_______________

OCS Study

BOEM 2015-012

Understanding the Habitat Value and Function of 

Shoals and Shoal Complexes to Fish and 

Fisheries on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

Outer Continental Shelf

Literature Synthesis and Gap Analysis

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Headquarters

Herndon, VA
Understanding the Habitat Value and Function of 

Shoals and Shoal Complexes to Fish and Fisheries on 

the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental 

Shelf

Literature Synthesis and Gap Analysis

Principal Authors

Deborah Rutecki, Normandeau Associates

Timothy Dellapenna, Texas A&M University, Galveston

Eric Nestler, Normandeau Associates

Fred Scharf, University of North Carolina, Wilmington

Jay Rooker, Texas A&M University, Galveston

Christopher Glass, University of New Hampshire

Ann Pembroke, Normandeau Associates

Prepared under BOEM Contract M12PS00009

by 

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 

25 Nashua Rd.

Bedford, NH 03110

Published by

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Headquarters
DISCLAIMER

Study concept, oversight, and funding were provided by the US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC, under 

Contract Number M12PC00009. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM and it has 

been approved for publication. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those 

of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the US 

Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use.

AVAILABILITY

Copies of this report may be obtained from BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program 

Information System (ESPIS) at the following website: http://www.boem.gov/EnvironmentalStudies-EnvData/ by searching for BOEM 2015-012.

CITATION

Suggested Citation:

Rutecki, D., T. Dellapenna, E. Nestler, F. Scharf, J. Rooker, C. Glass, and A. Pembroke. 2014. 

Understanding the Habitat Value and Function of Shoals and Shoal Complexes to Fish 

and Fisheries on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf. Literature 

Synthesis and Gap Analysis. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management. Contract # M12PS00009. BOEM 2015-012. 176 pp.

About the Cover

Regional bathymetric map showing the classic ridge and swale topography on the mid-Atlantic 

continental shelf, Maryland and Delaware. From CSA et al. (2010).
TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................I

LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................III

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... IV

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................... V

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................1

1.2 APPROACH ..................................................................................................3

1.3 LITERATURE SEARCH METHODS ....................................................................6

1.4 ADDITIONAL LITERATURE REVIEWS AND SYNTHESES.......................................6

1.5 ORGANIZATION.............................................................................................7

2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY .........................................................................9

2.1 WHAT ARE SHOALS? GEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................9

2.1.1 Geological History of Shoals...........................................................9

2.1.2 Relict Holocene and Pleistocene Deposit Shoals .........................10

2.1.3 Cape-Associated Shoals...............................................................17

2.1.4 Bedform Shoals ............................................................................22

2.2 PHYSICAL PROCESSES GOVERNING SHOALS ...............................................32

2.2.1 Regional Differences between Shelf/Shoal Settings.....................32

2.2.2 Physical Oceanographic Differences between Shoal Regions .....40

2.2.3 Variability of Sediment Transport among Shoals ..........................43

2.2.4 Assessing Potential Impacts and Recovery of Sand Mining of 

Shoals: a Geological Perspective................................................44

2.3 DISTRIBUTION OF SHOALS IN BOEM OCS PLANNING AREAS .......................48

2.3.1 Atlantic OCS Region.....................................................................49

2.3.2 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region..........................................................50

2.4 SUMMARY..................................................................................................50

3.0 VALUE AND FUNCTION OF SHOAL HABITAT..............................................51

3.1 VALUE OF SHOAL HABITAT ..........................................................................51

3.2 BIOPHYSICAL COUPLING AND THE FUNCTION OF SHOAL HABITAT ...................51

4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS ..........................54

4.1 BENTHOS ..................................................................................................54

4.1.1 Habitat Associations and Spatial Distribution................................54

4.1.2 Habitat Associations and Temporal Distribution ...........................57
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii

4.1.3 Species of Special Conservation or Fisheries Importance............58

4.1.4 Recovery from Disturbance: Recruitment and Colonization..........59

4.2 FISHES ......................................................................................................60

4.2.1 Description of Fishes Associated with Shoals and Shoal 

Complex Habitats ........................................................................61

4.2.2 Shoal Habitat Value ......................................................................80

4.2.3 Behavior of Fishes on or Around Shoals and Shoal Complexes...83

4.3 SUMMARY..................................................................................................84

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR NEXT STEPS........................................................................................87

5.1 GEOLOGY AND PHYSICAL PROCESSES ........................................................87

5.1.1 Distinguishing Characteristics of Shoal Types ..............................87

5.1.2 Extent of the Resource .................................................................88

5.1.3 Applicability of Physical Processes Data from Inner Continental 

Shelf to OCS Sand Shoals ..........................................................89

5.1.4 Physical Recovery of OCS Shoals from Disturbance....................89

5.2 BIOLOGY ...................................................................................................90

5.2.1 Species Occurrence and Utilization ..............................................90

5.3 BIOPHYSICAL COUPLING...........................................................................104

5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS ......................................................105

6.0 LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................109

7.0 GLOSSARY....................................................................................................126

APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS........................129

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF 

OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS............................164

ATLANTIC PLANNING AREAS............................................................................165

GULF OF MEXICO PLANNING AREAS ................................................................165

SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES .................................................................................165
LIST OF FIGURES

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. U.S. Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf region showing the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management Planning Area boundaries and the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary................................................ 4

Figure 1-2. U.S. Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf region showing the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Planning Area boundaries 

and the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary. ......................... 5

Figure 2-1. Geology of Sabine Bank........................................................................... 12

Figure 2-2. Evolution and current characteristics of St. Bernard Shoals.................... 15

Figure 2-3. Relict Pleistocene/Holocene Deposit Shoals. .......................................... 17

Figure 2-4. Cape associated shoals and “Massifs.”.................................................... 19

Figure 2-5. Characteristics of Cape Lookout Shoal, a cape-associated shoal........... 21

Figure 2-6. Characteristics of sorted bedform shoals off of Wrightsville Beach, 

NC............................................................................................................. 24

Figure 2-7. Characteristics of the Continuum of Morpho-Sedimentary Bedforms...... 26

Figure 2-8. Shoal fields off of the Maryland-Delaware coast...................................... 27

Figure 2-9. Shoals along the Mid-Atlantic Bight.......................................................... 31

Figure 2-10. Characteristics of Resource Area 2 shoals off the coast of Alabama...... 34

Figure 2-11. Linear Shoals-Eastern Gulf of Mexico...................................................... 37

Figure 2-12 Conceptual diagram illustrating the major physical processes 

responsible for across-shelf particulate transport..................................... 38

Figure 2-13. Cross-shelf bathymetric profiles of the continental shelves of the US 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico OCS.............................................................. 39

Figure 2-14. Hurricane strike frequency throughout the study area. ............................ 42

Figure 2-15. Approximate distribution of shoals along the Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico OCS.............................................................................................. 49
LIST OF TABLES

iv

List of Tables

Table 2-1. Classification of shoals ...............................................................................10

Table 4-1. Association of benthic infauna with sediment texture on shoals off 

New Jersey .................................................................................................57

Table 4-2. Studies investigating shoals and shoal complexes in the Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf regions. ........................................62

Table 4-3. Atlantic highly migratory species that have defined Essential Fish 

Habitat that contain shoals areas in the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, 

Straits of Florida, and/or Gulf of Mexico. ....................................................65

Table 4-4. Managed fish and invertebrate species that may utilize offshore 

shoals in the Mid-Atlantic............................................................................66

Table 4-5. Fish species documented on shoals and shoal complexes in the 

North and Mid-Atlantic. ...............................................................................67

Table 4-6. Fish species documented on shoals and shoal complexes in the 

South Atlantic and Florida Straits ...............................................................69

Table 4-7. Relative abundance of the fish species documented on shoals and 

shoal complex habitats along the east Florida continental shelf................71

Table 4-8. Fish species documented on shoals and shoal complexes in the Gulf 

of Mexico.....................................................................................................73

Table 4-9. Catch frequency of the fish species documented on Heald Bank, 

Sabine Bank, Trinity Shoal, and Tiger Shoal..............................................75

Table 4-10. Presence of fish species on shoals and shoal complexes over large 

geographic ranges......................................................................................78

Table 5-1. Distribution of shoals in US OCS in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic .......106

Table B–1. Common and scientific names of major commercial species of fish 

and invertebrates in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf region 167

Table B–2. Endangered, threatened, and species of concern (fish) in the 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf regions (NMFS 

2013a).

169

Table B–3. Common and scientific names of major commercial species of fish 

and invertebrates in the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 

region

170

Table B-4. Common and scientific names of fish and invertebrate species that 

are discussed in Section 4.0 of this Synthesis 173
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

v

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BACI Before-and-After Control Impact

BMP Best Management Practices

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (United States)

cm centimeter

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (United States)

CSA Continental Shelf Associates

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

ESA Endangered Species Act

EEZ Exclusive economic zone

FMP Fishery Management Plan

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

GOM Gulf of Mexico

HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

H/BD ratio of shoal height (distance from crest to base of shoal) to 

base depth

kHz kilihertz

km Kilometer

LGM Last Glacial Maximum

LME Large Marine Ecosystem

MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Magnuson-Stevens 

Act

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(United States)

m Meter

mm Millimeter

MMP Marine Minerals Program

MMS Minerals Management Service (precursor to BOEM) (United 

States)

m/y meters per year

NEFMC New England Fishery Management Council

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

nm Nautical Miles

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (United States)

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (United 

States)

OI Oregon Inlet

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

ROV Remotely operated vehicle

SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council

VIE visible implant elastomer

ybp years before present
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1

1.0 Introduction

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), part of the Department of the Interior, is 

responsible for managing the development of the energy and mineral resources on the Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS) (3 nautical miles [nm] offshore of most states, with the exception of 

Texas and the Gulf coast of Florida, where it is 9 nm) (See Glossary). This management includes 

the Oil and Gas, the Marine Minerals, and the Renewable Energy Programs. The BOEM Marine 

Minerals Program (MMP) considers proposals for use of OCS sand resources. Public Law 103-

426 (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2)), enacted October 31, 1994, gave BOEM the authority to negotiate, 

on a noncompetitive basis, the rights to OCS sand, gravel, and shell resources for shore 

protection, beach or wetlands restoration projects, or for use in construction projects funded in 

whole or part by, or authorized by, the federal government. The BOEM Renewable Energy 

Program considers proposals for wind energy facilities on submerged lands. Offshore shoals are 

of scientific interest to both programs – as a source of sand for beach nourishment, coastal 

restoration, and shoreline protection projects and as an ideal location for renewable energy 

projects to take advantage of favorable bathymetric conditions.

BOEM must analyze the effects of the aforementioned activities under the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) using the best available science.

BOEM also routinely consults with several other federal agencies including the National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)

regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

regarding the ESA to ensure that the sensitive biological resources considered under these 

mandates are carefully evaluated.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which was written in 1976 and amended in 1996 and 2007, 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for the identification and 

protection of essential marine and anadromous fish habitats. Each regional office of NOAA 

Fisheries, in conjunction with the regional Fishery Management Councils, defines Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) for federally managed species, supporting a primary goal of maintaining 

sustainable fisheries. Criteria for EFH designation were developed independently in each region. 

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) can be identified as a subset of EFH for areas 

that a region considers to have special characteristics or value, although HAPCs have no 

additional regulatory status. NOAA Fisheries has identified ridge and swale and cape-associated 

shoal complexes as EFH and in some areas as HAPCs (e.g., Frying Pan Shoals offshore of Cape 

Fear, NC). BOEM is interested in understanding the status of scientific research on the 

ecological functions and biophysical coupling of these sand features to provide for improved 

resource use and management. 

1.1 Background

There has been an increasing demand for OCS sand due to severe weather conditions which, 

coupled with chronic erosion, has led to substantial coastal damage, which places a higher 

demand on diminishing offshore sand resources in state waters (Drucker et al. 2004). A number 
1.0 INTRODUCTION

2

of sand sources suitable for these coastal projects have been identified along the OCS in the 

Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). In addition, there are also likely a number of 

unidentified sources that BOEM, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the US Geological 

Survey, states (including all Atlantic coastal states from Maine to Florida and GOM coastal 

states from Florida to Texas) and specific localities have been working to characterize. Some of 

the federal and state partnerships have identified specific potential borrow areas in federal waters 

containing large sand quantities. These partnerships have focused on isolated, relict submerged 

shoals and surficial sand sheets, but are expected to expand sand investigations to buried 

paleochannels and shore-attached sand ridges (Drucker et al. 2004). The widespread coastal 

impacts imposed by Hurricane Sandy in October 2012 helped trigger a renewed emphasis on 

cooperative relationships between BOEM and affected states. In 2014, BOEM executed 

cooperative agreements with 13 Atlantic coastal states to identify offshore sand resources that 

could be used for shoreline resiliency efforts. In addition, BOEM contracted for geological and 

geophysical surveys on the Atlantic OCS (up to 8 miles offshore) to identify sand resources that 

could be used for coastal restoration, beach nourishment, and wetland restoration projects. Prior 

to BOEM’s recent actions, numerous studies identified potential offshore sand resource areas, 

including: New Jersey (Smith 1996, Uptegrove et al. 2006); Maryland (Conkwright and Gast 

1995, Conkwright and Williams 1996, Conkwright et al. 2000); Delaware (McKenna and 

Ramsey 2002); Virginia (Kimball and Dame 1989, Williams 1988); North Carolina (Hoffman 

1998, Boss and Hoffman 2001); South Carolina (Gayes et al. 1998, Wright et al. 1998, Wright et 

al. 1999); Florida (Hoenstine et al. 2002, Phelps and Holem 2005); Alabama (Parker et al. 1993, 

Hummell and Smith 1996, Rindsberg and Kopaska-Merkel 2006); Louisiana (Ramsey and 

Penland 1992, Kulp et al. 2001); and Texas (Morton and Gibeaut 1993, 1995; Finkl et al. 2007a; 

Dellapenna et al., 2006a and 2006b; Dellapenna et al. 2009). Site-specific studies have been 

conducted at some of these areas to provide basic information on physical and biological 

characteristics and to evaluate the potential effects of sediment extraction on local wave and 

current regimes (Drucker et al. 2004).

Potential short-term and long-term physical and biological impacts from sand removal operations 

have been discussed by Maa et al. (2004), Diaz et al. (2004a), Byrnes et al. (2004b and 2004c),

and many others. The main impact concerns include: 1) altering the physical characteristics of 

the area (shoal topography, wave and current patterns, sediment transport regime, and sediment 

grain size); 2) elevated turbidity; and 3) the removal and or alteration of benthic epifaunal and 

infaunal communities (Drucker et al. 2004, Hayes and Nairn 2004).

Additionally, because of their relative abundance on the inner shelf (0-30 meters water depth), 

locations with geomorphic features similar to borrow areas are likely targets for siting of wind 

energy foundations in Atlantic Wind Energy Areas. Several distinctive types of sand deposits are 

of interest for both borrow area and wind energy siting purposes – ridge and swale complexes 

that are prevalent in the Mid-Atlantic, cape-associated shoals that are prevalent in the southern 

Mid-Atlantic to South Atlantic, and sand banks that are most prevalent in the GOM. Marine 

mineral leases for OCS sand have been issued to New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Virginia, Florida, and Louisiana for beach and shoreline restoration projects.

Historically, ecological studies in support of BOEM’s marine minerals mining mission have 

focused largely on benthic communities, which are the organisms that had been considered to 
1.0 INTRODUCTION

3

experience the most direct impacts from sand mining (Brooks et al. 2006; Byrnes et al. 2000, 

2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c; Cutter et al. 2000; Minerals Management Service [MMS] 2004).

Carefully designed field studies that included sampling of microhabitats (e.g., troughs vs. crests 

of sand waves; tops vs. flanks of banks) have found differences in these communities that 

suggest that the distribution of benthic predators (and prey) may vary spatially (Cutter et al. 

2000; Slacum et al. 2006, 2010; Stone et al. 2009). Subsequently, a few studies have focused on 

finfish utilization of shoal complex habitats and found definite spatial and some lifestage 

preferences (e.g. the preference for tops of shoals by sand lances), however these studies have 

also left many questions unanswered (Diaz et al. 2003, Brooks et al. 2005, Slacum et al. 2010, 

Michel et al. 2013). The scientific background for determining the level of impact to these

predator/prey groups along with the habitats they are associated with is incomplete. With an 

ever-present demand for sand and gravel resources for beach nourishment and shoreline 

protection along the Atlantic and GOM coasts, as well as potential development of these shoals 

for offshore renewable energy facilities, BOEM must strive to improve their understanding of the

ecological values and functions of these resources, along with their physical environment. This 

report is part of an effort by BOEM to assimilate information that will enhance the understanding 

of the physical and biological dynamics of these shoal systems and assist in NEPA analyses and 

regulatory decisions utilizing sound science.

1.2 Approach

The BOEM MMP convened a workshop on January 24, 2014 in Charleston South Carolina in 

conjunction with the Southern Division - American Fisheries Society meeting to discuss and 

identify the most critical information needs and data gaps that should be addressed to better 

understand the habitat value and function of ridge-swale, shoal, and cape-associated shoal 

complexes to fish and fisheries on the Atlantic and GOM OCS (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The agenda 

and presentations from this meeting are provided in Appendix A.

To help focus the workshop participants and to support a productive discussion, a draft Literature 

Synthesis summarizing current knowledge of the topic was made available to participants prior 

to the workshop. This draft Synthesis also provided initial identification of information needs 

and data gaps as a basis for workshop discussions.

This final Literature Synthesis (or Synthesis) has been prepared by updating the draft Synthesis 

to incorporate key findings from the workshop. Information that has become available through 

June 2014 has also been added to this Synthesis. The focus of this Synthesis is on the interactions 

of fish, fisheries, and invertebrates of the U.S. Atlantic and GOM OCS with various types of 

offshore shoal complexes. This Synthesis is intended to be narrowly focused on hopper dredging 

along the OCS (not within estuaries, navigation channels, etc.) because that is the primary 

technique used for offshore sand mining. It does not include review of potential EFH 

implications from cutterhead dredging (e.g., pitting, anoxia). This Synthesis only focuses on the 

use of sand shoals and not on any other geological features that may be utilized for 

renourishment.
1.0 INTRODUCTION

4

Figure 1-1. U.S. Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf region showing the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management Planning Area boundaries and the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary.
1.0 INTRODUCTION

5

Figure 1-2. U.S. Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf region showing the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management Planning Area boundaries and the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

boundary. 

Source: BOEM 2013.

BOEM’s specific objectives for this Synthesis were to:

• Identify the habitat value and functions of shoals and shoal complexes to priority fishes 

on the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and GOM OCS;

• Summarize current scientific understanding of the habitat uniqueness, value, and function 

of ridge/swale and shoal complexes for benthic and fish communities, identifying critical 

gaps in understanding;

• Review and evaluate the effectiveness of the various scientific research methods and 

approaches that are used or may be used in examining these information needs;

• Identify relevant areas, space, and time scales for study, cost-effective research methods, 

costs, and cost-leverage study opportunities to develop appropriate duration datasets to 

address the critical gaps in understanding;

• Foster collaboration among federal and state agencies, industry (both alternative energy 

and marine minerals), and academia in addressing information needs;

• Advance the understanding of how the disturbance of benthic habitat and 

infaunal/epifaunal communities may (or may not) lead to cascading effects on keystone 

demersal and pelagic fishes; 

• Identify next steps, if appropriate, for the utilization of compiled knowledge; next steps 

may include identification of research needed to fill data gaps in order to enhance future 

BOEM OCS management decisions; and,
1.0 INTRODUCTION

6

• Identify, if appropriate, mitigation approaches to avoid impacts to priority habitats, 

fisheries, and fish. 

1.3 Literature Search Methods

A data collection strategy that employed online commercial databases, literature search tools, 

and Internet search tools was used to gather data to characterize shoal habitat value and function 

to fish and fisheries. 

The following commercial databases and search tools were used in the search for data on shoal 

fish habitat value and function: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts, Biological Sciences, 

BioOne Abstract, GeoRef, and Google Scholar. In-house libraries at Normandeau were also 

utilized.

Key search terms and phrases were used to conduct methodical queries of databases and the 

Internet. All fields (title, abstract, etc.) were searched for a term that referenced shoal complexes, 

the taxa of interest, and/or specific areas and features of interest. Initially selected key terms and 

phrases provided a starting point from which a more complete list of terms was developed as the 

search progressed. Examples of terms and phrases used in the search include: “shoals”; “shoal 

complexes”; “shoal field”; “sand ridge”; “sand ridge fields”; “linear shoals”; “ridge and swale 

complexes”; “ridge and trough complexes”; “submerged barrier islands”; “New Jersey sand 

ridges”; “Maryland shoal fields”; “Fenwick Shoal”; “Weaver Shoal”; “Great Gull Bank”; 

“Baldwin Ridge”; “Sabine Bank”; “Ship Shoal”; “Trinity Shoal”; “Barnegat Ridge”; “Inshore 

Southeast Lumps”; “Diamond Shoals”; “26-Mile Lump”; “microhabitat”. Reference listings 

from relevant documents were also used to identify important earlier work on the same topic.

More recent papers that cited an original reference of interest were identified using links to these 

references that are provided within electronic databases.

Studies that did not specifically pertain to shoal complex fish habitat value and function were 

generally excluded. Published, peer-reviewed, English language studies (or those that provided 

English language abstracts) that are indexed in scientific databases were the primary focus of the 

search, although relevant government and industry technical reports, websites, and presentations 

were also reviewed.

1.4 Additional Literature Reviews and Syntheses

This Literature Synthesis provides a comprehensive, though by no means complete, listing of the 

literature on the habitat value and function of ridge-swale, shoal, and cape-associated shoal 

complexes to fish and fisheries on the Atlantic and GOM OCS. It includes citations of the most 

relevant literature, and highlights those studies that are most important for current and future 

understanding of the topic at hand. Additional literature, and many more citations, can be found 

in the following sources:

• South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) (1998) — The Habitat Plan for 

the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements. This document contains 

information on the distribution, abundance, habitat requirements by lifestage, and the 

distribution and characteristics of those habitats for species, species groups, and habitats 

managed by the SAFMC.
1.0 INTRODUCTION

7

• GOM Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) (1998) — Information on the habitat 

requirements for species managed by the GMFMC.

• Louis Berger Group (1999) — An environmental report on the use of federal offshore 

sand resources for beach and coastal restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and 

Virginia.

• NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series: Essential Fish Habitat species source 

documents (1999-present, available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/) —

Compilations of the available information on the distribution, abundance, and habitat 

requirements for each of the species managed by the New England Fishery Management 

Council (NEFMC)and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC).

• Brooks et al. (2005) — A USGS synthesis of the Southeast Area Monitoring and 

Assessments Program’s Groundfish Survey database for 1982-2000.

• Brooks et al. (2006) — A paper that reviews the existing literature on the benthic faunal 

resources for the US Atlantic and GOM continental shelf. 

• Gilmore (2008) — A regional fishery resource survey and synthesis in a Florida county 

for comprehensive beach and offshore monitoring program.

• Johnson et al. (2008) — A NOAA technical memorandum on the impacts to marine 

fisheries habitat from nonfishing activities.

• NMFS (2009) — Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) designating Essential Fish Habitat. This document contains 

information on the life history and habitat requirements for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and 

sharks managed under this FMP.

• Continental Shelf Associates (CSA) International, Inc. et al. (2010) — An analysis of 

potential biological and physical impacts of dredging on offshore shoal features.

• Dibajnia and Nairn (2011) — A BOEM investigation of dredging guidelines to maintain 

and protect the geomorphic integrity of offshore shoal regimes.

• Kaplan (2011) — A literature synthesis of the oceanographic resources in the North and 

Central Atlantic Ocean.

• Michel et al. (2013) — A BOEM review of biological and biophysical impacts from 

dredging offshore sand.

1.5 Organization

Section 2 provides background information on the geology of shoals, the primary physical forces 

affecting them, and the distribution throughout the study area. Section 3 discusses the linkage 

between the geophysical environment and biological assemblages. In Section 4, information on 

the use of shoals by benthic invertebrates (Section 4.1) and fishes (Section 4.2) is presented. 

Section 5 focuses on the questions arising from discussions, the literature synthesis, and the 

workshop and identifies areas of potential future research. Throughout the document, species are 

referred to by their common names (most invertebrates and all fishes. A listing of the scientific 

names of species cited in the document is provided in Appendix B. A glossary is included in 
1.0 INTRODUCTION

8

Section 7.0 to define many of the terms used in this Synthesis. Terms appearing in the glossary 

appear in bold italics when first used in the report.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

9

2.0 Geology and Geography

Ecological functions of a habitat are highly influenced by the physical attributes. In the case of 

offshore shoals, geological origin, structure, and the physical forces affecting shoals are all

important to understanding the ability of associated organisms to adapt to changing conditions 

such as those that might result from sand removal. One question leading to this study was 

whether all shoal types have similar habitat value for fishes and invertebrates. To evaluate this 

question, it is essential to understand the range of shoal types that exist in the U.S. Atlantic and 

GOM OCS. 

2.1 What are Shoals? Geological Considerations

A shoal is a natural, underwater ridge, bank, or bar consisting of, or covered by, sand or other 

unconsolidated material, resulting in shallower water depths than surrounding areas. The term 

shoal complex refers to two or more shoals (and includes adjacent morphologies, such as troughs

separating shoals) that are interconnected by past and or present sedimentary and hydrodynamic 

processes. These complexes are also known as shoal fields.

For the USA, from the Mid-Atlantic, southward to the southern tip of Florida and along the 

northern and northeastern GOM offshore shoals are sedimentary deposits, typically dominated 

by sand or gravel (Finkl and Hobbs 2009), with bathymetric relief of a meter or greater, and that 

provide potentially important habitat. Each of these shoals is morphologically dynamic, 

primarily driven by waves and currents during tropical storms and hurricanes as well as less 

intense (but more frequent), northern meteorological fronts and other lower intensity events.

Inner and mid-shelf shoals that can be used for sand extraction can be broken down into three 

broad categories: 1) shoals associated with relict Holocene or Pleistocene sedimentary deposits

exposed/sourced by ravinement; 2) active and relict cape-associated shoals; and 3) a shelf 

morpho-sedimentary continuum of bedforms. Nomenclature used for shoals has varied greatly in 

the past, with both regional and temporal patterns of usage. One of the goals of this section is to 

establish a consistent nomenclature and to place older usage in the context of the new 

terminology used here. Current synonyms for shoal nomenclature used in the past literature are

shown in Table 2-1. The following subsections provide a brief description of the geological 

history of shoals in the Mid-Atlantic and GOM, followed by a summary of each of the three 

broad categories of shoals found within these regions.

2.1.1 Geological History of Shoals

The Holocene geological epoch began at the end of the Pleistocene at 11,700 calendar years 

before present (ybp) and continues to the present (Walker et al. 2009a). During the Last Glacial 

Maximum (LGM), 26,000-19,000 ybp, sea level was 120 meters (m) lower than current levels 

(Clark et al. 2009). Much of the continental shelf of the GOM and the Atlantic coast of North 

America were subaerially exposed and the landscape was eroded. Along the northern coast, as 

far south as the Hudson River, glaciers extended out onto the shelf and carved fjords. South of 

the Hudson River, the coastal plain was situated where the current continental shelf is, and rivers 

flowed across it, incising valleys. Following the LGM, sea levels rose during the late Pleistocene, 

continuing on into the Holocene. During the Holocene, as sea level rose, shorelines retreated and 

valleys filled. As shorelines retreated, the shelf underwent transgressive ravinement (wave-
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

10

generated erosion down to the depth of the wave-base). Although a highly variable process, in 

many cases ravinement effectively erodes the upper 5-12 m of sediment (e.g. Wallace et al. 

2010). Within the valleys, estuaries formed and in many places, transgressive ravinement 

exposed previously buried sedimentary sand bodies, such as bayhead deltas, fluvial deposits and 

tidal deltas as well as the bases of barrier island complexes and other features. Differential 

compaction of the surrounding sediment, as well as the erosion of this sediment left coarser 

deposits as exposed features, both creating shoals and providing the sand sources needed to 

source shoals (e.g. Rodriguez et al. 2001). All of the shoals on the shelf are either Holocene or 

Pleistocene in age.

Table 2-1. Classification of shoals

Shoals associated with Relict 

Holocene or Pleistocene 

Deposits

Cape-Associated 

Shoals Bedform Shoals

Isolated Shelf 

Shoals Shoal Fields Relict Shoals Sorted Ridges

Synonyms Banks Shelf retreat 

massifs

Shelf retreat massifs 

(along Raleigh Bay) 

and Wimble Shoals

Rippled Scour 

depressions

Ridge and trough, 

Ridge and swale

Examples Sabine Bank, 

Heald Bank, 

St. Bernard 

Shoal, Ship 

shoal

Platt Shoal, 

Oregon Shoal, 

Albermarle 

Shoal

Cape Lookout Shoals, 

Diamond Shoals, 

Frying Pan Shoals, 

Wimble Shoals-

(abandoned Cape)

Shoals along 

Wrightsville 

Beach shoreface 

and inner shelf

Shoals along the 

inner shelf north of 

Cape Lookout, 

along MD, DE, NJ, 

NY inner shelves

2.1.2 Relict Holocene and Pleistocene Deposit Shoals

These shoals are formed from relict coastal sedimentary deposits exposed by ravinement or are 

proximally sourced by these deposits. These can be further subdivided into isolated inner shelf 

shoals and shoal fields. Isolated inner shelf shoals are discrete features, generally associated with 

a single relict coastal landform and/or shoreline position. Shoal fields are typically formed from 

proximally exposed deposits where the shoals are displaced from the source deposit. Along the 

Texas shelf, the term “bank” is used to refer to both of these types of shoals. Along the Louisiana 

shelf, the term “shoal” is used.

Isolated Inner Shelf Shoals

Sabine Bank Shoal, Heald Bank Shoal, and Ship Shoal are examples of isolated inner shelf 

shoals. Sabine Bank Shoal is situated ~26 kilometers (km) offshore of the Texas-Louisiana 

border and is delineated by the 10 m isobaths. It is 50 km long, 7.5 km wide, and shoals to less 

than 4.5 m. Morton and Gibeaut (1995) estimated Sabine Bank to contain 1.8x109 m3 sandy 

sediment, by extrapolating the geographic extent of the bank (bathymetric expression) relative to 

adjacent seafloor. It consists of the basal barrier island and tidal inlet deposits; the surface of 

Sabine Bank consists largely of a lag shell deposit and sand (Morton and Gibeaut 1995; 

Dellapenna et al. 2009, 2010, 2011; Figure 2-1).
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

11

Figure 2-1a.

Figure 2-1b.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

12

Figure 2-1c.

Figure 2-1. Geology of Sabine Bank.

a) Paleogeographic map showing the Trinity River incised valley extending from Galveston Bay and the 

Neches-Sabine Rivers incised valley extending from Sabine River. The map also shows the locations of 

Sabine, Heald, Shepard and Thomas Banks on the seaward flank of the incised valley system. b) Cross 

section A-A’ from Sabine Bank showing the vertical distribution of facies. c) Oblique cross sections 

showing the evolution of Sabine Bank. Sources: a) http://gulf.rice.edu/ETexas/gulfeTexasS_T_SJ_tst.html

b), c) Anderson et al. 2013.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

13

Rodriguez et al. (1999) identified three facies, two of which (Facies A and B) are sand bearing. 

Facies C constitutes the basal layer of the bank, contains the bulk of Sabine Bank Shoal’s 

volume and is mud dominated. Dellapenna et al. (2010a, b, 2011) estimated a total of 638x106

m3 of sand within the two sand-bearing facies (Facies A and B) of the bank.

Heald Bank Shoal is a relict bayhead delta complex exposed by ravinement (Rodriguez et al., 

1999). It is located 27 km southwest of Sabine Bank and 55 km southeast of the entrance channel

to Galveston Bay. It is enclosed by the 14 m isobaths and shoals to less than 10 m, with length of 

~25 km and a width of 5 km (Morton and Gibeaut 1995; Dellapenna et al. 2009). Dellapenna et 

al. (2010a, b) estimated a total of 81x106 m3 of sand within Heald Bank.

Ship Shoal formed from the re-working of a barrier island complex eroded by ravinement.

Comparisons of bathymetric profiles taken between 1887 and 1983 reveal that the shoal has 

migrated more than 1 km landward, giving it an approximate average migration rate of 10 

meters/year (m/y) (Penland et al. 1988). Ship Shoal is ~50 km long, with a width ranging from 5-

12 km. Vertical relief of the shoal varies from 5-7 m and the surface of the shoal is between the 3 

and 8 m isobaths.

Shoal Fields

The area called St. Bernard Shoals is an example of a shoal field. St. Bernard Shoals consists of a 

series of discrete sand bodies ranging in size from 0.05 to 44 km2 that are located 25 km 

southeast of the Chandeleur Islands, offshore of the southeastern side of the Mississippi Delta, in 

water depths of 15-18 m (Figure 2-2; Rogers et al. 2009). The St. Bernard Shoals formed by the 

reworking of relict Mississippi delta distributary channel deposits exposed on the inner- to midshelf during and subsequent to shoreface ravinement (Rogers et al. 2009) and continue to be 

maintained by modern shelf processes.

Shoals that have been referred to in the past as “shelf retreat massifs” are poorly defined sand 

ridges and likely fall into one of two different classifications within the new nomenclature 

presented here, one of which is “relict cape-associated shoals” (see Section 2.1.3) and the other is 

the “relict Holocene or Pleistocene deposit shoals.” We believe that shoal retreat massifs are not 

unique features that warrant their own separate classification and that the term should be 

abandoned. The shelf retreat massifs were originally thought to have formed on the flanks of 

shelf valleys, marking the retreat paths of the littoral-drift depositional centers along estuary 

mouths (Swift et al. 1978). The term “massif” is used because the shoals are bathymetric highs 

that contain smaller-scale bathymetric highs, consisting of an array of sand ridges whose axes are 

parallel to the shoreline, and perpendicular to the trend of the massif (Swift et al. 1978).

According to Swift et al. (1978), each massif consists of a series of sand ridges generally

trending north-south in a comb-like array (Figure 2-3).
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

14

Figure 2-2a.

Figure 2-2b.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

15

Figure 2-2c. 

Figure 2-2. Evolution and current characteristics of St. Bernard Shoals. 

a) Model depicting the evolution of the St. Bernard Shoals. Initially, transgression truncated the upper 

portion of a delta lobe. Ravinement and heterogeneity of the geotechnical properties of the seabed 

produced an irregular seafloor, with sand deposits slightly elevated above adjacent mud deposits. Wave 

generated bottom currents eroded the inshore side of the sand deposits, depositing the sand atop the 

original sand deposits. The shoals are oriented sub-parallel to the main current and the shoal’s elevation 

above the surrounding sealfloor causes secondary currents to transport entrained sediment over the 

shoals. b) Basemap showing location of St. Bernard Shoals in relation to the Mississippi Delta, within the 

Gulf of Mexico. c) Seismic and interpreted seismic cross section of St. Bernard Shoal showing facies 

distributions. The individual shoals are asymmetrical and the present day seabed is at a lower elevation 

than the ravinement surface underlying the shoals. Source: Rogers et al. 2009

Along the North Carolina coast, some shoals formerly classified as “shelf retreat massifs” are 

actually relict Pleistocene deposits. As an example, the Platt Massif off of Oregon Inlet, along 

the Outer Banks of NC, has a relief on the order of 5-10 m. The entire shoal complex is 

approximately 18 km wide, 25-35 km long, with each individual shoal ranging up to 4-6 km 

wide. Thieler et al. (2014) concluded that the Platt Shoals are eroded Pleistocene remnants with a 

modern Holocene aged sand cap.). Other shoals previously classified as shoal retreat massifs 

include the Susquehanna Massif off of the Eastern Shore of VA, the Virginia Beach Massif, the 

Albemarle Massif and the Diamond Shoals Massif, both off of NC Outer Banks (Figures 2-3 and 

2-4).
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

16

Figure 2-3a.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

17

Figure 2-3b.

Figure 2-3. Relict Pleistocene/Holocene Deposit Shoals.

a) Shoals formerly named “Shelf Retreat Massifs” are re-classified here as either “Relict 

Pleistocene/Holocene Deposit Shoals” (Oregon, Platt, and Kinnakeet Shoals) or “Cape-Associated 

Shoals” (Wimble Shoals, Diamond Shoal and Lookout Shoals). b) In Swift et al. (1978), Albemarle and 

Platt Shoals were originally classified as “Shelf Retreat Massifs) based on the assumption that the 

Roanoke Valley divided the two massifs. In Thieler et al. (2014) it is demonstrated that the Roanoke 

Valley actually extends north of Albemarle Massif and that both Albemarle Massif and Platt Shoals are 

actually relict Pleistocene outcrops with a Holocene deposit of reworked Pleistocene sediment comprising 

the shoals. Source: Theiler et al. 2014.

2.1.3 Cape-Associated Shoals

Cape-associated shoals are active sedimentary systems that extend from cuspate foreland 

promontories formed by two barrier islands (Figures 2-3 and 2-5) or mainland beach ridges 

joined at approximately right angles (McNinch and Luettich, 2000). Examples include Cape 

Lookout Shoals, NC; Frying Pan Shoals, NC; and Canaveral Shoals, FL. In general, capeassociated shoals form due to the convergence of two longshore drift cells, and as a result of selforganization of the coast in response to a high-angle-wave instability in shoreline shape. Capeassociated shoals can also be influenced by the pre-existing geological framework (Figure 2-4; 

Thieler and Ashton 2011). A detailed explanation of their formation can be found in Thieler et al. 

(2014), Thieler and Ashton (2011), McNinch and Luettich (2000), McNinch and Wells (1999), 

and Ashton and Murray (2006).
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

18

Figure 2-4a.

Figure 2-4b.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

19

Figure 2-4c.

Figure 2-4d.

Figure 2-4. Cape associated shoals and “Massifs.” 

a) Map of Outer Banks (NC) showing Raleigh Bay, cape-associated and linear shelf shoals. b) Map of

coast south of Cape Hatteras, with location of cape-associated shoals. c) Bathymetry of Diamond Shoals. 

d) Seismic profiles across Diamond Shoals. Sources: a), c), d) Theiler et al. 2014; b) Theiler and Ashton 

2011.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

20

Figure 2-5a.

Figure 2-5b.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

21

Figure 2-5c.

Figure 2-5. Characteristics of Cape Lookout Shoal, a cape-associated shoal. 

a) Map showing location of Cape Lookout Shoal. b) 3-dimensional perspective of bathymetric map 

showing location of cape-associated shoals sourced from Cape Lookout and depicting formation of Cape 

Lookout due to the convergence of long-shore drift cells (arrows show the sediment transport directions 

associated with these currents). Shoals form as sediment accumulates offshore due to this current 

convergence. c) Formation of cape-associated shoals; as the shoreline retreats during transgressive sea 

level rise, the cape also retreats, leaving behind a series of “cape-associated shoals, with shoals 

increasing in age with distance from shore and increased water depth. Source: McNich and Wells 1999.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

22

The Cape Lookout Shoals contain a series of shoals extending ~20 km offshore of the tip of 

Cape Lookout. The shoals are ~7-10 km wide and have a relief of up to 10 m and have migrated 

8 km landward in ~5500 years. Cape-associated shoal complexes can extend for kilometers 

offshore following the same basic orientation as the existing shoreline. They are subject to 

alterations from normal current regimes and storm events. Thieler and Ashton (2011) make a 

compelling case that for the Raleigh Bay section of the NC Outer Banks, the previously 

classified shelf retreat massifs are actually relict cape associated shoals from an abandoned cape 

(Figure 2-4; Thieler et al. 2014; Thieler and Ashton 2011). They found through both 

observations and modeling that there had been an additional cape located inshore of the shoals. 

However, they found that the coast has re-aligned and the cape has disappeared, leaving behind 

relict cape-associated shoals. An example of this would be Wimble Shoals (Thieler et al. 2014).

2.1.4 Bedform Shoals

According to Theiler et al. (2014), a continuum of morpho-sedimentary bedforms exists along 

the inner- and mid-continental shelf of siliciclastic passive continental margins. The continuum 

ranges from sorted bedforms occupying the sediment-starved end of the continuum and linear 

shoals and shore-attached ridges on the sediment abundant end of the continuum. For the 

remainder of this report, shoals that fall within this continuum will be referred to as “bedform 

shoals” or by their specific bedform name. Theiler et al. (2014) developed this continuum based 

on their work along the Outer Banks, where they found well-developed sorted bedforms along 

sections of the coast with limited sediment being transported via long-shore drift (e.g., along 

Wrightsville Beach). In areas of greater sediment availability, they found the inner shelf 

morphology to be characterized by shore-attached ridges, such as Lookout Shoals, Platt Shoals, 

and Oregon Shoals (Theiler et al. 2014; Figure 2-4). The sediment-abundant end-member 

includes shore-attached ridges along the shoreface (0-3 m isobaths) and linear, shore-normal 

sand ridges offshore of the shoreface. As discussed below, near-shore and offshore ridges are 

believed to have started off as shore-attached ridges and are now in deeper water due to sea level 

rise (Swift and Field 1981).

Offshore of Long Island, Schwab et al. (2000) found well developed sorted bedforms along the 

eastern half of the island where sediment availability is relatively low. Along the central portion 

of Fire Island, where sediment availability is higher, Schwab et al. (2000) found well-developed 

shore-attached ridges rather than sorted bedforms. Theiler et al. (2014) concluded that this 

pattern is similar to the continuum they described for the North Carolina shelf.

As stated above, sand ridges are the high-sediment-availability end-member of the bedform 

shoals. “Ridge and swale” and “Ridge and trough” are two other terms for linear shore-normal 

sand shoals, typically found along the inner- and mid-shelf within the abundant-sediment end of 

the continuum. A more detailed explanation of sorted bedforms and linear shore-normal sand 

shoals are provided below. It should be noted that the deposits associated within the bedform 

shoals consist primarily of Holocene shelf sands, Holocene muds, and exposed Pleistocene 

deposits (Theiler et al. 2014).

Sorted Bedforms

Sorted bedforms (also called rippled scour depressions) are bathymetrically subtle, large-scale 

bed features that are characterized by alternating bands of coarse- and fine-grained sediment with 
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

23

wavelengths of hundreds of meters (Van Oyen et al. 2011), and negative relief of ~1m that trend 

obliquely to the coast (Figure 2-6; Guitierrez et al. 2005).

Figure 2-6a.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

24

Figure 2-6b.

Figure 2-6. Characteristics of sorted bedform shoals off of Wrightsville Beach, NC. 

a) A sidescan sonar mosaic covering the lower shoreface and inner-shelf of Wrightsville Beach, North 

Carolina denoting the presence of organized high backscatter (lighter areas) regions extending from the 

shoreface onto the inner shelf. These linear features correspond to very coarse sand and shell-hash 

providing a reflective surface compared to the darker areas, which are typically comprised of fine-tomedium sand. Outlined area denotes the inner-shelf region investigated by Guitierrez et al (2005). b)

Closeup portion of the sidescan mosaic shown in a, with cross sections Y-Y’ and Z-Z’ showing the vertical 

distribution of facies. Note that the coarser sand is located within the troughs and the sediment on the 

ridges is actually finer grained. Source: Guitierrez et al. 2005.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

25

According to Theiler et al. (2014), where there is a dominant direction of suspended sediment 

transport, sorted bedforms tend to be asymmetrical, with coarser flanks facing updrift, into the 

direction of dominant sediment transport (Murray and Theiler, 2004: Goff et al. 2005; Gutierrez 

et al. 2005). Theiler et al. (2014) state that in locations where there is no dominant current 

direction, sorted bedforms tend to be symmetric (e.g., Goff et al. 2005; Diesing et al. 2006). The 

coarse material is in the troughs (or swales) and the ridges are finer grained. According to 

Murray and Theiler (2004), sorted bedforms are self-organizing features due to the interaction of 

frictional sediment transport, bottom composition, and turbulence, with bottom roughness over 

the troughs causing turbulence that inhibits the settling of fines within the troughs (Figure 2-6).

Active bedforms can migrate tens of meters in a month in some cases, as Goff et al. (2005) found 

off of Martha’s Vineyard, MA. Other sorted bedforms can be relatively stable as Diesing et al. 

(2006) found off the German Bight in the North Sea where the bedforms had not migrated in 26 

years.

A regionally extensive field of sorted bedforms is found offshore of the NC Outer Banks,

extending between Capes Hatteras and Lookout (an area known as Raleigh Bay) and covering 

over 1000 km2 (Figure 2-7; Murray and Thieler 2004). Along their study area, according to 

Thieler et al. (2014), the northeastern margin of the sorted bedforms is found about 10 km west 

of Cape Hatteras and can be divided into four distinct regions, based on bedform characteristics 

(Figure 2-7). This includes:

• Region A) shore perpendicular and moderately asymmetrical (wavelengths of 1.5 km and 

heights of 0.75-1.5 m) south of Cape Hatteras; 

• Region B) north-central Raleigh Bay, where they are slightly shore oblique, with very 

low amplitude (>50 cm);

• Region C) south-central Raleigh Bay where they are larger and better organized towards 

the southwest, converging on a wavelength of ~700 m and heights of 0.5-1.5 m, they are 

more symmetrical within this region and steeper than those found to the north; and,

• Region D) in southern Raleigh Bay the crests and troughs of the sorted bedforms are less 

continuous and their orientation is increasingly shore oblique towards Cape Lookout, and 

they have the morphology consistent with shore-oblique ridges.

Linear Shelf Sand Shoals (Ridges)

Along the mid-Atlantic coast, linear shore-normal shelf sand shoal complexes are most 

prominent along the Delaware-Maryland-Virginia inner shelf, where they are the dominant 

features (Hayes and Nairn 2004; Swift and Field 1981; Figures 2-8 and 2-9). According to Swift 

and Field (1981), there are three basic types of linear shore-normal shelf sand shoal (called ridge 

and swale by the authors) morphologies found within the Delaware-Maryland system, they 

include shore-attached ridges (0-3 m isobaths), nearshore ridges (6 to 18 m isobaths and within 

10 km off shore) and offshore ridges (greater than 10 km offshore). Each ridge is roughly 3-4 km 

long and 0.5-1 km wide with ridges spaced 1-4 km apart. Relief varies depending on the type.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

26

Figure 2-7a.

Figure 2-7b.

Figure 2-7c.

Figure 2-7. Characteristics of the Continuum of Morpho-Sedimentary Bedforms. 

a) Sidescan sonar mosaic of the lower shoreface and inner shelf of Raleigh Bay from Cape Hatteras to 

Cape Lookout (Outer Banks of NC), with four distinct regions along a continuum of morpho-sedimentary 

bedforms. Darkest areas have the least sand and are dominated by sorted bedforms (e.g. due south of 

Cape Hatteras and both north and south of Oregon Inlet [OI]). Increased sand in longshore drift creates

larger shoals (e.g., just north of Cape Lookout, where shore-attached ridges are found). Intermediate 

sand volumes in the longshore drift create linear, shore-normal to oblique ridges. b) Sidescan data 

draped over bathymetry and rotated to a perspective view along the southern (A) and northern (B) ends 

of Raleigh Bay with profiles showing relative seafloor bathymetry and backscatter intensity with coarse 

sediments denoted by arrows. c) Shaded relief of Oregon Shoal and Platt Shoals looking west, and of 

Wimbel Shoals looking north. Source: Theiler et al. 2014.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

27

Figure 2-8. Shoal fields off of the Maryland-Delaware coast. 

An example of the offshore linear shoal found off of Delaware and Maryland. The shoals are similar to 

those found off of North Carolina, exhibiting the continuum of morpho-sedimentary bedforms described in 

Fig. 2-7 and comparable shoal fields extend up through New Jersey and along the Long Island shelf. 

Source: Conkwright and Gast, 1995.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

28

Figure 2-9a.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

29

Figure 2-9b.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

30

Figure 2-9c.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

31

Figure 2-9d.

Figure 2-9. Shoals along the Mid-Atlantic Bight. 

a) Map view and fathometer profiles of shore-attached shoals. b) Bathymetry of Assateague Shoal Field, 

showing near shore and offshore linear shore oblique shoals. c) Map view and fathometer profiles from 

transects across offshore shoals. d) Map view and fathometer profiles across nearshore shoals. Source:

Swift and Field, 1981.

Swift and Field (1981) state that there is a continuum in linear shore-normal shelf sand shoal

complex evolution (which is a subset of the overall shelf morpho-sedimentary continuum of 

bedforms described above). Swift and Field (1981) describe this continuum of “ridge and swale” 

evolution with the features beginning as shore-attached ridges that extend offshore, oriented 

obliquely extending roughly northeast-southwest, where they lose their identity along ~3 m 

isobaths. The shore-attached ridges tend to occur in clusters. Nearshore ridges generally occur 

between the 6 and 18 m isobaths and occur within 10 km of shore. Nearshore ridges have lower 

gradients on their flanks than the shore-attached, have their shallowest points on their southern 

ends and also bifurcate into sub-ridges. The swales associated with the nearshore ridges, 

however, have lower negative relief than the swales associated with the shore-attached ridges.

The offshore ridges are found 10 m and further offshore, have the gentlest slopes and tend to be 

the most asymmetrical. Swift and Field (1981) reached the conclusion that, as sea level rises, 

shore-attached ridges become nearshore ridges and then become offshore ridges, with new shoreattached ridges continually being developed and maintained. Although as Hayes and Nairn 

(2004) pointed out, there are a variety of more advanced and, in some cases, opposing views on 

how inner-shelf and mid-shelf ridge and swales form; most invoke sea level rise as part of the 
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

32

formative process and in all cases, these are active sedimentary systems. In the case of the MidAtlantic ridge and swales, they also have active bedforms both on the ridges and within the 

swales, with the ridges being dominated by sand and a shell-lag/gravel mix and the swales 

containing both sand and mud. Along Maryland and Delaware, Swift and Field (1981) found that 

the ridges are migrating in the direction of along-shelf transport at a rate of 1 km/1000 yrs or 1 

m/y.

Linear ridge complexes comparable to the Delaware-Maryland-Virginia shelf, oriented parallel

to the dominant wave approach direction are the most commonly observed features along the 

continental shelves in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of Florida, and 

the northeastern GOM (see examples in Figures 2-8 through 2-10. Waves approach from the 

northeast in the Mid-Atlantic Bight and from the southeast in the northeastern GOM. These sand 

ridges are generally over 1000 m long, 1 to 4 km wide with wavelengths of 1 to 11 km, with 

relief up to 12 m, and side slopes that average approximately 1° (McBride and Moslow 1991, 

Hayes and Nairn 2004, Byrnes et al. 2004b). These well-developed sand ridge fields are found 

predominantly along wave-dominated barrier island coastlines with small tidal ranges (McBride 

and Moslow 1991). The sand ridges in the Mid-Atlantic Bight on the Delaware-Maryland shelf 

occur in all stages of formation (Figure 2-9) and demonstrate the systematic change from shoreattached ridge through nearshore ridge to offshore ridge, reflecting the changes in the hydraulic 

regime (Swift and Field 1981). Fenwick, Weaver, and Isle of Wight Shoals in the Mid-Atlantic 

Bight; Anclote and Captiva; and Resource Area 2 off the coast of Alabama (Figure 2-10) are 

examples of these ridge and trough complexes (Finkl et al. 2007b, Byrnes et al. 2004b).

The west-central Florida shelf is unique in comparison to the other sections of the coast 

discussed in this synthesis. It consists of a veneer of unconsolidated carbonate and siliciclastic 

sediment ranging in thickness from a few centimeters (cm) to 4 m and is underlain be an 

irregular base of Miocene limestone bedrock (Brooks et al. 2003; Duncan et al. 2003; Hine et al. 

2003; Locker et al. 2003). A series of sand ridges exists along the inner to mid shelf 3-25 km 

offshore. These were characterized in detail off of Sanibel Island, FL (Figure 2-11) along the 

west central section of the Florida peninsula (Twichell et al. 2003). Each ridge is about 0.5-1.5 

km wide and 1-15 km long (Finkl et al. 2007b; Figure 2-11). The ridges appear in form and 

process to be on the sediment-starved sorted-bedform portion of the bedforms-shoals continuum. 

It should be noted that the West Florida shelf is quite different from the other shelves discussed 

herein, because of its geologic setting. The West Florida shelf is situated on a carbonate platform 

and the shelf is generally 250 to 325 km wide. In many places the siliciclastic shoals are situated 

proximal to limestone outcrops, which are hard bottoms that provide unique habitats.

2.2 Physical Processes Governing Shoals

2.2.1 Regional Differences between Shelf/Shoal Settings

Physical oceanographic conditions vary among the different shoal settings. This arises both 

because of variations among dominant processes between systems as well as variations in shelf 

configuration.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

33

Figure 2-10a.

Figure 2-10b.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

34

Figure 2-10c.

Figure 2-10. Characteristics of Resource Area 2 shoals off the coast of Alabama. 

a) Sedimentary facies on east Louisiana-Mississippi-Alabama Shelf. b) Surface sediment distribution in 

west Alabama inner continental shelf. c) Nearshore bathymetry for the northeastern Alabama coastal 

zone showing shore oblique shoals comparable to those found off the Mid-Atlantic coast of the USA 

(Figures 2-8 and 2-9), demonstrating the presence of the continuum of morpho-sedimentary bedforms 

along the northeastern GOM coast. Source: Byrnes et al. 1999.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

35

Figure 2-11a.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

36

Figure 2-11b.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

37

Figure 2-11c. 

Figure 2-11. Linear Shoals-Eastern Gulf of Mexico. 

a) Side scan sonar mosaic showing linear sand shoals off of the west coast of Florida. The shoals are widely spaced sand ridges interspersed with 

karstified limestone hard grounds. b) cross-section A showing distribution of sedimentary facies within the shoal. c) cross section B showing 

distribution of sedimentary facies within the shoal. Source: Finkl et al., 2007b.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

38

The inner continental shelf extends across the region immediately seaward of the surf zone 

where waves typically (or frequently) agitate the bed (Wright 1995), and for most coasts, this is 

generally between the 30 and 50 m isobaths. Both the Atlantic and GOM coasts in North 

America are along tectonically passive continental margins. The shape of wave-dominated inner 

continental shelves, and in particular the shoreface profile, of passive margin coasts represents a 

dynamic equilibrium balanced by the input of wave dynamics and sediment supply (Wright 

1995). The noted exception to this would be coasts with drastic alterations to sediment supply 

such as those occurring along active or recently abandoned delta systems where the shoreface 

profile and shoreline orientation are still striving to reach a dynamic equilibrium configuration 

relative to dominant wave and/or tidal conditions. According to Nittrouer and Wright (1994) and 

Wright (1995), the physical oceanographic processes that control sediment transport and 

ultimately control the fluxes of sediment and shape of the profiles of the continental shelves 

include: 1) wind-driven currents along the shelf and across- theshelf (upwelling and 

downwelling); 2) surface gravity waves; 3) tidal currents; 4) internal waves; 5) infragravity 

oscillations; 6) buoyant plumes (positive and negative); and 7) wave-driven surf-zone processes

(Figure 2-12). Process gradients are steep across the inner shelf; as the shelf is traversed from 

deep water to the surf zone, the relative intensities and sometimes the prevailing orientations of

the different types of flows change (Wright 1995).

Figure 2-12. Conceptual diagram illustrating the major physical processes responsible for acrossshelf particulate transport. 

Source: Nittrouer and Wright, 1994.

Bathymetric profiles differ along the continental shelf in the Atlantic and GOM study areas. 

Figure 2-13 shows six inner- to mid-shelf profiles through each of the regional settings where 

most of the shoal areas have been discussed in detail. Profiles A, B and C are each from the 

Middle Atlantic Bight region. Note that Profile C is a short profile because it extends from the 

apex of the Outer Banks of North Carolina, across a series of cape-associated shoals that appear 

to extend to the shelf break where the shelf is the narrowest. Profile A extends across the shoal 

fields of the Delmarva Peninsula and appears to have a break in slope around 30 m of depth.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

39

Profile B extends across the northern section of the Outer Banks and also appears to have a slight 

break in slope around 30 m, suggesting that the break between the inner and mid shelf is around 

30 m of water depth. This break in slope represents the position where the wave orbital velocities 

and the across-shelf sediment transport of sediment generally become depth limited (Wright 

1995). Profile D off the east coast of Florida contains a significant break in slope around 20 m, 

although the shelf is relatively narrow in this area and the outcrops of limestone on the mid and 

outer shelf may be a significant influence on this profile. Along the Mississippi-Alabama GOM 

shelf (Profile E), there is a break in slope around 30 m, representing the inner-mid shelf division

and a second break in slope around 40 m proximal to the shelf break.

Figure 2-13. Cross-shelf bathymetric profiles of the continental shelves of the US Atlantic and Gulf 

of Mexico OCS.

Profiles and maps generated using Geomap App 3.4.1. (Ryan et al., 2009 ).

The Mississippi River Delta shelf (Profile F) is in a low-energy area and the break in slope for 

the inner-mid shelf is at around 20 m. The inner-mid shelf break along the western Louisiana and 

eastern Texas shelf occurs around 25 m. Thus, as Figure 2-13 demonstrates, there is a high 

degree of spatial heterogeneity in shelf geometry across the regions examined in this synthesis. 

As shelf width and slope of the shelf control process gradients, steep and narrow shelves will 

generally have steeper gradients in process than will flatter and wider shelves (Wright 1995). 
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

40

2.2.2 Physical Oceanographic Differences between Shoal Regions

A contrast between the Middle Atlantic Bight and the Louisiana Shelf is provided in Wright 

(1995) and provides a good contrast between the two regions where offshore sand banks are 

discussed in this synthesis. 

Atlantic

According to Wright (1995), the near-bottom flows that facilitate sediment transport and 

morphodynamics in the Mid-Atlantic Bight are storm-dominated. The highest bed stresses and 

highest sediment transport rates coincide with wind events; fair weather flows and tidal currents 

are generally weak. The storms that dominate this region are primarily extratropical storms, 

typically “northeasters,” occurring in the autumn and winter months, with each event having a 

significant onshore component. Although hurricanes occasionally also affect the area, they 

usually do not generate waves as large as those generated by northeasters (Wright 1995). 

According to Wright (1995), on a yearly basis, there is a residual southwesterly bottom drift of 

~6 cm s-1 over the shelf of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. The Gulf Stream turns eastward south of Cape 

Hatteras and does not directly impinge on the shelf of the Mid-Atlantic Bight; however southerly 

flowing water over the shelf ultimately runs seaward at Cape Hatteras where it becomes 

entrained in the Gulf Stream. While tidal currents are relatively weak, they act in concert with 

wave-driven flows and contribute significantly to the total bed stresses (Wright 1995).

Along the Atlantic coast, with the noted exception of the southern tip of Florida, the frequency of 

hurricanes striking a specific section of the coast ranges from once every 4.7 years for the Outer 

Banks of North Carolina to 1-5 strikes in between 1900 and 2010 and major strikes averaging 

once every 1.5 years, with most regions having a strike every 10 years or less and major strikes 

every 50 years or less, The Atlantic coast south of Cape Hatteras is subjected to a much higher 

incidence of hurricanes than along the Mid-Atlantic. These storms are capable of suspending and 

transporting large amounts of sediment. Wren and Leonard (2005) measured sediment transport 

in Onslow Bay associated with the Category 5 hurricane Isabel in 2003. Several days before the 

hurricane passed through the area, it generated long-period swells up to 4 m high resulting in 

shear velocities ranging from 6 to 10 cm s-1 that caused bedload and suspended sediment 

transport. The storm’s winds altered the subtidal currents from 15 cm s-1 towards the southwest 

to 16 cm s-1 towards the northeast. Sediments were reworked 7 cm by the wind-driven waves and 

currents.

Gulf of Mexico

The northern GOM is, in general, a much lower energy regime than the Mid-Atlantic Bight 

(Wright 1995). Physical oceanographic processes are different east and west of the Mississippi 

delta. Waters to the east of the delta are generally not affected by the buoyant Mississippi and 

Atchafalaya River plumes, whereas waters to the west can be. Tidal ranges along the northern 

GOM coast are generally less than 40 cm, as a result, tidal currents tend to be weak. Sedimentary 

processes in the GOM are affected by several weather conditions (cold fronts, tropical storms, 

hurricanes, and extratropical storms as well as discharge from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya 

Rivers. Effects of each are discussed in this section.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

41

Cold Fronts

Although there are no coastal jet-like currents generated by offshore winds along the GOM 

equivalent to those found on the East Coast (Wright 1995), cold fronts and extra-tropical storms 

can still have an impact along the GOM. On the average, there are 46 cold fronts per year that 

pass through the northern GOM (Henry 1979). Cold fronts occur at 3-10 day intervals in a given 

year and are characterized by a pre-frontal phase of high-energy southeasterly winds for 1 to 2 

days, followed by a 12 to 24 hour period of strong northwesterly to northeasterly winds 

following the passage of the front (CO-OPS 2005).

Along the Louisiana shelf west of the Mississippi Delta, from mid-spring to mid-fall, the winds 

are predominantly from the south to southwest and the dominant wave approach is from the 

southwesterly quadrant, with a 40% probability of occurrence (Georgiou et al. 2005). According 

to Georgiou et al. (2005), during the late fall and early spring, the wind regime is controlled by 

the passage of cold fronts, which commonly produce winds blowing from the northeasterly to 

southerly quadrants. However, they note that northeasterly winds blow offshore in central 

Louisiana, and because the fetch is too small to generate waves, the dominant waves (probability 

~80%) propagate from the southwesterly quadrant. Consequently, it is the southwesterly winds 

that control sediment transport along the central Louisiana coast and shelf. They further note that 

waves typically vary from ~0.07 to 0.8 meters although during winter months, cold fronts can 

generate larger waves. For example, in the winter of 2001-2002, 30% of the cold front generated 

waves greater than 1-2 meters (Georgiou et al. 2005).

Moeller et al. (1993) found that cold front passage can have a significant influence on the 

dispersal of both river plume sediment and resuspended sediment from waves. They found that, 

in the chilled shelf waters during the winter, the cold front season can spread suspended sediment 

progressively seaward from the inner shelf to the shelf edge. Pepper et al. (1999) also found that 

cold fronts are an important mechanism for sediment transport within the inner shelf, however, 

the magnitude and transport direction can be highly variable. Kineke et al. (2004) found that cold 

front passage off of the Atchafalaya coast (west of Mississippi delta) resulted in sediment mixed 

through the entire water column during the pre-frontal passage, with a high concentration

boundary layer extending 1 meter thick above the seabed. They further found that the cold front 

passage resulted in onshore transport of sediment both during the pre- and post-frontal passage.

They concluded that the sediment transport during cold front passage drives the chenier-plain

progradation along this section of the coast while most of the remainder of the Gulf shoreline is 

eroding. 

Along the central and southern Texas coast, where the orientation of the coast is 

northeast/southwest, there can be a shore-oblique component to the wind and the passage of 

northern fronts can also result in high-energy conditions. To date, the only peer reviewed 

published data on the role cold fronts play in the morphodynamics of the Texas coast is Davis 

and Fox (1975), which was largely a study of beach dynamics off of Mustang Island along the 

south central Texas coast. It is assumed that the same general processes that govern the sediment 

dynamics of cold front passage along the western Louisiana shelf influence sediment dynamics 

along the Texas coast, however, because the Texas coast has a different orientation than 

Louisiana, further research in this area is warranted for the Texas shelf.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

42

Tropical Storms and Hurricanes

Two storm sources dominate the creation of large wave events along the GOM coast: winter 

storms and hurricanes. The most energetic disturbances and highest waves are produced during 

major hurricanes. On average, a mean significant wave height of 5.1 m has a return interval of 

five years due to tropical storm activity along the Texas coast (Abel et al. 1989). Figure 2-14

shows the hurricane strike frequency along the GOM and Atlantic coasts. With the noted 

exception of the southern tip of Florida, the frequency of hurricanes striking a specific section of 

the GOM coast ranges from once every 4.5 years to once every 14 years, with large storm strikes 

ranging from once every 116 years (Apalachee Bay) to once every 12 years (Mississippi River 

delta region).

Figure 2-14. Hurricane strike frequency throughout the study area. 

Source: http://www.weather.com/weather/hurricanecentral/article/hurricane-strike-frequency_2011-08-12

Relative Importance of Hurricanes/Tropical Storms vs Extra-Tropical Storms

Extra-tropical storms associate with cold fronts occur far more frequently than hurricanes and 

tropical storms, with between 20-40 cold fronts a year passing through coastal Louisiana 

(Chaney 1996; Moeller 1993). Although individual cold fronts are generally less intense than 

hurricanes and tropical storms, Roberts et al. (1987) speculate that cold fronts may exert a 

greater cumulative influence on sediment transport and morphodynamic evolution than tropical 

storms and hurricanes because of their much higher frequency.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

43

Mississippi Plume Influence

Proximal to and toward the west of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River mouths positively 

buoyant, sediment-laden water from the rivers are the dominant control of morphodynamics 

(Wright 1995). All of the discharge from the Atchafalaya and about 53% of that from the main 

Mississippi distributaries turns westward as a buoyant coastal plume of reduced salinity that is 

the primary pathway for the fine sediment that composes the inner shelf bed (Wright 1995).

During the highest discharge periods in spring and early summer, pronounced water column 

stratification develops, resulting in a baroclinic coastal boundary layer that isolates the seabed 

from the direct effects of wind stress (Wright 1995). According to Stone et al. (2009), coincident

with high discharge events from the Atchafalaya River and post-frontal phases of cold front 

events, sediment from the river plume can reach and be deposited on Ship Shoal. Ship Shoal is 

one of the large, sand-dominated shoals in the GOM and is located 50 km offshore of Louisiana.

Sediment resuspension from the Atchafalaya shelf can also transport fluvially-derived finegrained sediment to Ship Shoal. This appears to result in seasonally ephemeral deposition of 

cohesive sediment, occasionally even fluid mud, onto the flanks of Ship Shoal, in layers of up to 

15 cm thick.

Both observational and modeling studies of Ship Shoal (Stone et al. 2009) reveal that from the 

seaward to the landward flank of the shoal, there was a significant wave height attenuation of 

22% for southerly waves and 28% for northerly waves. This dissipation of wave energy over the 

shoal resulted in resuspension and transport of shoal sediment during storm events. This wave 

attenuation also demonstrates the significance of the shoal in shielding the coast from frequent 

cold front and occasional hurricane-derived waves.

2.2.3 Variability of Sediment Transport among Shoals

How a shoal recovers from either a natural physical disturbance such as the impact of a 

hurricane, tropical storm, a severe extra-tropical storm or from an anthropogenic impact, such as 

ship grounding or from sand mining is largely a function of sediment transport, fluxes and 

process. In terms of energy, wave-generated resuspension is the biggest influence on sediment 

transport for the inner shelf for both the east and Gulf coasts. Consequently, water depth is the 

major factor determining sediment transport and flux rates. Along most shoal types, given 

similar conditions and grain size distributions, it can generally be expected that sediment 

transport will be comparable at similar water depths, but across shoals, water depths will vary 

and so will wave-generated currents, sediment transport rates and fluxes. For example, sediment 

transport among cape-associated shoals is primarily controlled by water depth: shallow cape 

shoals are active features still forming, deeper-water cape shoals are largely relict features 

trapped below the fair weather wave base. There may be sediment transport on the surfaces of 

these features, but the shoals themselves are not actively migrating.

Recovery rate between different shoal types relates specifically to the shoal type as well as water 

depth. For example, sorted bedforms are sedimentary features that are actively migrating, but the 

rate of migration is highly variable. Migration rates as high as tens of meters in a month have 

been observed off of Martha’s Vineyard (Goff et al. 2005) while shoal migration off of NC was 

found to be as high as nearly 4 m/y (Thieler et al. 2014). Alternatively, they can be relatively 

stationary, as, with the sorted bedforms found off of the German Bight that did not migrate for a 

26-year period (Diesing et al. 2006). Among sand shoals and shoal fields, both Ship Shoal and 
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

44

St. Bernard Shoals, although originating from Holocene sand bodies, are actively migrating 

features. Ship Shoal migrated at an average rate of 10 m/y from 1887-1983 (Penland et al. 1988).

It appears the West Florida Shelf Sand Ridges have largely remained in fixed positions (Finkl et 

al. 2007b; Locker et al. 2003). The large relict sand banks off of Texas/western Louisiana, 

including Sabine and Heald Banks and Freeport Rocks, have also remained in a relatively fixed 

position since their formation. This is not to say there has not been sediment migration across the 

surface of the banks. Hurricane Rita exposed large, low-relief gravel (shell-hash) ridges on the 

surface of Sabine Bank immediately after the passage of the storm, but they were covered seven 

months later (Dellapenna et al. 2011).

Geotechnical Factors Contributing to Ecosystem Response to Shoal 

Disturbances

For ecosystems associated with these features to survive, they must have some degree of 

resilience to frequent natural disturbance associated with reworking of seafloor sediment during 

the passage of extratropical and tropical storms (e.g. Posey et al., 1996). Dernie et al. (2003)

found that within estuaries, benthic ecosystems within sand-dominated substrates recover after a 

physical disturbance much more quickly than those in mud-dominated substrates. They speculate 

that the rapid recovery within clean sand (sand with no clay) is likely due to the ability for sand 

to be easily transported as bed load. Presumably, this means ecosystems within sandy substrates 

are capable of tolerating disturbances because the substrate is regularly disturbed. In contrast, 

because clay is cohesive, substrates containing clay have a higher critical shear stress and are less 

readily resuspended in a comparable wave environment (Wright 1995). The noted exceptions to

this would be nephaloid layers, where the mud is “fluffy” and easily resuspended, fluid muds and 

areas where there has been recently deposited mud, where the sediment has yet to dewater, such

as within an active delta or mudbelt. Sand shoals are generally not found within active mud belts 

because they would become buried and no longer be shoals. Ephemeral mud accumulation has 

been documented on some shoals, such as Ship Shoal (Stone et al. 2009), however, the mud is 

subsequently eroded. The impact of this temporary mud deposition on the benthic community 

has yet to be addressed.

2.2.4 Assessing Potential Impacts and Recovery of Sand Mining of Shoals: a 

Geological Perspective

Sediment transport rates and fluxes will be major factors in facilitating the natural recovery of a 

shoal after sand mining. However, borrow design, size and location of borrow sites on shoal, 

depth of excavation, water depth, and orientation of the excavation all major factors in shoal 

recovery (e.g. Xu et al. 2014). Assessing how these factors influence shoal recovery can be 

tested using numerical modeling based on an understanding of the pre-mining conditions, and 

physical processing occurring on the shoals in question, as well as details of shoal configuration

and location. Necessary modeling inputs include the detailed surface morphology of the shoal; 

surficial and subsurface sediment type and geotechnical property distributions; benthic boundary 

current measurements for different energy conditions; physical oceanographic time series data 

for currents and waves; long-term meteorological time series of wind, pressure and temperature 

and climate data, capturing interannual and decadal variability; and specifics of the dredging 

design (e.g., location on shoal, excavation depth, orientation, and design geometry.

The surface morphology of the shoals is normally assessed using swath bathymetry, typically 

using multibeam, interferometric or phase and contrast swath bathymetry systems. This is often 
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

45

done in concert with side-scan sonar to acquire higher quality backscatter imagery than produced 

by multibeam or interferometry alone. Phase and contrast systems are typically depth-limited to 

less than 20-30 m, but they collect side-scan sonar and swath bathymetry in a single coregistered unit (e.g. Teledyne Benthos C3D® or Edgetech 6205®). Subsurface extent and 

distribution of strata is accomplished with high-resolution subbottom profiler surveying coupled 

with submersible vibracoring. Because the shoals of interest are sand dominated, vibracoring is 

required rather than gravity coring because gravity cores typically cannot penetrate sandy strata.

Geotechnical properties, such as shear strength, compressibility, Atterberg Limits, permeability, 

water content, and grain size distribution can all be assessed from the sediment cores. In 

addition, a new approach that could be included is profiling of 239+240Pu in sediments. Kuehl et 

al. (2012) demonstrated that 239+240Pu can be used as a geochronological tool in sand deposits, 

comparable to 137Cs geochronology, allowing for direct measurement of the modern 

accumulation of sand on decadal timescales. This tool, although new and not widely applied, 

would potentially allow for a quick assessment of the time-integrated rate of sediment transport 

and provide a good estimate of sediment accumulation/flux rates across the shoal.

To assess benthic boundary layer dynamics, instrumented benthic boundary layer pods are 

deployed to measure in situ benthic boundary layer current structures and sediment flux rates. 

Physical oceanographic and meteorological time series data of wind speed, atmospheric pressure, 

currents and waves are typically collected from ocean observing buoy systems, such as those 

maintained by the NOAA Data Buoy Center (http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov) or state operated buoy 

systems such as the Texas Automated Buoy System (TABS; http://tabs.gerg.tamu.edu) and 

Wave-Current-Surge Information System for Coastal Louisiana (WAVCIS; 

http://www.wavcis.lsu.edu).

A variety of numerical modeling packages exist through both public domain and the private 

sector and will not be discussed further or advocated here. Once the model is built and tested, 

various mining and recovery scenarios can be tested.

Several recent studies have addressed various aspects of the impacts due to shoal mining and the 

rates and degree of recovery associated with this mining. BOEM funded a study of Ship Shoal 

(Stone et al. 2009), one of the largest offshore sand resources along the northern GOM, 

containing an estimated 1.22 billion m3 of fine sand. Ship Shoal sits 50 km offshore of the 

Atchafalaya river mouth. Stone et al. (2009) included data from instrumented pods and sediment 

sampling as well as model simulations. The study revealed that there is modest sediment 

transport occurring across the shoal due to wave attenuation from both the passage of northern 

fronts as well as the passage of tropical storms. When the Atchafalaya River floods, during the 

passage of northern fronts, suspended sediment deposits on the flanks of Ship Shoal and can 

even form fluid muds. Stone et al. (2009) also found that Ship Shoal protects the highly 

vulnerable coastline from incoming waves, providing up to 28% wave energy attenuation.

Modeling efforts reported in this study revealed that waves and wave-induced sediment resuspension would be significantly altered by complete shoal removal. For the case of partial 

removal of the shoal (up to about 1% of shoal volume), Stone et al. (2009) found that changes in 

the wave environment and wave-induced sediment re-suspension would be insignificant.

However, partial removal of sediment could significantly alter the distribution of surface 

sediments. Deeper areas of the shoal tend to accumulate mud (even fluid mud) thus Stone et al. 
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

46

(2009) concluded that dredged pits might also accumulate mud rather than sand after dredging.

For this to be the case on other shoals, there must be a source of fine-grained particles to be 

transported to the excavated area.

Xu et al. (2014) investigated the composition of sediment at two offshore sites within Port Royal 

Sound SC, within the Coosawhatchie River Ebb tidal delta, a borrow site 2 km offshore and a 

control site 10 km offshore. Although ebb tidal deltas are not discussed in detail in this report 

because they are typically located within state waters, this particular study had relevance beyond 

the study of such systems and the results lend themselves to project designs that may be of 

broader interest to our understanding of shoals. The two sites were monitored for changes in 

sediment composition during an 18-month timeperiod, including 6 months prior to mining sand 

at the borrow site as well as 0, 3 6, 9 and 12 months after mining. The borrow site was excavated 

as a wide pit with shallow sloping walls, with the intent that currents would flush any mud 

deposited in it. Although there was mud deposition proximal to the borrow pit, samples collected 

within the pit post-dredging revealed no mud deposition. This study demonstrates that a borrow 

site can be constructed such that it will not accumulate mud, but will accumulate sand, allowing 

it to be re-used as a borrow site when it fills back in with sand. This is likely only true for sites 

where there is a high flux of sand across the site.

CSA et al. (2010) examined potential impacts of dredging on the biology and physical 

oceanography of offshore ridge and shoal features offshore of Fenwick, MD. They examined a 

series of dredging scenarios using three interrelated numerical models (tidal hydrodynamics, 

wave process, and sediment transport):

• Dredging a deep excavation (glory hole) in a specific location on the shoal

• Dredging only the leading edge of the shoal

• Dredging only the trailing edge of the shoal

• Dredging longitudinally in a striped pattern along the crest.

The shoals they examined were far enough offshore that prevailing tidal velocities were small 

and sediment movement was governed by incident wave energy. They found that the likelihood a 

dredged portion of the shoal would refill was related to the site specific physical regime; a 

typically quiescent area would be unlikely to have a sand source for replenishment and only 

major storm conditions would be the primary mechanism enhancing refilling. Conversely, areas 

that are routinely exposed to wave action would be quickly refilled. On the three shoals CSA et 

al. (2010) examined, the shallow crests and leading edges were found to be active areas of 

erosion and deposition. Models predicted that the leading edges are the most active areas and 

would, therefore, refill more quickly than the crest. Trailing edges would refill most slowly.

Models predicted that refilling of crests dredged in longitudinal stripes, with alternating 

untouched areas would be uniform along the length of the excavation. This approach would also 

have the potential to enhance biological recruitment.

CSA et al. (2010) concluded that adverse physical effects could be minimized by:

• Extracting sand from depositional areas, the leading edge, or downdrift margin 

of a shoal
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

47

• Avoiding dredging in upstream erosional areas that feed the depositional areas

• Shallow dredging spread out over a larger area rather than deep dredging in a 

smaller area

• Alternating dredged versus undredged areas down the longitudinal axis of the 

shoal crest

• Excavation in the higher portions of the shoal that are exposed to wavegenerated turbulence.

The authors concluded that the geological models suggested that the dominant physical processes 

would maintain the structural integrity of a shoal of this type even after repeated dredging.

Dibajnia and Nairn (2011) used numerical modeling for a BOEM study titled Investigation of 

Dredging Guidelines to Maintain and Protect the Geomorphic Integrity of Offshore Ridge and 

Shoal Regimes that analyzed more than 180 offshore shoals offshore of the Delmarva Atlantic 

coast, with a wide range of sizes and water depths across the shelf. The study found that shoals 

most influenced by waves had a maximum base depth (water depth at the base of the shoal) of 

30 m. Wave-induced currents were found to be the primary factor in shoal height growth and 

maintenance while tidal and general circulation currents have a greater influence on shoal 

migration. The study determined that a relative shoal height, defined as the ratio of shoal height

(distance from crest to base of shoal) to base depth (H/BD) was an appropriate indicator of shoal 

height growth. They determined that the maximum relative shoal height, (H/BD)max varies from 

0.5 at 10 m depth to 0.75 at 20 m depth. The authors concluded that a shoal that has reached the 

maximum relative shoal height of its base depth can be considered as a “fully grown” shoal, in 

terms of height, at the respective depth, but may still grow with rising sea level, as water depth 

deepens. They surmise that a “fully grown” shoal is more likely to re-grow and rebuild itself to 

the same height after dredging compared to a shoal that has not reached its theoretical maximum 

height potential. In addition, Dibajnia and Nairn (2011) found that shoals in water depths deeper 

than 30 m showed a decrease in height with increasing depth, representing a possible “shoal 

height decrease zone” beyond 30 m depth for this part of the Atlantic shelf. They concluded that 

shoals in this zone would not be expected to grow and would likely not recover in height once 

they are dredged.

Dibajnia and Nairn (2011) noted that the modeling efforts were challenging, with one of the 

challenges related to the representation of benthic boundary layer currents in the model. They 

were able to get the model to successfully re-create the evolution of the Isle of Wight shoal from 

1929, 1975 and 2002 surveys. Eleven shoal-dredging scenarios were run using the model, and 

for each scenario, the Isle of Wight shoal was partially excavated to the -10 m contour to provide 

sand volumes in the range of 1 to 2 million cubic meters. Running the model to predict changes 

in morphology over a 10 to 15 year period, the authors found that after removal of material from 

the shoal, the shoal would reform itself with a smaller volume. They concluded that the volume 

loss was not compensated by transport of sediment from outside of the shoal area therefore.

However, they found that despite the reduction in volume, the model predicted that the reformed 

shoal can attain the same height as that of the former, pre-dredged shoal, under some dredging 

scenarios. They conclude that although the shoals decrease in overall size as a result of dredging, 

there was no evidence in their modeling runs of possible shoal diminishing/deflation after 
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

48

dredging. They further conclude that there was no indication of a critical threshold for dredging 

that, once crossed, would cause the ridge and shoal features to lose their morphologic integrity.

This study also provides a series of dredging guidelines for shoals in the area offshore of 

Delaware, Maryland and Virginia along the Delmarva Peninsula. Recommendations within the 

guidelines include: 

1) shoals with a base depth deeper than 30 m of water should not be dredged because deeper 

shoals have limited potential to grow after dredging; 

2) shoals with a relative shoal height (defined as H/BD, or height divided by base depth) of 

less than 0.5 should not be dredged because shoals with a smaller H/BD ratio are not 

likely to recover after dredging.

3) If shoal recovery to its pre-dredge height is desired, then only shoals that have reached 

their maximum relative shoal height, where (H/BD)max = (BD-5)/BD, are recommended 

for dredging.

4) For shoals with a BD of 21 m (as determined from the modeling of Isle of Wight Shoal), 

dredging from the shoal crest is not recommended and when dredging from the top of the 

shoal, relative shoal height should not be reduced to less than 0.65 (i.e. removal of more 

than 1.3 m) after dredging or the shoal will not re-grow to the same pre-dredge height.

5) Sand should not be removed from the entire length of the shoal, i.e. dredging along the 

axis of the shoal, because it affects wave-focusing processes and the shoal does not 

recover to the same pre-dredge height.

6) For the Mid-Atlantic, it is recommended that sand be dredged from the SW side of the 

shoal, because a) wave-focusing is concentrated on the NE side of the shoal; b) overall 

shoal migration is towards the southwest.

The reader is referred to Dibajnia and Nairn (2011) for further recommendations and discussion, 

including suggestions for studying shoal fields in other regions. Results presented here are based 

on modeling simulations that have not been validated with field data. Further work is warranted 

to field validate the model results and improve model accuracy.

2.3 Distribution of Shoals in BOEM OCS Planning Areas

Two main regions of interest are covered in this review: the Atlantic OCS Region and the GOM 

OCS Region. The OCS is defined as all submerged lands, subsoil, and seabed lying from the 

seaward extent of State jurisdiction out to approximately 200 nautical miles (nm) (370 

kilometers (km), federal jurisdiction). State jurisdiction generally extends from shore out to 3 nm 

(5.6 km), except for the Gulf Coasts of Florida and Texas where the boundary is 3 marine 

leagues (9 nm, 16.7 km). The Atlantic OCS ranges from Maine southward to the Straits of 

Florida. The GOM OCS extends from the area off the western coast of Florida through Texas. 

Each of these regions has unique physical and biological characteristics, along with a host of 

species and fisheries that are both ecologically and economically important. A summary of EFH, 

fisheries, and species of particular regulatory interest (e.g., endangered, threatened, species of 

concern, or candidates for listing) is provided in Appendix B.
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

49

2.3.1 Atlantic OCS Region

The Atlantic OCS region is divided by BOEM into four planning areas: North Atlantic, MidAtlantic, South Atlantic, and Straits of Florida (Figure 1-1). In the North and Mid-Atlantic 

regions, the shelf extent generally coincides with the 100-m isobaths. The North and MidAtlantic areas are separated by the Georges Bank Basin in the north and the Baltimore Canyon 

Trough in the south. Historically, BOEM has not had interest in OCS sand sources in the 

northern portion of the North Atlantic Planning Area. Therefore, for the purposes of this 

analysis, only the southern portion of the North Atlantic planning area (extending from southern 

New Jersey to the south shore of Long Island NY) is of interest. Sorted bedforms, including sand 

ridge and trough complexes, also characterize the continental shelf in this region (Figure 2-15).

McBride and Moslow (1991) identified 245 shoreface-attached and detached sand ridges from 

navigation charts (scale 1:100,000 and 1:250,000) covering the coast from Long Island to North 

Carolina.

Figure 2-15. Approximate distribution of shoals along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico OCS.

The South Atlantic Region is dominated by three physical features; from the coastline: the 

Florida-Hatteras Shelf, the Florida-Hatteras Slope, and Blake Plateau. The Straits of Florida 

connects the Atlantic Ocean to the GOM and its physiography is influenced by reef structure and 

sediment along with the Florida Current (part of the Gulf Stream). The southern Florida inner 

continental shelf has 14 identified large and well developed sand ridges (McBride and Moslow 

1991). A detailed summary of the characteristics of the Atlantic OCS is found in the 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Energy Development and 

Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (Chapter 4 in MMS 

2007).
2.0 GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY

50

2.3.2 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

BOEM has divided the GOM OCS region into three planning areas: Eastern GOM, Central 

GOM, and Western GOM (Figure 1-2). The GOM OCS contains three of the seven GOM 

physiographic provinces: the South Florida Continental Shelf and Slope, the Northeast GOM, 

and the Northern GOM (Antoine 1972). The South Florida Continental Shelf and Slope is the 

submerged section of the Florida peninsula that extends along the west Florida coast from 

Apalachee Bay southward to the Straits of Florida. The Northeast GOM contains the West 

Florida Shelf and Terrace which extends from the eastern side of Apalachee Bay, Florida to just 

east of the Mississippi River Delta. The West Florida Shelf is separated from the deeper Gulf 

Basin by the Florida Escarpment. The Northern GOM contains the Mississippi-Alabama Shelf 

and the Texas-Louisiana Shelf. The Mississippi Fan, which extends from the Mississippi River 

Delta to central abyssal plain, is the major geologic feature in this province. The eastern side of 

the Texas-Louisiana Shelf is cut by the Mississippi Canyon to the southwest of the Mississippi 

River Delta. A detailed summary of the characteristics of the GOM OCS is found in the 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Energy Development and 

Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (Chapter 4 in MMS 

2007).

Bedform shoals, including shore-attached ridges, shelf sand ridges and sorted bedforms have 

been identified along the West Florida Shelf (Figure 2-14). Linear shelf sand shoals have been 

identified along the Mississippi-Alabama Shelf east of the Mobile Bay (AL) entrance.

Relict Holocene coastal deposits are the major features on the inner continental shelf of the 

northwest GOM. These include Ship Shoal, St. Bernard Shoal, Sabine and Heald Banks as well 

as Freeport Rocks (Dellapenna et al. 2011; Wells et al. 2009).

2.4 Summary

Several distinctive types of sand deposits are of interest for both borrow area and wind energy 

siting purposes – bedform shoals are prevalent in the Mid-Atlantic, southern Atlantic and eastern 

GOM coasts of the US, cape-associated shoals that are prevalent in the southern Mid-Atlantic to 

southern Atlantic coast, relict Pleistocene/Holocene deposit shoals exist along the Mid-Atlantic, 

and relict Holocene sand banks/shoals that are most prevalent in the GOM. Each type is 

somewhat distinct in terms of its genesis, physical dimensions, and current status of reworking or 

migration. These distinctions suggest that the different shoal types might also have a unique 

morpho-sedimentary response to sand removal. Restoration of habitat after sand removal is one 

of the major concerns raised during discussions on shoal alteration. As discussed in the following 

chapters, the value and function of shoal habitats must first be understood before the implications 

of impacts to these habitats may be thoughtfully considered.
3.0 VALUE AND FUNCTION OF SHOAL HABITAT

51

3.0 Value and Function of Shoal Habitat

3.1 Value of Shoal Habitat

Habitat is the space occupied by an organism, population, or community. Shoals and shoal 

complexes provide habitat to a wide range of marine organisms. These features provide habitat 

and micro-habitats that vary in type from the high-energy crests to the low-energy troughs often 

found in shoal complexes. Since all marine habitats have value to those organisms that occupy 

and rely on them, determining the “value” of shoal habitat requires a judgment based on 

attributes such as:

• Productivity

• Biodiversity

• Numbers of ecologically important species

• Numbers of economically important species

• Numbers of species of conservation importance

• Numbers of species unique to shoals

• Rarity of the habitat

• Ecosystem services provided by shoals

These attributes must be considered in a relative sense, by comparison of shoals to other marine 

habitats. The spatial distribution of organisms on shoal habitat versus non-shoal habitat provides 

the basis for this comparison. Reported information for shoal habitats of the U.S. Atlantic or 

GOM OCS, suggests a unique importance of shoals to fish and invertebrate communities (see 

Sections 4.1 and 4.2).

Although comparisons of biological communities among shoal and non-shoal habitats can help 

to characterize the value provided by shoals, understanding the function of shoal habitat is 

essential for preserving that value. How shoals function to provide habitat is the product of a 

complex mix of connections between biological processes and physical factors, known as

biophysical coupling. This biophysical coupling results in the observed patterns of faunal 

distributions related to shoals and shoal complexes. Associations between physical factors and 

the distribution of marine organisms provide insight into these connections, and these 

associations are discussed in Section 3.2.

3.2 Biophysical Coupling and the Function of Shoal Habitat

In coastal marine environments, interactions between marine organisms and landform 

development processes are an important factor in structuring benthic habitat. These interactions 

related to biogeomorphology may be biologically dominated or physically dominated. In some 

biologically dominated habitats such as coral reefs, serpulid (Polychaeta: Serpulidae) worm 

reefs, or mussel beds, the biogenic structures formed by marine organisms provide the essential 

structure of the habitat. Much of the low-energy soft-bottom habitat of the ocean floor is 

biologically dominated, with infaunal organisms influencing sediment texture, boundary-layer 

flow, sediment transport and sediment oxygen levels through burrowing and feeding activities 

and the formation of biogenic structures (Snelgrove and Butman 1994).
3.0 VALUE AND FUNCTION OF SHOAL HABITAT

52

In contrast to these biologically structured habitats, shoal habitats are physically dominated, and 

occur in high-energy environments. Shoals are morphologically dynamic features. Change in 

these features is driven mostly by waves and currents during episodic weather events such as 

northeasters (or “nor’easters”), tropical storms, and hurricanes as well as other lower-intensity 

weather events. The small-scale morphodynamics relevant to shoal formation and re-working 

involves sediment transport processes including suspended load (sediment in water column) and 

bed load (sediment on or near bottom) transport. 

The same unique hydrodynamic conditions that result in shoal formation or re-working provide 

water flow conditions and a disturbance regime that influences biological processes (e.g., food 

availability, feeding strategies, dispersal strategies, community succession). For example, shoal 

crests are more shallow than the surrounding sea floor, creating an island of lower bottom depth 

that may provide a refuge from hypoxia (Dubois et al. 2009) or may provide sufficient light 

levels to support higher densities of benthic diatoms (Grippo et al. 2009). Both fish and benthic 

invertebrates are directly sensitive to oxygen levels. In addition,the density of benthic diatoms, 

which require light for photosynthesis, can influence species composition and productivity of 

faunal communities at multiple higher trophic levels. Increases in oxygen and/or sunlight can 

result in higher organic matter production. Organic matter that accumulates in the sediments as a 

food source can directly influence the distribution of benthic organisms. 

A number of physical factors have been associated with the distributions of marine benthic 

organisms and demersal fishes. Important factors at spatial scales relevant to understanding how 

shoals function include:

• Hydrodynamic regime

• Bottom depth

• Sediment conditions (e.g., sediment texture, organic content)

Identifying causal relationships among potentially important physical, chemical, and biological 

factors is complicated by the fact that many of these factors often co-vary. Wave-generated 

currents are higher on the shallow crests of shoals than in the troughs. This typically results in 

larger sediment grain sizes on the crests than in the lower-energy environments below shoal 

crests (although this pattern may be reversed in shoal types such as sorted bedforms). Organic 

content is inversely correlated with grain size of the sediments (Hyland et al. 2005), and both 

light and temperature are among the parameters that co-vary with bottom depth (see Section 4.1).

Thus, although the distribution of fish and benthic invertebrate communities is often associated 

with bottom depth and sediment texture, the relative importance of potential causal mechanisms 

behind these associations is difficult to identify. 

In addition to the challenge of identifying causal relationships among potential forcing factors 

that may be associated with the biological communities found on shoals, there is also the reality 

that many conditions of shoals (e.g., particular flow rates, bottom depth, or sediment texture) are 

the same as those found elsewhere in the marine environment. Therefore, it is helpful to ask the 

question: “What characteristics are both relatively unique to and universal among shoals?” 

• Shoals are an area of greater relief than elsewhere on the surrounding seafloor. 

• Shoals are composed of unconsolidated sediments that often vary in texture by location 

within the shoal habitat. 
3.0 VALUE AND FUNCTION OF SHOAL HABITAT

53

• Relief offers organisms access to a wider range of bottom depths over shorter distances 

than is found in areas of flat bottom. 

• Habitats in close proximity at different bottoms depths within a shoal complex also offer 

different hydrodynamic and sediment conditions, providing habitat complexity and 

nearby refuge from higher energy hydrodynamic conditions. 

In considering factors that may affect the function of shoal habitat, it may also be helpful to ask: 

“Are there dominant forcing functions to which other factors or processes associated with shoal 

ecology can be traced?” For example, hydrodynamic conditions may be the driving factor behind 

both the formation and ecology of certain shoals. 

Investigations of these associations can provide insight into biophysical coupling mechanisms 

that are most influential in determining the value of shoal habitat. Many of these connections are 

poorly understood and the relative importance of each may vary spatially from one shoal habitat 

to another or over time at a particular shoal.
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

54

4.0 Biological Resource Usage of Shoal Habitats

4.1 Benthos

Benthic invertebrate communities are diverse and productive components of OCS ecosystems. 

These communities are an essential part of marine food webs, and perform important functions 

such as filtering large volumes of suspended particles from the water column, cycling nutrients 

in the sediments, and providing a food source for fish and other organisms. Spatial and temporal 

variation in benthic prey items can affect the growth, survival, and population levels of predator 

species at all higher trophic levels. Therefore, understanding the value of shoal habitat to benthic 

communities is essential to understanding potential impacts to this habitat from sand and gravel 

mining or offshore alternative energy development.

Benthic invertebrates in soft-bottom habitats are grouped based on whether they normally live 

within, or on the surface of the sediments. Infaunal organisms live within unconsolidated 

sediments, while epifauna reside on the surface. Benthic organisms are further delineated based 

on body size into different sub-components of the benthic community. Megafauna (greater than 1 

cm), macrofauna (greater than 0.5 milimeters [mm]), meiofauna (less than 0.5 mm), and 

microfauna (less than 0.05 mm) are typically considered separately based on differing ecological 

roles and sample collection methodologies. Despite this classification, benthic studies are rarely 

designed to strictly delineate a particular component of the benthic community. Grab samples 

capture both epifauna and infauna, and a 0.5-mm-mesh screen (often used for macrofaunal 

surveys; although 0.3-mm and 1-mm screens are also used) retains both megafauna and 

macrofauna (along with some meiofaunal organisms). Comparisons among studies therefore 

require careful attention to the details of sampling and processing methodology. Although most 

surveys of soft-bottom benthos on the Atlantic or GOM OCS have focused on macrofauna 

(Brooks et al. 2006), epibenthic megafauna are collected in bottom-trawl surveys, and are often 

reported along with fish data (Bonzek et al. 2008). Based on available research, most of this 

benthos review focuses on macrofaunal and megafaunal invertebrates. 

4.1.1 Habitat Associations and Spatial Distribution

The spatial distribution of benthic invertebrates relative to shoal complex habitat (both shoal 

versus non-shoal and ridge versus swale) provides insight into the value and function of this 

habitat for benthic communities. The extent to which species or assemblages are found 

exclusively on shoals, the relative diversity and productivity of benthic communities on shoals in 

comparison to nearby habitat, and the use of shoals by economically or ecologically important 

species and species of conservation concern, are all relevant to understanding the value and 

function of shoal habitat.

Distribution of benthic organisms and assemblages is influenced by a number of physical and 

biological factors. The factors associated with observed patterns of faunal distribution vary at 

different spatial scales. At large spatial scales, faunal distribution varies with geography (e.g., 

latitude) and bathymetry (Wigley and Theroux 1981; Theroux and Wigley 1998). At this scale, 

Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) have been delineated based on bathymetry, hydrography, 

productivity, and trophically related populations (Sherman et al. 2004). Three LMEs have been 

identified for the U.S. Atlantic and GOM: (1) the Northeast Shelf, (2) the Southeast Shelf, and 

(3) the GOM. Each of these LMEs can be further divided into subareas. For example, the 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

55

Northeast Shelf LME, which extends from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to the Scotian Shelf 

(in northeastern Gulf of Maine), can be divided into four subareas: (1) the Gulf of Maine, (2) 

Georges Bank, (3) Southern New England, and (4) the Mid-Atlantic Bight (Aquarone and 

Adams 2009). Although many species have broad geographical ranges, occurring in multiple 

LMEs, the species composition of benthic faunal assemblages will vary considerably over these 

large geographic spatial scales. Hence, the species composition of benthic invertebrate 

communities from shoals in the Mid-Atlantic differs from those in the GOM. 

Brooks et al. (2006) reviewed the available literature on benthic faunal assemblages associated 

with shoals in the Atlantic and GOM. Macrofauna were the target of most survey efforts, and the 

composition and distribution of macrofaunal assemblages was described by this review. In those 

references that identified dominant species from the Atlantic OCS, the spionid polychaete 

Spiophanes bombyx was most often cited as the numerical dominant. The amphipod genera 

Ampelisca and Unicola; the bivalve genera Ensis, Nucula, Tellina, and Astarte; the archiannelid 

genus Polygordius; and the echinoid Echinarachnius parma were also commonly reported as 

dominants (Brooks et al. 2006). In surveys from the GOM, the spionid polychaete Prionspio 

pinnata was most often cited as the numerical dominant. Other dominant taxa from the GOM

included the polychaetes Sigambra tentaculata and Magelona phyllisae, the amphipod genera 

Ampelisca, and the bivalve, Mulinia lateralis (Brooks et al. 2006). Thus, at the species level, 

macrofaunal assemblages of shoal habitats differ over large spatial scales. These differences 

result from the large scale, long-term physical (e.g., continental drift; variations in sea level, 

climate change, ocean current patterns) and biological (e.g., speciation, extinction, organismal 

dispersal capacities) processes that determine the biogeography of individual species. 

Nonetheless, benthic ecologists have long recognized similarity in community structure at higher 

taxonomic levels among similar bottom habitats across broad geographic scales (Thorson 1957).

Although shoals of the Atlantic may be occupied by different species than shoals of the GOM, 

the overall composition of shoal communities considered at higher taxonomic levels is very 

similar. For example, Brooks et al. (2006) reported that polychaetes were listed as the dominant 

taxon in infaunal surveys from both of these regions. And the numerical dominant most often 

cited from each region is a spionid polychaete. 

Key questions related to the value and function of shoal habitats are addressed by assessing these

smaller spatial scales, comparing shoals to nearby habitat and within-shoal faunal distributions. 

Within LMEs and subareas, habitat features occur at multiple smaller spatial scales. Patterns of 

benthic faunal distribution in marine systems are known to vary with differences in depth 

(Wigley and Theroux 1981, Theroux and Wigley 1998), and assemblages occur in patchy 

distribution over a kilometers-wide scale on the seafloor, with additional within-patch 

substructure (Zajac 2008). Greene et al. (1999) classified marine benthic habitats based on the 

size of their features as mega (larger than one kilometer), meso (tens of meters to one kilometer), 

macro (one to ten meters), and microhabitats (cm in size and smaller). Shoals are typically 

megahabitats, and are often composed of different meso, macro, and microhabitats defined by 

such factors as exposure, sediment texture, depth, and rugosity. 

Byrnes et al. (2000) reported that infaunal assemblages found on shoal crests off New Jersey 

differed from those occurring in adjacent troughs. Cutter et al. (2000) and Slacum et al. (2010) 

reported similar differences between crests and troughs; observing that uniform bottom areas in 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

56

troughs next to Fenwick Island and Weaver shoals (off Delaware and Maryland) were found to 

be more biologically productive than areas on the crests of those shoals. Species composition 

also differed between the habitats, with sand dollars and filter-feeding epibenthos more prevalent 

on shoal crests than in troughs (Cutter et al. 2000). Shoals and troughs differ in terms of depth, 

sediment composition and hydrodynamic regime. Each of these factors can influence the benthic 

community structure, but it is difficult to isolate the effect of each because they are closely 

linked with one another. Depth affects exposure to wave-generated currents which in turn affect 

sediment deposition along with other water quality parameters. 

The crests of shoals may be shallower than troughs by five meters or more (Byrnes et al. 2000).

Consequently, wave-generated currents will be higher on the crest of the shoal, resulting in a 

graded substrate where much of the mud fraction (i.e. silt and clay particles) have been 

preferentially removed, leaving a coarser substrate (often a mixture of shell lag deposit, 

silicaclastic sands, gravels and concretions). In contrast, the troughs will have a comparatively 

lower-energy regime, both resulting in a lower rate of erosion of muds and potentially an 

environment where muddy sediments occasionally accumulate. 

At the scale of these features in the Mid-Atlantic, sediment composition and hydrodynamics 

appear to be more important than depth in determining faunal-habitat associations (Byrnes et al. 

2000). Patterns of association between benthic communities and sediment grain size composition 

have long been recognized by benthic ecologists (Petersen 1913, Sanders 1958), and are widely 

reported in faunal surveys (Wigley and Theroux 1981, Theroux and Wigley 1998). Nonetheless, 

the causal mechanisms underlying animal-sediment relationships are not fully understood. Along 

with the direct influence of grain size on certain benthic species, causal mechanisms are likely to 

include factors such as hydrodynamic conditions that affect boundary-layer flow and sediment 

transport processes, along with biological factors such as predation and competition (Diaz et al. 

2004b, Snelgrove and Butman 1994). Important physical and chemical factors co-vary with 

sediment texture. High energy, erosional environments result in larger sediment grain sizes,

while low energy, depositional environments result in smaller grain sizes. Organic content of the 

sediments is inversely correlated with grain size (Hyland et al. 2005). Both hydrodynamic 

conditions and organic content of the sediments influence faunal distributions (e.g., based on 

food availability, and species-specific feeding and dispersal strategies). Additional factors, such 

as those associated with bottom depth (e.g., light, temperature), add further complexity to the 

mix of forcing functions that result in observed patterns of faunal distribution. Thus, the relative 

contributions of specific physical, chemical, and biological factors that are most influential in 

determining community composition may defy simple generalizations and are likely to vary 

among shoal habitats based on site-specific conditions (Diaz et al. 2004b, Snelgrove and Butman 

1994).

Within shoals, faunal assemblages are known to differ based on relative percentages of sand 

versus gravel. Byrnes et al. (2000) reported that the sand versus gravel composition of surficial 

sediments was the most influential factor (as determined by canonical discriminant analysis) 

associated with the distribution of infaunal assemblages found on the shoals off New Jersey 

(Table 4-1). Associations between sediment composition and faunal assemblages on shoals and 

nearby habitat have been reported for numerous areas including offshore Louisiana and 

elsewhere in the northern GOM (MMS 2004), and in the Atlantic offshore North Carolina 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

57

(Byrnes et al. 2003), Maryland (Cutter et al. 2000), Delaware (Cutter et al. 2000), New Jersey 

(Byrnes et al. 2004a, b, Byrnes et al. 2000) and New York (Byrnes et al. 2004a). Thus, sediment 

texture has been widely identified as an important microhabitat feature associated with faunal 

distribution. 

Table 4-1. Association of benthic infauna with sediment texture on shoals off New Jersey 

(Byrnes et al. 2000).

Class

Numerically Dominant Taxa

Gravel Sand

Bivalvia Astarte castanea

Crenella decussata

Mytilus edulis

Tellina agilis

Gastropoda Crepidula fornicata

Mitrella lunata

Polychaeta Harmothoe imbricata

Hemipodus roseus

Pisione remota

Caulleriella cf. killariensis

Spiophanes bombyx

Polygordius sp.

Crustacea Acanthohaustorius millsi

Pseudounciola obliquua

Protohaustorius wigleyi

Rheopoxynius hudsoni

Tanaissus psammophilus

Where depth and sediment composition (and also water column attributes such as dissolved 

oxygen, temperature, and salinity) are equivalent, there is little indication that benthic faunal 

assemblages found on shoals are unique. Slacum et al. (2006, 2010) reported that most 

epibenthic invertebrates (e.g., trawl-caught megafauna including gastropods and hermit crabs) 

found on shoals off of Delaware and Maryland had no preference for shoals, and were typically 

more abundant in flat-bottom habitats. 

Although invertebrate assemblages that are unique to shoals have not been reported, some 

evidence of preferential use of shoal habitat over surrounding areas exists for individual species 

and for assemblages. The blue crab is a notable example of a species that has been identified as 

preferring shoals over surrounding habitat (Condrey and Gelpi 2010, Gelpi 2012, Slacum et al. 

2006, Stone et al. 2009). Ship Shoal, off Louisiana, has been identified as an important habitat 

for benthic macroinfauna in the northern GOM. Stone et al. (2009) reported that Ship Shoal 

appears to provide a refuge from the seasonal hypoxia that affects the areas surrounding the 

shoal. A high biomass of benthic diatoms was also reported, which was attributed to light 

availability on the shallow shoal (5 to 11 m depth) that potentially allows for year-round benthic 

primary production. Increased oxygen content and sunlight allow for a taxonomically diverse 

macroinfaunal community with high biomass that may act as a "seed bank", contributing larvae 

for annual recolonization of surrounding areas, and may serve as a link between sandy habitats 

along the coasts of Florida and Texas (Stone et al. 2009).

4.1.2 Habitat Associations and Temporal Distribution

The spatial distribution of benthic invertebrates may change over time. Therefore, to understand 

the value and function of shoal habitat for benthic communities, temporal patterns in the 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

58

distribution of benthic invertebrates must be considered. Changes in faunal distribution over time 

may be cyclical and somewhat predictable such as diel or seasonal patterns associated with life 

history attributes of individual taxa. Other changes may be less predictable; related to changes in 

the environment, such as a decrease in dissolved oxygen, or biological factors, such as an 

increase in predation. Environmental changes may occur over long time scales (e.g., climatic and 

sea level changes) or may unfold over the course of days or even hours. Episodic storm 

disturbance is a major factor influencing the morphology of shoals, and the benthic invertebrate 

inhabitants of the most dynamic features are adapted to the changing conditions in these 

physically-dominated systems. 

Benthic communities on the OCS are known to vary seasonally (Maurer et al. 1976). Slacum et 

al. (2006) surveyed mobile benthic species on shoals and nearby habitats off Delaware and 

Maryland (16 to 25 km off the coast, in 5 to 22 m depth) and found significant seasonal variation 

in assemblages at both shoals and reference sites. Species richness and abundance were both 

highest in summer and fall, and lowest in winter. A total of 17 invertebrate species, including 

seven decapod crustaceans and 10 other species (including sea stars, heart urchins, gastropods, 

cephalopods, and horseshoe crabs) were collected during the surveys. Only two of those species 

(a right-handed hermit crab and a sea star) were present throughout all of the seasonal surveys. 

The authors attributed this to the extreme seasonal temperature ranges that occur within the 

region (Slacum et al. 2006). Boesch (1979) found that in the Mid-Atlantic, seasonal variation in 

benthic communities becomes less apparent with distance offshore and increasing depth. Brooks 

(1991) reported a similar pattern in the western GOM and attributed it to the reduced variability 

in bottom temperature and salinity in deeper waters.

4.1.3 Species of Special Conservation or Fisheries Importance

No invertebrate marine species associated with soft-bottom habitats on the OCS of the U.S. 

Atlantic or GOM are currently listed as federally threatened or endangered (NMFS 2013a).

However, a number of benthic invertebrates in these regions support valuable commercial 

fisheries. 

Commercially important invertebrate species are found in shoal habitats off the U.S. Atlantic 

coast and in the GOM. These include American lobster, sea scallop, hard clam, Atlantic 

surfclam, white shrimp, brown shrimp, pink shrimp, ocean quahog, and blue crab. Examples 

from the GOM include brown shrimp, pink shrimp, royal red shrimp, white shrimp, Florida stone 

crab, gulf stone crab, spiny lobster, and slipper lobster. EFH has been designated for most of 

these species (i.e., sea scallop, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, stone crab, and brown, pink, 

royal red, and white shrimp) (NMFS 2013b). In addition to their commercial value, the large, 

dominant species that support invertebrate fisheries play important ecological roles in benthic 

communities. 

In the sandy shoals off New Jersey, the Atlantic surfclam has been reported as a common and 

often abundant member of benthic communities, dominating the faunal biomass in some areas 

(Burlas et al. 2001, Byrnes et al. 2000). The Atlantic surfclam is the most economically 

important benthic species in or around the shoal habitats of the New York/New Jersey region. 

Byrnes et al. (2000) recommended that surfclam populations should be assessed, and if 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

59

commercial quantities are found, surfclams should be harvested prior to any sand extraction from 

shoals being used as borrow areas. 

Squid were among the most abundant organisms captured over two years of surveys comparing 

seasonal distribution of fish and invertebrates on shoals and nearby flat-bottom habitat (Slacum 

et al. 2010). Slacum et al. (2010) reported that squid were not found on shoals during winter, 

were slightly more abundant on shoals than flat-bottom areas in spring, and were less abundant 

on shoals than nearby flat-bottom areas during summer and fall. 

Further south in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, squid (unspeciated), Atlantic rock crab, and blue crab 

have been reported from shoals off of Delaware and Maryland (Slacum et al. 2010). Atlantic 

rock crab were also less common on shoals than flat-bottom areas during most of the year, while 

blue crab were captured in low numbers on shoals, but were not found on flat-bottom areas at all 

(Slacum et al. 2010). Blue crab has also been identified as an important commercial species 

associated with shoals in the GOM (Condrey and Gelpi 2010, Gelpi 2012, Stone et al. 2009). 

Condrey and Gelpi (2010) reported that during April through October, abundant concentrations 

of spawning and foraging female blue crabs were found on Ship and Trinity Shoals off the coast 

of Louisiana. Although spawning and hatching are typically reported to occur in estuarine 

environments, Gelpi (2012) reported that the shoals off Louisiana are being used for these 

important life functions. Condrey and Gelpi (2010) also reported finding blue crabs spawning, 

hatching, and foraging in offshore habitat (non-shoal) between and surrounding Ship, Tiger, and 

Trinity Shoals. The highest blue crab densities were found on the shoals, and Gelpi (2012)

suggests that the crests of shoals may provide a refuge from hypoxic conditions in deeper waters 

surrounding this habitat. Condrey and Gelpi (2010) concluded that Louisiana shoals and 

surrounding habitat support a large segment of the GOM blue crab fishery. 

Little evidence were found that white or brown shrimp, two other invertebrate species of national 

fisheries importance, are abundant on the Ship, Trinity, or Tiger Shoals off the Lousianna coast 

(Condrey and Gelpi 2010).

4.1.4 Recovery from Disturbance: Recruitment and Colonization

The magnitude and duration of potential impacts to coastal systems from sand and gravel mining 

or offshore alternative energy development in shoal habitats depends, in part, on benthic 

community recovery times. Recovery time following physical disturbance of the benthos is 

partly dependent upon how "recovery" is defined and measured. Faunal density, faunal biomass, 

species richness, or community composition have all been used to measure community 

"recovery" (Brooks et al. 2006). Although density or biomass may provide some indication of 

the trophic value of recolonized benthos, species composition data are also needed to fully 

characterize community function. Brooks et al. (2006) reported that density may recover quickly 

after physical disturbance of the benthos, while diversity followed by community composition 

may take several years or more to recover. Thus, a community of early successional stage 

species that differs from the original community but provides trophic value to the overall system 

may indicate a partial recovery of the benthos; while full recovery may be defined as the return 

of a community that is highly similar to the original community composition, prior to 

disturbance.
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

60

The recovery of disturbed benthic communities is ultimately dependent upon colonization 

processes. Recolonization of the benthos involves a range of processes including larval transport, 

settlement, recruitment, adult migration, competition, and predation (Osman and Whitlatch 1998, 

Snelgrove et al. 2001). These processes are influenced by both physical and biological factors, 

which vary with location and habitat type. For example, communities found in sandy bottoms of 

high-energy environments tend to recolonize more quickly than those occurring in lower-energy 

environments with a higher percentage of fine particles (Dernie et al. 2003). Hence, in most 

cases, recovery is expected to occur more quickly on shoal ridges than in shoal troughs. Faster 

recolonization in shallow, high-energy environments may reflect the adaptation of communities 

that occur in these habitats to frequent disturbance from episodic storm events.

Brooks et al. (2006) reviewed times for species composition recovery from sand mining in U.S. 

Atlantic or GOM coastal waters. Reported recovery times generally ranged from 3 months to 2.5 

years, with one study (Turbeville and Marsh 1982) reporting changes in community parameters 

five years post-dredging. Time scales for recolonization also varied by taxonomic group. 

Polychaetes and crustaceans recovered most quickly (several months) while deep burrowing 

mollusks were slowest to recover (several years) (Brooks et al. 2006).

Several practices have been suggested to reduce recovery times for benthic communities 

following sand or gravel mining. If dredging activities create a depression that enhances 

deposition of fine sediments, the associated infaunal assemblage may change from the predredging assemblage. Byrnes et al. (2004a) concluded, therefore, that recovery and 

recolonization would be best achieved if creation of such depressions was avoided. Timing of 

dredging prior to the peak recruitment period of spring and summer, along with the preservation 

of local refuge patches to maximize the rate and success of benthic recolonization have also been 

suggested to improve recovery times (Byrnes et al. 2004a, Brooks et al. 2006).

4.2 Fishes

The Atlantic and GOM OCS support a variety of fish species and finfish assemblages that are 

associated with various depths (Moore et al. 1970, Grosslein and Azarovitz 1982, Colvocoresses 

and Musick 1984, Overholtz and Tyler 1985, Gabriel 1992, Mahon et al. 1998, Methratta and 

Link 2006) and exhibit a pattern of increasing species diversity from northern to southern 

latitudes (Love and Chase 2007). Species composition and distribution patterns have been 

determined for several regional fish assemblages (Moore et al. 1970, Colvocoresses and Musick 

1984, Overholtz and Tyler 1985, Gabriel 1992), and a number of summary and multidisciplinary 

publications have documented linkages between finfish species and habitat types and/or features 

within these assemblages (SAFMC 1998, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

[GMFMC] 1998, Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002, NMFS Technical Memorandums, EFH 

Source Documents series, and NMFS 2009). Seasonal and interannual variation in species 

diversity and abundance also are common in the OCS. For example, in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, 

the majority of the fish migrate seasonally, with boreal species present in the winter, and warmtemperate/sub-tropical species present in the summer, due to the extreme seasonal differences in 

water temperatures (Musick et al. 1986). As a result, the highest diversity of demersal and 

pelagic fishes typically occurs in the early fall and the lowest diversity occurs in the winter to 

early spring (Colvocoresses and Musick 1984).
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

61

To characterize distribution, abundance, biomass, and diversity of fishes, a number of sampling 

methods have been used in the Atlantic and GOM. The particular sampling method utilized is 

often determined by the species and life stage under investigation, site-specific habitat 

characteristics, or other environmental factors. Many articles and books have been written to 

describe fisheries sampling methodologies and protocols (e.g., Zale et al. 2012). Shoals and shoal

complexes characterize large areas of the Atlantic and GOM OCS however, these habitats and 

their use by marine organisms are among the least studied of all offshore marine habitats. The 

focus of fish assemblages in relation to habitat has been on reef-associated and deep continental 

shelf communities or on individual species lifestage specific habitat utilization (Walsh et al. 

2006, Gilmore 2008, Slacum et al. 2010). The sampling methods that have been used to 

investigate marine organism utilization of shoal complex habitats include: hydrological 

multiparameter sondes, plankton nets, various types and sizes of trawls, benthic sleds (with nets 

or cameras), gillnets, remotely operated vehicles, sediment profile cameras, split-beam 

bioacoustic systems, and Global Positioning System intergrated side-scan sonar (Auster et al. 

1995, Steves et al. 1999, Diaz et al. 2003, Szedlmayer and Lee 2004, Brooks et al. 2005, Able et 

al. 2006, Slacum et al. 2006, Walsh et al. 2006, Mikulas and Rooker 2008, Vasslides and Able 

2008a, Wells et al. 2009, Zarillo et al. 2009, Slacum et al. 2010). Table 4-2 provides a summary 

of sampling approaches for some of the studies included in this Synthesis.

4.2.1 Description of Fishes Associated with Shoals and Shoal Complex Habitats

A diverse number of fish species utilize shoals and shoal complex habitats in the Atlantic and 

Gulf Mexico OCS (Diaz et al. 2003, Brooks et al. 2005, Walsh et al. 2006, Gilmore 2008, 

Vasslides and Able 2008a, Slacum et al. 2010). These species are usually common members of

the local shallow continental shelf fish assemblage including several economically and 

ecologically important species (Diaz et al. 2004a, Brooks et al. 2005, Geary et al. 2007, Gilmore 

2008, Stone et al. 2009, Wells et al. 2009). The diversity and abundance of fish species utilizing 

shoals and shoal complexes is believed to vary with geographic area from north to south and 

from inshore to offshore in response to regional environmental factors and ecological processes 

(Walsh et al. 2006, Vasslides 2007, Gilmore 2008). Spatial variation in fish habitat utilization 

within a shoal may also exist (Diaz et al. 2003, Vasslides and Able 2008a), especially if the shoal 

extends from the beach to several miles offshore (Gilmore 2008).

Multiple life stages (eggs, larvae, settled juveniles, and adults) of a number of fish species have 

been documented in shoals and shoal complexes, indicating that these habitats may be important 

to specific ontogenetic periods depending on species (Auster et al. 1997, Diaz et al. 2003, Able et 

al. 2006, Walsh et al. 2006, Geary et al. 2007, Gilmore 2008, Mikulas and Rooker 2008,

Vasslides and Able 2008a, CSA et al. 2010).
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

62

Table 4-2. Studies investigating shoals and shoal complexes in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf regions.

Study Study Area Shoal Type Sampling Approach

Brooks et al. 2005 Heald and Sabine Banks off 

the coast of Texas, Tiger and 

Trinity Shoals off the coast of 

Louisiana, and two control 

areas one near each of the 

shoal areas. No benthic 

sediment or habitat 

information was provided for 

the control areas except that 

they did not contain 

exploitable sand resources.

Authors: Natural sand 

banks

Synthesis Category: 

Isolated inner shelf shoal

SEAMAP groundfish survey and associated environmental 

data from 1982-2000 for study areas. Summer and fall trawls 

using a 12.2-m net used from Alabama, Mississippi, and 

Louisiana, and a 6.1-m net from Texas were towed from a 

minimum of 10 minutes to a maximum of 60 minutes. The 

study was interested in only species that utilized the benthos 

for habitat or feeding during part of their life history as a result 

pelagic fish were removed from the data set prior to analysis. 

A total of 434 trawls were conducted in the bank/shoals areas 

with 6% of the trawls conducted on-bank.

Byrnes et al. 1999 Five sand resource areas 

(Resource Area 1, 2, 3, 4,

and 5) along the Alabama 

coast 

Authors: Holocene 

lithofacies, sand ridges

Synthesis Category: 

Shore-attached and 

detached sand ridges

Sampling at each area was conducted in May and December 

1997 by 10-minute 25-ft mongoose trawl along a pre-plotted 

transect. Two trawls were conducted at each area.

Diaz et al. 2003 Fenwick and Weaver Shoals, 

off the coast of Maryland and 

Delaware

Authors: Shoals

Synthesis Category: 

Shore-attached and 

detached sand ridges

Sampling was conducted in May 1999 using a combination of 

video sled transects and a 2-m metered beam trawls on and 

immediately adjacent to Fenwick and Weaver Shoals. Eight 2-

minute trawls were collected, four during the day and four at 

night. Sampling was conducted in May 1999.

Diaz et al. 2006 Sandbridge Shoal, off the 

coast of Virginia 

Authors: Shoals

Synthesis Category: 

Sorted bedform

Data was collected over a four year period; June 2002 six 

months prior to initial dredging, August 2003 four months post 

initial dredging, June 2004 two months post second dredging, 

and June 2005 fourteen months post all dredging. Sampling 

was conducted by 10-minute 4.9 m (16-foot) otter trawl on and 

immediately adjacent to the shoal.

(continued)
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

63

Table 4-2. (Continued)

Study Study Area Shoal Type Sampling Approach

Slacum et al. 2006 Linear shoal complex 

(Fenwick Shoal, Weaver 

Shoal, Shoal B, Shoal D, and 

nonadjacent flat-bottom 

sites), off the coast of 

Maryland and Delaware. 

Authors: Linear shoal 

field or ridge and swale 

system

Synthesis Category: 

Shore-attached and 

detached sand ridges

Sampling was conducted using a 30.5 m commercial trawl, a 

7.6 m research trawl, varying mesh size gillnets, and a 120-

kHz split-beam bioacoustic system (night). Trawls were towed 

for 10 minutes. Gillnets were set for an average of 4 hours. 

Sampling was conducted seasonally for two consecutive years 

beginning in the fall of 2002. Seasonal bioacoustic surveys 

were not conducted during the two winter seasons.

Slacum et al. 2010 Linear shoal complex 

(Fenwick Shoal, Weaver 

Shoal, Shoal B, Shoal D, and 

nonadjacent flat-bottom 

sites), off the coast of 

Maryland and Delaware. 

Authors: Linear shoal 

field or ridge and swale 

system

Synthesis Category: 

Shore-attached and 

detached sand ridges

Sampling was conducted at the tops of the shoals and the 

center of the nonadjacent flat-bottom areas by small 

experimental demersal trawl, large commercial trawl, and 

experimental gillnet. Sampling was conducted seasonally for 

two consecutive years beginning in the fall of 2002. Trawls 

were towed for 10 minutes. Gillnets were set for an average of 

4 hours.

Stone et al. 2009 Ship Shoal off the coast of 

Louisiana

Authors: Sandy 

submerged barrier island

Synthesis Category: 

Shoal field

Nighttime trawl sampling was conducted during the spring, 

summer, and fall of 2005 and 2006 using a 25-ft otter trawl 

towed for 30-minutes at nine stations (three each on the 

eastern flank, western flank, and middle of the shoal) to 

investigate distribution and abundance of the commercially 

important Atlantic Croaker and penaeid shrimp species on 

Ship Shoal. Only Atlantic Croaker, shrimp, and blue crab 

numbers were reported, total fish catch and a list of fish taxa 

were not provided. Stomach content analysis for the Atlantic 

Croaker and penaeid shrimp were also conducted.

Vasslides 2007 Ship Bottom Ridge, Beach 

Haven Ridge, and Brigantine 

Ridge off southern New 

Jersey

Author: Shoreface sand 

ridges

Synthesis Category: 

Shore-attached and 

detached sand ridges

A 2-m beam-trawl was towed for 1 minute at eight stations 

along a transect from Little Egg Inlet across Beach Haven 

Ridge in midsummer and late summer from 1991-1995. Twominute 4.9-m otter trawl sampling was conducted at eight 

stations on and within the vicinity of Beach Haven Ridge in 

July and September from 1997-2006 and six station transects 

across both Ship Bottom Ridge and Brigantine Ridge in July 

and September 2006. Trawl durations were short in an attempt 

to sample discrete habitat types.

(continued)
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

64

Table 4-2. (Continued)

Study Study Area Shoal Type Sampling Approach

Vasslides and Able 

2008

Beach Haven Ridge, off the 

coast of southern New 

Jersey

Author: Shoreface sand 

ridges

Synthesis Category: 

Shore-attached and 

detached sand ridges

A 1-minute 2-m beam trawl was towed at eight stations along 

a transect from Little Egg Inlet across Beach Haven Ridge in 

July and September from 1991-1995. A 2-minute otter trawl 

was towed at eight stations on and within the vicinity of Beach 

Haven Ridge in July and September from 1997-2006. Trawl 

durations were short in an attempt to sample discrete habitat 

types.

Walsh et al. 2006 Continental shelf off the 

Georgia coast. The crossshelf transect included the 

Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary (NMS) area.

Authors: Unconsolidated 

sand sediments with 

interspersed rocky reefs

Synthesis Category: 

Sorted bedform

A ten station cross-shelf transect was sampled quarterly from 

April 2000 through February 2002 using a 2-m beam trawl. 

Sampling avoided the Gray’s Reef NMS by placing four 

stations adjacent to the four sides of the sanctuary. Three 5-

minute tows were made at each station. In April 2000, a 

remotely operated vehicle (ROV) was used conducting two 15-

minute drifts at eight of the ten stations.

Wells et al. 2009 Freeport Rocks Bathymetric 

High and adjacent mudbottom substrates, 

continental shelf off the 

Texas coast.

Authors: Drowned barrier 

island, natural shell 

bank, ridge

Synthesis Category: 

Isolated inner shelf shoal

Two replicate 10-minute trawls were conducted from May to 

December 2000 with a 6-m otter trawl at three habitat areas 

(inshore mud, shell hash/sand bank, and offshore mud).

Zarillo 2008 Toms' Hills (T1 and T2 shoal 

system) and Siesta Shoal off 

the west Florida coast along 

Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, and 

Collier Counties. 

Author: Sand ridges

Synthesis Category: 

Shoal field

Ten-minute otter trawls were conducted within and adjacent to 

each proposed borrow site during fall 2005 and spring 2006 

surveys. Hard bottom substrates encountered at each shoal 

limited sampling to a total of 29 successful tows. 

Zarillo 2009 Five shoals (designated as 

B11, A9, A8, A6, and A4) off 

the east Florida coast along 

Duval, St. Johns, Flagler and 

Volusia Counties

Author: Single linear 

ridge (B11 and A9), 

compound shoals or 

coalescing linear ridges 

(A8, A6, and A4).

Synthesis Category: 

Shore-attached and 

detached sand ridges

At each shoal three nocturnal 10-minute otter trawls were 

conducted within the footprint of the proposed borrow site and 

the area immediately adjacent to the site during November 

2005 and June 2006 surveys.
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

65

Shoals and shoal complexes may serve as: 1) refuges for juvenile fishes and schooling 

planktivores, 2) habitat for benthic invertebrates and vertebrate species that are adapted to 

dynamic substrate and serve as a trophic base for demersal fish assemblages, and 3) spawning 

sites for some demersal species and schooling planktivores (Gilmore 2008, CSA et al. 2010). A 

number of fish species (northern stargazer, snakefish, sand lances, inshore lizardfish, harvestfish, 

and Spanish mackerel in the Mid-Atlantic, and bluntnose stingray in the northwestern GOM) 

have been found to be associated only with the shoal areas in these complexes compared to the 

trough or non-shoalcontrol areas (Diaz et al. 2003, Brooks et al. 2005, Vasslides and Able 2008a,

Slacum et al. 2010). Northern stargazer, snakefish, sand lances, and inshore lizardfish generally 

occur over or burrow into sandy substrates, and are therefore likely to be found on sand shoals.

Shoal complexes have been designated EFH for a number of fish species including: Haddock 

(adult and spawning adult), cobia, Spanish mackerel, king mackerel and red drum (SAFMC 

1998, NMFS 2013b). EFH containing shoal areas has been designated for 36 Atlantic highly 

migratory species (tuna, swordfish, billfish, small and large coastal sharks, and pelagic sharks) in 

the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Straits of Florida, and/or GOM (Table 4-3; NMFS 2009).

Table 4-3. Atlantic highly migratory species that have defined Essential Fish Habitat that contain 

shoals areas in the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Straits of Florida, and/or Gulf of Mexico.

Highly Migratory Fishes

Atlantic albacore tuna blue shark sand tiger shark

Atlantic angel shark bonnethead shark sandbar shark

Atlantic bigeye tuna bull shark scalloped hammerhead shark

Atlantic bluefin tuna Caribbean reef shark shortfin mako shark

Atlantic sharpnose shark dusky shark silky shark

Atlantic skipjack tuna finetooth shark spinner shark

Atlantic yellowfin tuna great hammerhead shark swordfish

basking shark lemon shark thresher shark

bignose shark longbill spearfish tiger shark

blacknose shark night shark whale shark

blacktip shark nurse shark white marlin 

blue marlin sailfish white shark

Source: NMFS 2009

CSA International, Inc. et al. (2010) identified twenty-six managed (federal, state, and regional) 

fish species and five managed invertebrate species that may utilize offshore sand shoals in the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight (Table 4-4). The sandy shoals of Cape Lookout, Cape Fear, and Cape 

Hatteras (NC) that extend from the shore toward the edge of the Gulf Stream are considered 

HAPCs for the coastal migratory pelagic species group. These features are designated as HAPCs 

due to their ecological function, which includes affecting longshore coastal currents and 

interaction with Gulf Stream intrusions to produce local upwelling; rarity of habitat; and threat 

from development activities or dredging (SAFMC 1998, SAFMC 2010). 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

66

Table 4-4. Managed fish and invertebrate species that may utilize offshore shoals in the MidAtlantic. 

Managed Fishes Management Agenciesa Managed Fishes Management Agencies

Atlantic croaker ASMFC sand tiger shark ASMFC; NMFS HMS

Atlantic herring ASMFC sandbar shark ASMFC; NMFS HMS

Atlantic mackerel MAFMC scalloped hammerhead ASMFC; NMFS HMS

Atlantic sharpnose shark ASMFC; NMFS HMS scup ASMFC; MAFMC

basking shark ASMFC; NMFS HMS silky shark ASMFC; NMFS HMS

black sea bass ASMFC; MAFMC spiny dogfish ASMFC; MAFMC; 

NEFMC

blacktip shark ASMFC; NMFS HMS spot ASMFC

bluefish ASMFC; MAFMC striped bass ASMFC

butterfish MAFMC summer flounder ASMFC; MAFMC

dusky shark ASMFC; NMFS HMS tiger shark ASMFC; NMFS HMS

goosefish NEFMC tilefish MAFMC

night shark ASMFC; NMFS HMS windowpane NEFMC

red hake NEFMC winter flounder ASMFC; NEFMC

Managed Invertebrates Management Agencies

ocean quahog MAFMC

short-finned squid MAFMC

horseshoe crab ASMFC

long-finned squid MAFMC

surf clam MAFMC a ASMFC: Atlantic State Marine Fishery Commission

MAFMC: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

NEFMC: New England Fishery Management Council

NMFS HMS: National Marine Fishery Service Highly Migratory Species

Source: CSA et al. 2010

Other bottom features (e.g. Charleston Bump, SC; Hump off Islamorada, FL; and Marathon Hump, 

FL) that interrupt, cause changes in flow direction, and/or propagate downstream eddies of the 

Gulf Stream have also been designated as HAPCs along with their associated oceanographic 

phenomena (e.g. Charleston Bump Complex) for the coastal migratory pelagic species group, 

including dolphin, wahoo, and the snapper-grouper complex (SAFMC 2009).

The Atlantic OCS

The North and Mid-Atlantic

Studies conducted in shoals and shoal complexes in the North and Mid-Atlantic have 

documented 107 species of fish collected in these habitats including the Atlantic sturgeon (ESA 

status: endangered species) and dusky shark (ESA status: candidate species; Table 4-5). CSA et 

al. (2010) presented by life stage the fish species documented near Beach Haven Ridge (NJ) and 

the Delmarva shoal complex from studies in the 1970’s, 1990’s, and early 2000’s. The combined 

studies documented 10 demersal and 4 pelagic egg species; 33 demersal and 7 pelagic larval 

species; and 64 demersal and 30 pelagic juvenile and adult species.
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

67

Table 4-5. Fish species documented on shoals and shoal complexes in the North and MidAtlantic. 

Fish Species

alewife butterfish northern puffer snakeblenny

American shad clearnose skate northern searobin snakefish

Atlantic angel shark cobia northern sennet spanish mackerel

Atlantic bonito conger eel northern stargazer spiny butterfly ray

Atlantic cod cownose ray ocean pout spiny dogfish

Atlantic croaker cunner oyster toadfish spot

Atlantic cutlassfish dusky shark pinfish spotted goatfish

Atlantic herring feather blenny planehead filefish spotted hake

Atlantic mackerel fourbeard rockling pollock striped anchovy

Atlantic menhaden fourspine stickleback red hake striped bass

Atlantic moonfish fourspot flounder rock gunnel striped burrfish

Atlantic sharpnose shark gag roughtail stingray striped cusk-eel

Atlantic silverside goosefish round herring striped searobin

Atlantic sturgeon grubby round scad summer flounder

banded drum haddock sand lance species tautog

banded rudderfish harvestfish sandbar shark threespine stickleback

barndoor skate hickory shad scup thresher shark

bay anchovy hogchoker sea raven weakfish 

bay whiff inland silverside seaboard goby white bass

black drum inquiline snailfish sergeant major white hake

black sea bass inshore lizardfish short bigeye white mullet

blue runner lined seahorse silver anchovy windowpane

blueback herring little skate silver hake winter flounder

bluefish longhorn sculpin silver perch winter skate

bluespotted cornetfish naked goby smallmouth flounder witch flounder

bluntnose stingray northern kingfish smooth butterfly ray yellowtail flounder

bullnose ray northern pipefish smooth dogfish

Sources: Able et al. 2006, CSA et al. 2010, Diaz et al. 2003, 2006, Martino and Able 2003, Slacum et al. 2010, 

Vasslides 2007, Vasslides and Able 2008a

At a southern New Jersey shoal complex the fish assemblage was found to be dominated by 

Atlantic butterfish, bay anchovy, striped anchovy, spotted hake, Atlantic croaker, and weakfish 

during mid-summer months (Vasslides 2007, Vasslides and Able 2008a). Species abundance and 

richness showed a bimodal distribution from inshore to the offshore transects with the highest 

values observed on either side of the Beach Haven Ridge (Vasslides 2007).

Juvenile smallmouth flounder (mean total length 27 mm and 35 mm) represented 70% of the 

individuals collected at the top of Beach Haven Ridge. Northern stargazer and snakefish 

occurred in small numbers only at the top of the ridge (Vasslides and Able 2008a).

Multiple studies have been conducted at the Delmarva shoal complex in the Mid-Atlantic Bight 

(Figure 2-8). Slacum et al. (2010) collected 31 fish species from shoal areas and 41 fish species 

from non-adjacent flat-bottom (non-adjacent trough) areas. This study found three fish species 

(inshore lizardfish, harvestfish, and Spanish mackerel) only at the shoal sites, while 12 fish 

species were collected only in flat-bottom areas. The shoal fish assemblages were dominated by 

scup in the spring; American sand lance, scup, and clearnose skate in the summer; and striped 

bass, spiny dogfish, and little skate in the fall (Slacum et al. 2010). Five species, including 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

68

smallmouth flounder, spotted hake, summer flounder, windowpane, and winter skate, were 

collected during all four seasons at the shoal areas (Slacum et al. 2010). An earlier study by Diaz 

et al. (2003) noted that species composition was dominated by sand lance, other benthic fishes, 

and bay anchovy. Sand lance were found to be associated with very specific habitats, occurring 

mainly on the top and flanks of shoal areas that were dominated by coarse sand and larger 

bedforms (10 cm crest height). In contrast, spotted hake and smallmouth flounder showed less 

habitat preference and occurred in multiple adjacent habitats on Fenwick Shoal (Diaz et al. 

2003).

At Sandbridge Shoal off the coast of Virginia, sampling conducted on and immediately adjacent 

to the shoal found that searobins, spotted hake, butterfish, pinfish, and smallmouth flounder were 

the most abundant fish species. Large variations in abundance were observed between years and 

sampling strata which prevented detection of significant differences among the dominant species 

(Diaz et al. 2006). The absence of a strong association between fishes and sampling strata 

appeared to be related to low variation in sediment grain-size and similar bedform structure 

among strata and the low occurrence of biogenic structure over the entire area (Diaz et al. 2006).

The South Atlantic and Straits of Florida

Studies conducted in shoals and shoal complexes in the South Atlantic and Straits of Florida 

have documented 215 species of fish collected in these habitats including the dusky shark (ESA 

status: candidate species) and smalltooth sawfish (ESA status: endangered species; Table 4-6).

Cape Canaveral (FL) nearshore and offshore waters (Southeast Shoal) appear to function as EFH 

for many of the Atlantic highly migratory species including several shark species (Reyier et al. 

2008, NMFS 2009).

On unconsolidated sediments off the continental shelf of Georgia, 121 taxa of juvenile fishes 

were collected, including several commercially and recreationally important species (Walsh et al. 

2006). Abundance patterns indicated a cross-shelf fish assemblage gradient that varied 

seasonally. Sampling was not stratified by sediment characteristics so the role of specific 

habitats, such as shoal complexes, could not be determined (Walsh et al. 2006). However, 19 of 

these species were collected in shoals and shoal complex habitats in the North and Mid-Atlantic 

while an additional 53 species have been documented in these habitats along the east Florida 

continental shelf, suggesting that shoal complex habitats may have been present in the study 

area.

Along the northeast Florida coast. Zarillo et al. (2009) collected a total of 77 taxa within or 

adjacent to five shoals that have been identified as potential offshore borrow sites. The dominant 

families were Paralichthyidae (large tooth flounders, 11 species), Sciaenidae (drums and 

croakers, 8 species) and Triglidae (searobins, 7 species). The collections were dominated by 

pelagic and demersal soft-bottom species (striped anchovy, searobins, inshore lizardfish, and 

juvenile whiffs), which have wide ranges over the Florida continental shelf. Species important to 

commercial and recreational fisheries in northeast Florida, including sea basses, southern 

kingfish, grunts, flounders, and weakfish, were also collected in small numbers. The authors 

found that fish catch composition varied considerably among seasons and suggested that 

seasonal changes in fish abundance and community composition due to spawning, recruitment, 

and mortality patterns were of greater importance than spatial differences in habitat between the 

shoals and adjacent open bottom in structuring the fish assemblage. 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

69

Table 4-6. Fish species documented on shoals and shoal complexes in the South Atlantic and 

Florida Straits

Fish Species

Agujon bull pipefish horned whiff ribbon halfbeak

American harvestfish bull shark horse-eye jack robins flounder

American sailfin eel cero houndfish rock sea bass

Atlantic angel shark channel flounder inshore lizardfish rosette skate

Atlantic bumper checkered puffer jack-knifefish rough scad

Atlantic croaker clearnose skate keeltail needlefish rough triggerfish

Atlantic cutlassfish cobia key worm eel roughtail stingray

Atlantic guitarfish cottonmouth jack king mackerel round herring

Atlantic menhaden crevalle jack ladyfish round scad

Atlantic moonfish Cuban anchovy lancer stargazer roundel skate

Atlantic sharpnose shark deepwater flounder largescale tonguefish sailfish

Atlantic spadefish devil ray leather jacket sand perch

Atlantic thread herring dolphin leopard searobin sand stargazer 

balao dotterel filefish lined seahorse sand whiff

balloonfish duckbill flathead lined sole sandbar shark

ballyhoo dusky anchovy little tunny sargassum triggerfish

band cusk-eel dusky flounder longspine scorpionfish scaled sardine

banded drum dusky shark mackeral scad scalloped hammerhead

bandtail puffer dwarf herring Mexican flounder scrawled cowfish

bandtail searobin dwarf sand perch mojarra scrawled filefish

bank sea bass eyed flounder mooneye cusk-eel seaweed blenny 

bar jack false pilchard naked sole seminole goby

barred searobin finetooth shark northern puffer sharpnose puffer

bay anchovy flat anchovy northern searobin sharptail sunfish

bay whiff flat needlefish ocean triggerfish shelf flounder

bigeye anchovy Florida pompano oceanfish sunfish shoal flounder

bigeye scad Florida smoothhound ocellated flounder shortbeard cusk-eel

bighead searobin flying halfbeak offshore tonguefish shortfin searobin

bignose shark fourspot flounder orange filefish shortwing searobin

blackcheek tonguefish freckled stargazer orangebelly goby shrimp flounder

blacknose shark freckled tonguefish orangespotted filefish silver anchovy

blacktip shark fringed filefish orangespotted goby silver seatrout 

blackwing searobin fringed flounder palometa silverstripe halfbeak

blotched cusk-eel goby flathead permit slender filefish

blue goby gray flounder pinfish slim flounder

blue runner gray triggerfish planehead filefish smallmouth flounder

blue shark great hammerhead planehead filefish smalltooth sawfish

bluefish grunt (juvenile) porcupinefish smooth butterfly ray

bluespotted searobin Gulf flounder porgy (juvenile) smooth dogfish

blunthead puffer Gulf Stream flounder pygmy filefish smooth puffer

bluntnose jack halfbeak pygmy tonguefish smooth trunkfish

bluntnose stingray highfin scorpionfish queen triggerfish southern flounder

bonnethead honeycomb cowfish rainbow runner southern kingfish 

bridled burrfish honeycomb moray redear sardine southern puffer

broad flounder horned searobin redtail scad southern sennet 

(continued)
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

70

Table 4-6 (Continued)

Fish Species

southern stargazer 1 spotfin goby striped burrfish unicorn filefish

southern stingray 2 spottail tonguefish striped cusk-eel unicorn whiff

Spanish mackerel 3 spotted burrfish striped searobin wahoo

Spanish sardine 4 spotted whiff stripedfin flounder whitespotted filefish 

spinner shark 5 spottedfin tonguefish summer flounder windowpane

spiny flounder 6 stellate codlet tarpon wormfish 

spiny searobin 7 streamer searobin three-eye flounder yellow jack

spot 8 striped anchovy timucu yellowfin menhaden

spotfin flounder 9 striped bass trunkfish

Sources: Gilmore 2008 and Zarillo et al. 2009 

Ichthyoplankton surveys conducted on the northeast Florida coast collected 36 distinct taxa 

which were dominated by gobies (Gobiidae), anchovies (Engraulidae), and herring (Clupeidae). 

The majority of the larvae were benthic and pelagic forage species that are common throughout 

Florida estuarine and shelf waters (Zarillo et al. 2009).

Gilmore (2008) identified 185 species that have been documented in shoal habitats on the east 

Florida continental shelf (Table 4-7). Of these species, 24 were relatively abundant; 35 were 

common; 36 occurred occasionally; 20 were rare; and 70 were documented but the relative 

abundance was unknown. Pierce Shoal off the coast of east central Florida has been indicated as 

the primary spawning site for clupeid fishes: menhaden, red ear and scaled sardines, Atlantic 

thread herring, and Spanish sardine. Biologists and fishermen have each reported king mackerel,

red drum, tripletail, and goliath grouper in spawning aggregations on shoals or adjacent to shoals 

from Cape Canaveral to Jupiter Island. Shoals further offshore may be potential spawning sites 

for striped and silver mullet since their eggs and larvae have been collected in the Florida 

Current boundary (Gilmore 2008).

The east central coast of Florida has prolonged seasonal spawning patterns for many of the 

species due to the subtropical to tropical climate that differs significantly from the areas north of 

Cape Canaveral and the eastern GOM, which have warm temperate and subtropical climates. 

Offshore spawning migrations have been documented in the fall-winter for warm temperate 

species and at various times throughout the year for subtropical species (Gilmore 2008). Juvenile 

lemon sharks aggregations have been documented at several surf zone locations (longshore 

troughs) between the tip of Cape Canaveral (Southeast Shoal) and the Port Canaveral Jetty with 

the smallest juveniles observed in the shallowest waters (Reyier et al. 2008). Reyier et al. (2008) 

suggested that Cape Canaveral nearshore waters are a lemon shark nursery meeting the criteria of 

a shark nursery described by Heupel et al. (2007).

The nearshore waters of Cape Canaveral appear to also serve a nursery function for neonate 

spinner shark, neonate and juvenile blacktip shark, neonate scalloped hammerhead, and neonate 

and juvenile Atlantic sharpnose shark (Aubrey and Snelson 2007, Adams and Paperno 2007). 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

71

Table 4-7. Relative abundance of the fish species documented on shoals and shoal complex 

habitats along the east Florida continental shelf.

Fish Species

Relative 

Abundancea Fish Species

Relative 

Abundance

agujon C dolphin C

Atlantic angel shark C dotterel filefish R

Atlantic bumper A duckbill flathead X

Atlantic cutlassfish C dusky anchovy A

Atlantic guitarfish C dusky flounder X

Atlantic menhaden A dusky shark O

Atlantic sharpnose shark A dwarf herring R

Atlantic thread herring A dwarf sand perch A

balao A eyed flounder X

balloonfish O false pilchard R

ballyhoo A finetooth shark C

bandtail puffer C flat anchovy O

bandtail searobin X flat needlefish C

bank sea bass X Florida pompano C

bar jack C Florida smoothhound R

barred searobin X flying halfbeak C

bay anchovy A fourspot flounder X

bay whiff X freckled tonguefish X

bigeye anchovy O fringed filefish O

bigeye scad X fringed flounder X

bighead searobin X goby flathead X

bignose shark O gray flounder X

blackcheek tonguefish X gray triggerfish C

blacknose shark C great hammerhead O

blacktip shark A gulf flounder X

blackwing searobin X gulf stream flounder X

blue goby X halfbeak A

blue shark X highfin scorpionfish X

bluefish C honeycomb cowfish O

bluespotted searobin X honeycomb moray A

blunthead puffer R horned searobin X

bluntnose jack R horned whiff X

bluntnose stingray C horse-eye jack C

bonnethead O houndfish C

bridled burrfish R keeltail needlefish C

broad flounder X king mackerel A

bull shark C ladyfish O

cero O lancer stargazer X

channel flounder X largescale tonguefish X

checkered puffer C leather jacket X

clearnose skate C leopard searobin X

cobia C lined sole X

cottonmouth jack R little tunny C

crevalle jack C longspine scorpionfish X

Cuban anchovy A mackeral scad A

deepwater flounder X Mexican flounder X

devil ray C naked sole X

(continued)
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

72

Table 4-7. (Continued)

Fish Species

Relative 

Abundancea Fish Species

Relative 

Abundance

northern puffer R shoal flounder X

northern searobin X shortfin searobin X

ocean triggerfish C shortwing searobin X

oceanfish sunfish O shrimp flounder X

ocellated flounder X silver anchovy O

offshore tonguefish X silverstripe halfbeak R

orange filefish O slender filefish O

orangebelly goby X slim flounder X

orangespotted filefish O smallmouth flounder X

orangespotted goby X smalltooth sawfish R

palometa C smooth butterfly ray C

permit C smooth dogfish R

planehead filefish C smooth puffer R

porcupinefish O smooth trunkfish O

pygmy filefish O southern flounder X

pygmy tonguefish X southern puffer O

queen triggerfish R southern stargazer X

rainbow runner R southern stingray C

redear sardine A Spanish mackerel A

redtail scad X Spanish sardine A

ribbon halfbeak X spinner shark A

robins flounder X spiny flounder X

sand whiff X spiny searobin X

sand perch A spotfin flounder X

sandbar shark A spotfin goby X

sargassum triggerfish O spottail tonguefish X

scaled sardine A spotted burrfish R

scalloped hammerhead C spotted whiff X

scrawled cowfish O spottedfin tonguefish X

scrawled filefish O streamer searobin X

Seminole goby C striped anchovy O

sharpnose puffer O striped bass R

sharptail sunfish R striped burrfish O

shelf flounder X striped searobin X a Relative abundance is denoted by: A = Abundant, C = Common, O= Occasional, R = Rare, and X = documented 

but the relative abundance is unknown

Source: Gilmore 2008

The Gulf of Mexico OCS

Studies conducted in shoals and shoal complexes in the GOM have documented 136 species of 

fish collected in these habitats (Table 4-8).

Eastern Gulf of Mexico

Along the west coast of Florida, Zarillo et al. (2008) collected 50 taxa of fish within and adjacent 

to three proposed sand borrow sites that included two ridges in the Toms’ Hills shoal system and 

Siesta Shoal. Hard bottom substrate was found adjacent to Siesta Shoal. The dominant families 

collected were: Ophidiidae (cusk eel, six species), Serranidae (sea basses and groupers, five
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

73

species), Triglidae (searobins, four species), and Paralichthyidae (largetooth flounders, four

species). The collections were dominated by the benthic species including the barred searobin, 

leopard searobin, sand seabass, juvenile grunts, and twospot flounder. Pelagic fishes, though less 

abundant, were also collected including Atlantic bumper and Atlantic thread herring. Five 

species associated with hard bottom were also collected, with sand perch being relatively 

common. Ichthyoplankton surveys conducted at these sites collected 17 identifiable taxa from 14 

families with most larvae from pelagic forage or small-bodied demersal species that are common 

in estuarine and shelf waters throughout Florida. 

Table 4-8. Fish species documented on shoals and shoal complexes in the Gulf of Mexico.

Fish Species

Atlantic bumper Florida smoothound ocellated flounder silver perch 

Atlantic croaker freckled pike-conger offshore lizardfish silver seatrout 

Atlantic midshipman fringed filefish offshore tonguefish singlespot frogfish

Atlantic sharpnose shark fringed flounder orange filefish slantbrow batfish 

Atlantic thread herring fringed sole pancake batfish smallmouth flounder 

banded drum gafftopsail catfish pigfish smooth dogfish

bandtail puffer gray snapper pinfish smooth puffer 

bandtail searobin Gulf butterfish planehead filefish smooth trunkfish 

bank cusk-eel Gulf flounder planehead filefish smoothead scorpionfish

barbfish Gulf kingfish plumed scorpionfish southern flounder

bay whiff Gulf of Mexico barred searobin porcupinefish southern hake

bearded brotula Gulf of Mexico ocellated flounder pygmy seabass southern kingfish

belted sandfish halfbeak red drum southern puffer 

bigeye searobin hardhead catfish red grouper southern stargazer 

bighead searobin high-hat red snapper southern stingray 

black drum hogchoker rock seabass Spanish sardine

blackbear seabass honeycomb cowfish rough scad spiny flounder 

blackcheek tonguefish inshore lizardfish roughback batfish spot

blackedge cusk-eel lane snapper roundel skate spotted batfish 

blackwing searobin largescale lizardfish sand perch spotted tonguefish

blotched cusk-eel least puffer sand seatrout spotted whiff 

bluespotted searobin leopard searobin sash flounder star drum 

bluntnose stingray lined seahorse scad striped anchovy

bonnethead lined sole scawled cowfish striped burrfish 

chain pipefish little-eye round herring scrawled cowfish striped cusk-eel

cownose ray littlehead porgy scrawled filefish tattler

crested cusk-eel longnose batfish sharptail goby three-eye flounder 

cubbyu longnose cusk-eel sheepshead tidewater mojarra

dusky anchovy longspine porgy shelf flounder tomtate

dusky carinalfish marbled puffer shoal flounder twospot flounder 

dusky flounder margintail conger shortnose batfish unicorn filefish 

dwarf goatfish Mexican flounder shrimp eel white grunt

dwarf sand perch mooneye cusk-eel silver anchovy whitespotted soapfish

emerald parrotfish northern kingfish silver jenny yellow conger 

Sources: Brooks et al. 2005, Byrnes et al. 1999, Wells et al. 2009, Zarillo et al. 2008
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

74

Central Gulf of Mexico

Byrnes et al. (1999) collected 40 taxa of fish from five identified sand resource areas off 

Alabama. The dominant species collected were longspine porgy, spot, silver seatrout, Atlantic 

croaker, and rock seabass. Seasonal variation was observed in the demersal assemblages at these 

sand resource areas, which agreed with previous sampling efforts that indicated a community of 

widespread taxa that migrate inshore seasonally. Variation in fish abundance and diversity was 

observed among sampled sand resource areas, and was attributed to influences of Mobile Bay 

outflow on the western sand resource areas relative to the eastern areas.

Western Gulf of Mexico

Brooks et al. (2005) identified 99 fish species (93 non-commercial species, six commercial 

species) that were collected at the Trinity Shoal, Tiger Shoal, Sabine Bank, and Heald Bank 

areas in the northwest GOM (Table 4-9). Of these species, five were frequently caught at one or 

more shoals, 25 were commonly caught, and 68 were rarely caught. Hardhead catfish, sand 

seatrout, silver seatrout, spot, Atlantic croaker, and least puffer were frequently or commonly 

caught at all four areas. Several species exhibited patterns in which they were found commonly 

only at one area and rarely or absent from the other areas. For instance, bay whiff was commonly 

collected only at Tiger Shoal, while banded drum was only commonly caught at Sabine Bank. 

Dwarf sand perch, silver jenny, smooth puffer, pinfish, blackedge cusk-eel, lane snapper, 

planehead filefish, blackwing searobin, shoal flounder, and inshore lizardfish were only 

commonly collected at Heald Bank. Fringed flounder, rock seabass, and Atlantic midshipman 

were found to be absent from only one of the study areas, but present in the other three. Speciesspecific trends were found between the eastern (Trinity and Tiger Shoals) and western areas 

(Sabine and Heald Banks). Gafftopsail catfish was frequently or commonly collected at the 

eastern sites but was rarely or never collected at western areas; whereas southern kingfish, 

pigfish, and bighead searobin were frequently or commonly caught at the western areas but were 

rarely or never caught at the eastern sites. Species-specific trends were also found between the 

northern (Tiger Shoal and Sabine Bank) and southern areas (Trinity Shoal and Heald Bank). Star 

drum and blackcheek tonguefish were frequently or commonly collected in the northern areas 

but rarely or never collected in the southern areas; whereas bigeye searobin and longspine porgy 

were frequently or commonly caught in the southern areas but rarely or never caught in the 

northern areas.

Stone et al. (2009) collected generally low numbers of Atlantic croaker at Ship Shoal in the 

northwest GOM off the coast of Louisiana. The Atlantic croaker sizes ranged from 129 to 166 

mm suggesting both juvenile and adult lifestages were present. The increase of the size and 

weight of the individual Atlantic croaker throughout the year indicated that the population on 

Ship Shoal may not be transient. Stone et al. (2009) suggested some croaker remain offshore and 

reside on or around Ship Shoal. Stomach contents of the Atlantic croaker collected on Ship Shoal 

in 2005 and 2006 were comprised predominantly by amphipods, burrowing shrimp, unidentified 

crustaceans, polychaetes and other unidentified material. Stone et al. (2009) suggested that Ship 

Shoal provides valuable foraging habitat when croaker are present. Hypoxia was rarely observed 

on Ship Shoal during the summers of 2005 and 2006 indicating that the shoal may serve as a

hypoxia refuge.
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

75

Table 4-9. Catch frequency of the fish species documented on Heald Bank, Sabine Bank, Trinity 

Shoal, and Tiger Shoal.

Common Name

Heald 

Bank

Sabine 

Bank

Trinity 

Shoal

Tiger 

Shoal

Atlantic croaker Fa C F F

Atlantic midshipman C R C C

Atlantic sharpnose shark R R R R

banded drum R C R R

bandtail puffer — — R —

bandtail searobin R R R —

bank cusk-eel — R R —

barbfish — R — —

bay whiff R R R C

bearded brotula R — R —

bigeye searobin C R C R

bighead searobin C C R R

black drum — R R R

blackbear sea bass R — — —

blackcheek tonguefish R C R C

blackedge cusk-eel C R R R

blackwing searobin C R R R

blotched cusk-eel R R R —

bluespotted searobin R — — —

bluntnose stingray — — R —

bonnethead * R R R —

cownose ray R R R —

crested cusk-eel R R R R

dusky flounder R R R —

dwarf goatfish R — R —

dwarf sand perch * C R R —

Florida smoothound R — — —

freckled pike-conger R — — —

fringed flounder C C — C

fringed sole R — — —

gafftopsail catfish — — C C

Gulf flounder — R — —

Gulf kingfish — R R —

hardhead catfish F C C C

hogchoker — R R R

inshore lizardfish C R R R

lane snapper * C R R R

largescale lizardfish R R R R

least puffer C C C C

leopard searobin R R R —

lined sole — — R R

longnose batfish R — — —

longspine porgy F R C —

marbled puffer — — R —

(continued)
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

76

Table 4-9. (Continued)

Common Name

Heald 

Bank

Sabine 

Bank

Trinity 

Shoal

Tiger 

Shoal

margintail conger — — R —

Mexican flounder — R R —

northern kingfish — R — —

ocellated flounder R R R —

offshore lizardfish — R — —

offshore tonguefish — R R R

orange filefish — R — —

pancake batfish R R R —

pigfish C C R —

pinfish C R R R

planehead filefish C R R R

pygmy sea bass R R — —

red drum * — R R —

red snapper * F C R —

rock seabass C C C R

roughback batfish R — R —

roundel skate — R R —

sand perch * R R — —

sand seatrout C C C F

sash flounder — — R —

scrawled cowfish R R — —

scrawled filefish — R R —

sharptail goby — — R R

shelf flounder — — R —

shoal flounder C R R R

shortnose batfish R R — —

shrimp eel — — — R

silver jenny C R R —

silver perch — R — —

silver seatrout C C C C

slantbrow batfish R — — —

smallmouth flounder R R — —

smooth dogfish — — R —

smooth puffer C R R R

smooth trunkfish R — — —

smoothead scorpionfish R R R —

southern flounder R R R R

southern kingfish C R C R

southern puffer — — R R

southern stargazer — R R R

southern stingray — R R —

spiny flounder R R — —

spot C C C C

spotted batfish R — — —

(continued)
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

77

Table 4-9. (Continued)

Common Name

Heald 

Bank

Sabine 

Bank

Trinity 

Shoal

Tiger 

Shoal

spotted tonguefish R — — —

spotted whiff R — R —

star drum R C R C

striped burrfish R R R R

tattler — R — —

three-eye flounder R — — —

unicorn filefish R — — —

whitespotted soapfish R — — —

yellow conger — — R — a Catch frequency is denoted by: F = Frequently caught, C = Commonly caught, R = Rarely caught, “—“ = Never 

caught b commercial species

Source: Brooks et al. 2005

Wells et al. (2009) collected 41 families and 100 species at Freeport Rocks, a drowned barrier 

island (sand ridge with shell material) offshore Texas. Eight species (shoal flounder, dwarf sand 

perch, red snapper, least puffer, silver seatrout, largescale lizardfish, silver jenny, and sand 

seatrout) comprised 69% of the total fish composition at this location. Inshore lizardfish, lane 

snapper, bay whiff, fringed flounder, and offshore tonguefish were commonly collected, 

occurring in greater than 50% of the samples. Distinct fish assemblages were observed among 

inshore mud, shell bank, and offshore mud habitats, although differences in species composition 

among the areas were minor. Dwarf sand perch and pygmy sea bass were important species in 

the shell bank fish assemblage structure. The highest dwarf sand perch and least puffer densities 

occurred on the ridge compared to the other two areas. Surface substrate conditions on Freeport 

Rocks are variable, with patches of shell hash, sandy mud, and sand (Wellner and Anderson 

2003; Simms et al. 2009) and this variability may explain differences in biota compared to other 

banks in the northwest GOM. 

A number of fish species have been found to occur on shoals and shoal complexes over a large 

geographic range. A review of the fish identified in the literature discussed above shows that 23 

fish species occur in shoal and shoal complex habitats both in the Mid-Atlantic and along the 

east coast of Florida; 49 species occur in shoal and shoal complex habitats both along the east 

coast of Florida and in the GOM; 16 species occurred in each of the Mid-Atlantic, the east coast 

of Florida and in the GOM; and 18 species occurred in both the Mid-Atlantic and the GOM

(Table 4-10).

Seasonal Patterns

Temporal patterns of fish occurrence on shoals and shoal complexes have been observed and are 

generally consistent with region-specific seasonal migratory and recruitment patterns (Cutter and 

Diaz 2000, Brooks et al. 2005, Gilmore 2008, Slacum et al. 2010). Cutter and Diaz (2000), 

Slacum et al. (2006, 2010), and Vasslides and Able (2008a) each found that latitudinal seasonal 

migrations across depth gradients in the Mid-Atlantic strongly influenced the seasonal patterns in 

the shoal and shoal complex fish assemblages, where the majority of the species observed were 

seasonal residents. 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

78

Table 4-10. Presence of fish species on shoals and shoal complexes over large geographic 

ranges.

Fish Species Mid-Atlantic

Eastern coast of 

Florida Gulf of Mexico

American harvestfish X X

Atlantic angel shark X X

Atlantic bumper X X

Atlantic croaker X X X

Atlantic cutlassfish X X

Atlantic menhaden X X

Atlantic sharpnose shark X X X

Atlantic thread herring X X

band cusk-eel X X

banded drum X X X

bandtail puffer X X

bandtail searobin X X

bay anchovy X X

bay whiff X X X

bighead searobin X X

blackcheek tonguefish X X

blackwing searobin X X

blotched cusk-eel X X

blue runner X X

bluefish X X

bluespotted searobin X X

bluntnose stingray X X X

clearnose skate X X

cobia X X

cownose ray X X

dusky anchovy X X

dusky flounder X X

dusky shark X X

dwarf sand perch X X

Florida smoothhound X X

fourspot flounder X X

fringed filefish X X

fringed flounder X X

Gulf flounder X X

Gulf of Mexico barred searobin X X

inshore lizardfish X X X

leopard searobin X X

lined seahorse X X X

lined sole X X

Mexican flounder X X

mooneye cusk-eel X X

northern kingfish X X

northern puffer X X

northern searobin X X

ocellated flounder X X

offshore tonguefish X X

(continued)
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

79

Table 4-10. (Continued)

Fish Species Mid-Atlantic

Eastern coast of 

Florida Gulf of Mexico

orange filefish X X

pinfish X X X

planehead filefish X X X

planehead filefish X X

rock sea bass X X

rough scad X X

roughtail stingray X X

round herring X X

round scad X X

roundel skate X X

sand perch X X

sandbar shark X X

scrawled cowfish X X

scrawled filefish X X

shelf flounder X X

shoal flounder X X

shortbeard cusk-eel X X

silver anchovy X X X

silver perch X X

silver seatrout X X

smallmouth flounder X X X

smooth butterfly ray X X

smooth dogfish X X X

smooth puffer X X

smooth trunkfish X X

southern flounder X X

southern kingfish X X

southern puffer X X

southern stargazer X X

southern stingray X X

Spanish mackerel X X

spiny flounder X X

spot X X X

spotted whiff X X

spottedfin tonguefish X X

striped anchovy X X X

striped bass X X

striped burrfish X X X

striped cusk-eel X X X

striped searobin X X

summer flounder X X

three-eye flounder X X

twospot flounder X X

unicorn filefish X X

windowpane X X

Sources: Brooks et al. 2005, Byrnes et al. 1999, Diaz et al. 2003, 2006, Gilmore 2008, Slacum et al. 2010, Stone et 

al. 2009, Vasslides 2007, Vasslides and Able 2008, Walsh et al. 2006, Wells et al. 2009, Zarillo 2008, 2009
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

80

Species-specific temporal patterns of occurrence of benthic fish on sand banks have also been 

found in the GOM. Brooks et al. (2005) noted that banded drum and pigfish were commonly to 

frequently collected in the summer, but were rarely or never collected in the winter, while the 

crested cuskeel was commonly to frequently collected in the winter, but was rarely or never 

observed in the shoal habitats during the summer. Spot was collected at higher frequencies at 

Tiger Shoal and Sabine Bank areas during the summer. Smooth puffer, planehead filefish, and 

pygmy sea bass also occurred at higher frequencies at Heald Bank during the summer. Fringed 

flounder, rock sea bass, southern kingfish, Atlantic midshipman, least puffer, inshore lizardfish, 

and shoal flounder were all collected at higher frequencies in the winter than during the summer 

at Trinity Shoal, Tiger Shoal, and Sabine Bank. Red drum was collected at higher frequencies at 

Trinity Shoal during the winter. Pancake batfish and blackedge cusk-eel were encountered 

commonly to frequently in the winter, but rarely to never in the summer at Heald Bank (off 

Galveston, TX).

Diel Patterns

Diel variations in spatial distribution and activity patterns are common among fishes and 

invertebrates in marine ecosystems and have been well studied. Diel patterns were observed on 

Fenwick and Weaver Shoals (MD), where fish were found to be more abundant on shoal habitats 

at night and on biogenic complex trough or flat-bottom habitats during the day (Diaz et al. 2003, 

Slacum et al. 2006). For example, smallmouth flounder and spotted hake were eight and six 

times more likely to occur in complex biogenic habitats during the day than at night (Diaz et al. 

2003). Both authors suggested that the amount of available shoal relief (ridge height) may have 

been a factor in determining fish use of shoals at night. Increased vertical relief or habitat 

complexity in other marine habitats (e.g., reefs) has been shown to influence the abundance and 

diversity of fishes (Matthews 1990, Anderson et al. 2005, Walker et al. 2009b). Auster et al. 

(1995) found that silver hake and little skate demonstrated diel shifts, from occupying specific 

microhabitats (0.01 to 0.1 km) during the day to becoming randomly distributed at night, that 

were associated with foraging behavior. The proximity of both simple and complex habitats on 

these shoals may provide both refuge from predation and increased resource availability (Diaz et 

al. 2003). Slacum et al. (2006) also found that nighttime use by fish differed among individual 

shoals within the same shoal complex; Fenwick and Weaver Shoals had higher fish use at night 

compared to Shoals B and D. The four shoals exhibited varying degrees of relief; Fenwick and 

Weaver Shoals had the steepest slopes, while Shoals B and D had the least relief. The influence 

that small-scale bedform relief and microhabitats may have had in this pattern could not be 

determined (Slacum et al. 2006).

4.2.2 Shoal Habitat Value

Shoals and shoal complexes appear to differ in their value as habitat due to fluctuations in 

macroscale environmental factors (e.g., variable salinity related to freshwater input from large 

river systems, fluctuating oxygen levels due to stratification and nutrient input, depth, and 

currents; Brooks et al. 2005). Meso- (100 m to 1 km) and microscale (cm to m) factors such as 

shoal relief, density of biogenic structures, and bedform structure within and adjacent to the 

complexes can also impact habitat value (Slacum et al. 2006, SAFMC 1998, Zarillo 2009).

Individual shoals within a complex may have unique habitat values (Slacum et al. 2006). For 

example, in the northwest GOM, several species exhibited species-specific differences in 

occurrence between eastern (Trinity and Tiger Shoals) and western (Sabine and Heald Banks) 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

81

areas, and some species demonstrated preference for or absence in individual shoal/bank areas 

(see Western GOM section above) suggesting that these areas may provide different habitat 

requirements for these species (Brooks et al. 2005). Mean species richness differed among the 

study areas; Heald Bank had consistently higher species richness compared to the Trinity Shoal, 

Tiger Shoal, and Sabine Bank areas. Mean biomass also differed among areas, and was 

consistently higher at the Trinity Shoal, Sabine Bank, and Heald Bank areas compared to the 

Tiger Shoal area. Brooks et al. (2005) suggested that environmental conditions, primarily 

reduced oxygen levels, on these shoals may have influenced species richness and mean biomass. 

The Trinity and Tiger Shoal areas are located within the GOM hypoxia zone, an area that 

averaged 13,500 km2 in size between 1985 and 2009 with nearly continuous bottom dissolved 

oxygen levels of 2 mg/L from mid-May to mid-September (Rabalais et al. 2010). The Tiger and 

Trinity Shoals experience reduced oxygen levels (as low as 0 ppm) from June through August.

Trinity Shoal displayed lower species richness and abundance values during the summer that 

corresponded to the reduced oxygen levels (Brooks et al. 2005). Byrnes et al. (1999) also found 

that demersal assemblages off the Alabama coast were influenced by fluctuating hydrographic 

parameters of Mobile Bay in the western areas compared to the more hydrographically stable 

eastern areas.

Differences in habitat value have also been observed for important finfish species that use shoals

and shoal complexes in the northwest GOM. Geary et al. (2007) quantified densities of juvenile 

red snapper on Freeport Rocks (depth of 13-24 m) as well as the two banks Heald (depth of 9-14 

m) and Sabine (depth of 8-11 m) surveyed by Brooks et al. (2005). The ridges of Heald and 

Sabine Banks consisted of shell material and the adjacent areas off the banks were comprised 

primarily of silt and mud. Freeport Rocks had sand habitat (with negligible shell hash) on the 

ridge as well. Geary et al. (2007) reported that Freeport Rocks had markedly higher red snapper 

densities and growth rates in 2004 than either Heald Bank or Sabine Bank in 2003; this suggests 

that the value of these banks as nursery areas of red snapper could be distinctly different. 

However, because the areas were sampled in different years, regional interannual differences in 

settlement patterns and growth rates cannot be completely ruled out. 

Reef-associated fish species have been documented on shoals and shoal complexes adjacent to or 

containing hard-bottom substrate (reef patches, oyster or coral reefs, and rock outcroppings) in 

the South Atlantic, Florida Straits, and the GOM, indicating that the hard-bottom features 

influence the local shoal fish assemblage and increase species diversity in these shoal areas 

(SAFMC 1998, Zarillo 2009).

Shoal versus Non-Shoal Habitat within a Complex

Shoal and non-shoal areas (trough areas) within a shoal complex are distinct habitats that may 

have different habitat values (Diaz et al. 2003, Brooks et al. 2005, Vasslides and Able 2008a, 

Slacum et al. 2010). Although these are distinct habitats, the environmental parameters that 

shape the biological community in the non-shoal areas are influenced by spatial variability in the 

topography, sediment characteristics, and proximity of the shoal areas (Diaz et al. 2003, Hayes 

and Nairn 2004).

Vasslides and Able (2008a) and Slacum et al. (2010) both found that the flat-bottom habitats, or 

troughs, in the large shoal complexes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight had greater fish abundance and 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

82

diversity than the shoal or ridge habitats. Similarly, species abundance on the ridge tops was 

significantly lower than areas on either side of the ridge in the southern New Jersey shoal

complex (Vasslides 2007). Cutter and Diaz (2000) determined that troughs adjacent to shoals in 

the Mid-Atlantic Bight contained higher densities of benthic invertebrates than the shoals 

themselves, which likely provides greater availability of benthic forage and may be the primary 

reason for increased fish abundance and diversity in these habitats.

Wells et al. (2009) found different fish assemblage structure among the three habitats (inshore 

mud, offshore mud, shell bank [shoal]) at Freeport Rocks (offshore TX), although the overall 

diversity in fish assemblages was similar across the northern GOM shelf when compared to other 

studies investigating fish assemblage structure in similar habitats in the region. The authors 

suggested that a mosaic of habitats may be important to fish assemblage structure rather than a 

single habitat type. Geary et al. (2007) assessed the value of shoal (shell bank) and non-shoal 

(inshore and offshore mud) areas at Freeport Rocks for juvenile red snapper and found no habitat 

effect. Juveniles were equally abundant in adjacent mud and shoal habitats suggesting that both 

shoal and non-shoal habitats have the potential to function as red snapper nursery areas.

Use of Microhabitats

The interactions of the physical, environmental, and biological processes in shoal and non-shoal 

areas lead to the formation of characteristic microscale habitats. Microhabitats are known to 

contribute to variations in fish distribution within regional and local fish assemblages (Auster et 

al. 1995, Auster et al. 1991, Sullivan et al. 2000). Habitat selection is believed to vary as a 

function of several factors including physiological constraints, predation pressure, prey 

availability (Auster et al. 1997), and physical processes (Wells et al. 2009). Positive relationships 

have been observed between the abundance and diversity of both fish and their prey and 

increasing structural complexity (Wells et al. 2009). Individuals of most taxa use a variety of 

habitats both within a single life stage and among different life stages (Auster et al. 1991, Auster 

et al. 1995, Pierce and Mahmoudi 2001, Mikulas and Rooker 2008, Wells et al. 2009). Juveniles 

frequently have a strong affinity for complex benthic habitats that can provide shelter from 

predators and aid in foraging (Lough et al. 1989, Able et al. 1995, Auster et al. 1997, Gregory 

and Anderson 1997, Thrush et al. 2002). Finfish distributions, especially for juvenile stages, on 

shoals and shoal complexes have been found to be influenced by sediment grain size, bedform 

size, the distribution of biogenic structures, the benthic invertebrate community, shoal proximity, 

and current velocities (Auster et al. 1995, Eggleston 1995, Auster et al. 1997, Szedlmayer and 

Conti 1999, Cutter and Diaz 2000, Auster et al. 2003, Diaz et al. 2003, Diaz et al. 2004a, Rooker 

et al. 2004, Szedlmayer and Lee 2004, Patterson et al. 2005, Vasslides and Able 2008a). Spatial 

and temporal variation in physicochemical conditions (e.g. temperature, salinity, and dissolved 

oxygen) also structure fish assemblages in these habitats (Sullivan et al. 2000, Vasslides and 

Able 2008a, Slacum et al. 2010), and the effects of multiple factors can be difficult to 

disentangle. Microscale vertical relief within shoal and shoal complex habitats is provided by 

biogenic structures and small bedform relief, and can be an important component in these areas.

Cutter and Diaz (2000) and Diaz et al. (2003) characterized four distinct habitats on Fenwick

Shoal and found that the coarser sand-gravel and the Diopatra tube habitats had similar fish 

assemblages, the sand habitat had a fish assemblage similar to other dynamic sandy habitats, and 

that the Asabellides tube habitat was the most dissimilar of the four. Within the two physicallydominated bottom habitats, they observed strong diel patterns in the fish assemblage with four 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

83

times as many fish present in these habitats at night (See Diel pattern section above). Juvenile

fish abundance was significantly greater on large (10 cm height) versus small (5 cm height) 

bedforms habitats. The highest incidences of fish occurred in habitats with large bedforms and 

some biogenic structure, which provided additional vertical relief. Similarly, Patterson et al. 

(2005) concluded that juvenile red snapper in the GOM required habitat with microscale 

complexity, preferring shell ridge habitats compared to low-relief habitats.

4.2.3 Behavior of Fishes on or Around Shoals and Shoal Complexes

There is limited literature that describes how fish assemblages use specific shoals and shoal

complex habitats and the relevance of specific habitat features for whole communities within the 

continental shelf system (Slacum et al. 2010). Shoals and shoal complexes provide much of the 

large-scale physical relief and complexity on the inner continental shelf (Diaz et al. 2003) and 

represent macroscale habitats for finfish on the Atlantic and GOM OCS (Slacum et al. 2010, 

Vasslides and Able 2008a, Diaz et al. 2003, Brooks et al. 2005). Determining fish-habitat 

associations at this scale is complicated by variations in other factors known to influence 

demersal and pelagic fish distribution along the continental shelf, including depth and 

temperature (Diaz et al. 2003, Gabriel 1992, Overholtz and Tyler 1985, Methratta and Link 

2006, Colvocoresses and Musick 1984, Moore et al. 1970). Depth is an inherent characteristic of 

shoals and shoal complexes and its effects are difficult to separate from those of the physical 

features of the shoal (Slacum et al. 2010) as the depth gradient varies across a shoal. Depth is 

associated with temperature variations, prey distribution, and migratory patterns at a 

macroecological scale (100s kilometers) (Slacum et al. 2010, Grosslein and Azarovitz 1982);

these effects may also be occurring on individual shoals within a shoal complex although data on 

this is currently not available. 

Shoals and shoal complexes are considered as ecotones or habitat transition zones that may 

enhance biological productivity and concentrate organisms at several trophic levels (Gilmore 

2008). Fishes documented on shoals and shoal complexes represent a range of trophic guilds 

from planktivores to tertiary consumers (Garrison and Link 2000, Maranick and Hare 2007).

Shoals may provide refuges for pelagic planktivores including sand lance, anchovies, 

smallmouth flounder, herrings, butterfish, sardines, menhadens and scads (Vasslides and Able 

2008a, Diaz et al. 2003, Gilmore 2008) that are more vulnerable to predation in deeper waters.

These pelagic species are typical prey species for a variety of resident and transient piscivores

also documented to use shoals and shoal complex habitats, including striped bass, bluefish, 

weakfish, spiny and smooth dogfish, Spanish and king mackerel, little tunny and other various 

tuna, and sharks (Buckel et al. 1999, Bowman et al. 2000, Garrison and Link 2000, Maranick and 

Hare 2007, Gilmore 2008). One clear benefit provided by a structurally complex seafloor is an 

increase in available refuge from predation. Shoal habitats may provide a different type of 

predation refugia compared to more complex biogenic structured habitats (e.g, sponges, reefs) 

that exclude predators. Experimental work indicates that complex habitat features can interfere 

with predator search and pursuit behavior, contributing to lower predation vulnerability for small 

fishes occupying these habitats (Gotceitas et al. 1995, Bartholomew et al. 2000, Stunz and 

Minello 2001, Ryer et al. 2004, Scharf et al. 2006). Several field studies have also documented a 

significant reduction in predation vulnerability for fishes using complex habitats (Beukers and 

Jones 1997, Heck et al. 2003). The juvenile life stage of many fishes often displays the strongest 

affinity for complex habitats (Lough et al. 1989, Able et al. 1995, Auster et al. 1997, Gregory 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

84

and Anderson 1997, Thrush et al. 2002). A disturbance that reduces the vertical relief of a shoal 

or shoal complex could reduce the overall habitat complexity and value of the feature and the 

adjacent areas, and therefore contribute to reduced survivorship among juvenile fishes that could 

have important consequences for population dynamics (Diaz et al. 2004a, Gilmore 2008, Slacum 

et al. 2010), although these effects are not well understood (Michel et al. 2013).

Shoals and sand ridge complexes may also represent important benthic forage sites for demersal 

fish assemblages (Gilmore 2008). Stomach content analyses by Diaz et al. (2006), Vasslides and 

Able (2008b), Zarillo et al. (2008), and Zarillo et al. (2009) each revealed that demersal fishes 

collected in shoal areas had consumed epifaunal and infaunal invertebrate prey species typical of 

the benthic communities present in the study areas. Mysid and sand shrimp were important prey 

items for multiple species (searobins, flounders, and seabass) at all shoal areas. Specifically, 

polychaetes were a primary prey item for smallmouth flounder (Diaz et al. 2006, Zarillo et al. 

2008), while fish prey were important for inshore lizardfish, banded drum, silver seatrout, and 

summer flounder (Zarillo et al. 2008, 2009). These studies demonstrate the close link between 

the invertebrate community and the demersal fishes at these shoal complexes.

Habitat Connectivity

Shoals and shoal complexes with their vertical relief and microhabitats provide important 

nursery and forage habitats on the continental shelf and may enhance early life stage survival and 

recruitment by functioning as physical and visual barriers between predators and prey species 

(Nelson and Bonsdorff 1990, Lindholm et al. 1999, Auster et al. 2003, Diaz et al. 2003, Ryer et 

al. 2004, Scharf et al. 2006, Vasslides and Able 2008a, SAFMC 2009, Wells et al. 2009, 

Woodland et al. 2012). Interannual settlement patterns for several fish species on the MidAtlantic shelf suggest that juveniles utilize discrete nursery habitats consistently from year to 

year (Sullivan et al. 2000). The transfer of individuals between habitats can result in a substantial 

movement of biomass, nutrients, and energy from one habitat to another (Deegan 1993).

Gillanders et al. (2003) suggested that habitat connectivity depends on the distance between two 

habitats and the presence of movement corridors or habitat patches that allow fish to freely move 

among areas. Examination of juvenile settlement in southern New Jersey by Able (2005) 

suggested connectivity between estuarine and ocean habitats near Beach Haven Ridge. Wells et 

al. (2009) suggested that along the Texas coast bathymetric features located near estuaries may 

provide an inshore and offshore movement corridor, for example Freeport and Galveston Bay 

estuaries and Freeport Rocks Bathymetric High. Shoals and shoal complexes can extend from the 

beach to several miles offshore, these features may provide a migration corridor linking early life 

and adult habitats for many fish species (Able 2005, Wells et al. 2009). These features may also 

be used at a macroscale as guides during spawning or seasonal migrations (CSA et al. 2010).

Knowledge of the connectivity between juvenile and adult habitats and estuarine and offshore 

areas has important implications for fisheries management and the effective conservation of 

marine organisms (Gillanders et al. 2003).

4.3 Summary

• Shoals and shoal complexes are among the least-studied offshore marine habitats in the 

Atlantic and GOM OCS (Walsh et al. 2006, Gilmore 2008, Slacum et al. 2010).
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

85

• A diverse number of fish species that are common members of the local shallow 

continental shelf fish assemblage utilize shoal and shoal complex habitats in the Atlantic 

and Gulf Mexico OCS, including economically and ecologically important species 

(Tables 4-3 through 4-8).

• Shoals and shoal complexes represent fish habitat that may serve as refuges from 

predation, forage areas, spawning sites, and nursery areas. These habitats are utilized by 

multiple life stages (newly settled juveniles, sub-adults, and adults) of marine fishes. A 

number of fish species (northern stargazer, snakefish, sand lances, and inshore lizardfish) 

have been found to be associated with shoal and ridge top habitats in the Mid-Atlantic.

Data on fish species associated only with shoal and ridge top habitats were not found for 

the South Atlantic, Florida Straits, and GOM regions.

• Shoal areas have been designated as EFH for a number of species and HAPCs for the 

coastal migratory pelagic species. 

• Fish abundance and diversity on shoals and shoal complexes is believed to vary 

latitudinally and across the continental shelf in response to biological and 

physicochemical factors. Assemblage composition varies temporally; and seasonal 

changes in fish abundance and community composition appear to be due primarily to 

spawning, recruitment, and mortality patterns, which appear to be of greater importance 

than spatial differences between the shoals and adjacent open bottom in structuring fish 

assemblages on shoals and shoal complexes.

• Diel patterns of abundance and diversity have been observed on shoals and shoal 

complexes where fish were more abundant on shoal habitats at night and on biogenic 

complex trough or flat-bottom habitats during the day.

• Shoals and shoal complexes may have different fish habitat value due to macroscale 

environmental factors (i.e. variation in salinity, dissolved oxygen, and nutrient inputs) 

and microscale factors (i.e. shoal relief, bedform structure, and biogenic structures).

Individual shoals or shoal systems within a complex may also have different habitat 

values. 

• Shoals and shoal complexes are habitat transition zones that may enhance biological 

productivity and concentrate organisms at several trophic levels. Stomach content 

analyses conducted in these areas have demonstrated a close link between the 

invertebrate community and the demersal fish assemblage.

• Shoal and non-shoal areas (trough areas) in a shoal complex are distinct habitats with 

different habitat values that are linked together by the topography and its influence on 

water and sediment dynamics. Non-shoal areas in the Mid-Atlantic Bight appeared to 

have greater abundance, species richness, and species diversity than the shoal areas 

(Slacum et al. 2010).

• Shoals and shoal complexes contain a range of microhabitats that influence fish 

distribution and overall habitat value. Sediment grain size, bedform size, biogenic 

structures, the forage benthic invertebrate community, shoal proximity to adjacent 

habitats, and current velocities can each have important influences on juvenile fish 
4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE USAGE OF SHOAL HABITATS

86

microhabitat utilization. Small-scale complexity in shoals and shoal complexes is mainly 

provided by biogenic structures and small bedform relief.

• Shoals and shoal complexes that extend from the beach to several miles offshore may 

provide a corridor linking inshore and offshore movements for fish species.
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

87

5.0 Assessment of Information Gaps and Recommendations for Next 

Steps

During the preparation of the draft synthesis, subsequent workshop planning, and discussions 

held during the workshop, it became evident that our knowledge of the geology and ecological 

importance of offshore sand shoals is incomplete. Resolution of some of this information will be 

important to ensure that the federal agencies with regulatory interests in these resources – the 

BOEM and the Corps whose mandates include management, extraction and utilization of the 

mineral resources for various purposes and the NMFS, one of whose mandates includes habitat 

conservation for fisheries species that may use sand shoals for vital aspects of their life histories 

– are able to work cooperatively to manage these resources in an ecologically acceptable way.

The goals of the discussion in this section are to evaluate how important various information 

gaps are to our understanding of the ecological implications of sand removal and to make 

recommendations on steps needed to move forward.

5.1 Geology and Physical Processes

Knowledge gaps related to the geology of and physical processes controlling offshore sand 

shoals fall into four categories:

• Distinguishing characteristics of shoal types

• Extent of the resource in the OCS

• Applicability of physical process data from the inner continental shelf to shoals on the

OCS

• Physical recovery of OCS shoals from disturbance

5.1.1 Distinguishing Characteristics of Shoal Types

• Differences among types of shoals

o Shoal terminology – current theory that they represent a continuum – does that 

mean shoals from comparable variants of the continuum behave the same way 

in different places?

o Are there geographical differences in the structure of these features and their 

ecological functions?

Review of research into the origins and distribution of sand shoals revealed that the geological 

terminology applied to these features has been so variable as to be very confusing, with 

individual authors appearing to develop their own nomenclature. As described in Section 2.0,

when geological origin and physical processes affecting shoal formation/maintenance are 

considered, there appear to be only three distinct types of shoals (shoals associated with stranded 

Holocene sedimentary deposits; cape-associated shoals; and sorted bedforms which encompass a 

continuum of variants). For the purposes of evaluating OCS sand shoals for extraction, key 

defining factors relate to the dynamics of the resource, i.e., the time frame under which the 

resource changes shape or dimensions. As discussed in Section 3 and further explored in Section 

5.2, biological function is inextricably linked to physical habitat conditions.
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

88

For a simplistic evaluation, geological origin is discernable through various methods. Broadscale bathymetry can show whether a shoal is associated with the shoreline or is isolated.

Seismic profiling provides information on geology both within and below the Holocene sequence 

strata. Coring through the shoal can provide stratigraphic validation of the seismic 

interpretations. Physical processes affecting shoals are largely depth dependent, and in general, 

therefore, related to distance offshore. Depth affects whether waves or currents are the prevailing 

forces affecting sediment transport. Local weather patterns and the orientation of the shoal to the 

nearest boundary (shoreline – i.e., affecting fetch), including the prevalence of high energy 

storms, control the depth to which wind-induced waves interact with the substrate.

Distribution of the three main types of shoals on the OCS is outlined in Section 2.3. Holocene 

shoals have thus far only been identified in the GOM. Cape-associated shoals are restricted to the 

Atlantic coast. Sorted bedforms, although more prevalent in the Atlantic, are also found in the 

eastern GOM. However, each type is represented in both areas. Within a particular type of shoal, 

zoogeography of shoal-associated species is likely the major factor controlling ecological 

function. Within a geographic region, it is likely that there are differences in ecological function 

across different types of shoals related to the shoal’s physical dynamics. Distribution of benthic 

invertebrates is partially controlled by stability of the substrate with some relatively motile 

species adapted to shifting sands. From this simple relationship, it can be deduced that benthic 

predators feeding on shoals are likely to differ among the types of shoals.

5.1.2 Extent of the Resource

A common thread during workshop discussions was that the location and extent of sand shoal 

resources is simply not known. Part of this problem relates to the fact that such information is 

often developed for a specific project and the supporting documentation is contained in the grey 

literature or in agency files that can be difficult to access. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey has 

developed databases of surficial sediments offshore of the Atlantic (Reid et al. 2005) and the 

GOM (Buczkowski et al. 2006) coasts that compile published and unpublished data on sediment 

texture, geochemical, and geophysical information. While the focus of these databases appears to 

be on sediment texture with little detailed bathymetry, the information may be useful in 

contributing to an understanding of where potential resources are located. 

Another contributing factor, particularly for sorted bedforms, is that the low vertical relief and 

long wave length of these features may make them difficult to discern, depending on the 

precision of the hydrographic survey methods. This issue may be partially alleviated by recent 

initiatives undertaken by BOEM that are geared towards identification of offshore sand 

resources. In one action, BOEM has awarded a contract for geological and geophysical data 

acquisition to identify sand resources three to eight miles offshore from Maine to Miami, Florida 

for potential future coastal restoration, beach nourishment, and wetland restoration projects. If 

data resolution is sufficient, shoals can be identified through this process. Work is scheduled to 

start in 2015. In addition, BOEM has signed with 13 Atlantic coastal states to evaluate sand 

resources for coastal resilience and restoration planning. This too provides an opportunity for 

requiring a finer resolution of the bathymetric conditions of these resources. 

The value of these efforts will be enhanced if the shoal resources are described using consistent 

terminology and information is obtained on their dimensions. For low relief, long wavelength 
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

89

features, this will require high-resolution bathymetry. For maximum usefulness, resulting data 

should be archived in a readily accessible database, such as the Marine Cadastre developed 

jointly by BOEM and NOAA (http://marinecadastre.gov/) or the USGS databases.

5.1.3 Applicability of Physical Processes Data from Inner Continental Shelf to 

OCS Sand Shoals

• Most information is specific to the inner continental shelf; does it translate to OCS?

o Need for improved understanding of sediment transport mechanisms on the 

shelf

Analyses by Dibajna and Nairn 2011 suggest that, at least for the Atlantic OCS, mechanisms 

controlling the shape of sand shoals can be estimated reasonably well based on water depth, 

wave climate, and bottom currents. Data on wave climate can be readily obtained from the 90 

NOAA weather buoys that are located both on the inner and the outer continental shelf (locations 

of buoys can be found at http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/stndesc.shtml). Wave energy spectra 

transmitted from these buoys can be used to derive significant wave height, dominant wave 

period, average wave period, and direction of wave propagation that can be compared to 

bathymetric conditions to determine the likelihood of wave impacts to the shoal in question. Data 

on bottom currents are somewhat limited; oceanographic buoys that include current meters only 

measure surface currents. If a particular shoal were of great interest, however, this gap could be 

readily filled by installing a current meter or series of current meters at appropriate depths such 

as within a meter of the seafloor and within a meter of the crest of the shoal.

5.1.4 Physical Recovery of OCS Shoals from Disturbance

Understanding the likelihood that a shoal from which sand has been removed will return to its 

pre-disturbance dimensions is critical to determining the frequency at which a particular shoal 

can be mined. It also feeds into understanding the significance of any biological impacts. As 

described in Section 2.2, physical dynamics of the three types of shoals differ, with time scales 

of change ranging from daily/annually (e.g., bedforms) to decadal or longer (e.g., capeassociated shoals) to geologic (e.g., Holocene deposits). These differences factor strongly into 

three important, and closely-linked, questions regarding how much material can be removed 

from a particular shoal:

• How does regional/site-specific variability among shoals control sediment dynamics 

and the likelihood that sand removed from a shoal will be replaced through natural 

processes?

• What is the basis for determining how much material can be removed and still 

maintain physical features sufficient to allow ecological function?

• What data are needed to predict how much material can be removed from a shoal 

complex without disrupting the physical processes controlling its dimensions?

Two studies supported by BOEM have investigated the questions of physical effects to, and 

recovery of, sand borrow areas. Dibajna and Nairn (2011) focused on modeling the time 

sequence of infilling of sand following extraction from bedform shoals in the Mid-Atlantic OCS.
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

90

Using various extraction scenarios, they demonstrated that these dynamic shoals are likely to 

return to their pre-disturbance dimensions. This study was used to support the proposed postHurricane Sandy repairs at Wallops Island, VA using sand from an offshore shoal (Unnamed 

Shoal A). BOEM has required that post-dredging bathymetric surveys be conducted immediately 

after dredging and over the following 1 to 3 years (Bennett 2013). Comparison of these surveys 

to the pre-dredging survey will be valuable in validating Dibajna and Nairn’s (2011) modeling 

predictions.

A second study entitled “Best Practices for Physical Processes and Impact Assessment in 

Support of Dredging Operations on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf” (BOEM Contract Number 

M10PC00118) is currently underway. Although this study focuses more on borrow pits, an 

important objective is to “test, tailor and apply existing numerical morphological modeling tools 

and methods in order to provide robust and defensible predictions of morphological behavior in 

OCS sand extraction pits/areas, as well as the associated nearfield and far-field impacts.” Thus, 

the results may be relevant to a greater understanding of physical processes determining sand 

distribution and shoal formation/maintenance on the OCS.

Physical recovery of sorted bedform shoals appears to be more fully understood and while there 

may be regional variation in the elapsed time required for recovery, in general it can be expected 

that physical recovery will take place.

Similar analyses appear to be missing for other types of shoals. It is recommended, therefore, 

that modeling efforts be applied to stranded Holocene and cape-associated shoals to generate 

predictions of recovery time from disturbances at various levels of impact.

5.2 Biology

Preparation of the draft synthesis and the workshop discussions identified a number of 

knowledge gaps related to fish use of offshore sand shoals and shoal complexes that were 

grouped into six broad categories:

• Species occurrence and utilization

• Functional uses

• Temporal patterns

• Sampling methods

• Impact assessment

• Mitigation or resource management approaches

5.2.1 Species Occurrence and Utilization

• Do useful indicator species exist?

o What fishes commonly use shoal habitats?

o Are there species common to most/all shoal habitats in a region?

o Can impacts to certain species on individual shoals be extended to other members 

of the fish community and to other shoals?

• Are shoal habitats limiting (i.e., is there competition for space among fish species on 

shoals)?
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

91

• Given patchy and temporally variable use of shoals by fishes, can we identify important 

microhabitats?

o Measurements of habitat use at fine scales and linkages to microhabitats within a 

shoal or shoal complex

o Information on the use of shoals and shoal complexes by different life stages

• Are certain habitats used in exclusion of other habitats within a shoal complex?

• Are fish communities (assemblage structure) on shoal habitats unique and distinct from 

non-shoal habitats? 

• Do certain life stages and species exclusively use shoal areas such that repeated 

disturbance to one shoal could lead to chronic biological impacts?

Review of the research conducted on shoals and shoal complexes indicates that a variety of 

fishes (over 350 species) that are common members of shallow continental shelf fish 

communities utilize these habitats in both the Atlantic and GOM OCS. Some of these species 

have been documented on multiple shoals within a region (e.g., sand lance, spotted hake), and 

sixteen species (including, e.g., striped anchovy, smallmouth flounder, lined seahorse, striped 

cusk-eel, and inshore lizardfish) were found to occur on shoals and shoal complexes over a large 

geographic range that included multiple regions. Several species documented as using OCS 

shoals and shoal complexes have been identified as keystone species due to their important 

ecosystem roles in linking habitats and trophic biomass (i.e. forage fishes or apex predators) or 

as habitat engineers; these include river herring, sand lances, Atlantic herring, Atlantic 

menhaden, red grouper, several Atlantic highly migratory species, and blue crab. Shoal areas 

have also been designated as EFH for several Atlantic highly migratory species (e.g., tunas, 

sharks, swordfish, and billfishes), although direct links to shoal habitats for these species are not 

well defined.

Many studies have been restricted to investigating a single shoal or ridge area within a complex, 

so it is often unknown whether individual shoals or ridges within a complex contain the same 

fish communities. The research conducted by Slacum et al. (2006) and Brooks et al. (2005) 

suggests that individual shoals within a complex or region may have varying habitat values due 

to environmental and microscale factors.

Additionally, the importance of specific habitat features for fish communities within the 

continental shelf system is not well understood. Outside of a small number of studies completed 

in the Mid-Atlantic and for some focused on individual species, we have limited information on 

how fish are using specific meso- and micro-habitats within shoals and shoal complexes. The 

studies completed in the Mid-Atlantic indicate that a few species such as sand lances, northern 

stargazers, and snakefish have a preference for the tops of shoals or ridges that consist of coarse 

sand and large bedforms, habitats conducive to burrowing (Diaz et al. 2003, Vasslides and Able 

2008a). Smallmouth flounder and spotted hake instead showed a preference for daytime use of 

complex biogenic trough habitats (Diaz et al. 2003). In the GOM, dwarf sand perch and least 

puffers were present in higher numbers on the shoal crest, while other species (e.g., shoal 

flounder, large-scale lizardfish, silver seatrout) were more abundant in areas adjacent to the crest 

(Wells et al. 2009). Blue crabs have also shown a preference for the tops of shoals in this region, 

which have been hypothesized to provide a refuge from hypoxic conditions that occur in deeper 
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

92

waters (Condrey and Gelpi 2010, Gelpi 2012). Information on the fish species using only the 

shoal and ridge top areas in these complexes, which represent the areas of highest interest for 

sediment extraction and offshore energy development, appears to be currently unavailable for 

much of the South Atlantic, Florida Straits, and GOM regions.

The majority of the studies conducted on shoals and shoal complex habitats have used trawls to 

obtain data on fish diversity, abundance, and seasonality of occurrence. Due to some of the 

specific limitations of trawl gear sampling (e.g., gear selectivity, habitat effects on catchability, 

meso-geographic scale of sampling) that are outlined below in Section 5.2.1.3 on Sampling 

Methods, selection for specific microhabitats by individual fish species on a shoal or within a 

complex cannot be determined definitively. Ichthyoplankton sampling provides information on 

the fish eggs and larvae present in an area; however, due to the pelagic nature of early life stages 

for many taxa, direct links to spawning locations and bottom habitat preferences of spawning 

adults are difficult to make and, in all likelihood, require multi-year data sets. Stomach content 

analyses have shown that fishes commonly forage on the benthic invertebrate communities 

present on a shoal or within a complex, and strong connections between the local benthic 

invertebrate assemblages and the demersal fish community have been documented (Diaz et al. 

2006, Vasslides and Able 2008b, Zarillo et al. 2008, Zarillo et al. 2009). Unfortunately, these 

analyses cannot delineate specific microhabitats on the shoal or in the complex where specific 

fish species are foraging, nor can they determine the role that habitat-forming non-prey 

invertebrate species may have on the fish community structure. Data are currently unavailable to 

determine if fish species are using shoal areas selectively, whether fish species compete for 

meso- or micro- habitats on an individual shoal or within a complex, or the meso- and microhabitats that must be present in order for the shoal or complex to maintain functional fish habitat 

value. Identifying the species utilizing the shoal and ridge top areas is also necessary to 

determine useful indicator species for each region of the OCS. An improved understanding of 

microhabitats used within a shoal or shoal complex habitats is required to fully understand the 

potential chronic impacts of sediment extractions from an individual shoal or extraction from 

multiple shoals within a complex on regional fish populations and habitat connectivity.

5.2.1.1 Functional Uses

• Is the use of shoal habitats or microhabitats on shoals or shoal complexes life-stage 

dependent?

• Are shoals important habitats for migratory fish species?

• Are these habitats primarily foraging or refuge areas?

• Do shoal and shoal complex habitats function as nurseries for marine fishes?

o Occurrence of specific life-stages

o Measurement of vital rates

 Growth

 Condition

 Mortality

o Contribution of recruits from shoal habitats to regional fish populations

• Does the usage of shoal and shoal complex habitats by fishes differ depending on the 

shoal size, complexity, distance from shore, or from major currents?
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

93

• Within a region, which shoals and shoal complexes are most valuable and why?

• Does a change in the composition of benthic invertebrate species significantly impact 

habitat value for fishes using shoals? 

• At the landscape scale is there a significant functional difference between impacted 

versus non-impacted areas in these habitats?

• What is the certainty of our knowledge of the use of shoal habitats and microhabitats 

specifically? Can available sampling methods provide confident predictions?

Shoals and shoal complexes represent unique habitats in OCS waters that may enhance 

biological productivity. Shoals and shoal complexes can serve as fish habitat and provide 

ecological services including foraging areas, refuges from predation, spawning sites, and nursery 

areas (Diaz et al. 2006, Geary et al. 2007, Gilmore 2008, Mikulas and Rooker 2008, Vasslides 

and Able 2008b, Zarillo et al. 2009). Shoal areas have been designated as EFH and HAPC for 

some members of the Atlantic highly migratory species complex, although the evidence for this 

connection is limited (NMFS 2009). Shoal and shoal habitats appear to function as nursery areas 

for marine fishes given that younger life stages predominate (Rooker et al. 2004, Mikulas and 

Rooker 2008). Determining the use of these habitats as nursery areas has been complicated by 

many factors including the spatial scale of fish movements (meters, kilometers, to hundreds of 

kilometers), the duration of a species early life stages, species-specific ontogenetic and spawning 

cohort habitat shifts, and the lack of species-specific growth and mortality information.

Measurements of species-specific vital rates for the species present on shoals and shoal

complexes are necessary in helping to understand shoal and shoal complex habitat value and the 

role these habitats might play in regional fish population dynamics.

The studies conducted by Byrnes et al. (1999), Brooks et al. (2005), Slacum et al. (2006), and 

Zarillo et al. (2009) collectively indicate that individual shoals within a complex and/or region 

can have different habitat values due to macroscale environmental factors (e.g., hypoxia zones) 

as well as differences in microscale factors (e.g., shoal relief and presence of biogenic 

structures). The lack of shoal-specific biological characterization at broad spatial scales makes it 

difficult to determine which shoals and shoal complexes within a region are the most valuable, 

contributing the greatest fish habitat value or ecological function. The location of the shoal or 

shoal complex in relation to other important features (e.g., shore, hard bottom areas, coral reefs, 

and major currents) may also contribute to the habitat value of a particular shoal or shoal 

complex. For example, in the South Atlantic, Florida Straits, and the GOM, reef-associated fish 

species have been found on shoals and shoal complexes adjacent to or containing hard-bottom 

areas, indicating that these hard-bottom features likely influenced the local shoal fish assemblage 

and may have contributed to increased species diversity in these shoal areas (SAFMC 1998, 

Zarillo 2009). Studies in the Mid-Atlantic and GOM also suggest that shoals and shoal

complexes may act as migration corridors between estuarine and ocean habitats, linking early life 

stage and adult habitats for many fish species as well as providing macroscale guides for 

spawning and seasonal migrations (Able 2005, Well et al. 2009, CSA International Inc. et al.

2010).
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

94

5.2.1.2 Temporal Patterns

• Do diel patterns in the use of shoals exist that can inform optimum times for 

disturbance to minimize acute impacts (e.g., mortality directly associated with the 

disturbance activity)? 

• Can we identify seasonal patterns in the use of shoal habitats that can inform decision 

making on time-of-year windows for disturbance activities?

Diel patterns of shoal use have been documented during Mid-Atlantic studies and may be related 

to multiple factors, including species-specific foraging behavior and shoal relief (Diaz et al. 

2003, Slacum et al. 2006). The spatial scale and daytime sampling used in past studies conducted 

in the South Atlantic, Florida Straits, and GOM did not allow for the discernment of diel patterns 

of shoal use in these regions. Therefore, data are not currently available to recommend optimum 

times for disturbance to shoals and shoal complexes to minimize acute impacts associated with 

disturbance activities. Observations in the Mid-Atlantic indicate that diel patterns of shoal use 

may be species-specific. Due to the varying fish assemblages found in the shoals and shoal

complexes in each of the Atlantic and GOM OCS regions, optimal times for disturbance may 

need to be determined regionally in order to effectively minimize acute disturbance impacts for 

the species present in these habitats.

Seasonal patterns of fish occurrence on shoals and shoal complexes have also been documented 

and are generally similar to the regional-specific seasonal migratory and recruitment patterns in 

the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic and GOM regions (Cutter and Diaz 2000, Brooks et al. 2005, 

Gilmore 2008, Slacum et al. 2010, Wells et al. 2009). In the Mid-Atlantic, the majority of the 

species observed were seasonal residents on shoals and/or shoal complexes, with only a small 

percentage present in the winter or year-round (Cutter and Diaz 2000, Slacum et al. 2006, 

Slacum et al. 2010, Vasslides and Able 2008a). Slacum et al. (2010) suggested that restricting 

sediment extraction to winter may minimize adverse impacts to shoal and shoal complex

communities in the Mid-Atlantic, as it would avoid periods of peak benthic invertebrate 

recruitment (spring and summer) and demersal finfish use of the continental shelf as nursery 

grounds.

Wintertime sediment extraction may not be ideal for all locations. For example, along the 

eastern Florida coast in the South Atlantic region, the subtropical to tropical environment allows 

for protracted occurrence and spawning periods that extend throughout the year for many 

species, as several finfish species spawn on the continental shelf during the fall, winter, and 

spring (Gilmore 2008). As a result, a winter restriction for sediment extraction may not be 

appropriate for this region and for the finfish species that are utilizing OCS shoals and shoal

complexes in the South Atlantic.

In the GOM, the hypoxia zone that can occur from late February through early October, with the 

most severe hypoxic conditions occurring in June through August, may affect species richness 

and abundance in the shoal areas within this zone (Brooks et al. 2005). The occurrence of the 

hypoxic zone and the impacts it may have on species occurrence, interactions with disturbance 

activity, and the potential to lengthen recovery times should be considered in determining an 
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

95

appropriate temporal window for shoals and shoal complex disturbance in the specific area of the 

hypoxic zone and in the larger GOM region.

Time-of-year windows for shoals and shoal complex disturbance activities need to be determined 

for each region based on the species present and the periods of peak recruitment and nursery 

ground use for both benthic invertebrate and finfish communities, in conjunction with any other 

large-scale seasonal environmental factors (e.g., hypoxic zones) that could influence the local 

fish assemblages. The data needed to determine time-of-year windows for disturbance activities 

appear to be incomplete for the South Atlantic, Florida Straits, and the GOM regions.

5.2.1.3 Sampling Methods

• Are standard fishery sampling methods (e.g., trawls, traps, etc.) sufficient?

• Can we effectively sample shoal/ridge habitats to determine their value to fishes at 

various spatial scales?

o Are there biases in estimates generated by traditional sampling gears?

o Potential alternative approaches

 Remotely operated vehicles [ROVs]

 Gear-mounted or drop cameras

 Tagging studies

 Data storage tags to determine details of movements and potential 

environmental cues 

 Active and passive acoustics

o Before-After Control-Impact (BACI) studies to provide baseline information

• What are the appropriate research methods to improve our understanding of the 

ecological value and function of shoal habitats for fishes?

There are a variety of sampling techniques available to collect fisheries biological data. Many 

articles and books have been written to describe fisheries sampling techniques and protocols 

(e.g., Zale et al. 2012). Recommendations for physical and biological monitoring programs to 

evaluate the long-term impacts from sediment extraction on the OCS have been discussed by 

Research Planning Inc. et al (2001), Nairn et al (2004), and Diaz et al. (2006). Effective 

sampling of shoals and shoal complex habitats to better understand their value to fishes and 

fisheries will be accomplished by using a variety of sampling methods over multiple spatial and 

time scales to target specific knowledge gaps. The sampling techniques selected will be 

dependent on the data needed to address the specific knowledge gap, the target organism, and the 

time of year (Zale et al. 2012). Sampling approaches used to study these habitats should be fully 

integrated to collect and report data in the most efficient and cost-effective ways.

All fishing gears have a degree of selectivity (e.g., size or species of fishes collected) that is often 

dependent on habitat. As a result, the catches in fishing gears are often biased compared to the 

actual unknown size and species composition of the ecosystem being sampled. Due to this 

selectivity, a single sampling gear provides only limited representation of the characteristics of a 

fish population or community (Zale et al. 2012).
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

96

Trawls

Trawls have been the most commonly used gear to study the fish communities on shoals or in 

shoal complexes. Trawls are often used because they provide a direct assessment of the fish 

community (as opposed to indirect assessments from e.g., acoustic surveys) and sample a 

discrete area or volume of habitat. Because the unit of effort is well defined, trawl surveys 

generate quantitative indices of fish population abundance (Zale et al. 2012).

However, trawls have several limitations, including that they cannot be effectively fished where 

vertical obstructions are present on the substrate, they generally are not suitable for sampling in 

very shallow habitats, they sample at a fairly broad or meso-scale, there is no direct observation 

of the benthic habitat, and fast-swimming fishes or older life stages may avoid collection (Zale et 

al. 2012). In addition, they are typically selective in terms of the size classes caught.

While trawls have provided useful information on fish diversity, abundance, and sizes occurring 

in shoals and shoal complex habitats, their continued use should be coupled with additional 

sampling gears, along with the routine collection of fish tissue samples to determine diet (e.g., 

stomach contents or stable isotope analysis), age (e.g. scales or otoliths) and genetics. Trawl 

surveys can be effectively combined with other sampling methods to provide finer spatial scale 

information on habitat use, such as methods that provide direct observations of habitat utilization 

and species interactions (e.g., ROV surveys).

The knowledge gaps in meso- and micro-scale habitat utilization can be investigated using 

remote direct observation, tagging, and biotelemetry techniques. Tagging and biotelemetry 

studies can also help to fill knowledge gaps related to fish movement, foraging, growth, and 

survival for species that use shoals and shoal complexes.

Direct Observation

Direct observation techniques are most effective at obtaining accurate information on marine 

organisms in their ecological surroundings to supplement studies that include broad-scale 

inventories of distribution and abundance. Specifically, in situ observational techniques can 

record observations on fish behavior, evaluate habitat use, quantify species interactions, and aid 

in the performance assessment of traditional gears. The advantages of direct observation methods 

are the ability to obtain in situ behavioral information in a nonintrusive and nondestructive way 

that is recorded for later examination and verification. Direct observations are most appropriate 

when the effectiveness of other sampling methods are compromised by environmental conditions 

(e.g., habitat complexity and depth; Zale et al. 2012). ROVs and gear-mounted cameras are 

examples of remote direct observation equipment that can be used in shoals and shoal complexes 

to investigate utilization of the invertebrate benthic community as the fish forage base and for 

biogenic shelters, species- and life stage-specific microhabitat utilization, and species 

interactions. Direct observation techniques can be limited by local environmental conditions 

(e.g., water clarity, currents, waves, and depth) and the inability to measure many important 

biological characteristics (e.g., weight, sex, age, and reproductive status) of the fish.

VIE Tagging

Tagging studies are used to examine fish movement patterns and to estimate growth rates, 

demographic traits, and abundance of fish populations. If well planned, tagging programs can 
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

97

address multiple characteristics of interest (e.g., movements, vital rates, and connectivity) in the 

same study. A wide variety of tags and marking techniques can be used. Tag selection should 

consider visibility, non-impairment to tagged fish growth and survival, tag retention rates, and 

cost (Zale et al. 2012). Tags that may be useful in studying shoals and shoal complexes include 

visible implant elastomer (VIE) tags and electronic tags including both data storage tags and

acoustic tags.

VIE tags are colored elastomer mixed with a clear catalyst that are injected with a hypodermic 

needle into transparent or translucent fish tissues and are visible as a colored dot or stripe. They 

are widely utilized because they can be applied to small individuals; have little effect on fish 

behavior, growth, and survival; can create unique identifications; have long retention times 

depending on tag location, species and color; and are available at a low cost (Zale et al. 2012).

VIE tags could be used to study short term (i.e., weeks and months) growth and movement of 

young-of-the-year juvenile fish on shoals and shoal complexes. A drawback to VIE tags is that 

the tagged individuals must be recaptured in order to obtain any data so their application would 

require simultaneous trawl and/or ROV studies.

Electronic Tagging

Electronic tags remotely monitor behavioral, physiological, and environmental data from an 

individual free-swimming fish moving through the marine environment to determine habitat use, 

aspects of migrations, survival rates, and home ranges. The advantages of electronic tags are the 

ability to assess differences among individuals, to link behavior and physiology, to work across 

different spatial and temporal scales, and to collect data from remote or inaccessible habitats.

Limitations of these tags include: high cost, difficulty obtaining adequate sample sizes for robust 

statistical power and population level inference on a limited budget, expensive sensor calibration 

or upload fees, and some limitations associated with fish size. It can also be difficult and time 

consuming to interpret large volumes of data for multiple biological parameters that may or may 

not be independent of one another (Zale et al. 2012).

There are two primary types of electronic tags that would be useful for investigations around 

shoals: data storage tags and acoustic tags.

Data storage tags contain sensors with long battery life (up to 7 years) and large data storage 

capacity, and can be programmed to record a variety of parameters (e.g., location, depth, 

temperature, salinity, pressure, and swimming dynamics) from a fish moving through the marine 

environment. Data storage tags usually need to be recovered from the fish to acquire recorded 

data; although satellite transmitters can provide real-time uplinks to orbiting satellites on large 

surface swimming fishes and pop-up satellite tags are designed to be released from the fish and 

float to the surface where they transmit the recorded data. The disadvantages of these tags 

include tag cost, the expenses associated with initial fish capture and tag application, and the 

dependence on voluntary recovery and reporting by fishermen and processors for tag returns and 

data retrieval. To maximize tag recovery, tags and contact information should be highly visible, a 

monetary reward should be offered for tag returns, and the study should be widely publicized 

(Zale et al. 2012; www.fishmarking.com/electronic_data_storage_tag.php). Data storage tags 

could be useful in filling the knowledge gaps in migratory patterns and routes, the time of year 

and length of use of shoals and shoal complexes, determination of selective use of these features, 
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

98

and preferred environmental features, particularly for Atlantic highly migratory species and other 

large commercially and recreationally important fish species that may only use shoals and shoal 

complexes sporadically. 

Another type of electronic tags is the acoustic tag. Broadly referred to as acoustic telemetry, 

acoustic tags produce an acoustic transmission ranging from 24 to 200 kHz with an internal 

battery that is detected by one or more fixed-position acoustic receivers that the investigator 

deploys within a study area. In addition, active telemetry involves the use of a mobile tracking 

receiver to locate fish. Data are stored in the receivers in the form of detections of specific fish,

with each detection defined by a date and time. Acoustic tag longevity ranges from 5 days to 2.5 

years depending on battery size and transmission frequency. Fish size (>12 cm) and morphology, 

water depth, temperature, study duration, and attachment method are important considerations in 

selecting the type of transmitter used in a study. It is recommend that the transmitter weigh less 

than 2% (in air) of the body mass of a fish to prevent negative impacts on swimming behavior.

There is currently no evidence that acoustic transmitters alter fish behavior or increase predation 

risk although alosine species are known to show aversion to 110-140 kHz high-intensity 

ultrasound. The propagated sound signal produced by each transmitter is detected by either a 

mobile tracking receiver, submerged hydrophone, or two-and three- dimensional positioning 

hydrophones arrays. Detection range is influenced by depth, transmitter output, and 

environmental noise. Wireless systems can send data collected from hydrophones on buoys to 

nearby receivers and data loggers to provide fish location data in near-real time (Zale et al. 

2012). Acoustic telemetry is receiving increased attention and has been used to describe broadscale movements of several species of marine and freshwater fishes. However information on 

fine-scale habitat use has been limited with conventional acoustic telemetry because geolocation 

estimates from single receiver detections are relatively coarse (+ 100’s of meters), and are 

restricted by the detection range of the receiver. Recently developed technology (e.g., Vemco 

VR2W Positioning System) uses multiple, closely spaced hydrophones to triangulate fish 

positions, which for the first time has provided continuous records of fine-scale movements and 

habitat linkages within a marine seascape (Espinoza et al. 2011a, b; Furey et al. 2013). Future 

assessments of habitat use on shoals and shoal complexes can benefit from the inclusion of 

Vemco VR2W Positioning System’s and similar technology.

Active fisheries acoustics (commonly referred to as hydroacoustics) is the process of transmitting 

sound pulses and analyzing the returning echoes to detect fish. This technique is used to measure 

the distribution and abundance of organisms in the entire water column for depths ranging from 

hundreds to thousands of meters during day or night (Zale et al. 2012). Hydroacoustics 

techniques can be used to investigate fish behaviors (e.g. diel vertical migrations, foraging and 

migration-related swimming behavior, and schooling structure), year-class formation, prey 

abundance and distribution, bottom sediment type and submerged vegetation, and other seafloor 

features. Hydroacoustic methods are hindered by a limited ability to differentiate among similar 

fish species and to detect fish close to the surface and bottom. For hydroacoustic surveys to 

provide accurate information, they are often paired with trawl surveys to provide data on species 

composition and length frequencies that enable the calculation of hydroacoustic target strength 

(Zale et al. 2012). Newly developed imaging sonars (e.g., DIDSON or ARIS from Sound 

Metrics) transmit sound pulses and convert the echoes into digital images that can be used to

differentiate individuals to the family or even species level. A spilt-beam bioacoustics system 
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

99

could be used to study short-and long-term pelagic fish density and distribution, diel vertical 

migrations, and zooplankton abundance and distribution in shoals and shoal complexes. Sidescan sonar could be used to study shoal and ridge features, shoal bedforms, and for assessing the 

physical impacts of sediment extraction and offshore development on shoals and shoal

complexes. Complementary traditional gear (e.g., trawl) surveys would be necessary for at least 

a subset of stations to validate hydroacoustic information.

5.1.2.4 Impact Assessment

• Can fishes compensate for disturbance to shoal habitats?

o Determine whether essential habitats are limiting

o Determine connectivity of shoal habitats

o Density-dependent competition for refuge space, prey resources, spawning sites

• How do we extrapolate localized disturbance effects to population-level responses at a 

regional scale?

o Measurement of presence/absence or abundance at multiple spatial scales

o Assessing disturbance

 Do disturbance thresholds exist? Do temporal thresholds exist for local or 

regional habitat disturbance within a large marine ecosystem that 

translate to chronic impacts on fish populations?

 Relate magnitude and time of anthropogenic disturbances to natural or 

other (e.g., fishing) disturbances

o Application of new approaches to measure:

 Genetic diversity

 Regional contribution to adult stocks (e.g., chemical tracers in hard parts)

• Cumulative impacts – regional management

• Is there a threshold of limited habitat that can be predetermined for a given region?

• Are there any habitat benefits from dredging-related disturbances to shoals (i.e., do these 

activities create any new habitats)?

A variety of methods have been used to investigate the movements and habitat use of fishes 

across marine seascapes (defined here as areas with a mix of habitat types) such as shoals and 

shoal complexes. Traditional methods described above (active sampling with net gears, 

conventional tags) provide a snapshot of an organism’s distribution within a seascape; however, 

they provided very little information on movements or the linkages of species across different

habitat types. As a result, information on the habitat value and function of offshore shoals and 

shoal complex habitats for fishes and fisheries is incomplete at this time and it is unknown if 

fishes can compensate for large-scale disturbances to these habitats. Disturbances can affect the 

behavior and physiology of marine organisms which in turn could lead to changes in 

survivability and demographic rates. Population level effects of disturbance could also cascade 

among species if keystone forage or predator species are impacted. Identifying and modeling 

mechanisms through which individual level responses to disturbances could propagate to a 

population level effect is difficult. Part of this difficulty comes from a lack of quantitative 

understanding of marine ecosystem connectivity, marine fish use of various habitats, important 
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

100

species interactions within these habitats, and how different frequencies and magnitudes of 

anthropogenic disturbances impact habitats, as compared to natural disturbances such as storms.

Extrapolating the impacts of local disturbance at shoal and shoal complex habitats to the 

population level is currently not feasible given the nature of previous sampling efforts.

Concurrent sampling with similar experimental design and gear is needed across multiple shoals

and shoal complexes in the South Atlantic and GOM to better characterize spatial and temporal 

patterns of habitat use. These data can then be linked to environmental data (e.g., areal coverage 

of substrate types, water quality, and depth) to develop habitat suitability models (e.g. 

generalized additive models), which can then be used to determine the influence of 

environmental conditions on the occurrence of each species of interest. Explanatory variables in 

these models, which often include both physicochemical and biological parameters, can be used 

to predict the probability of occurrence (including defining “high quality” habitat) for each 

species at large regional scales. The spatial extent of impacted shoal areas for each species can 

then be viewed in relation to the total available area and the spatial distribution of “high quality” 

habitat of each species to assess potential impacts due to disturbance (e.g. Rooker et al. 2013).

Mobile species and life-stages are expected to emigrate, at least temporarily, during shoal habitat 

disturbances; however, the specific meso- and micro- habitats that are being utilized by many of 

the species present in shoal habitats are unknown and as such it cannot be determined if they are 

limiting to regional populations or species. As discussed previously, further research is necessary 

to more fully understand the use of fine-scale habitats within these features and the function they 

provide as nursery areas and/or spawning locations. Further research is also necessary to 

understand the function that shoals and shoal complexes may have in estuarine-offshore 

migrations and habitat connectivity. Species that use specific shoals as spawning locations (e.g. 

red ear sardine, scaled sardine, and Atlantic thread herring) may be more sensitive and less 

resilient to disturbances to these habitats than other species. Species and populations that are 

already stressed due to large-scale factors limiting the amount of quality habitat available (e.g., 

hypoxia zones) may also be less resilient to disturbances to shoal and shoal complex habitats 

compared to species or populations in another region.

We currently do not know if disturbance thresholds exist for sediment extraction from marine 

ecosystems, at what habitat disturbance frequencies or magnitudes could translate into 

cumulative or chronic impacts on fish populations, or how multiple anthropogenic disturbances 

or stressors will interact to impact large marine ecosystem fish populations or assemblages. The 

data necessary to determine disturbance thresholds can be collected through baseline surveys and 

fish stock assessments, and long-term (five years or more) BACI studies. Size structure and 

conditions indices can be integrated to document changes in fish populations over time 

especially in conjunction with relative abundance, recruitment, growth, and mortality data (Zale 

et al 2012). Genetic analysis of fish populations and chemical analysis of hard structures (e.g., 

otoliths) can help determine natal origins and fish movement patterns over broad spatial scales 

that can be used to develop spatial management programs. Additionally, approaches like 

potential biological removal levels that are used to evaluate anthropogenic disturbances to 

marine mammal, sea turtle, and seabird populations could be adapted to evaluate disturbances to 

fish populations.
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

101

Natural disturbances are important to soft-substrate communities and can positively affect 

biodiversity by generating patchiness and heterogeneity which maintain diversity and stability at 

community, population, and ecosystem levels (Thrush and Dayton 2002). Sediment extraction in 

soft-substrate habitats results in the direct removal of infaunal and epifaunal organisms with 

reductions in the number of individuals, species, and biomass. OCS macrobenthic communities 

usually recover total abundance and biomass within 3 months to 2.5 years, however postdisturbance taxonomic composition and species diversity can remain different from predisturbance conditions for more than 3-5 years (Michel et al. 2013).

The fact that natural disturbances can have some positive effects on soft-substrate communities 

has led to the suggestion that anthropogenic disturbances can positively influence biodiversity.

However, this has not been tested over the broad spatial scale relevant to anthropogenic 

disturbances. As a result, its application across species, benthic communities, and various scales 

of disturbance and recovery time may not be appropriate (Thrush and Dayton 2002).

Significant threats to the integrity and resilience of marine benthic communities occur when the 

rate of anthropogenic disturbance exceeds the rate at which ecosystems can respond. This is 

likely to occur where habitat structure and heterogeneity are reduced and large areas of habitat 

have been disturbed. Benthic organisms with slow growth and reproductive rates will often 

experience the greatest negative effects and will have a reduced potential to reestablish or 

colonize new areas compared to faster growing, short-lived species. The loss of ecological 

function and habitat value could result if habitat homogenization and loss of small-scale 

patchiness occurs (Thrush and Dayton 2002). Michel et al. (2103) suggests that applications of 

ecological disturbance theory and resilience as achieved by benthic community recovery could 

guide the predictions of OCS sediment extraction impacts. The scientific literature discusses the 

potential impacts, minimization and mitigation methods, and recovery times to OCS borrow 

areas; the literature has not discussed the benefits of sediment extraction to these OCS borrow 

locations.

5.2.1.5 Mitigation or Resource Management Approaches

• How do we avoid or minimize disturbances to ecologically valuable shoal habitats? What 

resource conservation methods are appropriate?

o Which Best Management Practices (BMPs) have substantiated results?

o Can we develop uniform mitigation approaches that can be applied to multiple 

projects with similar resources?

• How can we mitigate disturbance to shoal habitats?

o Scheduling of activities (time of day, season)

o Minimize physical impact to shoal

 Restrict depth of sand mining

 Uniform removal along shoal length

 Avoid regions of shoal containing important microhabitats

 Large scale open and closed areas (rotational disturbance)

• Develop the idea of adaptive mitigation measures depending on geological and physical 

conditions and how to apply this concept
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

102

A large amount of literature exists on the impacts of anthropogenic benthic habitat disturbance in 

estuarine and nearshore areas. The known effects of these disturbances has led to BMPs that are 

often required to be used when project activities will disturb benthic habitats. Some of these 

practices may be applicable to activities being conducted on the OCS, for example seasonal or 

time-of-year restrictions, whereas other mitigation methods may be specific to or necessary for 

shoals and shoal complex habitats. Michel et al. (2013) provides a recent review of the impacts 

of sediment extraction on OCS sand borrow areas which includes mitigation measures and their 

potential effectiveness. The effectiveness of many of the mitigation measures is unknown at this 

time since monitoring data has not been able to fully substantiate the results.

Conduct Long-Term Morphological Evaluations

Mitigation of disturbances to shoals and shoal complexes and their ecologically valuable habitats 

should begin during the shoal or sand resource area selection process. Long-term and short-term 

studies of shoal morphology evolution to investigate shoal self-sustainability mechanisms should 

be completed for the offshore shoals in each region through a detailed morphologic evaluation 

that includes morphometric analysis, field measurements, and numerical modeling of extraction 

scenarios. These detailed regional evaluations are necessary to determine specific features that 

maintain shoal integrity in the region and to determine which shoals are likely to retain shoal 

integrity and related ecological functions after disturbance. A detailed morphologic evaluation 

with guidelines for sediment extraction has been performed for the Mid-Atlantic region based on 

local storm wave height, direction, and related subtidal currents (Dibajnia and Nairn 2011). 

Similar evaluations should be performed for the South Atlantic, Florida Straits, and GOM

regions.

For sorted bedform and ridge/trogh shoals in the Mid-Atlantic region, the evaluation by Dibajnia 

and Nairn (2011) found that shoal height (relief) was the most important factor representing 

shoal integrity. Their guidelines for sediment extraction practices result in a reformed shoal with 

the same height as the pre-extracted shoal, maintaining and protecting offshore shoal and ridge 

integrity. The modeling indicated that the reformed shoal contained a smaller sediment volume 

compared to the pre-extracted shoal because extracted volume was not fully compensated by the 

transport of material from outside of the shoal. It is unlikely that these results are applicable to 

other shoal types. Ecological studies in the Mid-Atlantic (e.g. Diaz et al. 2003, Slacum et al. 

2006, and Slacum et al. 2010) suggest that shoal relief (height) is an important feature that 

contributes to fish habitat value.

Use Shoal Integrity Guidelines

As a result of shoal morphology studies, the following guidelines were recommended to maintain 

shoal integrity and related ecological function of sorted bedform and ridge/trough shoals in the 

Mid-Atlantic region: 

1) sediment extraction should be conducted from shoals that have reached their maximum 

relative shoal height; 

2) sediment extraction should be conducted from the southwest side of the shoal and longitudinal 

extraction should be avoided; 
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

103

3) relative shoal height (shoal height to base depth) should not be reduced to less than 0.65 after 

sediment extraction, therefore directly removing sediment from the shoal crest is not 

recommended for this area; and 

4) shoals with the base depth greater than 30 m and shoals with relative shoal height ratio (height 

above substrate/base depth) of less than 0.5 should not be dredged (Dibajnia and Nairn 2011).

Recommendations for borrow site selection and extraction methods suggested by CSA 

International Inc. et al. (2010) for sorted bedform and ridge/trough type shoals include:

1) extraction should occur from depocenter or leading (downdrift) margin of the shoal to avoid 

interrupting natural shoal migration; 

2) extraction should occur over large areas in a striped pattern to leave sediment sources 

interspersed throughout and adjacent to the borrow area in order to avoid deep pits and promote 

more uniformly distributed infilling processes; and 

3) limit total sediment removed from an individual shoal so that only a portion of a shoal is 

removed.

Use Numerical Modeling

As many of the large shoals in the northwest GOM are stranded Holocene sedimentary deposits 

that will not regrow or rebuild, numerical modeling of extraction scenarios for this shoal type is 

extremely important in order to select the best extraction scenarios that will maintain shoal 

integrity and related ecological functions (e.g., hypoxia refuges). 

Account for Extenuating Environmental Conditions

Prior to selecting a particular shoal for sand removal, extenuating environmental conditions need 

to be identified and taken into account.Special consideration must be paid to shoals that offer or 

could offer unique functions. For example, shoals with substantial relative relief in the GOM can 

act as hypoxia refuges. In the Mid-Atlantic, some studies suggest that fishes may be using 

individual shoals within a shoal complex differently or to a greater or lesser degree. Shoals for 

which fishes show affinity should be afforded more protection from disturbance or, at a 

minimum, be disturbed less frequently. 

Apply Time-of-Year Restrictions

Common practices used in sediment extraction of nearshore habitats that may be applicable to 

activities being conducted on OCS shoals and shoal complexes include time-of-year restrictions 

as well as maintenance of undisturbed patches of benthic habitat (sensu habitat reserves).

Seasonal or time-of-year restrictions which are BMPsin estuarine and nearshore habitats may be 

applicable mitigation for disturbance to the benthic invertebrate and fish communities in offshore 

shoals and shoal complexes, since seasonal patterns of fish occurrence have been documented in 

these habitats and were generally similar to the regional-specific seasonal migratory and 

recruitment patterns. Slacum et al. (2010) suggested adverse impacts to shoal and shoal complex 

communities from sediment extraction may be minimized by avoiding seasons of peak 

recruitment and times of the year when the shoals function as nursery grounds. Time-of-year 

windows for disturbances to shoals and shoal complexes need to be determined for each region 

based on the species present, the periods of peak recruitment and nursery ground use of both the 

benthic invertebrate and finfish communities, and any other large seasonal environmental factors 

that could influence the local assemblages (e.g. hypoxic zones). Areas in subtropical to tropical 
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

104

environments that have protracted fish occurrence and spawning periods throughout the year for 

many species may need to determine time-of-year restrictions based on the species and local 

environmental conditions present on the specific shoal selected for disturbance in these areas in 

order to minimize adverse impacts. For the Mid-Atlantic region which has a high percentage of 

summer seasonal residents, Slacum et al. (2010) suggested a winter time-of-year window for 

sediment extraction to avoid periods of peak fish and invertebrate recruitment (spring and 

summer). The data needed to determine time-of-year windows for disturbance activities on OCS 

shoals and shoal complexes is incomplete for the North and South Atlantic, Florida Straits, and 

the GOM regions.

Leave Undisturbed Patches

The second mitigation measure that is often recommended for sediment extraction in nearshore 

waters that may be applicable mitigation for the benthic invertebrate and fish communities in 

OCS areas is the practice of leaving undisturbed patches of benthic habitat (Slacum et al. 2010, 

Michel et al. 2013). The undisturbed patches would provide some refuge for mobile species 

during extraction activities and would provide habitat from which benthic fauna could recolonize 

the disturbed areas. If arranged into a network of undisturbed areas, fish could readily migrate 

between areas to avoid localized disturbances. Telemetry approaches would be a fruitful 

technique to determine the effectiveness of such a design.

5.3 Biophysical Coupling

• What are the key physical or biological features of shoal habitats that provide ecological 

function and value to fishes?

• Connectivity between shoal and non-shoal habitats; how do the habitat characteristics of 

adjacent non-shoal habitat affect shoal fish assemblages and their ability to move among 

shoals?

• How do species-specific life history traits and/or behaviors impact the value and 

connectivity of shoal/ridge habitats?

• Are there differences in function and habitat quality between shoals that are actively 

moving or have a higher sediment flux rate than those that have little or no annual 

sedimentary disturbances and are generally static? 

• Are microhabitats within shoals used differentially and does this reflect different habitat 

value?

• Is there sufficient information to understand cumulative effects of repetitive use of the 

same feature or multiple features in the same geographic area?

The physical features of shoals that provide important ecological value depend on what function 

is of concern. In the example of blue crabs in the GOM, better water quality conditions in terms 

of dissolved oxygen levels on the crest of the shoal appeared to be the primary factor that 

influenced their distribution. It is reasonable to postulate that other demersal species could also 

benefit from a bathymetric high to avoid low oxygen levels. As a result, preservation of 

ecological function could be achieved by restricting removal of sand from these shoals to the 

slopes and prohibiting removal from the crest. Some shoal-dredging projects in the eastern GOM 

have followed this practice under the assumption that it would preserve nursery habitat for 
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

105

species like cobia, although Wells et al. (2009) found that habitat preference varied among 

species.

Relationships between the benthic infaunal community and the physical environment are well 

understood with sediment grain size and amount of exposure to waves and currents being two of 

the most important factors. In principle, this knowledge can be applied to shoal ecology, but 

research specifically addressing these relationships is limited. Demersal fishes are typically 

found to have substrate (hard versus unconsolidated; general grain size) preferences for feeding 

and perhaps spawning but conclusive data relating to use of microhabitats (as defined by 

sediment structure) on shoals are not available. Logically, it would seem that static shoals would 

have greater ecological value as nursery areas than would more dynamic shoals.

Recommendations for biological studies are discussed in the Section 5.4. Greater understanding 

of the relationships between biota and the microhabitats of shoals and adjacent non-shoal 

habitats would be attainable through these multi-technique efforts. 

5.4 Recommendations for Next Steps

In order to enable BOEM to move forward with its mandate of managing offshore sand 

resources, including dredging for habitat restoration, beach nourishment, and shoreline 

protection, it is important to identify the most important research to accomplish. As described in 

Sections 5.1 through 5.3, there are several gaps in our understanding of both physical and 

biological features that are key to shoal function, including some very basic facets. This section 

provides recommendations for research that will have broad applications to assessment of 

individual shoals for sand removal. The most basic questions identified in the literature survey 

and workshop are:

• How dynamic are offshore shoals and how resilient are they to disturbance (e.g., 

dredging, storms)?

• What organisms use the offshore shoals preferentially and why?

The answers to these questions are likely to vary by region and by type of shoal but will provide 

the basic information to guide additional research. While these initial research questions will not 

necessarily provide the answers to all of the questions that arose during the literature survey and 

workshop, it is expected that they will supply BOEM with sufficient data to make informed 

decisions on the future use of shoals.

Prior to initiating extensive research programs, it would be advisable to convene a working 

group composed of resource and regulatory agency staff and research scientists to solidify plans.

At a minimum this should include BOEM, NOAA-Fisheries, and the Corps representatives from 

the eastern and western GOM, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and North Atlantic. Primary goals 

of these meetings would be to develop research approaches for sediment dynamics and 

biological investigations and to identify shoals where research should take place. The group must 

operate under the premise that the research will be targeted to obtain the necessary information 

to evaluate the feasibility of harvesting sand from offshore shoals. They must identify shoals that 

are representative of each particular type that occurs in each region (Table 5-1).
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

106

Table 5-1. Distribution of shoals in US OCS in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic

Region

Stranded 

Holocene/Pleistocene Cape-Associated Sorted Bedform

Western GOM x

Eastern GOM x x

South Atlantic x x x

Mid-Atlantic x x

North Atlantic x x

5.4.1 Geological and Physical Research

Physical condition, whether it is the bathymetric expression, the heterogeneity of the substrate, or 

availability of shelter, has a great deal of influence on the biota that use the shoals. Expanding

our understanding of shoal dynamics in particular will help elucidate the factors that cause some 

species to make use of the shoals.

Evidence was presented in Section 2.2.4 showing that the physical dynamics of shoals could be 

quite variable even within one type of shoal. For example, some sorted bedform shoals have 

been observed to migrate quite rapidly while others have not moved in several years. Does this 

migratory behavior also reflect local sediment transport conditions such that the actively 

migrating shoals are likely to refill more readily than the more stationary shoals?

Modeling predicts that ridge and trough shoals in the Mid-Atlantic can refill after sand removal 

but post-dredging recovery of other types of shoals has not been modeled. Understanding the 

time frame and relative completeness of physical recovery of a shoal or type of shoal is key to 

evaluating the potential biological impacts with shoal dredging. It is recommended that modeling 

similar to that conducted by Dibajna and Nairn (2011) be completed for each type of shoal in 

each region.

It is also important to test model predictions with empirical studies. As discussed in Section 5.4.2

on biological research recommendations, at least a few study shoals should be identified for a 

full range of survey techniques. In terms of geology and dynamics, the study parameters should 

include detailed bathymetric and grain size mapping of the feature prior to any human 

disturbance and follow-up mapping after either a major storm or a dredging event. Deployment 

of current meters at appropriate depths would also be beneficial.

5.4.2 Biological Research

Most biological research that has been conducted on offshore shoals has been targeted at 

answering one or several specific questions, but the studies have lacked a holistic approach that 

examines multiple facets of the communities that are using the shoals. As discussed in Section 

5.2, the fisheries sampling methods that have been used by most past projects have limitations 

either in terms of the life stages vulnerable to the sampling gear or in the ability to document

exactly where the captured organisms were at the time of capture. A holistic approach would 

include both benthos and finfish sampling and use sampling equipment appropriate for each of 

the life stages that could be present.
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

107

It is recommended that a similar study design be applied to each of the shoals identified by the 

shoal research working group in order to address these questions:

• What species, if any, use shoal habitats extensively or exclusively?

• Are there specific life stages dependent on shoals?

• How are different parts of the shoal used?

• How is the adjacent habitat used?

• Are all the shoals within a shoal complex used the same way?

A solid baseline study would consist of multiple survey techniques for both benthos and finfish, 

including such methods as:

• Benthos

o Sediment profile imaging

o Grab sampling

o Epibenthic sled

o Remotely operated video

• Finfish

o Trawl, potentially of different mesh sizes

o Gear-mounted video

o Remotely operated video

o Acoustic telemetry

o Ichthyoplankton sampling

Sampling should be conducted at intervals appropriate to the specific resources of interest.

Annual benthic sampling might be sufficient whereas fisheries and ichthyoplankton sampling 

must be much more frequent, potentially monthly or twice monthly.

BACI studies are used to evaluate physical changes to habitats resulting from anthropogenic 

disturbances (Stewart-Oaten et al. 1986; Underwood 1994). In a BACI study design, time is used 

as the replicate with biological or habitat variables measured before and after disturbance at both 

the disturbed site and an undisturbed reference site. The reference or control site is used to obtain 

an unbiased evaluation of the disturbance effects. BACI designs need to consider both sampling 

frequency and potential collinear changes (Zale et al. 2012). Long-term BACI studies should be 

conducted for representative offshore shoals in areas proposed for (or likely to be proposed for) 

sediment extraction and development. In shoal complexes, it would be important to examine 

more than one individual shoal as studies in these habitats have indicated that habitat value may 

vary within the complex. Asymmetrical multiple control BACI design may be more appropriate 

to use when evaluating impacts from multiple disturbances to a single shoal and disturbances to 

multiple shoals in a complex or region. BACI studies should be long term (five years or more), 

ideally include as many baseline period surveys as post-impact surveys, and include monitoring 

of surface, mid, and bottom water quality; sediment bedform and grain size; the benthic 

invertebrate community; and the fish community.

Use of the BACI study design will provide a strong basis for understanding data collected from a 

shoal following a dredging event. The BACI design compares both baseline and post-impact 
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS

108

conditions at a site targeted for some type of human intervention to a similar control area.

Having sufficient baseline data to understand the level of natural variability in biological activity 

is very useful, but the presence of a carefully selected control area allows interpretation of postimpact conditions within a broader spatial context. 

5.4.3 Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Various mitigative actions have been factored into some shoal dredging projects and include 

restrictions on the time of year, portion of the shoal where sand can be removed, and volume of 

sand that can be removed. The efficacy of these practices has not been confirmed, however. It 

will be important to include consideration of these mitigative actions into the study design for the 

recommended biological research program.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

109

6.0 Literature Cited

Abel, C.E., B.A., C.L. Tracy, R.E. Vincent, Jensen. 1989. Hurricane hindcast methodology and 

wave statistics for Atlantic and Gulf hurricanes from 1956–1975. Wave Information Study 

Report 19, Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi, 85 pp.

Able, K.W., M.P., Fahay, and G.R. Shepherd. 1995. Early life history of black sea bass, 

Centropristis striata, in the Mid-Atlantic Bight and a New Jersey estuary. Fishery Bulletin 

93:429-445.

Able, K.W. 2005. A re-examination of fish estuarine dependence: evidence for connectivity 

between estuarine and ocean habitats. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64:5–17.

Able, K.W., M.P. Fahay, D.A. Witting, R.S. McBride, and S.M. Hagan. 2006. Fish settlement in 

the ocean vs. estuary: Comparison of pelagic larval and settled juvenile composition and 

abundance from southern New Jersey, U.S.A. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 

66:280−290.

Adams, D.H., and R. Paperno. 2007. Preliminary assessment of a nearshore nursery ground for 

the Scalloped Hammerhead off the Atlantic coast of Florida. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 50:165-174.

Anderson, J.B., D.J. Wallace, A.R. Simms, A.B. Rodriguez, and K.T. Milliken. 2013. Variable 

response of coastal environments of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico to sea-level rise and 

climate change: Implications for future change. Marine Geology. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2013.12.008.

Anderson, J.T., J.E. Simon, D.C. Gordon, and P.C. Hurley. 2005. Linking fisheries to benthic 

habitats at multiple scales: Eastern Scotian Shelf haddock. In: P.W. Barnes and J.P. Thomas 

(eds.), Benthic habitats and the effects of fishing. AFS Symposium 41:251-264.

Antoine, J.W. 1972. Structure of the Gulf of Mexico, in Resak, R. and V.J. Henry (eds) 

Contributions on the Geological and Geophysical Oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico of 

Texas A&M University Oceanographic Studies, Vol. 3. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston TX.

Aquarone, M.C., and S. Adams. 2009. Northeast US Continental Shelf LME. In: Sherman, K. 

and Hempel, G. (Editors). The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A perspective on 

changing conditions in LMEs of the world’s Regional Seas. United Nations Environment 

Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 872 pp.

Ashton, A.D., and A.B. Murray. 2006. High-angle wave instability and emergent shoreline 

shapes: Wave climate analysis and comparisons to nature. Journal of Geophysical Research, 

Earth Surface 111: F04012

Aubrey, C.W., and F.F. Snelson. 2007. Early life history of the Spinner Shark in a Florida 

nursery. American Fisheries Society Symposium 50:175-189.

Auster, P.J., R.J. Malatesta, and C.L.S. Donaldson. 1997. Distributional responses to small-scale 

habitat variability by early juvenile silver hake, Merluccius bilinearis. Environmental 

Biology of Fishes 50:195-200.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

110

Auster, P.J., R.J. Malatesta, and S.C. LaRosa. 1995. Patterns of microhabitat utilization by 

mobile megafauna on the southern New England (USA) continental shelf and slope. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 127:77–85.

Auster, P.J., J. Lindholm, S. Schaub, G. Funnell, L.S. Kaufman, and P.C. Valentine. 2003. Use 

of sand wave habitats by silver hake. Journal of Fish Biology 62:143-152.s

Auster, P.J., R.J. Malatesta, S.C. LaRosa, R.A. Cooper, and L.L. Stewart. 1991. Microhabitat 

utilization by the megafaunal assemblage at a low relief outer continental shelf site: Middle 

Atlantic Bight, USA. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 11:59–69.

Bartholomew, A., R.J. Diaz, and G. Cicchetti. 2000. New dimensionless indices of structural

habitat complexity: predicted and actual effects on a predator's foraging success. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 206:45-58.

Bennett, J.F. 2013. Wallops Island Post-Hurricane Sandy Shoreline Repair. FONSI. BOEM 

Contract Number M10PC00118 Best Practices for Physical Processes and Impact 

Assessment in Support of Dredging Operations on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. 

Available at: 

http://www.boem.gov/uploadedfiles/wallops%20EA%20and%20FONSI%202013.pdfhttp://

www.boem.gov/uploadedfiles/wallops%20EA%20and%20FONSI%202013.pdf

Beukers, J.S., and G.P. Jones. 1997. Habitat complexity modifies the impact of piscivores on a 

coral reef fish population. Oecologia 114:50-59.

BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2013. Gulf of Mexico OCS G&G Programmatic 

EIS Area of Interest Map. Available at http://www.boem.gov/GOM-G-G-PEIS/. Accessed on 

July 5, 2013.

Boesch, D.F. 1979. Benthic ecological studies: Macrobenthos. Chapter 6. Middle Atlantic outer 

continental shelf environmental studies. Final Report to Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, D. C.

Bonzek, C.F., J. Gartland, J.D. Lange, and R.J. Latour. 2008. Northeast Area Monitoring and 

Assessment Program (NEAMAP) Mid-Atlantic Nearshore Trawl Program Progress Report: 

Fall 2007 Survey Data Summary. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, 

DC. 156 pp.

Boss, S.K., and C.W. Hoffman. 2001. Geologic Framework Derived from High-Resolution 

Seismic Reflection, Side-Scan Sonar, and Vibracore Data Offshore Oregon Inlet to Duck, 

Dare County, North Carolina. 47 pp.

Bowman, R.E., C.E. Stillwill, W.L. Michaels, and M.D. Grosslein. 2000. Food of Northwest 

Atlantic fishes and two common species of squid. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm155/tm155.pdf.

Brooks, G.R., L.J. Doyle, R.A. Davis, Jr., N.T. DeWitt, B.C. Suthard. 2003. Patterns and 

controls of surface sediment distribution: west-central Florida inner shelf. Marine Geology, 

200: 307-324.

Brooks, J.M. (ed.). 1991. Mississippi-Alabama Continental Shelf Ecosystem Study. OCS Study 

MMS 91-0062. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Regional Office. 
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

111

Brooks, R.A., S.C. Keitzer, and K.J. Sulak. 2005. Taxonomic Composition and Relative 

Frequency of the Benthic Fish Community Found on Natural Sand Banks and Shoals in the 

Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. (A Synthesis of the Southeast Area Monitoring and 

Assessment Program’s Groundfish Survey Database, 1982-2000).

Brooks, R.A, C.N. Purdy, S.S. Bell, and K.J. Sulak. 2006. The benthic community of the eastern 

US continental shelf: A literature synopsis of benthic faunal resources. Continental Shelf 

Research 26:804–818.

Buckel, J.A., M.J. Fogarty, and D.O. Conover. 1999. Foraging habits of bluefish, Pomatomus 

saltatrix, on the U.S. east coast continental shelf. Fishery Bulletin 97:758-775. 

Buczkowski, B.J, J.A. Reid, C.J. Jenkins, J.M. Reid, S.J. Williams, and J.G. Flocks. 2006. 

usSEABED: Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands) offshore 

surficial sediment data release: U.S. Geologica Survey Data Series 146, version 1.0. Online 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2006/146/

Burlas, M., G.L. Ray, and D. Clarke. 2001. The New York District's Biological Monitoring 

Program for the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Asbury Park to Manasquan Section Beach 

Erosion Control Project. Final Report. US Army Engineer District, New York.

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, J.L. Kelley, D.B. Baker, T.D. Thibaut, S.A. Zichichi, L.M. Lagera, 

S.T. Viada, B.A. Vittor, J.S. Ramsey, and J.D. Germano. 2004a. Environmental Surveys of 

Potential Borrow Areas Offshore Northern New Jersey and Southern New York and the 

Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Leasing Division, Marine Minerals Branch, 

Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2004-044. Vol I: 264 pp, Vol II:194 pp.

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, T.D. Thibaut, and D.B. Snyder. 2004b. Potential physical and 

biological effects of sand mining offshore Alabama, U.S.A. Journal of Coastal Research

20:6–24.

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, T.D. Thibaut, and D.B. Snyder. 2004c. Effects of sand mining on 

physical processes and biological communities offshore New Jersey, USA. U.S.A. Journal of 

Coastal Research 20:25-43.

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, B.A. Vittor, J.S. Ramsey, D.B. Snyder, K.F. Bosma, J.D. Wood, 

T.D. Thibaut, and N.W. Phillips. 1999. Environmental Survey of Identified Sand Resource 

Areas Offshore Alabama: Volume I: Main Text-326 pp. and Volume II: Appendices-132 pp. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, International Activities and 

Marine Minerals Division (INTERMAR), Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 99-0052.

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, B.A. Vittor, J.S. Ramsey, D.B. Snyder, J.D. Wood, K.F. Bosma, 

T.D. Thibaut, and N.W. Phillips. 2000. Environmental Survey of Potential Sand Resource 

Sites: Offshore New Jersey. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

International Activities and Marine Minerals Division (INTERMAR). Herndon, VA. OCS 

Report MMS 2000-052. Vol I: 380 pp., Vol II: Appendices 291 pp

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, B.A. Vittor, S.W. Kelley, D.B. Snyder, J.M. Cote, J.S. Ramsey, 

T.D. Thibaut, N.W. Phillips, J.D. Wood, and J.D. Germano. 2003. Collection of 

Environmental Data within Sand Resource Areas Offshore North Carolina and the 

Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration. U.S. Dept. 
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

112

of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Leasing Division, Marine Minerals Branch, 

Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2000-056. Vol 1: 256 pp, Vol II: Appendices 269 pp.

Chaney, P.L. and G.W. Stone. 1996. Soundside erosion of a nourished beach and implications 

for winter cold front forcing: West Ship Island, Mississippi. Shore and Beach 64: 27-33.

Clark, P.U., A.S. Dyke, J.D. Shakun, A.E. Carlson, J. Clark, B. Wohlfarth, J.X. Mitrovica, S.W. 

Hostetler. 2009. The Last Glacial Maximum. Science 325: 710–4.

Collette, B.B., and G.K. Klein-MacPhee, Eds. 2002. Bigelow and Schroeder’s Fishes of the Gulf 

Of Maine, 3rd edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, 748 pp.

Colvocoresses, J.A., and J.A. Musick. 1984. Species associations and community composition of 

Middle Atlantic Bight Continental Shelf demersal fishes. U.S. National Marine Fisheries 

Service Fishery Bulletin 82:295–313. 

Condrey, R.E., and C.G. Gelpi. 2010. Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) use of the 

Ship/Trinity/Tiger Shoal Complex as a nationally important spawning/hatching/foraging 

ground: Discovery, evaluation, and sand mining recommendations based on blue crab, 

shrimp, and spotted seatrout findings. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009-043. 42pp.

Conkwright, R.D., and R.A. Gast. 1995. Potential Offshore Sand Resources in Southern 

Maryland Shoal Fields. Department of Natural Resources Maryland Geological Survey 

Coastal and Estuarine Geology File Report No. 95-4.

Conkwright, R.D., and C.P. Williams. 1996. Offshore Sand Resources in Central Maryland 

Shoal Fields. . Department of Natural Resources Maryland Geological Survey Coastal and 

Estuarine Geology File Report No. 96-3.

Conkwright, R.D., C.P. Williams, and L.B. Christiansen. 2000. Offshore Sand Resources in 

Northern Maryland Shoal Fields. Department of Natural Resources Maryland Geological 

Survey Coastal and Estuarine Geology File Report No. 00-2.

CO-OPS, 2005. Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, U. S. National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, On-line Data-base, WWW page, http://coops.nos.noaa.gov/index.html station, Station 8771341 Galveston Bay Entrance, North Jetty, 

Texas.

CSA (Continental Shelf Associates International Inc.), 2010 Applied Coastal Research and 

Engineering, Inc., Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., C.F. Bean, L.L.C., and Florida Institute 

of Technology. Analysis of Potential Biological and Physical Impacts of Dredging on 

Offshore Ridge and Shoal Features. Prepared by CSA International, Inc. in cooperation with 

Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc., Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., C.F. 

Bean, L.L.C., and the Florida Institute of Technology for the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Leasing Division, Marine Minerals Branch, Herndon, VA. 

OCS Study MMS 2010-010. 160 pp. + apps.

Cutter Jr., G.R., and R.J. Diaz. 2000. Benthic habitat mapping and resource evaluation of 

potential sand mining areas, 1998–1999. In: Hobbs, C. H., III, (Project Manager), 

Environmental Survey of Potential Sand Resource Sites Offshore Delaware and Maryland,

Final Project Report to the Minerals Management Service, OCS Study 2000-055. 
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

113

Cutter, G.R.J., R.J. Diaz, J.A. Musick, J. Olney, Sr., D.M. Bilkovic, J.P.-Y. Maa, S.C. Kim, C.S. 

Hardaway, Jr., D.A. Milligan, R. Brindley, and C.H. Hobbs, III. 2000. Environmental Survey 

of Potential Sand Resource Sites Offshore Delaware and Maryland. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals 

Division, Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2000-055. 514 pp. 

Davis Jr, R.A. and W.T. Fox. 1975. Process-response patterns in beach and nearshore 

sedimentation: I. Mustang Island, Texas. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 45(4).

Deegan, L. 1993. Nutrient and energy transport between estuaries and coastal marine ecosystems 

by fish migration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 50:74-79.

Dellapenna, T.M., A. Cardenas, J. Garrison, 2010a. Report of the Re-Analysis of Sand Resources 

at Sabine and Heald Banks, East Texas Inner Continental Shelf. Texas General Land 

Office/U.S. Minerals Management Service/Bureau of Offshore Energy and Mineral Resource 

Extraction (BOEMRE). 47 p.

Dellapenna, T. M., J. Garrison, A. Cardenas, K. Johnson and J. Flocks. 2010b. Report of the ReAnalysis of Sand Resources at Sabine and Heald Banks, East Texas Inner Continental Shelf. 

Texas General Land Office/U.S. Minerals Management Service. 47 p.

Dellapenna, T.M., A. Cardenas, K. Johnson and J. Flocks. 2009. Report of the Sand Source 

Investigation of the Paleo-Sabine-Trinity Marine Features (PSTMF). Texas General Land 

Office/U.S. Minerals Management Service. 900 p.

Dellapenna, T. M., A. Cardenas, K. Johnson, J. Flocks, S. Hiller. 2011. Geophysical and 

geological investigation of the Incised Sabine-Trinity River valley system and Sabine and 

Heald Bank. Presented at the BOEM Technology Transfer Conference, New Orleans, LA. 

April 2011.

Dellapenna, T.M., J. Pitkewicz, and T. Oertling. 2006a. Report to the Texas Coastal 

Coordination Council -Report of the Results of Galveston Offshore Sand Source Study Phase 

1: Field Investigation-Result for the Jamaica Beach Potential Borrow Site, CEPRA/CMP 

Final Report. 300 p.

Dellapenna, T.M., J. Pitkewicz and A. Taylor. 2006b. Report of the Results of Galveston 

Offshore Sand Source Study Phase 1: Field Investigation-Result for the East and West 

Galveston Island Potential Borrow Sites, CEPRA/CMP Final Report. 300 p. 

Dernie, K.M., M.J. Kaiser, and R.M. Warwick. 2003. Recovery rates of benthic communities 

following physical disturbance. Journal of Animal Ecology 72:1043-1056.

Diaz, R.J., G.R. Cutter, Jr., and K.W. Able. 2003. The importance of physical and biogenic 

structure to juvenile fishes on the shallow inner continental shelf. Estuaries 26:12–20.

Diaz, R.J., G.R. Cutter, Jr., and C.H. Hobbs, III. 2004a. Potential impacts of sand mining 

offshore of Maryland and Delaware, part 2 Biological considerations. Journal of Coastal 

Research 20:61–69.

Diaz, R.J., M. Solan, and R.M. Valente. 2004b. A review of approaches for classifying benthic 

habitats and evaluating habitat quality. Journal of Environmental Management 73:165–181.

Diaz, R.J., C.O. Tallent, and J.A. Nestlerode. 2006. Benthic resources and habitats at the 

Sandbridge Borrow Area: A test of monitoring. Chapter 2. In: Hobbs, C.H., III (ed). Field 
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

114

Testing of a Physical/Biological Monitoring Methodology for Offshore Dredging and Mining 

Operations. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Leasing Division, 

Marine Minerals Branch, Herndon, Va. OCS Study MMS 2005-056.

Dibajnia, M., and R.B. Nairn. 2011. Investigation of Dredging Guidelines to Maintain and 

Protect the Geomorphic Integrity of Offshore Ridge and Shoal Regimes. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Herndon, 

VA., OCS Study MMS 2011-025. 150 pp. + appendices.

Diesing, M., A. Kubicki, C. Winter, and K. Schwarzer. 2006. Decadal scale stability of sorted 

bedforms, German Bight, southeastern North Sea. Continental Shelf Research, 26: 902-916.

Drucker, B.S., W. Waskes, and M.R. Byrnes. 2004. The U.S. Minerals Management Service 

outer continental shelf sand and gravel program: environmental studies to assess the potential 

effects of offshore dredging operations in federal waters. Journal of Coastal Research

20(1):1–5.

Dubois, S., C. Gelpi, R. Condrey, M. Grippo, and J. Fleeger. 2009. Diversity and composition of 

macrobenthic community associated with sandy shoals of the Louisiana continental shelf. 

Biodiversity and Conservation, 18: 3759–3784.

Duncan, D.S., S.D. Locker, G.R. Brooks, A.C. Hine, and L.J. Doyle. 2003. Mixed carbonatesilicaclastic infilling of a Neogene carbonate shelf valley system: Tampa Bay, west-central 

Florida. Marine Geology, 200: 125-156.

Eggleston, D.B. 1995. Recruitment in Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus: post-settlement 

abundance, microhabitat features, and ontogenetic habitat shifts. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series 124: 9–22. 

Espinoza, M., T.J. Farrugia, C.G. Lowe. 2011a. Habitat use, movements and site fidelity of the 

gray smooth-hound shark (Mustelus californicus Gill 1863) in a newly restored southern 

California estuary. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology & Ecology 401: 63-74.

Espinoza, M., T.J. Farrugia, D.M. Webber, F. Smith, C.G. Lowe. 2011b. Testing a new acoustic 

telemetry technique to quantify long-term, fine-scale movements of aquatic animals. 

Fisheries Research 108: 354-371.

Finkl, C.W., and J.L. Andrews. 2008. Shelf geomorphology along the southeast Florida Atlantic 

continental platform: barrier coral reefs, nearshore bedrock, and morphosedimentary features. 

Journal of Coastal Research 24(4):823–849.

Finkl, C.W., and C.H. Hobbs III. 2009. Mining sand on the continental shelf of the Atlantic and 

Gulf Coasts of the U.S. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology 27:230-253.

Finkl, C.W., L. Benedet, J.L. Andrews, B. Suthard, and S.D. Locker. 2007b. Sediment ridges on 

the west Florida inner continental shelf: sand resources for beach nourishment. Journal of 

Coastal Research 23(1), 143–159.

Finkl, C.W., J.L. Andrews, B. Suthard, M. Larenas, K. Rodriguez, and L. Benedet. 2007a.

Reconnaissance Investigation of Potential Sand Resource Sites Offshore Galveston and 

Jefferson Counties, Texas: 2006 Offshore Geotechnical Investigations to Identify Sand 

Sources. Boca Raton, Florida: Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., 33p.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

115

Furey, N.B., M.A. Dance, and J.R. Rooker. 2013. Fine-scale movements and habitat use of 

juvenile southern flounder Paralichtys lethostigma in an estuarine seascape. Journal of Fish 

Biology 2013. Doi:10.1111/jfb.12074. 

Gabriel, W. 1992. Persistence of demersal fish assemblages between Cape Hatteras and Nova 

Scotia, Northwest Atlantic. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 14:29-47.

Garrison, L.P., and J.S. Link. 2000. Dietary guild structure of the fish community in the 

Northeast United States continental shelf ecosystem. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

202:231-240.

Gayes, P.T., P. Donovan-Ealy, M.S. Harris, and W. Baldwin. 1998. Assessment of Beach 

Renourishment Resources on the Inner Shelf off Folly Beach and Edisto Island, South 

Carolina. Final Report. South Carolina Task Force on Offshore Resources. 43+ pp.

Geary, B.W., J.J. Mikulas, J.R. Rooker, A.M. Landry. 2007. Patterns of habitat use by newly 

settled red snapper in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In Patterson WF, Cowan, JH, 

Fitzhugh GR, Nieland DL (eds.). Red snapper ecology and fisheries in the U.S. Gulf of 

Mexico. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 60: 25-38.

Gelpi, C. 2012. Function and diversity of the Ship, Trinity, and Tiger Shoal Complex, with 

emphasis on macrofauna and spawning blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus). PhD Dissertation. 

Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College. 229 pp.

Georgiou, I.Y., D.M. FitzGerald, and G.W. Stone. 2005. The impact of physical processes along 

the Louisiana coast. Journal of Coastal Research, 72-89.

Gillanders, B.M., K.W. Able, J.A. Brown, D.B. Eggleston, and P.F. Sheridan. 2003. Evidence of 

connectivity between juvenile and adult habitats for mobile marine fauna: an important 

component of nurseries. Marine Ecology Progress Series 247:281-295.

Gilmore, Jr., R.G. 2008. Regional Fishery Resource Survey and Synthesis in Support of Martin 

County’s Comprehensive Beach and Offshore Monitoring Program, Final Report. 32+ pp.

GMFMC (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council). 1998. Generic Amendment for 

Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the followingFishery Management Plans 

of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States Waters; Red 

Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Stone 

Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; 

Coral and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico. 244 p. 

http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/FINALEFH-

%20Amendment%201-%20no%20appendices.pdf

Goff, J.A., L.A. Mayer, P. Traykovski, I. Buynevich, R. Wilkens, R. Raymons, G. Glang, R.L. 

Evans, H. Olson, and C. Jenkins. 2005. Detailed investigation of sorted bedforms, or ‘rippled 

scor depression,’ within Martha’s Vineyard coastal observatory, Massachusetts. Continental 

Shelf Research, 25: 461-484. 

Gotceitas, V., S. Fraser, and J.A. Brown. 1995. Habitat use by juvenile Atlantic cod (Gadus 

morhua) in the presence of an actively foraging and non-foraging predator. Marine Biology 

123(3): 421-430.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

116

Greene, H.G., M.M. Yoklavich, R.M. Starr, V.M. O’Connell, W.W. Wakefield, D.E. Sullivan, 

J.E. McRea, Jr., and G.M. Cailliet. 1999. A classification scheme for deep seafloor habitats. 

Oceanologica Acta 22, 663–678.

Gregory, R.S., and J.T. Anderson. 1997. Substrate selection and use of protective cover by 

juvenile Atlantic cod Gadus morhua in inshore waters of Newfoundland. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 146: 9-20.

Grippo, M.A., J.W. Flegger, R. Condrey, and K.R. Carman. 2009. High benthic microalgal 

biomass found on Ship Shoal, north-central Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 84: 

237-256.

Grosslein, M. D., and T. R. Azarovitz. 1982. Fish distribution. New York Sea Grant Institute, 

MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 15, Albany. 

Guitierrez, B.T., G. Voulgaris, and E.R. Thieler. 2005. Exploring the persistence of sorted 

bedforms on the inner-shelf of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. Continental Shelf 

Research, 25: 65-90.

Hayes, M.O., and R.B. Nairn. 2004. Natural maintenance of sand ridges and linear shoals on the 

U.S. Gulf and Atlantic continental shelves and the potential impacts of dredging. Journal of 

Coastal Research 20(1):138–148.

Heck, K.L., G. Hays, and R.J. Orth. 2003. Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for 

seagrass meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series 253: 123-136.

Henry, W.K. 1979. Some aspects of the fate of cold fronts in the Gulf of Mexico. Notes and 

Correspondence, Monthly Weather Review. American Meteorological Society, 107, 1078-

1082.

Heupel, M.R., J.K. Carlson, and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2007. Shark nursery areas: concepts, 

definitions, characterization and assumptions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 337:287-297.

Hine, A.C., G.R. Brooks, R,A. Davis, Jr., D.S. Duncan, S.D. Locker, D.C. Twichell, and G. 

Gelfenbaum. 2003. The west-central Florida inner shelf and coastal systems: a geological 

conceptual overview and introduction to the special issue. Marine Geology, 200: 1-17.

Hoenstine, R., H. Freedenberg, A. Dabous, B. Cross, C. Fischler, and M. Lachance. 2002. A 

Geological Investigation of Sand Resources in the Offshore Area along Florida’s CentralEast Coast. Florida Geological Survey, Final Summary Report. 14pp.

Hoffman, C.W. 1998. Preliminary Assessment of Potential Sand Resource Areas Offshore of 

Nags Head, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. U.S. Minerals Management 

Service/State of North Carolina Sand Resources Task Force. 13pp.

Hummell, R.L., and W.E. Smith. 1996. Geologic Resources Delineation and Hydrographic 

Characterization of Offshore Sand Resource Site for Use in Beach Nourishment Projects on 

Dauphin Island, Alabama. Final Report. Geological Survey of Alabama. Economic Geology 

Division. 169 pp.

Hyland, J.L., L. Balthis, I. Karakassis, P. Magni, A.N. Petrov, and J.P. Shine. 2005. Organic 

carbon content of sediments as an indicator of stress in the marine benthos. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 295:91–103.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

117

Johnson, M.R., C. Boelke, L.A. Chiarella, P.D. Colosi, K. Greene, K. Lellis-Dibble, H. 

Ludemann, M. Ludwig, S. McDermott, J. Ortiz, D. Rusanowsky, M. Scott, and J. Smith. 

2008. Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern 

United States. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northeast Regional Office. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-209. 322 

pp.

Kaplan, B., ed. 2011. Literature Synthesis for the North and Central Atlantic Ocean. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-012. 447 pp.

Kimball, S.M., and J.K. Dame. 1989. Geotechnical Evaluation of Sand Resources on the Inner 

Shelf of Southern Virginia, Volume 1: Report and Appendices A-B, Final Report. Virginia 

Institute of Marine Science. 44+ pp.

Kineke, G.C., E.E. Higgins, K. Hart, and D. Velasco. 2006. Fine-sediment transport associated 

with cold-front passages on the shallow shelf, Gulf of Mexico. Continental Shelf Research, 

26(17), 2073-2091.

Kuehl, S.A., M.E. Ketterer, and J.L. Miselis. 2012. Extension of 239+240Pu sediment 

geochronology to coarse-grained marine sediments. Continental Shelf Research, 36: 83-88.

Kulp, M.S., Penland, and K. Ramsey. 2001. Ship Shoal: Sand Resource Synthesis Report. 

Coastal Research Laboratory, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of New 

Orleans. 70+ pp.

Lindholm, J.B., P.J. Auster, and L.S. Kaufman. 1999. Habitat-mediated survivorship of juvenile 

(0-year) Atlantic cod Gadus morhua. Marine Ecology Progress Series 180: 247-255.

Locker, S.D., A.C. Hine, and G.R. Brooks. 2003. Regional stratigraphic framework linking 

continental shelf and coastal sedimentary deposits of west-central Florida. Marine Geology 

200: 351-378.

Lough, R.G., P.C. Valentine, D.C. Potter, P.J. Auditore, G.R. Bolz, J.D. Neilson, and R.I. Perry. 

1989. Ecology and distribution of juvenile cod and haddock in relation to sediment type and 

bottom currents on eastern Georges Bank. Marine Ecology Progress Series 56: 1-12.

Louis Berger Group, Inc. 1999. Environmental report: Use of Federal Offshore Sand Resources 

for Beach and Coastal Restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. OCS 

Study MMS 99-0036. 305+ pp.

Love, J.W., and P.D. Chase. 2007. Marine fish diversity and composition in the Mid-Atlantic and 

South Atlantic Bights. Southeastern Naturalist 6:705-714. 

Maa, J.P.Y., C.H. Hobbs III, S.C. Kim, and E. Wei. 2004. Potential impacts of sand mining 

offshore of Maryland and Delaware: Part 1 – Impacts on physical oceanographic processes. 

Journal of Coastal Research 20:44-60.

Mahon, R., S.K. Brown, K.C.T. Zwanenburg, D.B. Atkinson, K.R. Buja, L. Claflin, G.D. 

Howell, M.E. Monaco, R.N. O’Boyle, and M. Sinclair. 1998. Assemblages and biogeography 

of demersal fishes of the east coast of North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Science 55:1704.1738.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

118

Maranick, K.E., and J.A. Hare. 2007. Large scale patterns in fish trophodynamics of estuarine 

and shelf habitats of the southeastern United States. Bulletin of Marine Science 80:67-91.

Martino, E.J., and K.W. Able. 2003. Fish assemblages across the marine to low salinity transition 

zone of a temperate estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 56:969–987.

Matthews, K.R. 1990. A comparative study of habitat use by young-of-the-year, subadult, and 

adult rockfishes on four habitat types in central Puget Sound. Fishery Bulletin 88:223-239.

Maurer, D., P. Kinner, W. Leathem, and L. Watling. 1976. Benthic faunal assemblages off the 

Delmarva peninsula. Estuarine and Coastal Mar. Sci., 4: 163-177.

McBride, R.A., and T.F. Moslow. 1991. Origin, evolution, and distribution of shoreface sand 

ridges, Atlantic inner shelf, USA. Marine Geology, 97(1), 57-85.

McEachran, J.D., and J.D. Fechhelm. 1998. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, Volume 1: 

Myxiniformes to Gasterosteiformes. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

McEachran, J.D., and J.D. Fechhelm. 2005. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, Volume 2: 

Scorpaeniformes to Tetraodontiformes. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. 

McKenna, K.K., and K.W. Ramsey. 2002. An Evaluation of Sand Resources, Atlantic Offshore, 

Delaware. State of Delaware, Delaware Geological Survey, Report of Investigations No. 63. 

37pp. 

McNinch, J.E., and R.A. Luettich, Jr. 2000. Physical processes around a cuspate foreland:: 

implications to the evolution and long-term maintenance of a cape-associated shoal. 

Continental Shelf Research, 20(17), 2367-2389.

McNinch, J.E., and J.T. Wells. 1999. Sedimentary processes and depositional history of capeassociated shoal, Cape Lookout, North Carolina. Marine Geology, 158: 233-252.

Methratta, E.T., and J.S. Link. 2006. Seasonal variation in groundfish habitat associations in the 

Gulf of Maine–Georges Bank region. Marine Ecology Progress Series 326:245–256.

Michel, J., A.C. Bejarano, C.H. Peterson, and C. Voss. 2013. Review of Biological and 

Biophysical Impacts from Dredging and Handling of Offshore Sand. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, VA. OCS Study BOEM 2013-

0119. 258 pp.

Mikulas, Jr., J.J., and J.R. Rooker. 2008. Habitat use, growth, and mortality of post-settlement 

lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris) on natural banks in the northwest Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries 

Research 93:77-84.

MMS (Minerals Management Service). 2004. Environmental Assessment for the Issuance of 

Non-Competitive Leases for the Use of Outer Continental Shelf Sand Resources from Ship 

Shoal, Offshore Central Louisiana for Coastal and Barrier Island Nourishment and Hurricane 

Levee Construction. United States Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service 

(MMS). April 2004. 114 pp.

MMS (Minerals Management Service). 2007. Programmatic environmental impact statement for 

alternative energy development and production and alternate use of facilities on the Outer 

Continental Shelf. U.S. Department of the Interior. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-046. 
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

119

Moeller, C.C., O.K. Huh, H.H. Roberts, L.E. Gumley, and W.P. Menzel. (1993). Response of 

Louisiana coastal environments to a cold front passage. Journal of Coastal Research 10(2):

434-447.

Moore, D., H.A. Brusher, and L. Trent. 1970. Relative abundance, seasonal distribution, and 

species composition of demersal fishes off Louisiana and Texas, 1962-1964. Contributions in 

Marine Science 15:45-70.

Morton, R.A., and J.C. Gibeaut. 1993 Physical and Environmental Assessment of Sand 

Resources–Texas Continental Shelf. Final Report. Bureau of Economic Geology. The 

University of Texas. 66 pp.

Morton, R.A., and J.C. Gibeaut. 1995. Physical and Environmental Assessment of Sand 

Resources: Sabine and Heald Banks, Second Phase 1994-1995. Final Report. Bureau of 

Economic Geology. The University of Texas. 62+ pp.

Murray, A.B., and E.R. Thieler. 2004. A new hypothesis and exploratory model for the 

formation of large-scale inner-shelf sediment sorting and “rippled scour depressions.” 

Continental Shelf Research 24: 295-315.

Musick, J.A., J.A. Colvocoresses, E.J. Foell. 1986. Seasonality and distribution, availability and 

composition of fish assemblages in Chesapeake Bight. Chapter 21. In: Yanez-Arancibia, A

(ed.), Fish community ecology in estuaries and coastal lagoons: towards an ecosystem 

integration. University of Mexico Press, Mexico City. 

Nairn, R., J.A. Johnson, D. Hardin, and J. Michel. 2004. A biological and physical monitoring 

program to evaluate long-term impacts from sand dredging operations in the United States 

Outer Continental Shelf. Journal of Coastal Research 20(1): 126-137.

NEFMC (New England Fishery Management Council). 1998. Final omnibus amendment for 

essential fish habitat. http://www.nefmc.org/habitat/index.html.

Nelson, W.G., and E. Bonsdorff. 1990. Fish predation and habitat complexity: are complexity 

thresholds real? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 141: 183-194. 

Nittrouer, C.A., and L.D. Wright. 1994. Transport of particles across continental shelves. 

Reviews of Geophysics, 32(1), 85-113.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013a. NOAA Fisheries Service: Office of Protected 

Resources: Species Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Internet website: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/. Accessed: June 2013.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013b. Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

and General Habitat Parameters for Federally Managed Species. Available at 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/list.htm. Accessed on June 25, 2013.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Final Amendment 1 to the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, Essential Fish Habitat. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver 

Spring, MD. Public Document. 395 pp.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

120

Overholtz, W.J., and A.V. Tyler. 1985. Long-term responses of the demersal fish assemblages of 

Georges Bank. Fishery Bulletin 83:507–520.

Osman, R.W., and R.B. Whitlatch. 1998. Local control of recruitment in an epifaunal community 

and the consequences to colonization processes. Hydrobiologia 375-376:113-123.

Patterson, W.F., C.A. Wilson, S.J. Bentley, J.H. Cowan, T. Henwood, Y.C. Allen, and T.A. 

Dufrene. 2005. Delineating juvenile Red Snapper habitat on the Northern Gulf of Mexico 

continental shelf. American Fisheries Society Symposium 41:277-288.

Parker, S.J, D.J. Davies, and W.E. Smith. 1993. Geological, Economic, and Environmental 

Characterization of Selected Near-Term Leasable Offshore Sand Deposits and Competing 

Onshore Sources for Beach Nourishment. Final Report. Geological Survey of Alabama. 

Energy and Coastal Geology Division. 223 pp.

Penland, S., R. Boyd, and J.R. Suter. 1988. Transgressive depositional systems of the Mississippi 

Delta Plain: A model for barrier shoreline and shelf sand development. Journal of 

Sedimentary Petrology, 58: 932-949.

Pepper, D.A., G.W. Stone, and P. Wang. 1999. Bottom boundary layer parameters and sediment 

transport on the Louisiana inner-shelf during cold front passages. Presented at 1999 Gulf 

Coast Association of Geological Societies Annual Meeting, Lafayette LA. Accessed at 

Online Journal for E&P Geoscientists. 

www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/1999/gcags/abstracts/1349i.htm

Petersen, C.G.J. 1913. Valuation of the sea. II. The animal communities of the sea-bottom and 

their importance for marine zoogeography. Report of the Danish Biological Station to the 

Board of Agriculture. 21: 1-44.

Phelps, D.C., and G.W. Holem. 2005. Sand Source Availability Investigations; The Search for 

Sand for Duval County, Florida Beach Renourishment.

Pierce, D.J., and B. Mahmoudi. 2001. Nearshore fish assemblage along the central west coast of 

Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 68:243–270.

Posey, M., W. Lindberg, T. Alphin, and F. Vose. 1996. Influence of storm disturbance on an 

offshore benthic community. Bulletin of Marine Science, 59(3), 523-529.

Rabalais, N.N., R.J. Diaz, L.A. Levin, R.E. Turner, D. Gilbert, and J. Zhang. 2010. Dynamics 

and distribution of natural and human-caused hypoxia. Biogeosciences 7: 585-619.

Ramsey, K.E., and S. Penland. 1992. Stratigraphic Assessment of Sand Resources Offshore 

Holly and Peveto Beaches, Louisiana. Louisiana Geological Survey. Center for Coastal, 

energy, and Environmental Resources. 26+ pp.

Reid, J.M., J.A. Reid, C.J.Jenkins, M.E. Hastings, S.J. Williams, and L.J. Poppe. 2005. 

ucSEABED: Atlantic coast offshore surficial sediment data release. U.S. Geological Survey 

Data Series 118, version 1.0. Online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2005/118/

Research Planning Inc., W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd, and Applied Marine Sciences, Inc. 2001. 

Development and design of biological and physical monitoring protocols to evaluate the 

long-term impacts of offshore dredging operations on the marine environment. OCS Report 

MMS 2001-089. 116 pp. plus Appendices.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

121

Reyier, E.A., D.H. Adams, and R.H. Lowers. 2008. First evidence of a high density nursery 

grounds for the Lemon Shark, Negaprion brevirostris, near Cape Canaveral, Florida. Florida 

Scientist 71(2):134-148.

Rindsberg, A.K., and D.C. Kopaska-Merkel. 2006. Sand-Quality Characteristics of Alabama 

Beach Sediment, Environmental Conditions, and Comparison to Offshore Sand Resources: 

Annual Report 2. Geological Survey of Alabama. Geologic Investigations Program. OpenFile Report 0607. 128pp.

Roberts, H.H., O.K. Huh, S.A. Hsu, L.J. Rouse, and D. Rickman. 1987. Impact of cold-front 

passages on geomorphic evolution and sediment dynamics of the complex Louisiana coast. 

In Coastal Sediments (1987) (pp. 1950-1963). ASCE.

Robin, C.R. 1999. A field guide to Atlantic coast fishes of North America. New York: Houghton 

Mifflin Company. 

Rodriguez, A.B., J.B. Anderson, F.P. Siringan, and M. Taviani. 1999. Sedimentary facies and 

genesis of Holocene sand banks on the east Texas inner continental shelf. In: Isolated 

Shallow Marine Sand Bodies: Sequence Stratigraphic Analysis and Sedimntologic 

Interpretation (Eds. J. Snedden and K. Bergman), SEPM Spec. Publ. 64: 165-178.

Rodriguez, A.B., M.L. Fassell, and J.B. Anderson. 2001. Variations in shoreface progradation 

and ravinement along the Texas coast, Gulf of Mexico. Sedimentology 48: 837-853. 

Rogers, B.E., M.A. Kulp, and M.D. Miner. 2009. Late Holocene chronology, origin, and 

evolution of the St. Bernard Shoals, northern Gulf of Mexico. Geo-Marine Letters, 29: 379-

394.

Rooker, J.R., L.L. Kitchens, M.A. Dance, R.J.D. Wells, B. Falterman, M. Cornic. 2013. Spatial, 

temporal, and habitat-related variation in abundance of pelagic fishes in the Gulf of Mexico: 

potential implications of Deepwater Horizon oil spill. PLoS ONE 8(10): E76080.

Rooker, J.R., A.M. Landry, B.W. Geary, and J.A. Harper. 2004. Assessment of a shell bank and 

associated substrates as nursery habitat of postsettlement red snapper. Estuarine, Coastal and 

Shelf Science 59:653–661.

Ryan, W.B.F., S.M. Carbotte, J.O. Coplan, S. O’Hara, A. Melkonian, R. Arko, R.A. Weissel, V. 

Ferrini, A. Goodwillie, F. Nitsche, J. Bonczkowski, and R. Zemsky. 2009. Global MultiResolution Topography synthesie. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 10 Q03014, 

doi:10.1029/2008GC002332 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008GC002332.

Ryer, C.H., A.W. Stoner, and R.H. Titgen. 2004. Behavioral mechanisms underlying the refuge 

value of benthic habitat structure for two flatfishes with differing anti-predator strategies. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 268: 231-243.

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 1998. Final Habitat Plan for the South 

Atlantic region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan, the Red 

Drum Fishery Management Plan, the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan, the 

Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan, the Golden Crab Fishery Management 

Plan, the Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan, the Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard 

Bottom Habitat Fishery Management Plan, the Sargassum Habitat Fishery Management Plan, 

and the Calico Scallop Fishery Management Plan.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

122

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2009. Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based 

Amendment 1 for the South Atlantic Region

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2010. Briefing Book, March 1-5, 2010, 

Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Management Committee, Attachment 1B – EFH and 

HAPCs. 29pp. 

Sanders, H.L. 1958. Benthic studies in Buzzards Bay. I. Animal-sediment relationships. 

Limnology and Oceanography. 3:245-258. 

Scharf, F.S., J.P. Manderson, and M.P. Fabrizio. 2006. The effects of seafloor habitat complexity 

on survival of juvenile fishes: Species-specific interactions with structural refuge. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 335:167-176.

Schwab, W.C., E.R.Thieler, J.R. Allen, D.S. Foster, B.A. Swift, and J.F. Denny 2000. Influence 

of inner-continental shelf geologic framework on the evolution and behavior of the barrierisland system between Fire Island Inlet and Shinnecock Inlet, Long Island, New York. 

Journal of Coastal Research 16: 408-422. 

Sherman, K., P. Celone, S. Adams. 2004. NOAA Fisheries Service’s large marine ecosystems 

program: status report. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS. 21 pp.

Simms, A.R., R. DeWitt, A.B. Rodriguez, K. Lambeck, and J.B. Anderson. 2009. Revisiting 

marine isotope stage 3 and 5a (MIS3-5a) sea levels within the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. 

Glocal and Planetary change 66L 100-111.

Slacum, H.W. Jr., W.H. Burton, E.T. Methratta, E.D. Weber, R. Llansó, and J. Dew-Baxter. 

2010. Assemblage structure in shoal and flat-bottom habitats on the Inner Continental Shelf 

of the Middle Atlantic Bight, USA. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, 

and Ecosystem Science 2:277-298.

Slacum, H.W. Jr., W.H. Burton, J.H. Vølstad, J. Dew, E. Weber, R. Llansó, and D.Wong. 2006. 

Comparisons Between Marine Communities Residing on Sand Shoals and Uniform-bottom 

Substrate in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Final Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals Division, 

Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2005-042, 149 pp. + app.

Smith, P.C. 1996. Nearshore Ridges and Underlying Pleistocene Sediments on the Inner 

Continential Shelf of New Jersey. MSc. Thesis. Geological Sciences, Rutgers University. 

157pp.

Snelgrove, P.V.R., and C.A. Butman. 1994. Animal sediment relationships revisited—Cause 

versus effect. Oceanography and Marine Biology 32:111-177.

Snelgrove, P.V.R., J.F. Grassle, J.P. Grassle, R.F. Petrecca, and K.I. Stocks. 2001. The role of 

colonization in establishing patterns of community composition and diversity in shallow 

water sedimentary communities. Journal of Marine Research 59:813-830.

Steves, B.P., R.K. Cowen, and M.H. Malchoff. 1999. Settlement and nursery habitats for 

demersal fishes on the continental shelf of the New York Bight. Fishery Bulletin 98:167–

188.

Stewart-Oaten, A., W.M. Murdoch, and K.R. Parker. 1986. Environmental Impact Assessment: 

"pseudoreplication in time?" Ecology 67:929-940.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

123

Stone, G.W., R.E. Condrey, J.W. Fleeger, S.M. Khalil, D. Kobashi, F. Jose, E. Evers, S. Dubois, 

B. Liu, S. Arndt, C. Gelpi, M.A. Grippo, Y. Luo, S.M. SiadatMousavi, Y. Chen, M. 

Alavillamo, and F. Reynal. 2009. Environmental investigation of long-term use of Ship Shoal 

sand resources for large scale beach and coastal restoration in Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

OCS Study MMS 2009-024. 278 pp.

Stunz, G.W., and T.J. Minello. 2001. Habitat-related predation on juvenile wild-caught and 

hatchery-reared red drum Sciaenops ocellatus (Linnaeus). Journal of Experimental Marine 

Biology and Ecology 260: 13-25.

Sullivan, M.C., R.K. Cowen, K.W. Able, and M.P. Fahay. 2000. Spatial scaling of recruitment in 

four continental shelf fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 207:141–154.

Swift, D.J.P., and M.E. Fields. 1981. Evolution of a classic sand ridge field: Maryland secor, 

North American inner shelf. Sedimentology 28:461-482. 

Swift, D.J.P., P.C. Sears, B. Bohlke, and R. Hunt. 1978. Evolution of a shoal retreat massif, 

North Carolina shelf: inferences from areal geology. Marine Geology, 27: 19-42.

Szedlmayer, S.T., and J. Conti. 1999. Nursery habitats, growth rates, and seasonality of age-0 red 

snapper, Lutjanus campechanus, in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 97(3):626-

635.

Szedlmayer, S.T., and J.D. Lee. 2004. Diet shifts of juvenile red snapper (Lutjanus 

campechanus) with changes in habitat and fish size. Fishery Bulletin 102(2):366-375.

Theroux, R.B., and R.L. Wigley. 1998. Quantitative composition and distribution of the 

macrobenthic invertebrate fauna of the continental shelf ecosystems of the northeastern 

United States. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 140. 240 pp. 

Thieler, E.R., and A.D. Ashton. 2011. ‘Cape capture’: geologic data and modeling results 

suggest the Holocene loss of a Carolina Cape. Geology 39: 339-342

Thieler, E.R., D.S. Foster, E.A. Himmelstoss, and D.J. Mallinson. 2014. Geological framework 

of the northern North Carolina, USA inner continental shelf and its influence on coastal 

evolution. Marine Geology 348: 113-130.

Thieler, E.R., O.H. Pilkey, W.J. Cleary, and W.C. Schwab. 2001. Modern sedimentation on the 

shoreface and inner continental shelf at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, USA. Journal of 

Sedimentary Research 71(6): 958-970.

Thorson, G. 1957. Bottom communities (sublittoral or shallow shelf). Geological Society of 

America/Memoir. 67:461-534.

Thrush, S.F., and P.K. Dayton. 2002. Disturbance to marine benthic habitats by trawling and 

dredging: Implications for marine biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 

33:449-473.

Thrush, S.F., D. Schultz, J.E. Hewitt, and D. Talley. 2002. Habitat structure in soft-sediment 

environments and abundance of juvenile snapper Pagrus auratus. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series 245: 273-280. 
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

124

Turbeville, D.B., and G.A. Marsh. 1982. Benthic Fauna of an Offshore Borrow Area in Broward 

County, Florida. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center, 

Miscellaneous Report No. 82-1.

Twichell, D., G. Brooks, G. Gelfenbaum, V. Paskevich., and B. Donahue. 2003. Sand ridges off 

Sarasota, Florida: A complex facies boundary on a low-energy inner shelf environment. 

Marine geology, 200(1), 243-262.

Underwood, A.J. 1994. On beyond BACI: Sampling designs that might reliably detect 

environmental disturbances. Ecological Applications. 4(1):3-15.

Uptegrove, J., J.S. Waldner, D.W. Hall, P.C. Smith, G.M. Ashley, R.E. Sheridan, Z. AllenLafayette, M.C. Goss, F.L. Muller, and E. Keller. 2006. Characterization of Sediments in 

Federal Waters Offshore of New Jersey as Potential Sources of Beach Replenishment Sand. 

Phase II, Year 2 Final Report, Minerals Management Service Cooperative Agreement # 14-

35-0001-30751.

Van Oyen, T., H. de Swart, and P. Blondeaux. 2011. Formation of rhythmic sorted bed forms on 

the continental shelf: an idealistic model. J. Fluid Mechanics, 684: 475-508.

Vasslides, J.M. 2007. Fish assemblages and habitat use across a shoreface sand ridge in southern 

New Jersey. MS Thesis. New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. 106 

pp.

Vasslides, J.M., and K.W. Able. 2008a. Importance of shoreface sand ridges as habitat for fishes 

off the northeast coast of the United States. Fishery Bulletin 106:93–107.

Vasslides, J.M., and K.W. Able. 2008b. Abundance and diet of three sciaenid fishes in southern 

New Jersey: an assessment of habitat value for shoreface for sand ridges. Bulletin of the New 

Jersey Academy of Science. 

Walker, B.K., L.K.B. Jordan, and R.E. Spieler. 2009b. Relationship of reef fish assemblages and 

topographic complexity on southeastern Florida coral reef habitats. Journal of Coastal 

Research 53:39-48.

Walker, M., S. Johnson, S.O. Rasmussen, T. Popp, J.P. Steffensen, P. Gibbard, W. Hoek, J. 

Lowe, S. Bjorck, L.C. Cwynar, K. Hughen, P. Kershaw, B. Kromer, T. Litt, D.J. Lowe, T. 

Nagagawa, R. Newnham, and J. Schwander. 2009a. Formal definition and dating of the 

GSSP (Global Stratotype Section and Point) for the base of the Holocene using the 

Greenland NGRIP ice core, and selected auxiliary records. Journal of Quartenary Science, 

24: 3-17.

Wallace, D.J., J.B. Anderson, and R.A. Fernandez. 2010. Transgressive ravinement versus depth 

of closure: a geological perspective from the upper Texas coast. Journal of Coastal Research, 

26: 1057-1067. 

Walsh, H.J., K.E. Marancik, and J.A. Hare. 2006. Juvenile fish assemblages collected on 

unconsolidated sediments of the southeast United States continental shelf. Fishery Bulletin 

104:256-277.

Wellner, J.S., and J. Anderson. 2003. Evaluation of Beach Nourishment Sand Resources along 

the Central Texas Coast. Report to the Texas General Land Office. 28 p. 

http://gulf.rice.edu/coastal/creport.doc 
6.0 LITERATURE CITED

125

Wells, R.J.D., J.O. Harper, J.R. Rooker, A.M. Landry, Jr., and T.M. Dellapenna. 2009. Fish 

assemblage structure on a drowned barrier island in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. 

Hydrobiologia 625:207-221.

Wigley, R.L., and R.B. Theroux. 1981. Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the United States -

macrobenthic invertebrate fauna of the Middle Atlantic Bight region-faunal composition and 

quantitative distribution. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. USGS Prof. Pap. 529-

N. 198 pp.

Williams, S.J. 1988. Geologic Framework and Sand Resources of Quaternary Deposits Offshore 

Virginia, Cape Henry to Virginia Beach. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey. 

Open-File Report 87-667.

Woodland, R.J., D.H. Secor, M.C. Fabrizio, and M.J. Wilberg. 2012. Comparing the nursery role 

of inner continental shelf and estuarine habitats for temperate marine fishes. Estuarine, 

Coastal and Shelf Science 99:61-73. 

Wren, P.A., and L.A. Leonard. 2005. Sediment transport on the mid-continental shelf in Onslow 

Bay, North Carolina during Hurricane Isabel. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 63: 43-56.

Wright, D.L. 1995. Morphodynamics of inner continental shelves. CRC Press, 241 pp.

Wright, E., P. Gayes, P. Ealy, and W. Baldwin. 1998. Assessment of Beach Renourishment 

Resource on the Inner Shelf of Hilton Head Island, SC. Final Report. South Carolina Task 

Force on Offshore Resources. 23+ pp.

Wright, E., P. Gayes, P. Ealy, W. Baldwin, and M.S. Harris. 1999. Assessment of Beach 

Renourishment Resources on the Inner Shelf Seaward of Pawleys Island, South Carolina. 

Final Report. South Carolina Task Force on Offshore Resources. 26+ pp.

Xu, K., D. Sanger, G. Riekerk, S. Crowe, R.F. Van Dolah, A. Wren, and Y. Ma. 2014. Seabed 

texture and composition changes offshore of Port Royal Sound, South Carolina before and 

after the dredging for beach nourishment. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 149: 57-67.

Zajac, R.N. 2008. Challenges in marine, soft-sediment benthoscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 

23: 7-18.

Zale, A.V., D.L. Parrish, and T.M. Sutton (eds). 2012. Fisheries Techniques 3rd Edition. 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 1,009 pp.

Zarillo, G.A., J.A. Reidenauer, K.A. Zarillo, T. Shinskey, E.A. Reyier, M.J. Barkaszi, J.M. 

Shenker, M. Verdugo, and N. Hodges. 2008. Biological Characterization/Numerical Wave 

Model Analysis within Borrow Sites Offshore West Florida Coast Final Report. Offshore 

Sand and Gravel Program and Alternative Energy Branch Herndon, VA. OCS Study MMS 

2008-055. Volume I: Main Text 224 pp. + Volume II: Appendices 300 pp. 

Zarillo, G.A., K.A. Zarillo, J.A. Reidenauer, E.A. Reyier, T. Shinskey, M.J. Barkaszi, J.M. 

Shenker, M. Verdugo, and N. Hodges. 2009. Final Biological Characterization and 

Numerical Wave Model Analysis within Borrow Sites Offshore of Florida’s Northeast Coast 

Report-Volume I: Main Text 286 pp. + Volume II: Appendices A-D 448 pp. Contract No. 

1435-01-05-CT-39075-M05PC00005. MMS Study 2008-060.
7.0 GLOSSARY

126

7.0 Glossary

Bank –A submerged mound-like or ridge-like deposit of sand, gravel, or other sediment forming 

an elevated area on the sea floor of modest to substantial extent.

Bar – Various elongated offshore ridge, bank, or mound of sand, gravel, or other unconsolidated 

material submerged at least at high tide, and built up by the action of waves and currents 

on the water bottom, especially at the mouth of a river or estuary, or at a short distance 

from the beach.

Barrier island – A long, narrow, sandy coastal island, representing a broadened barrier beach that 

is above high tide and parallel to the shore, and that commonly has dunes and marshy 

terrains extending landward from the beach.

Bedform – A surface feature that is an individual element of the morphology of a mobile 

granular or cohesive bed that develops due to local deposition and/or erosion caused by 

interactions with the water current. Bedforms range from flat, near featureless surfaces to 

complex forms covering a wide range of sizes that are characterized by topographic highs 

and lows of varying form and structure.

Bedform Shoal- a shoal found within the morpho-sedimentary bedform continuum. The 

continuum consists of large scale bedforms on the shelf, controlled by amount of 

sediment flux. These bedforms range from sorted bedforms on the sediment starved end 

of the continuum to shore attached and linear shelf sand ridges on the sediment rich end 

of the continuum.

Biogenic structures – A term used to describe the structures produced by living organisms 

including tubes, burrows, shell beds, or depressions.

Cape-associated shoals – Capes are triangular shaped promontories that formed due to the 

convergence of longshore drift. Because of this convergence, there is a net offshore 

transport of sediment that form shoals. With sea level rise, the capes retreat landward, 

leaving behind a series of progressively older shoals in the offshore direction.

Connectivity – The degree the seascape facilitates or impedes movement among resource 

patches.

Continental margin – The ocean floor that is between the shoreline and the abyssal ocean floor.

Continental shelf – Part of the continental margin between the shoreline and the continental slope 

(or a depth of 200 m if there is no noticeable continental slope); characterized by its 

gentle slope of 0.1°.

Delta – The low, nearly flat, alluvial tract of land at or near the mouth of a river, forming a 

triangular or fan-shaped plain, crossed by many distributaries of the main river, extending 

beyond the general trend of the coast, and resulting from the accumulation of sediment 

supplied by the river in such quantities that it is not removed by tides, waves, and 

currents. 

Demersal fish – A term used for species of fish that live on or near the sea bottom for at least 

part of their life cycle, as known as groundfish.
7.0 GLOSSARY

127

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) – The waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Where ‘‘waters’’ include aquatic areas and their 

associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish; and 

‘‘substrate’’ includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated 

biological communities.

Facies – The aspect, appearance, and characteristics of a sediment unit, usually reflecting the 

conditions of its origin, especially as differentiating the unit from adjacent or associated 

units.

Fish assemblage (Finfish assemblage) – The fish species that occur together in a single area, such 

that they have the reasonable opportunity for daily interaction with each other.

Gravel – a) An unconsolidated, natural accumulation of rock fragments resulting from erosion, 

consisting predominantly of particles larger than sand such as pebbles (10-25 mm), 

cobbles (25-500 mm), boulders (>500 mm), or any combination of these. b) Fragments 

having a diameter in the range of 2-75 mm (1/6 to 3 in.).

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) – Essential Fish Habitat that is judged to be 

particularly important to the long-term productivity of populations of one or more 

managed species, or to be particularly vulnerable to degradation.

Isolated inner shelf shoals – A shoal, typically comprising a relict Holocene deposit of sediment 

on the shelf, that is isolated from other shoals.

Linear shelf sand shoals - A series of shoals that are typically shore normal or shore oblique, on 

the shelf. They are one end of the morpho-sedimentary bedform continuum, occupying 

the high sediment flux end member. These shoals were typically originally formed as 

shore-attached ridges, but are found offshore in deeper water due to sea level rise.

Microhabitat – A small specialized habitat that supports a distinct flora and fauna. The area scale 

is approximately 0.01 to 0.1 km.

Morpho-sedimentary bedform continuum - a continuum of large scale bedforms exist on the 

shelf, controlled by amount of sediment flux. These bedforms range from sorted 

bedforms on the sediment starved end of the continuum to shore attached and linear shelf 

sand ridges on the sediment rich end of the continuum.

Nearshore – The area extending seaward generally a short distance from the shoreline to depths 

generally less than 5 fathoms (10 m).

Paleochannel – A remnant of a stream or river channel cut in older sediment or rock and filled by 

the younger overlying sediment; a buried river channel.

Pelagic fish – A term used for species of fish that live within the water column.

Piscivores – A carnivorous animal which eats primarily fish.

Planktivore – An aquatic organism that feeds on zooplankton, phytoplankton or other planktonic 

food. 

Ravinement – An irregular junction that marks a break in sedimentation such as an erosion line 

occurring where shallow-water marine deposits have cut down slightly into eroded 

underlying beds; associated with sea-level rise. 
7.0 GLOSSARY

128

Relict cape-associated shoals – Cape associated shoals that exist along a section of the coast that 

has become re-configured such that there is no longer a cape, but the shoals remain.

Relief – The vertical difference in elevation between the top of a sand ridge and the trough or 

flat-bottom habitat of a given area.

Ridge and trough system – Long subparallel ridges and troughs aligned obliquely across the 

regional trend of the contours, also known as ridge and swale complexes or ridge and 

swale topography. Synonymous with ridge and swale. Both are terms used extensively in 

the literature to refer to abundant sediment flux end of the continuum of Bedform Shoals.

Sand – Loose particles of rock or mineral (sediment) that range in size from 0.05-2.0 mm in 

diameter.

Sand ridge – A term for a low, long, and narrow elevation of sand formed at some distance from 

the shore, and either submerged or emergent.

Sand wave – A term to describe a large and asymmetrical subaqueous bedform in sand. 

Shelf (or shoal) retreat massif – An older term for one of two types of shoals, either a relict capeassociated shoal or a relict Holocene/Pleistocene deposit shoal. 

Shoal – Noun - A natural, underwater ridge, bank, or bar consisting of, or covered by, sand or 

other unconsolidated material, rising from the bed of a body of water to near the surface.

Verb - to cause to become shallow or less deep.

Shoal complex – Two or more shoals (and adjacent morphologies, such as troughs) that are 

interconnected by past and/or present sedimentary and hydrographic processes.

Shoal fields – A region on the shelf where there are a series of shoals rather than an isolated 

shoal.

Shore-attached ridge (or shoal) – A large beach ridge (or shoal) attached to the shore and 

extending in a shore oblique direction offshore. These are the high sediment longshore

drift sediment flux end member of the Morpho-sedimentary bedform continuum.

Shoreface – The zone between the seaward limit of the shore and the more nearly horizontal 

surface of the offshore zone; typically extends seaward to storm wave depth or 

approximately 10 m.

Sorted Bedforms - also called rippled scour depressions) are bathymetrically subtle, large-scale 

bed features that are characterized by alternating bands of coarse and fine grained 

sediment with wavelengths of hundreds of meters, and negative relief of ~1m that trend 

obliquely to the coast.

Swale – A long, narrow, generally shallow, trough-like depression between two sand ridges

Tidal delta – A delta formed at the mouth of a tidal inlet on either the lagoon or the seaward side 

of a barrier island or baymouth bar by changing tidal currents that sweep sand in and out 

of the inlet.

Veneer – A thin, widespread layer of sediment covering an older thicker strata or bed.
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

129

Appendix A: Workshop Agenda and Presentations
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

130
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

131
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

132
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

133
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

134
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

135
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

136
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

137
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

138
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

139
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

140
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

141
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

142
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

143
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

144
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

145
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

146
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

147
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

148
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

149
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

150
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

151
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

152
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

153
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

154
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

155
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

156
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

157
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

158
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

159
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

160
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

161
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

162
APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS

163
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

164

Appendix B: Summary of Ecological Conditions in Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management Planning Areas
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

165

Atlantic Planning Areas

The Atlantic OCS region provides habitat that supports a wealth of species including 

commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish, and several endangered and 

threatened species. Appendix Table B–1 lists the many primary species of commercial 

importance in the Atlantic OCS and their scientific names. Appendix Table B-2 gives all fish 

species identified by the NMFS Office of Protected Resources as endangered, threatened, or 

species of concern in the Atlantic OCS region. The NEFMC, the MAFMC, and the SAFMC 

manage a majority of the fisheries in the Atlantic OCS federal waters. Other stocks and species 

are managed by states, multi-state commissions, international fishery organizations, or a 

combination of bodies. The regional fishery management councils have designated EFH as 

defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act for 28 species in the New England region, 14 species in 

the Mid-Atlantic region, 73 species in the South Atlantic, and 23 highly migratory species 

(sharks, tunas, and billfish). The life histories of the economically and ecologically important 

species have been described in detail by Gabriel (1992) for demersal fishes between Cape 

Hatteras and Nova Scotia, Robin (1999) for fishes of US Atlantic waters, Bowman et al. (2000)

for diets of northwest Atlantic fishes and squid, Collette and Klein-MacPhee (2002) for fishes in 

the Gulf of Maine, and Love and Chase (2007) for marine diversity of Mid- and South Atlantic 

bights. Life history and habitat information of EFH-managed species in the North Atlantic and 

Mid-Atlantic regions are provided in EFH source documents and the EFH Mapper.

Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas

The GOM OCS region also provides habitat that supports a variety of species including 

commercially and recreationally important species, and several threatened and endangered 

species. Appendix Table B–3 lists the many primary species of commercial importance in the 

GOM OCS and their scientific names. Appendix Table B-2 gives all fish species in the GOM

OCS identified by the NMFS Office of Protected Resources as endangered, threatened, or 

species of concern. The GMFMC has designated EFH for 46 species of fish and invertebrates in 

the GOM accounting for approximately one-third of the managed species and are considered 

ecological representatives of the remaining species. General descriptions of fish species

inhabiting the GOM, and the life histories of the economically and ecologically important 

species have been described by McEachran and Fechhelm (1998, 2005), and Carpenter (2002).

Life history and habitat information of EFH-managed species in the GOM regions are provided 

in GMFMC (1998) and the EFH Mapper.

Supplemental Tables

Appendix Table B–4 lists the common and scientific names of fish and invertebrate species that 

are cited in this Synthesis.
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

166

Appendix Table B–1. Common and scientific names of major commercial species of fish and invertebrates in 

the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf region.

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Grouper, yellowfin Epinephelus cyanopodus

AmberJack Seriola spp. Groupers Serranidae spp.

AmberJack, greater Seriola dumerili Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus

AmberJack, lesser Seriola fasciata Hagfish Myxine glutinosa

Bass, striped Morone saxatilis Hake, Atlantic, 

red/white

Urophycis spp.

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Hake, offshore silver Merluccius albidus

Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus Hake, red Urophycis chuss

Clam, arc, blood Anadara olivaris Hake, silver Merluccius bilinearis

Clam, Atlantic Jackknife Ensis directus Hake, white Urophycis tenuis

Clam, Atlantic surf Spisula solidissima Halibut, Atlantic Hippoglossus hippoglossus

Clam, northern quahog Mercenaria mercenaria Herring, Atlantic Clupea harengus

Clam, ocean quahog Arctica islandica Herring, Atlantic 

thread

Opisthonema oglinum

Clam, quahog Mercenaria campechiensis Herring, blueback Alosa aestivalis

Clam, softshell Mya arenaria Herrings Clupea spp.

Clams or bivalves Bivalvia spp. Hind, red Epinephelus guttatus

Cobia Rachycentron canadum Hind, rock Epinephelus adscensionis

Cod, Atlantic Gadus morhua Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus

Crab, Atlantic horseshoe Limulus polyphemus Tilefish, blueline Caulolatilus microps

Crab, Atlantic rock Cancer irroratus Lobster, American Homarus americanus

Crab, blue Callinectes sapidus Lobster, Caribbean 

spiny

Panulirus argus

Crab, florida stone Menippe mercenaria Lobster, slipper Scyllarides aequinoctialis

Crab, golden deepsea Chaceon fenneri Mackerel, Atlantic Scomber scombrus

Crab, green Carcinus maenas Mackerel, chub Scomber colias

Crab, jonah Cancer borealis Mackerel, king Scomberomorus cavalla

Crab, spider Libinia emarginata Mackerel, king and 

cero

Scomberomorus spp.

Crabs Cancer spp. Mackerel, Spanish Scomberomorus maculatus

Croaker, Atlantic Micropogonias undulatus Mako, shortfin Isurus oxyrinchus

Dogfish, smooth Mustelis canis Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus

Dogfish, spiny Squalus acanthias Mullet, striped (liza) Mugil cephalus

Dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus Mullet, white Mugil curema

Drum, black Pogonias cromis Mullets Mugil spp.

Drum, freshwater Aplodinotus grunniens Oyster, eastern Crassostrea virginica

Drum, red Sciaenops ocellatus Oyster, European flat Ostrea edulis

Eel, American Anguilla rostrata Pollock Pollachius virens

Flounder, fourspot Paralichthys oblongus Pompano, African Alectis ciliaris

Flounder, southern Paralichthys lethostigma Pompano, Florida Trachinotus carolinus

Flounder, summer Paralichthys dentatus Porgy, jolthead Calamus bajonado

Flounder, windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus Porgy, knobbed Calamus nodosus

Flounder, winter Pseudopleuronectes americanus Porgy, red Pagrus pagrus

Flounder, witch Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Pout, ocean Zoarces americanus

Flounder, yellowtail Limanda ferruginea Redfish, Acadian Sebastes fasciatus

Flounder,American plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides Salmon, Atlantic Salmo salar

Gag Mycteroperca microlepis Scallop, bay Argopecten irradians

Goosefish (monkfish) Lophius americanus Scallop, sea Placopecten magellanicus
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

167

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Scamp Mycteroperca phenax Shrimp, royal red Pleoticus robustus

Scup Stenotomus chrysops Shrimp, white Litopenaeus setiferus

Scups or porgies Sparidae spp. Skate, barndoor Dipturus laevis

Sea bass, black Centropristis striata Skate, little Leucoraja erinacea

Sea bass, rock Centropristis philadelphica Snapper, blackfin Lutjanus buccanella

Seatrout, sand Cynoscion arenarius Snapper, cubera Lutjanus cyanopterus

Seatrout, spotted Cynoscion nebulosus Snapper, gray Lutjanus griseus

Shad, American Alosa sapidissima Snapper, lane Lutjanus synagris

Shad, gizzard Dorosoma cepedianum Snapper, mutton Lutjanus analis

Shad, hickory Alosa mediocris Snapper, red Lutjanus campechanus

Shark, Atlantic sharpnose Rhizoprionodon terraenovae Snapper, silk Lutjanus vivanus

Shark, blacknose Carcharhinus acronotus Snapper, vermilion Rhomboplites aurorubens

Shark, blacktip Carcharhinus limbatus Snapper, yellowtail Ocyurus chrysurus

Shark, blue Prionace glauca Snappers Lutjaninae spp.

Shark, bonnethead Sphyrna tiburo Spot Leiostomus xanthurus

Shark, bull Carcharhinus leucas Squid, longfin Loligo pealei

Shark, common thresher Alopias vulpinus Squid, northern 

shortfin

Ilex Illex illecebrosus

Shark, dusky Carcharhinus obscurus Squids Squid spp.

Shark, finetooth Carcharhinus isodon Swordfish Xiphias gladius

Shark, great hammerhead Sphyrna mokarran Tautog Tautoga onitis

Shark, lemon Negaprion brevirostris Tilefish, golden Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps

Shark, makos Isurus spp. Tilefish, sand Malacanthus plumieri

Shark, porbeagle Lamna nasus Tilefishes Malacanthidae spp.

Shark, sand tiger Odontaspis taurus Triggerfish, gray Balistes capriscus

Shark, sandbar Carcharhinus plumbeus Tuna, albacore Thunnus alalunga

Shark, scalloped 

hammerhead

Sphyrna lewini Tuna, bigeye Thunnus obesus

Shark, silky Carcharhinus falciformis Tuna, blackfin Thunnus atlanticus

Shark, smooth hammerhead Sphyrna zygaena Tuna, bluefin Thunnus thynnus

Shark, spinner Carcharhinus brevipinna Tuna, skipJack Katsuwonus pelamis

Shark, tiger Galeocerdo cuvier Tuna, yellowfin Thunnus albacares

Sharks Chrondrichthys Tunas Thunnus spp.

Shrimp, brown Farfantepenaeus aztecus Tunny, little Euthynnus alletteratus

Shrimp, dendrobranchiata Dendrobranchiata spp. Wahoo Acanthocybium solandri

Shrimp, marine, other Caridea Weakfish Cynoscion regalis

Shrimp, pink Farfantepenaeus duorarum Wolffish, Atlantic Anarhichas lupus

Shrimp, rock Sicyorzia brevirostris
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

168

Appendix Table B–2. Endangered, threatened, and species of concern (fish) in the Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico Outer Continental Shelf regions (NMFS 2013a).1

Common Name Scientific Name Range Status; Date listed

Alabama Shad Alosa alabamae Gulf of Mexico: Alabama and 

Florida

Species of concern; 2004 

Alewife Alosa 

pseudoharengus

Atlantic: Newfoundland to North 

Carolina

Species of concern; 2006 and 

candidate Species

American eel Anguilla rostrata Atlantic Ocean: Greenland to Brazil Under status review; 2011

Atlantic Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas Species of concern; 2010

Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus 

hippoglossus

Atlantic: Labrador to southern New 

England

Species of concern; 2004

Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Atlantic: Gulf of Maine (other 

populations in streams and rivers in 

Maine outside the range of the listed 

Gulf of Maine DPS); anadromous

Endangered; 2000

Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser 

oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus

North America, Atlantic coastal 

waters; anadromous

Endangered (New York Bight, 

Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and 

South Atlantic DPS), 

Threatened (Gulf of Maine 

DPS); 2012

Atlantic wolffish Anarhichas lupus Atlantic: Georges Bank and western 

Gulf of Maine 

Species of concern; 2004

Barndoor Skate Dipturus laevis Atlantic: Newfoundland, Canada to 

Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.

Former species of concern; 2007

Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis Atlantic: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, 

to St. John's River, Florida

Species of concern; 2006 and 

Candidate Species

Cusk Brosme brosme Atlantic: Gulf of Maine Species of concern; 2004 and 

candidate Species

Drawf Seahorse Hippocampus 

zosterae

Gulf of Mexico (Florida Keys to 

Texas) and the Bahamas

Candidate Species; 2012

Dusky Shark Carcharhinus 

obscurus

Western Atlantic Species of concern; 1997

Great Hammerhead Sphyrna mokarran Western Atlantic Candidate Species; 2013

Gulf Sturgeon Acipenser 

oxyrinchus desotoi

Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana to Florida 

coastal waters; anadromous

Threatened; 1991

Large Sawtooth Pristis pristis Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean south 

through Brazil

Endangered; 2011

Manta Rays Manta alfredi

Manta birostris

Global; Gulf of Mexico, the 

Caribbean, and along the eastern 

coast of the United States

Proposed; 2012

Nassau grouper Epinephelus 

striatus

Atlantic: North Carolina southward 

to Gulf of Mexico

Species of concern; 1991

Night Shark Carcharinus 

signatus

Western Atlantic: Gulf of Mexico, 

South Atlantic and Caribbean

Species of concern; 1997

Porbeagle Lamna nasus Atlantic: Newfoundland, Canada to 

New Jersey 

Species of concern; 2006

Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax Atlantic: Labrador to New Jersey; 

anadromous

Species of concern; 2004

Sand tiger Shark Carcharias taurus Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico Species of concern; 1997

 1 See http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/. 
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

169

Common Name Scientific Name Range Status; Date listed

Scalloped hammerhead Sphyrna lewini Western Atlantic Candidate species; 2011

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser 

brevirostrum

Western Atlantic: New Brunswick to 

Florida; anadromous

Endangered; 1967

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis perotteti Atlantic: New York to Brazil Endangered, U.S. distinct 

population segment; 2003

Speckled hind Epinephelus 

drummondhayi

Atlantic: North Carolina to Gulf of 

Mexico 

Species of concern; 1997

Striped croaker Bairdiella 

sanctaeluciae

Western Atlantic: Florida Species of concern; 1991

Thorny Skate Amblyraja radiata Atlantic: West Greenland to New 

York 

Species of concern; 2004

Warsaw grouper Epinephelus 

nigritus

Atlantic: Massachusetts southward to 

Gulf of Mexico 

Species of concern; 1997

Box 1: NOAA Definitions of Designation Titles

Endangered: Defined under the ESA as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range."

Threatened: Defined under the ESA as "any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." 

Candidate Species: any species that is undergoing a status review that NMFS has announced in a Federal 

Register notice. Thus, any species being considered by the Secretary (of the Department of Commerce or 

Interior) for listing under the ESA as an endangered or a threatened species, but not yet the subject of a 

proposed rule (see 50 CFR 424.02). NMFS' candidate species also qualify as species of concern. "Candidate 

species" specifically refers to--

• species that are the subject of a petition to list and for which we have determined that listing may be 

warranted, pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(A), and

• species that are not the subject of a petition but for which we have announced the initiation of a 

status review in the Federal Register.

Proposed species: Those candidate species that were found to warrant listing as either threatened or 

endangered and were officially proposed as such in a Federal Register notice after the completion of a status 

review and consideration of other protective conservation measures. Public comment is always sought on a 

proposal to list species under the ESA. NMFS generally has one year after a species is proposed for listing 

under the ESA to make a final determination whether to list a species as threatened or endangered. 

Species of Concern: species about which NMFS has some concerns regarding status and threats, but for 

which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. This may 

include species for which NMFS has determined, following a biological status review, that listing under the 

ESA is "not warranted," pursuant to ESA section 4(b)(3)(B)(i), but for which significant concerns or 

uncertainties remain regarding their status and/or threats. Species can qualify as both "species of concern" 

and "candidate species."
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

170

Appendix Table B–3. Common and scientific names of major commercial species of fish and invertebrates in 

the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf region.

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

AmberJack Seriola spp. Jack, Crevalle Caranx hippos

AmberJack, greater Seriola dumerili Jack, Horse-eye Caranx latus

AmberJack, lesser Seriola fasciata King Whiting Menticirrhus americanus

Ballyhoo Hemiramphus brasiliensis Ladyfish Elops saurus

Barracudas Sphyraena spp. Leather Jacket Oligoplites saurus

Barrelfish Hyperoglyphe perciformis Lionfish Pterois volitans

Bass, Longtail Hemanthias leptus Lobster, Caribbean spiny Panulirus argus

Black Driftfish Hyperoglyphe bythites Lobster, slipper Scyllarides aequinoctialis

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Lookdown Selene vomer

Bonito, Atlantic Sarda sarda Mackerel, chub Scomber colias

Brotula, Bearded Brotula barbata Mackerel, king Scomberomorus cavalla

Butterfish Peprilus burti Mackerel, king and cero Scomberomorus spp.

Clam, southern quahog Mercenaria campechiensis Mackerel, Spanish Scomberomorus maculatus

Cobia Rachycentron canadum Mantis shrimps Stomatopoda

Crab, blue Callinectes sapidus Margate Diabasis aurolineatus

Crab, florida stone Menippe mercenaria Menhaden Brevoortia spp.

Crabs Cancer spp. Mojarras Eucinostomus spp.

Croaker, Atlantic Micropogonias undulatus Mullet, striped (liza) Mugil cephalus

Cusk Brosme brosme Mullet, white Mugil curema

Atlantic Cutlassfish Trichiurus lepturus Mullets Mugil spp.

Dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus Octopus Octopoda

Drum, black Pogonias cromis Oilfish Ruvettus pretiosus

Drum, freshwater Aplodinotus grunniens Opah Lampris guttatus

Drum, red Sciaenops ocellatus Oyster, Eastern Crassostrea virginica

Escolar Lepidocybium flavobrunneum Parrotfishes Scaridae

Flounder, southern Paralichthys lethostigma Permit Trachinotus falcatus

Flounder, summer Paralichthys dentatus Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera

Flyingfishes Exocoetidae Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides

Gag Mycteroperca microlepis Pomfrets Brama spp.

Graysby Cephalopholis cruentata Pompano, African Alectis ciliaris

Grouper, black Mycteroperca bonaci Pompano, Florida Trachinotus carolinus

Grouper, Marbled Dermatolepis inermis Porgy, jolthead Calamus bajonado

Grouper, Misty Epinephelus mystacinus Porgy, knobbed Calamus nodosus

Grouper, red Epinephelus morio Porgy, Longspine Stenotomus caprinus

Grouper, snowy Hypothodus niveatus Porgy, red Pagrus pagrus

Grouper, yellowedge Hyporthodus flavolimbatus Puffers Sphoeroides spp.

Grouper, yellowfin Epinephelus cyanopodus Ray,Stingrays Dasyatis spp.

Grouper, red Epinephelus morio Rays Myliobatiformes

Grunts Haemulon spp. Rosefish, Blackbelly Helicolenus dactylopterus

Hake, Atlantic, red/white Urophycis spp. Rudderfish, Banded Seriola zonata

Herring, Atlantic thread Opisthonema oglinum Runner, Blue Caranx crysos

Herrings Clupea spp. Sand Perch Diplectrum formosum 

Hind, red Epinephelus guttatus Sardine, Spanish Sardinella aurita

Hind, rock Epinephelus adscensionis Scad, Bigeye Selar crumenophthalmus

Hind, Speckled Epinephelu drummondhayi Scads Decapterus spp.

Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus Scamp Mycteroperca phenax

Jack, Almaco Seriola rivoliana Scorpionfish, SpinycheekNeomerinthe hemingwayi

Jack, Bar Caranx ruber Scups or porgies Sparidae spp.
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

171

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Sea bass, black Centropristis striata Snapper, gray Lutjanus griseus

Sea bass, rock Centropristis philadelphica Snapper, lane Lutjanus synagris

Sea Catfishes Ariidae Snapper, mutton Lutjanus analis

Seatrout, sand Cynoscion arenarius Snapper, vermilion Rhomboplites aurorubens

Seatrout, spotted Cynoscion nebulosus Snapper, yellowtail Ocyurus chrysurus

Shad, gizzard Dorosoma cepedianum Snappers Lutjaninae spp.

Shark, Atlantic sharpnose Rhizoprionodon terraenovae Spadefishes Chaetodipterus faber

Shark, blacknose Carcharhinus acronotus Sponges Porifera

Shark, blacktip Carcharhinus limbatus Spot Leiostomus xanthurus

Shark, bull Carcharhinus leucas Squids Squid spp.

Shark, Hammerhead Sphyrna spp. Squirrelfishes Holocentridae

Shark, lemon Negaprion brevirostris Swordfish Xiphias gladius

Shark, sandbar Carcharhinus plumbeus Tilefishes Malacanthidae spp.

Shark, Shortfin Mako Isurus oxyrinchus Tilefish, Blueline Caulolatilus microps

Shark, silky Carcharhinus falciformis Tilefish, golden Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps

Shark, spinner Carcharhinus brevipinna Tilefish, Goldface Caulolatilus chrysops

Shark, tiger Galeocerdo cuvier Tilefish, sand Malacanthus plumieri

Sharks Chrondrichthys Triggerfish, gray Balistes capriscus

Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalusTripletail Lobotes surinamensis

Shrimp, brown Farfantepenaeus aztecus Tuna, albacore Thunnus alalunga

Shrimp, dendrobranchiata Dendrobranchiata spp. Tuna, bigeye Thunnus obesus

Shrimp, pink Farfantepenaeus duorarum Tuna, blackfin Thunnus atlanticus

Shrimp, rock Sicyorzia brevirostris Tuna, bluefin Thunnus thynnus

Shrimp, royal red Hymenopenaeus robustus Tuna, Little Tunny Euthynnus alletteratus

Shrimp, seabob Xiphopenaeus kroyeri Tuna, skipJack Katsuwonus pelamis

Shrimp, white Litopenaeus setiferus Tuna, yellowfin Thunnus albacares

Snapper, Black Apsilus dentatus Wahoo Acanthocybium solandri

Snapper, blackfin Lutjanus buccanella Weakfish Cynoscion regalis

Snapper, cubera Lutjanus cyanopterus Wenchman Pristipomoides aquilonaris

Snapper, dog Lutjanus jocu Wreckfish Polyprion americanus
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

172

Appendix Table B-4. Common and scientific names of fish and invertebrate species that are discussed in 

Section 4.0 of this Synthesis. 

Fish Species

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

agujon Tylosurus acus band cusk-eel Ophidion holbrookii

alewife Alosa pseudoharengus banded drum Larimus fasciatus

American harvestfish, 

harvestfish

Peprilus paru banded rudderfish Seriola zonata

american sailfin eel Letharchus velifer bandtail puffer Sphoeroides spengleri

American shad Alosa sapidissima bandtail searobin Prionotus ophryas

Atlantic albacore tuna Thunnus alalunga bank sea bass Centropristis ocyurus

Atlantic angel shark Squatina dumeril bar jack Caranx ruber

Atlantic bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus barbfish Scorpaena brasiliensis

Atlantic bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus barndoor skate Dipturus laevis

Atlantic bonito Sarda sarda basking shark Cetorhinus maximus

Atlantic bumper Chloroscombrus chrysurus bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli

Atlantic cod Gadus morhua bay whiff Citharichthys spilopterus

Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus bearded brotula Brotula barbata

Atlantic cutlassfish Trichiurus lepturus belted sandfish Serranus subligarius

Atlantic guitarfish Rhinobatos lentiginosus bigeye anchovy Anchoa lamprotaenia

Atlantic herring Clupea harengus bigeye scad Selar crumenopthalmus

Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus bigeye searobin Prionotus longispinosus

Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus bighead searobin Prionotus tribulus

Atlantic midshipman Porichthys plectrodon bignose shark Carcharhinus altimus

Atlantic moonfish Selene setapinnis black drum Pogonias cromis

Atlantic sharpnose shark Rhizoprinodon 

terraenovae

black sea bass Centropristis striatus

Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia blackbear sea bass Serranus atrobranchus

Atlantic skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis blackcheek tonguefish Symphurus plagiusa

Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterus faber blackedge cusk-eel Lepophidium 

pheromystax

Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus blacknose shark Carcharhinus acronotus

Atlantic thread herring Opisthonema oglinum blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus

Atlantic yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacres blackwing searobin Prionotus rubio

balao Hemiramphus balao blotched cusk-eel Ophidion grayi

balloonfish Diodon holacanthus blue goby Ioglossus calliurus

ballyhoo Hemiramphus basiliensis blue marlin Makaira nigricans
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

173

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

blue runner Caranx crysos duckbill flathead Bembrops anatirostris

blue shark Prionace glauca dusky anchovy Anchoa lyolepis

blueback herring Alosa aestivalis dusky carinalfish Phaeoptyx pigmentaria

bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix dusky flounder Syacium papillosum

bluespotted cornetfish Fistularia tabacaria dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus

bluespotted searobin Prionotus roseus dwarf goatfish Upeneus parvus

blunthead puffer Sphoeroides pachygaster dwarf herring Jenkinsia lamprotaenia

bluntnose jack Hemicaranx 

amblyrhynchus

dwarf sand perch Diplectrum bivittatum

bluntnose stingray Dasyatis say emerald parrotfish Nicholsina usta

bonnethead shark Sphyrna tiburo eyed flounder Bothus ocellatus

bridled burrfish Chilomycterus antennatus false pilchard Harengula clupeola

broad flounder Paralichthys squamilentus feather blenny Hypsoblennius hentz

bull pipefish Syngnathus springeri finetooth shark Carcharhinus isodon

bull shark Carcharhinus leucas flat anchovy Anchoviella perfasciata

bullnose ray Myliobatis freminvillei flat needlefish Ablennes hians

butterfish Peprilus triacanthus Florida pompano Trachinotus carolinus

Caribbean reef shark Carcharhinus perezi Florida smoothhound Mustelus norrisi

cero Scomberomorus regalis flying halfbeak Euleptorhamphus velox

chain pipefish Syngnathus louisianae fourbeard rockling Enchelyopus cimbrius

channel flounder Syacium micrurum fourspine stickleback Apeltes quadracus

checkered puffer Sphoeroides testudineus fourspot flounder Paralichthys oblongus

clearnose skate Raja eglanteria freckled pike-conger Hoplunnis macrurus

cobia Rachycentron canadum freckled stargazer Gnatholepis egregius

conger eel Conger oceanicus freckled tonguefish Symphurus nebulosus

cottonmouth jack Uraspis secunda fringed filefish Monacanthus ciliatus

cownose ray Rhinoptera bonasus fringed flounder Etropus crossotus

crested cusk-eel Ophidion welshi fringed sole Gymnachirus texae

crevalle jack Caranx hippos gafftopsail catfish Bagre marinus

cuban anchovy Anchoa cubana gag Mycteroperca microlepis

cubbyu Pareques umbrosus goby flathead Bembrops gobioides

cunner Tautolabrus adspersus goosefish Lophius americanus

deepwater flounder Monolene sessilicauda gray flounder Etropus rimosus

devil ray Mobula hypostoma gray flounder Etropus rimosus

dolphin Coryphaena hippurus gray snapper Lutjanus griseus

dotterel filefish Aluterus heudeloti gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

174

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

great hammerhead shark Sphyrna mokarran ladyfish Elops saurus

grubby Myoxocephalus aenaeus lancer stargazer Kathetostoma albigutta

grunt (juvenile) Haemulon spp. lane snapper Lutjanus synagris

Gulf butterfish Peprilus burti largescale lizardfish Saurida brasiliensis

Gulf flounder Paralichthys albigutta largescale tonguefish Symphurus minor

Gulf kingfish Menticirrhus littoralis least puffer Sphoeroides parvus

Gulf of Mexico barred 

searobin, barred searobin

Prionotus martis leather jacket Oligoplites saurus

Gulf of Mexico ocellated 

flounder, ocellated 

flounder

Ancylopsetta ommata lemon shark Negaprion brevirostris

Gulf Stream flounder Citharichthys arctifrons leopard searobin Prionotus scitulus

haddock Melanogrammus 

aeglefinus

lined seahorse Hippocampus erectus

halfbeak Hyporhamphus meeki lined sole Achirus lineatus

hardhead catfish Arius felis little skate Raja erinacea

hickory shad Alosa mediocris little tunny Euthynnus alletteratus

highfin scorpionfish Pontinus rathbuni little-eye round herring Jenkinsia majua

high-hat Pareques acuminatus littlehead porgy Calamus proridens

hogchoker Trinectes maculatus longbill spearfish Tetrapturus pfluegeri

honeycomb cowfish Acanthostracion 

polygonius

longhorn sculpin Myoxocephalus 

octodecemspinosus

honeycomb cowfish Lactophrys polygonia longnose batfish Ogcocephalus corniger

honeycomb moray Gymnothorax saxicola longnose cusk-eel Ophidion antipholus

horned searobin Bellator militaris longspine porgy Stenotomus caprinus

horned whiff Citharichthys cornutus longspine scorpionfish Pontinus longispinis

horse-eye jack Caranx latus mackeral scad Decapterus macarellus

houndfish Tylosurus crocodilus marbled puffer Sphoeroides dorsalis

inland silverside Menidia beryllina margintail conger Paraconger 

caudilimbatus

inquiline snailfish Liparis inquilinus Mexican flounder Cyclopsetta chittendeni

inshore lizardfish Synodus foetens mojarra Gerreidae

jack-knifefish Equetus lanceolatus mooneye cusk-eel Ophidion selenops

keeltail needlefish Platybelone argalus naked goby Gobiosoma bosc

key worm eel Ahlia egmontis naked sole Gymnachirus melas

king mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla night shark Carcharhinus signatus
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

175

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

northern kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis pygmy sea bass Serraniculus pumilio

northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus pygmy tonguefish Symphurus parvus

northern puffer Sphoeroides maculatus queen triggerfish Balistes vetula

northern searobin Prionotus carolinus rainbow runner Elagatis bipinnulatus

northern sennet Sphyraena borealis red drum Sciaenops ocellata

northern stargazer Astroscopus guttatus red grouper Epinephelus morio

nurse shark Ginglymostoma cirratum red hake Urophycis chuss

ocean pout Zoarces americanus red snapper Lutjanus campechanus

ocean triggerfish Canthidermis sufflamen redear sardine Harengula humeralis

ocean sunfish Mola mola redtail scad Decapterus kurroides

offshore lizardfish Synodus poeyi ribbon halfbeak Euleptorhamphus 

viridis

offshore tonguefish Symphurus civitatus rock gunnel Pholis gunnellus

orange filefish Aluterus schoepfi rock sea bass Centropristis 

philadelphica

orangebelly goby Varicus marilynae rosette skate Raja garmani

orangespotted filefish Cantherhines pullus rough scad Trachurus lathami

orangespotted goby Nes longus rough triggerfish Canthidermis 

maculatus

oyster toadfish Opsanus tau roughback batfish Ogcocephalus parvus

palometa Trachinotus goodei roughtail stingray Dasyatis centroura

pancake batfish Halieutichthys aculeatus round herring Etrumeus teres

permit Trachinotus falcatus round scad Decapterus punctatus

pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera roundel skate Raja texana

pinfish Lagodon rhomboides sailfish Istiophorus platypterus

planehead filefish Monacanthus hispidus sand lance species Ammodytes spp.

planehead filefish Stephanolepis hispidus sand perch Diplectrum formosum

plumed scorpionfish Scorpaena grandicornis sand seatrout Cynoscion arenarius

pollock Pollachius virens sand stargazer Dactyloscopus 

tridigitatus

porcupinefish Diodon histrix sand tiger shark Odontaspis taurus

porcupinefish Diodon spp. sand whiff Citharichthys 

arenaceus

porgy (juvenile) Calamus spp. sandbar shark Carcharhinus 

plumbeus

pygmy filefish Monacanthus setifer sargassum triggerfish Xanthichthys ringens
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

176

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

sash flounder Trichopsetta ventralis silver hake Merluccius bilinearis

scad Decapterus spp. silver jenny Eucinostomus gula

scaled sardine Harengula jaguana silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura

scalloped hammerhead 

shark

Sphyrna lewini silver seatrout Cynoscion nothus

scawled cowfish Acanthostracion 

quadricornis

silverstripe halfbeak Hyporhamphus 

unifasciatus

scrawled cowfish Lactophrys quadricornis singlespot frogfish Antennarius radiosus

scrawled filefish Aluterus scriptus slantbrow batfish Ogcocephalus 

declivirostris

scup Stenotomus chrysops slender filefish Monacanthus tuckeri

sea raven Hemitripterus americanus slim flounder Monolene antillarum

seaboard goby Gobiosoma ginsburgi smallmouth flounder Etropus microstomus

seaweed blenny Parablennius marmoreus smallmouth flounder Etropus microstomus

Seminole goby Microgobius carri smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata

sergeant major Abudefduf saxatilis smooth butterfly ray Gymnura micrura

sharpnose puffer Canthigaster rostrata smooth dogfish Mustelus canis

sharptail goby Gobionellus hastatus smooth puffer Lagocephalus 

laevigatus

sharptail sunfish Mola lanceolata smooth trunkfish Lactophrys triqueter

sheepshead Archosargus 

probatocephalus

smoothead scorpionfish Scorpaena calcarata

shelf flounder Etropus cyclosquamus snakeblenny Lumpenus 

lampretaeformis

shelf flounder Etropus cyclosquamus snakefish Trachinocephalus 

myops

shoal flounder Syacium gunteri southern flounder Paralichthys 

lethostigma

short bigeye Pristigenys alta southern hake Urophycis floridana

shortbeard cusk-eel Lepophidium brevibarbe southern kingfish Menticirrhus 

americanus

shortfin mako shark Isurus oxyrinchus southern puffer Sphoeroides nephelus

shortfin searobin Bellator brachychir southern sennet Sphreaena picudilla

shortnose batfish Ogcocephalus nasutus southern stargazer Astroscopus y-graecum

shortwing searobin Prionotus stearnsi southern stingray Dasyatis americana

shrimp eel Ophichthus gomesii Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus 

maculatus

shrimp flounder Gastropsetta frontalis Spanish sardine Sardinella aurita

silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis spinner shark Carcharhinus 

brevipinna

silver anchovy Engraulis eurystole spiny butterfly ray Gymnura altavela
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

177

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias thresher shark Alopias vulpinus

spiny flounder Engyophrys senta tidewater mojarra Eucinostomus 

harengulus

spiny searobin Prionotus alatus tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvieri

spot Leiostomus xanthurus tilefish Lopholatilus 

chamaeleonticeps

spotfin flounder Cyclopsetta fimbriata timucu Strongylura timucu

spotfin goby Oxyurichthys 

stigmalophius

tomtate Haemulon 

aurolineatum

spottail tonguefish Symphurus urospilus trunkfish Lactophrys trigonus

spotted batfish Ogcocephalus pantostictus twospot flounder, Robins 

flounder

Bothus robinsi

spotted burrfish Chilomycterus atinga unicorn filefish Aluterus monoceros

spotted burrfish Chilomycterus atinga unicorn whiff Citharichthys 

gymnorhinus

spotted goatfish Pseudupeneus maculatus wahoo Acanthocybium 

solanderi

spotted hake Urophycis regia weakfish Cynoscion regalis

spotted whiff Citharichthys macrops whale shark Rhincodon typus

spottedfin tonguefish Symphurus diomedianus white bass Morone americana

star drum Stellifer lanceolatus white grunt Haemulon plumierii

stellate codlet Bregmaceros houdei white hake Urophycis tenuis

streamer searobin Bellator egreta white marlin Tetrapturus albidus

striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus white mullet Mugil curema

striped bass Morone saxatilis white shark Carcharodon 

carcharias

striped burrfish Chilomycterus schoepfi whitespotted filefish Cantherhines 

macrocerus

striped burrfish Chilomycterus schoepfi whitespotted soapfish Rypticus maculatus

striped cusk-eel Ophidion marginatum windowpane Scophthalmus aquosos

striped searobin Prionotus evolans winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes 

americanus

stripedfin flounder Poecilopsetta beani winter skate Leucoraja ocellata

summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus witch flounder Glyptocephalus 

cynoglossus

swordfish Xiphias gladius wormfish Microdesmidae

tarpon Tarpon atlanticus yellow conger Hildebrandia flava

tattler Serranus phoebe yellow jack Caranx bartholomaei

tautog Tautoga onitis yellowfin menhaden Brevoortia smithi

three-eye flounder Ancylopsetta dilecta yellowtail flounder Limanda ferruginea

threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS

178

Invertebrate Species

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

American lobster Homarus americanus ocean quahog Arctica islandica

Atlantic rock crab Cancer irroratus pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus 

duorarum

Atlantic surfclam Spisula solidissima royal red shrimp Pleoticus robustus

blue crab Callinectes sapidus sea scallop Placopecten 

magellanicus

brown shrimp Farfantepenaeus aztecus short-finned squid Illix illecebrosus

Florida stone crab Menippe mercenaria slipper lobster Scyllarides nodif

Gulf stone crab Menippe adina spiny lobster Panulirus argus

hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria surf clam Spisula solidissima

horseshoe crab Limulus polyphemus white shrimp Litopenaeus setiferus

long-finned squid Loligo pealei