Project
Need: Seawalls and other hard structure methods used tosecure waterfront
property cause the loss of intertidal habitatand may increase erosion to
nearby shorelines. An alternative to installing a seawall is to plant marsh
grass, a natural buffer against wave energy. Marsh planting is sometimes
combined with the installation of offshore breakwaters or stone sills to
further protect the shoreline while minimizing the negative effects on
coastal habitat. Through marsh restoration projects,NOAA hopes to stabilize
shorelines and enhance coastal and marine habitat.
Project Objective:
Evaluate tidal
salt marsh restoration efforts by collecting data on faunal utilization
of the marsh as an indicator of habitat quality.
To obtain hands
on experience with the fisheries sampling techniques and marine fisheries
habitat research.
To learn how
to fish a fyke net; collect, enumerate, identify and measure estuarine
finfish, shellfish and decapod crustaceans;complile and summarize fisheries
and environmental data.
Research Team:
ECSU- Project
Leaders:Emma Sawyer, Angela Cohoon, Research Assistants:Matt Woolard, Shanna
Chambliss, Heather Allen.
NOAA- Dr. Carolyn
Curin, Priscilla Delano
Timeline:
Field sampling
of the North Carolina Maritime Museum (NCMM), natural and restored marsh
sites in Beaufort, NC September 2003
Lab work-up
to identify,enumerate and measure finfish and shellfish September 2003
Data entry,
analyses and report December 2003 .
Background:
Salt marshes
serve several important ecological functions in the coastal enviroment.
These functions include providing vital habitat for different species.
These species include fish, crabs, and shrimp. They also protect the the
coastline from erosion, and they help improve water quality by trapping
sediment and nutrient run-off. Salt marshes often exist adjacent to prime
development and agricultural land.
Materials
and Methods:
In the fall
of 2001 the marsh restoration project began at the NCMM site in Beaufort,
NC. Later in September and October of 2002 the monitoring grew and it included
two more sites, the Duke University Marine Lab (DUML), site in Beauford
and the Pine Knoll Shores (PKS), site near the North Carolina Aquarium.
Information collected at restored and reference sites includes GPS data
for surfact elevations, pore water salinity, sediment organic matter content,
sediment grain size composition, vegetative composition and faunal utilzation.
GIS maps are an important tool in evaluating spatial changes in marsh cover.
Data on faunal utilization of the marshes, collected using fyke nets, is
an indicator of habitat quality.

Results from
2001/2002 monitoring:
Sediment characteristics
did not vary widely between restored and natural reference sites, or between
locations. Organic matter overall was low. DUML and PKS reference sites
had a slightly higher organic matter contents than their restored counterparts,
but NCMM had a lower organic matter contents. Sediments were predominately
sandy, with sand content ranging between 81.56% at NCMM restored and 96.19%
at DUML restored. There was very little difference in grain size between
natural and restored sites and between locations. The ability to get information
about sediment salinity measures was limited by the minimal amount of porewater
remaining in the sandy sediments of the marshes at low tide, when we sampled
the marshes. However, it is clear that all the marshes are in the polyhaline
portion of the estuary, with sediment salinities ranging between 30 and
37 ppt.
Fyke net sampling
results demonstrate that a greater number of fish entered the natural marshes
than the restrored marshes at both sites. The mean fish abundance at the
DUML natural marsh was 229.00 fish per net, while at the restored marsh
the average was 162.00 fish per net. Fish abundance was much lower at NCMM,
where nets at the natural and restored sites caught 32.50 and 20.00 fish,
respectively. Shrimp abundances showed little difference between natural
and restored sites at both locations. An average of 16.00 shrimpwere caught
per net. Fewer crabs were caught at the natural marsh than at the restored
DUML marsh, yet more crabs were caught at the NCMM natural marsh.

See
Photos
Acknowledgements: