1,613 5a 594 255 1,529 2,378 5b ----- 6 85 63 594 700 66 ----- ----- 7 233 361 4,374 4,969 7a ----- ----- ----- 8 ---- 9 339 4,056 234 4,62.9 10 1,486 2,888 64 4,438 61 Sheltered Tidal Plats (ESI=9) Sheltered tieal flats found In South Carolina are either associated- with salt marshes or found at bay heads. They are well protected from extreme wave activity and can be extensive or a narrow fringe fronting a salt marsh along a tidal creek. They are usually composed of fine-grained materials ranging from mud to fine sand. Sheltered tidal flats provide substrate for an extensive oyster community on the coast. A rich and diverse infaunal. community of clams, polychaetes, amphipods, and other invertebrates is also present. Of all the coastal habitats surveyed, sheltered tidal flats have the most diverse and rich infaunal community. From the infaunal samples col- lected, 35 species were identified. This was twice the number of species found on exposed tidal f lats (ES1=7), which had the second highest number of species. when inundated, sheltered tidal flats support a variety of benthic and nektonic organisms such as crabs and demersal fish. During exposed periods, marine birds utilize the sheltered, tidal flat environ- ments for foraging and resting. Short-term or toxic effects of an oil spill on a tidal flat depend on the quantity of oil on the flat and its toxicity. Long-term or chronic effects are controlled by the binding of petroleum fractions within the sediments. In sheltered tidal flats, sediments may remain oiled for years and thus delay re-colonization. .Sheltered Coastal Structures (ES:1=8) Sheltered coastal structures have been given a high sensitivity rank- ing because of their socioeconomic value. These structures include bulk- heads, seawalls, docks, piers, and protected marinas. Impact from oiling to these structures would be primarily aesthetic and economic (cost of cleanup and repair), although some intertidal, attached and epibiotic organisms might be affected. Habitats with Variable to Slight Sensitivity In addition to the three highly sensitive habitats previously dis- cussed, an additional ten habitats with variable to slight sensitivity have been delineated. Since some coastlines react the same to impact by oil, they are given the same ESI ranking (e.g., exposed tidal flats (low bio- mass) , mixed sand and shell beaches, and sheltered erosional scarps are rated at ESI=5). Sensitivity is dependent primarily on the degree of expo- sure of the habitats to wave action and tides. -Exposed Tidal Flats (ESI=5, 7.) Exposed tidal flats in South Carolina are found at the mouths of inlets as ebb-tidal delta shoals, are attached to recurved spits, or are found in open sounds and bays such as St. Relena Sound. r 62 Exposed tidal flats are ranked at two ESI levels (ESI=5 and 7). The lower classification (ESI=5) is applied to tidal flats exposed to.high wave and current conditions possessing a variable range of species diversity and density as well as low population levels. The higher classification (ESI= 7) is given to exposea flats having similar species diversity and density as ESI=5, but possessing increased popul 'ation levels. The differences in population levels appear to be directly related to substrate type and mo- bility as.well as variances in wave and current energies. In either case, persistence of oil would be low to moderate. Biological damage would vary with type and number of species present. Beaches (ESI=3, 4, 5a, 6) Four beach types are.defined in the South Carolina area with fine/ medium-grained sand beaches (ESI=3) being the most common and least sensi- tive. Coarse-grained beaches (ESI=4) are found at Cape Romain, while mixed sand and shell beaches (ESI=5a) are located primarily on Edisto Island. Shell beaches (ESI=6) are composed of washed oyster or quahog shell and are generally found along dredged channels. Sediment size controls moisture and oxygen content of beaches, thereby influencing the abundance and distribution of plants and animals. Shell and very coarse-grained sand fail to hold enough water to support abundant- infauna, biomass, and diversity. Sand. and mixed sand and shell beaches afford some substrate suitable for burrowing organisms, but support only limited communities. In general, beaches are ranked in standing-stock, bio- mass and diversity. The sparse biological community found at most beaches may be subject to only a brief exposure to oil, especially on exposed beaches. 'Even if extensive mortality occurs, the readily cleansed substrate may recolonize within a year. Erosional Scarps (ESI=5b, 7a) Two types of erosional scarps occur in South Carolina: (1) erosional scarps, in marshes (ESI=7a) and (2) sheltered erosional scarps (ESI=5b). Erosional scarps in marshes are caused by waves and boat wakes. They are generally a composite of other coastal habitats (e.g., an erosional scarp which is fronted by a narrow sand or shell beach fronted by a narrow, ex- posed tidal flat). Sheltered erosional scarps are found where channels have been dredged through mainland areas such as where the Intracoastal Waterway was dredged through themainland behind Myrtle Beach. Erosion is caused primarily by barge and boat traffic. Exposed Ri2ra]2 (ESI=6a) Exposed riprap (ESI=6a) includes man-made structures composed of gran- e blocks, concrete blocks, etc. that are dumped to form a wall to reduce erosion problems along exposed shores. They are found throughout South it Carolina, especially at Folly Beach and Seabrook island. Riprap also includes breakwaters such as those at Murrells Inlet. 63 Exposed riprap has variable density, attached biological communities such as barnacles and green algae that grow in the intertidal zone. Be- cause of the composition, oil can seep between the riprap, making cleanup difficult which is why it is given the ESI=6a ranking. Exposed Vertical Seawalls (ESI=l) Only one sucb seawall occurs in South Carolina and that is at Folly Beach. It is a concrete wall that supports a biological community of fila- mentous green alqae and barnacles in the intertidal zone. Because it is located on a shoreline of moderate to high wave energy, oil would tend to be refracted away from the wall. But if it did impact the wall, the wave, energy would cleanse it naturally. impact to the biological community would be minor and short-term. 64 PROBABLE AREAS OF OIL SPILL OCCURRENCE AND 114PACT Statistics on tanker traffic in South Carolina waters are not com- plete due pr1marily to the lack of reporting of Intracoastal Waterway ts traffic. However, unpublished repor@ are available for the ports of Savannah, Charleston, and Georgetown which are the primary oil terminal facilities. There are no refineries at present in the state; however,'a 30,000 barrels-per-day refinery is proposed for the port of Georgetown. If built, the Georgetown refinery would increase tanker traffic about 1.6 times over the present level. Table 6 gives a summary estimate of the number of tanker arrivals each year at the three major terminals. As indicated in the table, Savannah receives the largest quantity of petro- leum products. The estimated quarterly volume handled by the port is six million barrels (+ 1 million bbls) (U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office, pers. comm.). This gives an average annual volume almost twice that of Charleston. TABLE 6. Approximate annual volume of tanker traffic in South Carolina waters (based on unpublished U.S. Coast Guard records - most recent quarterly reports) . *U.S. Coast Guard,. Marine Safety Office, pers. comm. "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1981). PORT VOLUME TRANSFERRED/MONTH (no. vessels/month) (in barrels) Savannah* (14-17) 2 million Charleston* (8-9) 1.2 million Georgetown Present-,(3-4) Unavailable After proposed refinery** (9-1211 0.9 million + existing, These sketchy statistics indicate there are four areas of the state that have a higher possibility of oil spillage: 1) Savannah entrance. 2) Charleston Harbor. 3) Winyah Bay - Georgetown Harbor. 4) Intracoastal Waterway (Iaqw). Spills at the harbor entrances would likely involve ships of larger ton- nage (typically 150,000 barrels per cargo in Charleston) compared to spills along the ICrk7W which would involve small coastal barges limited to 12-ft drafts. 65 Present tanker and barge traffic in South Carolina waters suggest two basic spill scenarios for the state: 1) Harbor entrance spills involving moderate-sized vessels draw- ing up to 35 feet and cargos on the order of 100,000 to 200,000 barrels. 2) ICIAV spills involving smaller draft ( 12 ft) barges carrying, on the order of 10,000 barrels or less. Harbor entrance spills would tend to involve more shoreline due to natural tidal circulation and numerous tributaries or open water inside the en- trances. IC@-'.W spills would be less influenced by tidal currents, except near tidal inlets, and would tend to impact less extensive areas. Spills at the seaward entrance to harbors could potentially impact wide and scat- tered shorelines due to the effect of tides transporting oil offshore as well as onshore and rapidly spreading slicks away from the area. Along constricted portions of the ICWV, impacts would tend to occur closer to the source of the spill. Other important considerations in these two basic scenarios are that harbor entrance spills moving offshore would tend to impact less vulner- able environments such as barrier island sand beaches, whereas ICVe7 spills would likely occur in the midst of the most sensitive environments, marshes and tidal flats. Water-based containment and cleanup equipment would perhaps be more limited along the ICWW due to the shallow depths adjacent to the channel. The success of harbor containment efforts would depend mainly on the location of the spill within the harbor. Effect of Tides and Winds There is never any good time for an oil spill, but in a mesot-idal re- gime such as South Carolina, certain environmental conditions would facil- itate containment and recovery efforts. Most important in our opinion is location away from constricted channels where tidal currents are strong- est. Spills occurring during neap tides when surface velocities are lower would also be easier to contain. Small spills occurring near slack water and during low wind velocities would"probably be easiest to contain. How- ever, our experience has shown that few spills can be recovered before several tidal cycles have passed. In wider portions of harbors away from strong tidal currents, a stiff wind would move the slick in a discrete predictable direction. This can be an advantage for deploying containment or deflection booms. One of the most difficult aspects of a South Carolina spill would be the large trans- port distances experienced in tidal channels.. A 3-knot current, common in inlets at spring tide could transport oil over 15 miles upstream during several hours of an incoming tide. The tide regime, while important for flushing estuaries, would also cause vast areas of wetlands to be exposed to surface oil slicks. 66 Outer harbor, ocean spills would be more subject to the vagaries of the wind. As the wind roses of Figure 6 indicate, two predominant wind directions occur: southwest and northeast. Southwest winds are most common between May and September, whereas northerly winds are common in fall and winter. A good portion of coastal winds are offshore (winds with westerly components) . Another effect to consider is the diurnal sea- breeze/landbreeze cycle which commonly produces onshore winds in the afternoon due to heating of the land. Seabreezes, of course, would increase the likelihood of onshore impacts. Heaviest tanker traffic at Savannah' and prevailing southerly winds make the barrier islands at the southern end of South Carolina somewhat more vulnerable to oil spills. Ocean spills at Savannah entrance would likely affect nearby Daufuskie and Hilton Head Islands during summer when winds arecommonly out of the southwest. But it should be realized that no part of the open coast.is immune to spills. For example, during the BURMAH AGATE spill off Galveston (Texas)' in November 1979, Bolivar island north of Galveston and only five miles from the wreck was never impacted; yet, San Jose Island, over 165 miles south of - the wreck received a massive slug of oil (Thebeau and Kana, 1981). Offshore spills would tend to be transported much farther than inner harbor spills, making containment and recovery more difficult. The experience of IXTOC I in Mexico and Texas (Gundlach et al., 1981) points to many of the problems of handling offshore spills. Large transport dis- tances disperse the oil, exposing more shoreline to impacts. However, dispersion of the sl-jck also expands the time required to maintain cleanup personnel. Small, intermittent doses of oil may impact shorelines for several months after a spill. Charleston entrance would be sornewhat more vulnerable to spills than Georgetown despite relatively small differences in the number of tanker entries. This is due to the much heavier volume of nontanker vessel traf- fic into the port. Since most ship traffic proceeds up the Cooper River, that shor eline is more vulnerable than the Ashley or Wando Rivers. How- ever, a spill at the entrance jetties on an incoming tide would poten- tially jeopardize all three river systems. It is not really possible to assign in advance quantitative probabil- ities of oil spills for portions of the state. Experience has shown that each spill has its own "character" and numerous factors must be considered ranging from the type of spill and cargo to the oceanographic processes. As soon as a spill occurs, however, existing winds, currents, and shore- line geomorphology should be considered to determine most likely impact zones. The key is to be able to immediately implement site-specific tra- jectory models when a spill occurs. This would provide the best informa- tion for deploying containment devices andicleanup personnel. 67 GENERAL STRATEGIES FOR INLET AND HARBOR PROTECTION This section presents general strategies for protecting priority areas in the event of open-ocean or harbor spills. Since the actual. strategy will vary depending on location of the spill, only general guide- lines are provided. A key to spill response is to quickly establish lines of defense and focus equipment and personnel according to existing envi- ronmental condi 'tions. Since oil must pass through tidal channels to im- pact . sensitive, back barrier environments, this section will focus on inlet and channel protection strategies. Lines of Defense 1.) First Line of Defense. - The first line of defense for offshore or harbor spills is containment and collection of spilled oil at the spill site. Depending on the nature and size of the spill, some offshore con- tainment is possible due to recent improvements in skimming and collection devices. In some instances, such as during the BURVAH AGATE spill (Thomp- son et al., 1981), the threat of fire forced equipment to stand off from the spill. This increased the radius for the first line of defense and reduced the effectiveness of the response. Even if containment at the source of the spill is not 100 percent effective, it generally provides time for deployment of a second line of defense. 2) Second Line of Defense. During, open-ocean spills, t-he second line of defense would entail booming or closing tidal inlets. Important mponents of the second line oil defense are the barrier island beaches which would absorb impacts before oil could reach sensitive marsh envi- cc ronments. During IXTOC_ I, Padre Island (Texas) acted as a natural boom preventing the,majority of oil from entering Laguna Madre. In South Caro- lina, the barrier islands are shorter and tidal inlets occur almost every five miles -along the coast, making protection much more difficult. Meso-, tidal regimes with numerous tidal inlets, such as South Carolina, require much more equipment to establish an effective second line of-defense. The equivalent line of defense for a harbor spill would be protection of the mouths of ma-*-or tidal channels near the spill source. 3) Third Line of Defense. - Generally, the third line of defense ,centers on preventing oil from entering open bays or lagoonal waters. Booms should be arranged as close to inlet throats as possible so that oil may be flushed from the system during ebb tides. This line of defense would not apply to much of South Carolina's coast due to the predominance of well-developed marsh and incised tidal creeks which limit the amount of open water. This line of defense would be most important at high water when tidal flats are submerged and oil can be transported more easily through the back barrier system. Booms should be positioned away from ex- posed oyster beds which would abraid the devices as they settled onto the bottom during falling tides. 4) Fourth L.ine of Defense. - Small channels which feed sheltered marsh and tidal flat systems are the last areas on which to focus contain- ment devices. In some cases, these areas could be temporarily filled to block incoming oil. Where tidal currents are exceedingly strong or high water would flood the entire marsh flanking the fill, there is little chance of maintaining the artificial closure. Damming of-small creeks will be most successful where adjacent topography is above high water. In other areas, multiple booms or shallow-draft skimmers will be required. In each line of defense, booms and skimmers are used to stop, de- flecti or collect spilled oil. Strong currents, winds, and waves all decrease the effectiveness of this equipment, which is designed to operate under generally low-energy conditions. Accordingly, a strong possibility exists that the primary line of defense will be breached during A spill, allowing some oil to pass through into the inlets. wherever oil is con- fined to the, constricted portions of channels, transport will be subject primarily to tidal currents. Where channels widen, however, low-velocity zones (relative to the flow in.the narrow portions) are created which can be used to advantage to collect oil. A good containment scheme for South Carolina would be to deflect-oil into the lower velocity zones of tidal channels where it can be accumu- lated. Low-velocity zones in tidal creeks occur on the down-current in- side of meanderbends or along the margins of channels that flare out from a constricted zone. Often, these low-flow areas are indicated by eddies shed off from the flow. Foam lines or the transport of debris are useful for spotting them. A successful defense of incoming oil in major tidal channels will require a combination of mobile skimmers to collect oil in the center of channels and deflection booms along the margins. Along highly sensitive areas, deflection bocms should be deployed to funnel oil away from the banks toward zones where skimmers can operate. If a less L sensitive and accessible shoreline exists adjacent to a low-velocity zone, -booms can be deployed to trap oil against the shoreline for pickup by shore-based equipment. During massive spills, it may be necessary to implement both schemes to handle large volumes. The South Carolina marsh shoreline is so complex that it will almost always be preferable to trap oil from offshore spills at the inlets or harbor entrances. Accordingly, this section presents some basic strat- egies for protecting tidal entrances. Types of Tidal.Entrances In simplistic terms, South Carolina's tidal entrances fall into sev- eral categories based on width,, depth, and structural control. The major- ity of inlets are natural with no chann el stabilization by structures such as jetties. Natural inlets range f r6m small, shallow entrances to wide, open sounds. Many are relatively stable, cutting deeply into more resis- tant, coastal plain deposits. Artificially controlled inlets exist at several port entrances where there has been. a need to control shoaling or channel orientation. Table 7 contains an arbitrary but useful breakdown of inlet types. Figure 42 gives the approximate location of the principal inlets or tidal entrances. In general, only medium- to large-sized inlets are indi- 69 TABLE 7. Four categories of tidal inlets in South Carolina for purposes of oil spill planning (ordered north to south). A) Jettied Harbor Entrances Murrells Inlet - project depth 12 -Ict. Winyah Bay (Georgetown) - project depth 27 ft. Charleston Harbor - project depth 35 ft. Savannah Entrance - project depth 40 ft.- B) Sounds, Open Bays Bull Bay St. Helena Sound Port Royal Sound Calibogue Sound C) Medium to Large Inlets Little River Capers, Murrells Dewees North Lighthouse Santee (north distributary) Stono Santee (south distributary) North Edisto Cape Romain (open in 1977) Fripp Key (Raccoon Key area) Trenchards Price Savannah River D) Small Inlets ( 100 m wide at low water) Hog (Little River area) *White Point Swash (Crescent Beach) *Singleton.Swash *Canepatch Creek *Withers Swash (Myrtle Beach) Midway Paw-leys Raccoon Creek (Cape Romain area) Breach Inlet (Isle of Palms) Captain Sam's Inlet (Kiawah Island) South Creek (Botany Island) *Frampton Inlet (Edingsville Beach) *Jeremy Inlet (Edings ville Beach) Fish Creek (St. Helena Sound) Johnson Creek (Hunting Island) Skull Inlet Pritchards Morse Creek (Prichards Island) *The Folly (Hilton Head Island) *Closure by filling during an oil spill is feasible but subject to. state approval. cated in the figure. The occurrence and average size of inlets increase from north to south along the coast due to the increase in tidal range. LITTLE RIVER MURRELLS INLET MIDWAY AND PAWLEYS INLETS NORTH INLET WINYAH BAY SANTEE DELTA CAPE ROMAIN BULL BAY PRICE INLET CAPERS INLET DEWEES INLET BREACH INLET CHARLESTON HARBOR LIGHTHOUSE INLET STONO INLET NORTH EDISTO RIVER INLET SOUTH EDISTO RIVER INLET ST. HELENA SOUND FRIPP INLET TRENCHARDS INLET KM PORT ROYAL SOUND CALBOGUE SOUND 0 30 SAVANNAH RIVER FIGURE 42. Location of the principal inlets, bays, and sounds along the South Carolina coast (modified from Hubbard, 1977). Almost all South Carolina inlets are dominated by ebb currents which produce a net transport and deposition of sediment along the seaward mar- gin. The seaward shoals form a deltaic lobe of sand referred to as an ebb tidal delta. Figure 43 illustrates typical, tidal delta morphology at Fripp Inlet. Between adjacent barrier islands, flow is confined to a sin- gle channel which reaches its deepest depth at the most constricted sec- tion referred to as the inlet throat. Landward of the barrier islands, flow is dispersed into tributary tidal creeks and over the marsh surface at high tide. In a seaward direction, flow diffuses across intertidal. shoals with velocities decreasing away from the inlet throat. This pro- 71 duces a decrease in competency, allowing sand to settle out. Conse- quently, the seaward mcargin of the inlet channel shoals, and flow often becomes distributed in secondary channels. Since the ebb tidal deltas are exposed to wave energy as well as tidal energy, there is continual shift- ing of the channels. and bars. MARSH INTERTIDAL 0 SUPRATIDAL .:;:::DETACHED`@Ji ....... ... C H A N N E ....... -.@@ifl!!MARGIN BARt . .... ...... D15TAL MAIN CHANNEL --:-:-7--ATTACHED HANNEL ....MAR IN A 0 Ikm FIGURZ 43. Sketch map of Fripp Inlet morphology typical of natural tidal inlets in South Carolina. Note the extensive intertidal shoals forming an ebb-tidal delta seaward of the inlet. Pro- tection strategies should e-aphasize, collection and containment of oil between, or seaward of, the barrier island (supratidal zone on the figure) (from Hubbard, 1977). In dealing with protection strategies for tidal inlets, two things shoul d be kept in mind: 1) Current velocities will be highest in channels, especially where the flow is constricted by high land. 2) Shoals will be dominated by landward-directed currents produced by wave action. 'At low water, exposed shoals will shelter the inlet, making it possible to L move seaward with mobile skimmers and collect oil in channels. At high 72 water, wave action across the shoals will force mobile containment efforts to drop back into more sheltered areas. Boom and skinLmer deployment schemes should attempt to contain incoming oil in the immediate vicinity of the inlet for it to be picked Lip or flushed offshore during succeeding tides. The most critical time is during flood tides. Accordingly, strike forces should plan any protection strategies around the predicted periods of incoming tides. Jettied Harbor Entrances Murrells Inlet, Winyah Bay entrance, and Charleston Harbor have weir jetty systems which 'allow operation of mobile containment equipment even during periods of rough seas. The protection afforded by the entrance jetties will benefit the deployment of skimmers and booms during offshore -o be maintained, emphasis should be spills. Since navigation would have 11 placed on deploying mobile skimmers, preferably with paravanes, to protect the channel. Entrances such as Charleston could easily accommodate a dozen MARCO Class V skimmers with paravanes and towing craft such as those deployed in Galveston entrance during the BURMA-11 AGATE spill (Thompson et al., 1981). In our opinion, a spill response in any South Carolina inlet should deploy at least one skimmer for every 100-yd *width of channel. (Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules; however, this is consid- ered reasonable for prespill contingency planning.) The weir sections at each harbor entrance provide conduits for incom- ing oil to cross the jetties. Consequently, a line of defense should be established inside the weir by placing booms to trap oil in the low- velocity zone behind the jetties. If a sand beach is present, as at Murrells Inlet, for example, booms can be deployed to direct oil toward shore for shore-based cleanup. Multiple booms could also be deployed to funnel oil coming over the weir toward mobile skimmers, Experience during IXTOC I in Texas (Thompson et al., 1981) showed that skimmers are gener- ally more. efficient than shore-based cleanup for most jetty situations. The U.S. Coast Guard Open-Water Oil Containment and Recovery System (OWOCRS), which consists of a 612-ft skimming boon, system, could also be .effectively deployed inside the lower velocity weir section of each harbor entrance. The barrier would bemost useful during incoming tides. One general consideration about deployment of booms in harbor en- trances is that heavy-duty booms with a height of 30 inche.s or greater should be used. Experience in San Luis Pass, Texas, during the BURMAH AGATE (Kana et al., 1981) showed that 18- to 24-inch booms are overtopped too easily. Booms such as the Goodyear 36-inch outer harbor type are rec- ommended. This type of boom is a key component of the U.S. Coast Guard's Strike Team inventory. L2 73 Sounds and Bays The biggest problems in protecting South Carolina sounds and bays from oil spills will be their extent, exposure to open-ocean swell, and numerous shoals. The wide entrances to sounds and bays will require more equipment for containment and cleanur). F'ixed booms will be ineffectual due to wave actio-n. It will be preferable to combine a mobile force of skimmers with acrial reconnaissance to track large streamers of oil before they enter the sounds. The response should be concentrated offshore if possible, since little containment will be possible among the shoals and diffuse channels. If there is a possibility of deflecting oil onto adja- cent, barrier island beaches, this would be oreferable to allowing the oil to enter the sounds. Bays and sounds are bordered by the most sensitive shoreline environments and, in some cases, support isolated nesting colo- nies of endangered birds such as pelicans. Medium to Large Tidal Inlets Tidal inlets greater than 100 m wide at low water generally have sufficient depths in the throat section to deploy skimmers and oil- transfer barges. They are not afforded protection by artificial jetties, but they are much easier to protect than open sounds. A good protection scheme would include placement of high-angle trap booms along the shore- lines of the inlet throat to divert oil toward less sensitive sand beaches. Multiple booms would be preferable. if the inlet shoreline is inaccessible to onshore recovery equipment, booms 'should be deployed to deflect oil toward mobile skimmers working the channel. No matter how many booms are available, mobile skimmers should be de-' ployed to protect the channel; The high current velocities. and..widths the ch'annels preclude protecting the entire inlet by booms alone. Exper-' ience in Texas during 1XTOC I (Rana et al. , 1981) indicated that booms longer than 1,000 ft are exceedingly difficult to maintain in a 2-knot current.- Since currents commonly exceed three knots during spring tides in South Carolina tidal inlets, booms will have to be deployed at high angles (greater than 700) to the current to avoid entrairument. Back moorings will also be necessary to maintain proper boom configuration.. Small Inlets There are approximately 20 small inlets along the South Carolina coast having widths of less than 100 m. The number varies from year to year due to natural closing or opening of these channels. Some of these inlets are formed as barrier islands erode into adjacent marshes, inter- secting marsh channels. This is true for inlets at Cape Romain and Edingsville Beach. Because of the changing status of small inlets, aerial overflights must be made at the time of a spill to determine where the openings are. 74 The list in Table 7 indicates some small inlets that could be artifi- cially filled to prevent any oil from entering the back barrier a-rea. In ,general, these inlets are very small. with almost no flow thcough tthem at low water. Filling could be accomplished using land-based equipment such as bulldozers or front-end loaders. It will be preferable to fil" these inlets during nea-p tides when tide range is lowest. Also, the filling operation should be completed around low water and during a rising tide to alleviate the chance of scouring. This method worked for Cedar Eavou, a small pass in Texas, during the IXTOC 1 spill (Kana et al., 1981). After a spill response is over, any artificially closed inlet should be reopened to restore normal tidal circulation to the adjacent marsh. (NOTE: The decision to fill any tidal channels must be made in consulta'tion with and upon approval of the appropriate governing agency.) Other small inlets given in Table' 7 cannot be closed with facility during a spill response and, therefore, will require combinations of booms and skimmers. The strategies will be similar to medium-sized inlets, but will be limited by the generally shallower depths of these chainels. Booms should be deployed to keep oil in the immediate vicinity of the in- let throat or seaward of the marsh areas. Commonly, small shallow inlets are associated with migrating spits. Captain Sam's Inlet, for example, is bounded by a sand spit on its north margin. This provides additional sandy shoreline inside the inlet to corral and contain spilled oil. One consideration is that sand beaches inside inlets are generally less packed and firm than oceanfront beaches. This will limit the mobility of any L heavy equipment on the beach to pick up spilled oil. 75 REFERENCES CITED Aburawi, R. M., 1972, Sedimentary facies of the Holocene San@ee delta: Unpubl. M.S.. Thesis, Univ. South Carolina, Columbia, 96 pp. Baker, J, M,, 1971, Successive spillages: in E. B. Cowell (ed.) , The Ecological Effects of Oil Pollution on I71-ttoral Communities, Applied Science Publ., Bristol, England, 250 op. Blount, A. E., 1978, Two years after. the METULA oil spill, Strait of Magellan, Chile- oil interaction with coastal environments: Tech. Rept. No. 16-CRD, Coastal Res. Div., Dept, Geol., Univ. South Caro- lina, Columbia, 214 pp. .Brown, P. J., 1977, Variations in South Carolina coastal morphology: Southeastern Geology, Vol. 18(4), pp. 249-264. Campbell, B., E. Zern, and D Horn, 1977, Impact of oil spillage from World War II tanker sinkings: Mass. Inst. Tech. Sea Grant Report NO. MITSC 77-4, 85 p p. Colquhoun, D. J., 1971, Glacio-eustatic sea level fluctuations of the middle and lower Coastal Plain, South Carolina: Quaternaria, Vol. XV, Rome, pp. 19-34. Crutcher, H. D. and R. G. Quayle, 1974, Mariners worldwide climate guide to tropical storms at sea: U.S. Naval Weather Service Conmiand, U.S. Dept. Commerce, Wash., D.C. Emery, K. 0., 1961, A Simple method for measuring beach profiles: Limnology and Oceanog., Vol. 6(l), pp. 90-93. Foster, M., A. C. Charters, and N. Neushul, 1971, The Santa Barbara oil spill, Part I, initial quantities and distribution of pollutant crude' oil: Environ. Pollut., Vol. 2, pp. 97-113. Getter, C. D., J. M. Nussinan, E. R. Gundlach, and G. 1. Scott, 1980a, Bio- logical changes of mangrove and sand beach communities at the PECK SLIP oil spill site, eastern Puerto Rico: Rept. to NOAA, Office of Marine Pollut. Assess.., 63 pp. Getter, C. D., S. C. Snedaker, and M. S. Brown, 1980b, Assessment of bio- logical damages at the HOWARD STAR oil spill site, Hillsbarough Bay and Tampa Bay, Florida: Rept. Florida Dept. Nat. Res., 65 pp. Getter, C. D., L. C. Thebeau, D. J. Maiero, and T. Ballou, 1981, Mapping the distribution of protected and valuable, oil-sensitive coastal fish and wildlife: Proc. 1981 Oil Spill Conf., API Publ. No. 4334, Wash., D.C., pp. 325-332. Getter, C. D., L. C. Thebeau, and G. 1. Scott?' 1980c, Results of ecolog- ical monitoring at the IXTOC I oil spill: Rept. to NOAA, Office of Marine Pollut. Assess., Boulder, Colo., 96 pp. Gundlach, E. R. , 1981, rvaluation of CRDC submittals for a proposed oil refinery at Georgetownd South Carolina: RPI Consultant Rept. for S.C. Coastal Council, RPI, Columbia, S.C., 50 pp. Gundlach, E. R. and M. 0. Hayes, 1977, The URQUIOLA oil spill, La Coruna, Spain: case history and discussion of methods of control and cleanup: Mar. Pollut. Bull., Vol. 8(6), pp. 132-136. Gundlach, E. R. and M. 0. Hayes, J.978a, Classification of coastal environ- ments in terms of potential vulnerability to oil spill impact: Mar. Tech. Soc. Jour., Vol. 12(4), pp. 18-27. Gundlach, E. R. and M. 0. Hayes, 1978b, Chapter 4, Investigations of beach processes, pp. 85-196: in W. N. Hess (ed.) , The AMOCO CADIZ Oil Spill, A Preliminary Scientific Report *, NOAA/EPA Special Report, Environ. Res. Lab., Boulder, Col., 349 pp. Gundlach, E. R. , D. D. Domeracki, C. D. Getter, and L. C. Thebeau, 1980, Field report on the sensitivity of coastal environments to spilled oil, Commonwealth of Massachusetts: RPI Rept. to NOAA, Off ice of Marine Pollut. Assess. (Boulder, Colo.) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive office of Environ. Affairs/Coastal Energy Impact Prog., RPI, Columbia, S.C., 66 pp. + 49 maps, Gundlach, E. R., S. Berne, L. D'Ozouville, and J. A. Topinka, 1981a, L Shoreline oil two years after AMOCO CADIZ: new complications from TANIO: in Proc. 1981 Oil Spill Conf., API Publ. No. 4334, Wash., D.C., pp. 522-534. Gundlach, E. R., D. D. Domeracki, and L. C. Thebeau, 1981b, Persistence of METULA oil in the Strait of Magellan six and one-half years after the. incident: RPI Rept. to NOAA, Office of Marine Pollution Assessment (Seattle, Wash.), RPI, Columbia, S.C., 32 pp., Gundlach, E. R., K. J. Finkelstein, and J. L. Sadd, 1981c, Impact and per- sistence of IXTOC I oil on the south Texas coast: Proc. 1981 Oil Spill Conf., API Publ. No. 4334, Wash., D.C., pp. 477-488. Gundlach, E. R., J. Michel, G. 1. Scott, M. 0. Hayes, C. D. Getter, and W. P. Davis, 1979, Ecological assessment of the PECK SLIP (19 Decem- ber 1978) oil snill in eastern Puerto Rico- in Proc. Ecological Damage Assess. Conf., Soc. Petrol. Indus. Biol., pp. 303-318. Gundlach, E. R. , C. H. Ruby, M. 0. Hayes, and A. E. Blount, 1978, The URQUIOLA,oil spill, La Coruna, Spain: impact and reaction on beaches and rocky coasts: Environ. Geol., Vol. 2(3), pp. 131-143. Hann, R. W., 1974, Oil pollution from the tanker METULA: Rept. U.S. Coast Guard, Civil Eng. Dept., Texas A & M Univ., 6 1 pp. Hayes, M. 0., 1979, Barrier island morphology as a function of tidal and wave regime: in S. Leatherman (ed.) 'Barrier Islands, Academic Press, N.Y., pp. 1-27. 77 Hayes, M. 0. , P. J. Brown, J. Michel, 1976, Coastal morphology and sedi- mentation, lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, with emphasis on potential oil spill impacts: Tech. Rept. No. 12-CRD, Dept. Geol. , Univ. South Carolina, .107 pp. Hayes, M. 0., D. D. Domeracki, C. D. Getter, T. W. Kana, and G. I. Scott, 1980, Sensitivity of coastal environments to spilled oil, south Texas coast (Rio Grande to Aransas Pass) RPI Rept. to NOAA, Office of Marine Pollut. Assess. (Boulder, Colo.), RPI, Columbia, S.C., 89 pp. Hayes, M. 0. , E. R. Gundlach, and L. D'Ozouville, 1979, Role of dynamic coastal processes in the impact and dispersal of the'k@IOCO CADIZ oil spill (March 1.978), Brittany, France: in Proc. 1979 Oil Spill Conf., 7- API Publ. No. 4308, Wash., D.C., pp. 19 200. Hayes, M. 0., E. R. Gundlach, C. D. Getter, 1980, Sensitivity ranking of energy port shorelines: . Proc. Specialty Conf . on Ports , ISO, ASCE, Norfolk ., Vir. , pp. 697-708. Hayes, M. 0., T. W. Kana, and J. Michel, 1981, The influence of coastal geomorphology and erosion/deposition trends on the assessment of flood risks in South Carolina: RPI Final Rept. to Kiawah island Company (Charleston, S.C.), RPI, Columbia, S.C., 58 pp. Hayes, M. 0., E. H. Owens, D. K. Hubbard, and R. W. Abele, 1973, Investi- gation of form and processes in the coastal zone- in D. R. Coates (ed.), Coastal Geomorphology, Proc. 3d Ann. Geomorpl@:_Symp. Series', Binghamton, N.Y., pp. 11-41. Johnson, Jr., H. S. and J. R. DuBar, 1964, Geomorphic elements of the area between Cape Fear and Pee Dee Rivers, North and South Carolina: Southeastern Geology, Vol. 6(l), pp. 37-48. Kana, T. W., 1977, Suspended sediment transport at Price Inlet, South Carolina: in Proc. Coastal Sediments 177, ASCE, pp. 366-382. Kana, T. W., J..T. Paskewich, and E. P. Thompson, 1981, oceanographic sur- veys of tidal inlets for oil spill re'sDonse: in Proc. 1981 Oil Spill Conf., API Publ. No. 4334, Wash., D.C., pp. 31-9-324. Kuhnhold, W. W., 1972, The influence of crude' oils on fish fry: in M. Ruivo (ed.), Marine Pollution and Sea Life, Fishing News (Books), LTD., Surrey, England, 624 pp. Lachatowich, J. A., J. A. Strand, and W. L. Templeton, 1977, Development of toxicity test procedures for marine zooplankton: in Symp. on Pollution of the Sea by Oil: Problems and Technology, 6@_hAnn. Mtg., Arner. Inst., Chem. Eng., ll,pp. .Landers, H., 1970, Climate of South Carolina: in Climates of the States, South Carolina, Climatology of the Unit@_d_ States, No. 6038, ESSA Environmental Data Service. 78 Michel, J. , M. 0. Hayes, and P. J. Brown, 1978, Application of an oil spill vulnerability index to the shoreline of lower Cook.Inlet, Alas- ka: Environ. Geol., Vol. 2(2), pp. 107-117. Moore, C. J. , D. L. Hammond, and D. 0. Myatt, 111, 1980, A guide to salt- water recreational fisheries in South -Carolina: South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept., Charleston, S.C., 88 pp. Myers, V. A., 1975, Storm tide frequencies on the South Carolina coast: NOAA Tech. Rept. NWS 2, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Nummedal, D. and C. H. Ruby, 1979, Spilled oil retention potential Beaufort Sea coast of Alaska: POAC Mtg., Nor. Inst. Tech., 13-18 Au- gust 1977, Trondheim, pp. 1-7. Owens, E. H. , 1971, The restoration of beaches contaminated by oil in Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia: Marine Science Bd., Ottawa, Canada, Manu. Rept. Serv., No. 19, 77 pp. Pritchard, D. W. , 1967, What is an estuary?: physical viewpoint: in G. W. Lauff (ed.), Estuaries, Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Publ. No. S@Tpp- 3-5. Rice, S. C., R. E. Thomas, and J. W. Short, 1977, E@fect of petroleum hydrocarbons on breathing and coughing rates and hydrocarbon uptake- depuration in pink salmon fry, pp. 159-287: in F. J. Vernberg, A. Calabreese, F. P. Thurberg, and W. B. Vernberg (eds.) , Physiological Responses of Marine Biota to Pollutants, Academic Press, N.Y., 462 pp- Ruby, C. H. and M. 0. Hayes, 1978, oil spill vulnerability index, Copper River delta: in Proc. Coastal Zone 178, pp. 2204-2220. Shepard, F. P. and H. Wanless, 1971, Our changing coastlines: McGraw Hill, New York, 579 pp. Smith, J. E. , 1968, TORREY CANYON, ' pollution and marine life: Univ. Printing House, Cambridge, Engl@ana, 196 pp. Stephen, M. F., P. J. Brown, D. M. FitzGerald, D. K. Hubbard, and M. 0. Hayes, 1975, Beach erosion inventory of Charleston County, South Carolina, a preliminary report: South Carolina Sea Grant Tech. Rept. No. 4, 79 pp. Thebeau, L. C. and T. W. Kana, 1981', Onshore impacts and cleanup during the BURMAH ACATEE oil spill - November 1979: in Proc 1981 Oil Spill Conf., API Publ. No. 4334, Wash., D.C., pp. 139-148. Thompson, E. P., T. W. Kana, and R. Pavia, 1981, BUR@LXH AGATE - chronology and containment operations: in Proc. 1981 Oil Spill Conf., API Publ. No. 4334, Wash., D.C., pp. 13T-138. 79 Tiner, R. W. , 1977, An inventory of South Carolina's coastal marshes: South Carolina Marine Resources Center Tech. Rept. No. 23, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Res. Dept., Charleston, S.C., 33 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981, Revised environmental assessment: Carolina Refining and Distributing Company, Rept. P/N 79-5R-319, Charleston District, 28 pp. U.S. Department.of the Interior, 1978, Herons-and their allies: atlas of Atlantic Coast colonies, 1975 and 1976: U.S. Fish and Wild. Serv. FWS/OBS-77/08. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1980a, Atlantic coast ecological inven- tory, user's guide and information base: Biological Services Pro- gram, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 165 pp. 4- 3 maps. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1980b, Ecological characterization of the sea island coastal region of South Carolina and Georgia: resource atlas: U.S. Fish and Wild. Serv., 56 pp. U.S. Naval Weather Service Command, 1970, Summary of synoptic meteorolog- ical observations, North American coastal marine areas: National Climatic Center, Asheville, N.C. Zabawa, C. F., 1976, Estuarine sediments and sedimentation processes in .Winyah Bay, South Carolina, pp. 11-64 to 11-78: in M. 0. Hayes and T. W. Kana (eds.), Terrigenous Clastic Depositional Environments, Tech. Rept. No. 11-CRD, Univ. South Carolina, Columbia, S.C., 306 pp. 80 APPENDIX I Master Species List. 81 SHELLFISH A Shellfish beds B Crabbing area C Clamming areas D Shrimping areas E Oyster farm 2 3 4 Pink shrimp Penaeus dvorarum. 5 Ocean pink shrimp Pandalus borealis 6 Northern pink shr4Mp. Pandalus borealis 7 Sidestripe shrimp Pandalopsis dispar 8 Spot shrimp 9 Dock shrimp 10 Humpy shrimp Pandalus goniurus' 11 Coonstripe shrimp Pandalus danae 12 Broken-back shrimp Heptacarpus sp. 13 Box crab Calappa flammea 14 Dungeness crab Cancer magister 15 Red rock crab Pac@yqrapsus crassines 16 Puget sound king.crab, Paralithodes sp. 17 KeliD crab Pu2ettia 12roducta 18 Pismo clam Tivela stultorum 19 Blue mussel Mytilus edulis 20 California mussel Mytilus californianus 21 Butter clam (Washington) Saxidorrus giganteus 22 Common cockle Laevicardium laevigatum 23 Horse clam Tresus E.@pax 24 "'Japer clam Tresus ca2ax 25 Soft shell clam Mva arenaria Y 26 Japanese little neck y2p�ru2is japonica 27 Piddock Penitella iDenita 28 Razor clam, Siliqua patula 29 Native little neck Protothaca staminea 30 Octopus Octopus dofleini 31 Northern-abalone Hali-otis kamtschatkana 32 Geoduck 22no ea generosa _.p 33 Pacific pink scallop Chlamys hastata 34 Sea scallop Pecten sp. 35 Rock scallop Hinnites multirugosus 36 Hinds' scallop ChlaMs hindsi 37 Pacific Coast squid Loligo 02alescens 38 Pacific oyster Ostrea lurida 39 King crab Paralithodes sp. L 40 Tanner crab Chionoecetes sp. 41 Bay scallop Aeguipecten irradians 42 Qua@hog (hard clam) Mercenaria mercenaria 43 American oyster (eastern) Crassostrea EL-rcLinica 44 Horseshoe crab Limulus polyphemus 45 Lobster @7omarus americanus 82 46 Channeled whelk Busvcon Sanaliculatum 47 Knobbed whelk Busvcon carica 48 Surf clam �S is@j@a p2Lyn =,a 49 Blue crab Callinectes saoidus @-e shrimp Pena,_zus setiferus 50 Whit 51 Brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus .52 Bean clam. Donax 2ouldi 53 Rock plddock Panel;.-ella penita 54 Spring lobster Panulirus inttrruDtus 55 Wavy top snail Astraea undosa 56 Wart-necked piddock 57 Sea mussel 58 Sunset clam 59 Rough-sided little-necked clam 60 Abalone Haliotis sp. 61 Red abalone Haliotis rufescens 62 Black abalone Haliotis cracherodii 63 Green abalone Haliotis fulgens 64. White abalone Haliotis sorenseni 65 Pink abalone 66 Jackknife clam T@ @elus@ californianus 67 Spiny cockle Papyridea soleniformis 68 Clipped semele clam 69 Ghost shrimo@ Calianassa californiensis 70. Striped shore crab Hemi2rapsus sp. A f 84 REPTILES 1 American crocodile Croc2L'Ius acutus, 2 Atlantic green turtle Chelonia mydas mydas 3 American alligator @ mississipDiensis 4 Atlantic ridley Le2idochelys kem-oi 5 Atlantic leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea 6 Atlantic loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta 7 Diamondback terrapin Malaclemys ter 1@@ @ai @n 8 Pacific.green turtle Chelonia f@ydas @@si@zi MAMMALS 1 Northern (Steller) sea lion @Lumetopias j@ A@atus 2 Harbor seal Phoca vitulina 3 North Pacific fur seal Callorhinus ursinus 4 Killer whale Orcinus orca 5 Pacific blackfish Pe onocephala electra I Pacific harbor porpoise Phocoena RLo @oena 7 Sea otter lutris 8 River otter Lutra canadensis 9 Beluga whale Del2L_ leucas 10 Manatee Trichechus manatus 11 Fin whale Balaenoptera ptyLalus 12 Minke whale -era acutorostrata 13 Humpback whale LLq@ptera novaeahqliae 14 Gray seal Halichoerus 2LYP_US 15 Bearded seal Eri2nathus barbatus 16 Walrus Odobenus rosmarus 17 (Atlantic) bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus 18 Pygmy sperm whale K22ia breviceps 19 Shortfin p1lot whale Globice2hala macrorhynchus 20 Right-whale dolphin (northern) Lissodelphis borealis 21 Atlantic spotted dolphin Stenella plagiodon 22 California sea lion Ta-lophus californianus 23 Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus townsendi 24 Elephant seal (northern) Mirounga anqustirostris 25 Florida key deer, Odocoileus virginianus clavium 85 FISHES A Several species of salmon B Forage fish C Anadrorrious f ish D Catadromous fish I Sablefish (blackcod) Anopl2poma fimbria 2 Lingcod ODhiodon elongatus 3 Pacific sanddab Citharichthys sordidus 4 Arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias 5 Petrale sole Eo]2setta j_o@@dani 6 Rex sole Glyptocephalus zachirus 7 Pacific ha'libut Hi T)Oalossus stenole,,ois 8 Butter sole Isopsetta 1_SCd_eT3iS 9 Rock sole Le2idopsetta bilineata 10 Dover sole Microstomus pacificus 11 English sole Parophrys.vetulus 12 Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus 13 C-0 sole Pleuronicjj @h:j coenosus 14 Curlfin sole Pleuronichthys de.cu.-rens 15 Sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus 16 Flathead sole Hi2poglossoides elassodon 17 Slender sole @@se@tta exilis 18 Plainfin midshipman Porichthvs notatus 19 Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus 20 Pacific hake Merluccius productus 21 Pacific tomcod Microqadus proximus 22 Walleye pollock Theragra chalcogramma 23 Wolf-eel Anarrhichthys ocellatus 24 Pacific ocean perch Sebastes alutus 25 Silvergray rockfish (short spine) Sebastes brevispinis 26 Copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus 27 Puget sound rockfish Sebastes 28 Yellowtail rockfish Sebastes flavidus 29 Black rockfish Sebastes melanops 30 Bocaccio Tebastes paucispinis 31 Yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrinus .32 Canary roclkfjish (orange) Sebastes 2inniger 33 Chilipepper Sebastes goodei 34 Red-banded rockfish (flag) Sebastes babcocki 35 Rougheye rockfish Sebastes aleutianus 36 Splitnose rockfish Sebastes digloproq 37 Green-striped rockfish Sebastes elongatus 38 Brown rockfish Sebastes auriculatus 39 Redstripe rockfish Sebastes 2roriger 40 Big skate Raja binoculata 41 Longnose skate rhina 42 Ratfish Hydrolagus colliei 43 White sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus 44 Green sturgeon -Acipenser medirostris 45 Cutthroat trout (coastal) Salmo clarkii 46 Kelp greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus 86 47 Rock greenling Hexaqrammos la2ocephalus "leri 48 White-spotted green ling Hexagrammos steL 49 Buffalo sculpin Epa-hr" bison 50 Red irish lord Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus 51 Pacific staghorn sculpin Leptacottus armatus 52 Tidepool sculpin Oligocottus maculosus 53 Cabezon Scorl-)aenichthvs marmoratus 54 Redtail surf perch Amphistichus rhodoterus 55. Kelp perch Brachvistius frenatus 56 Shiner perch Cymato@7aster @S@rt@ta 57 Striped sea perch Embiotoca lateralis 58 Walleye sea perch Hyperprosovon argenteum, 59 Pile perch . Rhacochilus vacca 60 White sea perch Phanerodon furcatus 61 Penpoint gunnel Apodichthys flavidus 62 Saddleback gunnel Pholis ornata 63 Crescent gunnel Pholis laeta 64 Quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger 65 66 Pacific herring Clupea harengus 2allasii 67 Northern anchovy Engraulis mordax 68 Chinook salmon (king) Oncorhynchus tshaavtscha 69 Coho, salmon (silver) Oncorhynchus kisutch 70 Pink salmon (humpy) Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 71 Cockeye salmon (red) Oncorhynchus nerka 72 Chum salmon (dog) Oncorhvnchus keta 73 Masu salmon (cherry) Oncorhynchus sp. 74 Rainbow trout (steelhead) Salmo gairdnerii 75 Surf smelt Hypomesus pretiosus 76 Longfin trout (steelhead) Salmo oairdnerii 77 Eulaphon Thaheichthys R@@fic@us 78 Capelin Mallotus villosus .79 White seabass Cynoscion nobilis 80 Pacific sand lance Ammodytes hexa2terus 81 Spiny dogfish SSjualus acanthias 82 Cutthroat trout Salmo clarki 83 Salmon fishery (commerical) 84 Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax 85 Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 86 Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 87 American shad Alosa sapidissima 88 Winter flounder gs-eudoDieuronectes americanus 19 Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus. 90 White hake Urophycis tenuis 91 Three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 92 Four-spined stickleback A2eltes quadracus 93 Striped killifish Fundulus notatus -94 Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia 95 Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 96 Sanddab Citharichthys sp. 97 Tautog Tautoga onitis 98 American eel Anguilla rostrata 99 Atlantic tomcod Microgadus tomcod 87 100 Sea run brown trout Salmo trutta 101 Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum 102 Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus 103 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense 104 Striped bass Morone saxatilis 105 Hickory shad Alosa mediocris 106 California grunion Leuresthes tenuis 107 Spotted sea trout Cynocion nebulosus 108 Summer flounder Paralichthys sp. 109 Red drum Sciaenops ocellata 110 Black sea bass Centropristis striata 89 45 Common tern Sterna hirundo 46 Common murre Uria aalge 47 Pigeon guillemot Cepphus Columba 48 Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratum 49 Cassin's auklet Ptychoramphus aleutica 50 Rhinoceros auklet Cerorhinca monocerata 51 Tufted puffin Lunda cirrhata 52 Wilson's phalarope Steqanopus tricolor 53 Northern phalarope Lobipes lobatus 54 Great blue heron Ardea herodias 55 Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 56 Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia 57 Wandering tattler Heteroscelus incanum 58 Greater yellowlegs Totanus melanoleucus 59 Lesser yellowlegs Totanus flavipes 60 Red knot Calidris canutus 61 Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos 62 Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla 63 Dunlin Calidris 64 Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus 65 Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 66 Western sandpiper Calidris mauri 67 Sanderling Calidris alba 68 Black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani 69 Semi-palmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus 70 Killdeer Charadrius vocirerus 71 Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola 72 Surfbird Aphriza virgata 73 Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres 74 Black turnstone Arenaria melanocephala 75 Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon 76 Northern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 77 Osprey Pandion haliaetus 78 Northwestern crow Corvus caurinus 79 Cormorant Phalacrocorax sp. 80 Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea 81 Horned puffin Fratercula corniculata 82 Glaucous gull Larus hyperboreus 83 Kittiwake Rissa sp. 84 Parakeet auklet Cyclorrhynchus psittacula 85 Pigeon auklet Cepphus columba 86 Least tern Sterna albifrons 87 Little blue heron Florida caerulea 88 Great egret Casmerodius albus 89 Snowy egret Leucophoyx thula 90 Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax 91 Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus 92 Great black-backed gull Larus marinus 93 Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis 94 Louisiana heron Hydranassa tricolor 95 Roseate tern Sterna dougallii 96 Leach's petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 97 Green heron Butorides virescens 90 98 Laughing gull Larus atricilla 99 Red-faced cormorant Phalacrocorax urile 100 Black-legged kittiwake Riissa tridactyla 101 Aleutian tern Sterna aleutica 102 Fork-tailed storm petrel Oceanodroma furcata 103 Common eider Somateria mollissima 104 Murre Uria sp. 105 Thick-billed murre Uria lomvia 106 Ancient murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquum 107 Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 108 Kittlitz's murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostre 109 Crested auklet Aethia cristatella 110 Dovekie Plautus alle 111 Least auklet Aethia pusilla 112 Black guillemot cepphus grylle 113 Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus 114 Sabine's gull Xema sabinii 115 White ibis Eudocimus albus 116 Roseate spoonbill Ajaia ajaja 117 Great white heron Ardea occidentalis 118 Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis 119 Frigate bird fregata magnificens 120 Yellow-crowned night heron Nyctanassa violacea 121 Anhinga Anhinga anhinga 122 Scarlet ibis Eudocimus ruber 123 Southern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 124 Redhead aythya americana 125 Light-footed clapper rail Rallus longorpstris 126 Noddy tern Anous stolidus 127 Sooty tern Sterna fuscata 128 Blue-faced booby Sula dactulatra 129 Northern fulmar fulmarus glacialis 130 Red-legged kittiwake Rissa brevirostris 131 Crested auklet Aethia cristatella 132 Wood stork mycteria americana 133 Black skimmer Rynchops niger 134 Gull-billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica 135 Sandwich tern Sterna sandvicensis 136 Caspian tern Sterna caspia 137 Royal tern Sterna maxima 138 Forster's tern Sterna fosteri 139 Snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus 140 Belding savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 141 American avocet Recurviorstra americana 142 Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus 143 Xantus' murrelet Endomychura hypoleuca 144 Ashy storm petrel Oceanodroma homochroa 145 Elegant tern Sterna elegans 146 Black storm petrel Oceanodroma melania 147 Bachman's warbler Vermivora bachmanii 148 Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis 149 Gloss ibis Plegadis falcinellus 150 Black rail Laterallus jamaicensis 151 Clapper rail. Rallus longirostris 152 American oystercatcher Haematopu palliatus 153 Piping plover Charadrius melodus 154 Wilson's plover Charadrius wilsonia 155 Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 156 Semipalmated sandPiper Calidris pusilla APPENDIX II. Species list of macroinfauna (greater than 0.5 mm) collected in 10 x 18cm can cores. PHYLUM RHYNCHOCOELA Species A PHYLUM NEMATODA Species A Species B PHYLUM ANNELIDA Eteone heteropoda Hartman, 1951 Exogone sp. Laeonereis culveri (Webster, 1879) Nereis sp. Glycera sp. Onuphis sp. Onuphis c.f. magna (Andrews, 1891) Onuphis eremita (Audouin & Milne-Edwards, 1833) Lumbrineris sp. Polydora sp. Scolelepis squamata (Muller, 1806) Spiophanes bombyx (Claparede, 1879) Streblospio benedicti Webster, 1879 Magelona sp. Tharyx sp. Orbinid sp. A Orbinia sp. Orbinia ornata (Verrill, 1873) Scoloplos sp. Aricidea sp. Capitellid sp. A Dasybranchus sp. Mediomastus californiensis Hartman, 1944 c.f. Notomastus sp. Maldanid fragments Sabellaria vulgaris vulgaris Verrill, 1873 Petinaria gouldii (Verrill, 1873) Pista sp. Pista palmata (Verrill, 1873) Oligochaete sp. A PHYLUM MOLLUSCA Littorina irrorata (Say, 1822) Bivalve sp. A, juvenile Bivalve sp. B, juvenile Crassostrea virginica. (Gmelin, 1791) Dinocardium robustum (Lightfoot, 1786) Mactridsp. A, juvenile Mactra fragilis Gmelin, 1791 c.f. Mulinia lateralis (Say, 1822) Tellinid sp. A, juvenile 93 Donax variabilis (Say, 1822) Chione cancellata (Linne, 1767) Mercenaria mercenaria (Linne, 1758) PHYLUM ARTHROPODA Copepod sp. A Mysid sp. A c.f. Diastylsis sp. Leucon americanus Zimmer, 1943 Chiridotea sp. Amphipod sp. A Amphipod sp. B Ampelisca verrilli Mills, 1967 Microprotopus raneyi Wigley, 1966 Gammaropsis c.f. maculata Johnston, 1827 Acanthohaustorius intermedius Bousfield, 1965 Amphiporeia virginiana Shoemaker, 1933 Haustorius sp. c.f. Hyale plumulosa (Stimpson, 1857) Melita nitida Smith, Upogebia affinis (Say, 1818) Pagurus longqicarpus Say, 1817 Emerita talpoida (Say, 1817) Xanthid sp. A Pinnixa sp. Grapsid sp. A Uca pugilator (Bosc, 1801 or 1802) Insect sp. A, larvae ECHINDOERMATA Ophiuroid sp. A (brittle star) I I i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 3 6668 14109 2462 1