Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
September 1989
Evaluation of the Continued Use of the
t- Massachusetts Bay Dredged Material
Disposal Site
United States Environmental Protection Agency Region I
John F. Kennedy Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203-2211
-------
11.. .Once in his life a man
should concentrate his mind
on the remembered earth,
I believe. He ought to
give himself up to a
particular landscape in his
experience, to look at it
from as many angles as he
can, to wonder about it,
to dwell upon it. He ought
to imagine that he touches
it with his hands at every
season and listens to the
sounds made upon it. He
ought to imagine the
creatures that are there
and all the faintest
motions of the wind. He
ought to recollect the
glare of noon and all the
colors of dawn and
dusk...."
N. Scott Momaday
The Man Made of Words
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY DREDGED MATERIAL
OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Water Quality Branch
Boston, MA 02203
Paul G. Keough, Acting Date
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED ACTION:
LOCATION:
DATE:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
LEAD AGENCY:
COOPERATING AGENCIES:
TECHNICAL CONSULTANT:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
AND TO OBTAIN A COPY OF
THIS DOCUMENT CONTACT:
COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT
MAY BE VIEWED AT:
DESIGNATION OF AN OCEAN DREDGED
MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE WITHIN
MASSACHUSETTS BAY
MASSACHUSETTS BAY
SEPTEMBER 1989
THIS DRAFT EIS CONSIDERS THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY OF
CONTINUED USE OF AN OCEAN DREDGED
MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE IN
MASSACHUSETTS BAY AND RECOMMENDS
FINAL SITE DESIGNATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE MITIGATION
MEASURES SET FORTH WITHIN
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
JFK FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203-2211
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
METCALF & EDDY, INC.
WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS
KYMBERLEE KECKLER, CHEMICAL ENGINEER
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
JFK FEDERAL BUILDING (WQE-1900)
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203-2211
TELEPHONE:
(617) 565-4432
FTS 835-4432
SEE NEXT PAGE FOR LIST OF REPOSITORIES
FINAL DATE BY WHICH
COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED: NOVEMBER 6, 1989
-------
LIST OF REPOSITORIES
Abbott Public Library
235 Pleasant Street
Marblehead, MA 01945
(617) 631-1480
Mon-Thu: 10-9
Fri-Sat: 10-6
Boston Public Library
666 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02117
(617) 536-5400
Mon-Thu: 9-9
Fri-Sat: 9-5 Sun: 2-6
Sawyer Free Public Library
2 Dale Avenue
Gloucester, MA 01930
(508) 283-0376
Mon-Fri: 9-8
Sat: 9-5
Nahant Public Library
15 Pleasant Street
Nahant, MA 01908
(617) 581-0306
Mon-Thu: 2-8
Fri-Sun: 2-5
Plymouth Public Library
11 North Street
Plymouth, MA 02360
(508) 746-1927
Mon-Thu: 9-8:30
Fri: 9-5:30
Provincetown Public Library
330 Commercial Street
Provincetown, MA 02657
(508) 487-0850
Mon-Thu: 10-5 & 7-9
Revere Public Library
179 Beach Street
Revere, MA 02151
(617) 284-0102
Mon-Thu: 9-9
Fri-Sat: 9-5
Saugus Public Library
295 Central Street
Saugus, MA 01906
(617) 233-0530
Mon, Wed, & Thu: 8:30-8:30
Tue: 8:30-5:30 Fri: 1-5:30
Swampscott Public Library
61 Burrill Street
Swampscott, MA 01907
(617) 593-8380
Mon, Tue, & Thu: 9-9
Wed & Fri: 9-5
Sat: 9-5 (Closed in winter)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
Regulatory Branch
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
U.S. EPA
Public Information Reference
Unit, Room 204
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
U.S. EPA Technical Library
JFK Federal Building
15th Floor
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3715
Mon-Fri: 8:30-4:30
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
U.S. EPA, Region I
Preparers:
Kymberlee Keckler, BS
Philip D. Colarusso, MS
Reviewers:
Gwen S. Ruta, BS
Ronald G. Manfredonia, MS
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Preparers:
James T. Maughan, PhD
Sue A. Cobler, MS
Dominique N. Brocard, PhD
Richard M. Baker, MS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Reviewers:
Thomas J. Fredette, PhD
National Marine Fisheries Service
Reviewers:
Christopher L. Mantzaris, BS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Reviewers:
Kenneth Carr, MS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES ix
CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Purpose 1
1.1.1 Site History 3
1. 2 Need for Action 7
CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 Authority 11
2.2 Alternatives 12
2.3 General and Specific Criteria for Site Evaluation 13
2.3.1 General Criteria 13
2.3.2 Specific Criteria 14
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Physical Characteristics 16
3.1.1 Climate 16
3.1.2 Oceanography 18
3.1.2.1 Water Masses, Temperture, and Salinity 18
3.1.2.2 Circulation: Currents, Tides, and Waves 20
3.1.2.3 Bathymetry 26
3.1.2.4 Sedimentology 28
3 . 2 Chemical Characteristics 34
3.2.1 Water Column Chemistry 34
3.2.1.1 Dissolved Oxygen 34
3.2.1.2 pH 34
3.2.1.3 Nutrients 36
3.2.1.4 Turbidity 36
3.2.1.5 Metals 37
3.2.1.5.1 Cadium 37
3.2.1.5.2 Chromium 37
3.2.1.5.3 Nickel 37
3.2.1.5.4 Copper 37
3.2.1.5.5 Zinc 38
3.2.1.5.6 Arsenic 38
3.2.1.5.7 Mercury 38
3.2.1.5.8 Lead 38
3.2.1.6 Organics 39
3.2.1.6.1 PAH 39
-------
3.2.1.6.2 PCS 39
3.2.2 Sediment Chemistry 39
3.2.2.1 Metals 45
3.2.2.1.1 Arsenic 45
3.2.2.1.2 Cadmium 45
3.2.2.1.3 Chromium 49
3.2.2.1.4 Copper 49
3.2.2.1.5 Lead 52
3.2.2.1.6 Mercury 52
3.2.2.1.7 Nickel 55
3.2.2.1.8 Zinc 55
3.2.2.2.1 Ammonia , Carbon , Hydrogen , and
Nitrogen ,
3.2.2.2.2 Oil and Grease
3.2.2.2.4 PAH
3.2.2.2.5 PCB ,
3.2.2.2.6 Other Chlorinated Organics ,
3.2.2.3 Statistical Analysis of Sediment Chemical
3.2.2.4 Grain Size
3.2.3 Biotic Residues ,
58
58
59
59
61
61
Data. 6 3
81
81
3.2.3.1 Metals 82
3.2.3.1.1 Arsenic 82
3.2.3.1.2 Lead 82
3.2.3.1.3 Zinc 94
3.2.3.1.4 Chromium 94
3.2.3.1.5 Copper 94
3.2.3.1.6 Cadmium 95
3.2.3.1.7 Mercury 95
3.2.3.1.8 Iron 95
3.2.3.2 Organics 95
3.2.3.2.1 DDT 95
3.2.3.2.2 PCB 96
3.2.3.2.3 PAH 96
3 . 3 Biological Conditions 97
3.3.1 Plankton Resources 98
3.3.1.1 Phytoplankton 98
3.3.1.2 Zooplankton 99
3.3.2 Benthos 100
3.3.3 Fish and Shellfish Resources 101
3.3.3.1 Finfish Community Composition in
Massachusetts Bay 103
3.3.3.2 Finfish Community Composition at MBDS Ill
3.3.3.3 Fish Abundance in Relation to Bottom
Conditions at MBDS 113
3.3.3.4 Commercial Fisheries near MBDS 113
3.3.3.5 Occurrence of Spawning and Fish Larvae
at MBDS 114
3.3.3.6 Food Utilization 116
3.3.3.7 Shellfish Resources 120
3.3.4 Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds 124
ii
-------
3.4
3.5
3.3.4.1 Mammals
3.3.4.1.1 Minke Whale
3.3.4.1.2 Atlantic Pilot Whale
3.3.4.1.3 White-sided Dolphin
3.3.4.1.4 White-beaked Dolphin
3.3.4.1.5 Harbor porpoise
3.3.4.1.6 Common Dolphin
3.3.4.1.7 Harbor Seal
3.3.4.1.8 Gray Seal
3.3.4.2 Seabird Species
3.3.4.2.1 Northern Fulmar
3.3.4.2.2 Shearwaters
3.3.4.2.3 Storm-petrels
3.3.4.2.4 Northern Gannet
3.3.4.2.5 Phalaropes
3.3.4.2.6 Jaeger
3.3.4.2.7 Gulls
3.3.5 Theatened and Endangered Species
3.3.5.1 Whales
3.3.5.1.1 Humpback Whale
3.3.5.1.2 Finback Whales
3.3.5.1.3 Northern Right Whale
3.3.5.1.4 Sei Whale
3.3.5.2 Marine Turtles
3.3.5.2.1 Atlantic Ridleys Turtle
3.3.5.2.2 Leatherback Turtle
3.3.5.2.3 Loggerhead Turtle
Fishing Industry
3.4.1 Dragging
3.4.2 Gill Netting
3.4.3 Lobster ing
3.4.4 Fishing Utilization
3.4.5 Landings Value for MBDS
Other Factors
3.5.1 Shipping
3.5.2 Mineral, Oil, and Gas Exploration and
Development
3.5.3 General Marine Recreation
3.5.4 Marine Sanctuaries
3.5.5 Historic Resources
. .124,
. .124
. .130
. .131
. .132
. .132
..134
..134
. .1315
. .135
136
. .136
. .136
. .136
. .136
. .137
, . .137
, . .137
, . .137
, . .137
, . .139
, . .141
, . .143
, . .143
, . .143
. . .144
, . .145
, . .145
. . .145
. . .146
, . .146
. . .146
, . .149
, . .149
. . .149
, . .149
, . .149
. . .150
, . . IfJO
CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1
Effects on the Physical Environment
4.1.1 Short Term Effects
4.1.1.1 Disposal Processes
4.1.1.2 Mound Formation/Substrate Consolidation...,
4.1.2 Long Term Effects ,
4.1.2.1 Bathymetry and Circulation ,
4.1.2.2 Potential for Resuspension and Transport..,
4.1.2.2.1 Conditions for Resuspension
4.1.2.2.2 Appl icat ion to the MBDS
. . .151
. . .151
. . .151
. . .157
. . .158
. . .158
. . .158
. . .159
. . .163
iii
-------
4.1.2.2.3 Additional Factors 167
4.1.2.3 Bioturbation 168
4.1.3 Summary of Physical Effects 170
4.2 Effects on the Chemical Environment 171
4.2.1 Water Quality 171
4.2.1.1 Water Quality Criteria 172
4.2.1.2 Background Toxicant Levels 173
4.2.1.3 Selection of Historical Period 175
4.2.1.4 Modeling of Historical Dump Events 175
4.2.1.5 Number, Duration, and Areal Extent of
Criteria Exceedances 181
4.2.1.5.1 Arsenic 181
4.2.1.5.2 Cadmium and Chromium 181
4.2.1.5.3 Copper 181
4.2.1.5.4 Lead 183
4.2.1.5.5 Mercury 185
4.2.1.5.6 Nickel 185
4.2.1.5.7 Zinc 185
4.2.1.5.8 PCB 185
4.2.2 Sediment Chemical Environment 186
4.2.2.1 Alterations in the Chemical Environment 187
4.2.3 Summary of Chemical Effects 188
4 . 3 Effects on Biota 188
4.3.1 Effects on Plankton 188
4.3.1.1 Mortality from Physical Stress 188
4.3.1.2 Sublethal Effects 189
4.3.1.3 Toxicity 191
4.3.2 Effects on Fish and Benthic Resources 192
4.3.2.1 Effects on Fish Eggs and Larvae 192
4.3.2.1.1 Mortality from Physical Stress 192
4.3.2.1.2 Sublethal Effects 193
4.3.2.1.3 Toxicity 194
4.3.2.2 Effects on Demersal Fish and Benthic
Invertebrates 195
4.3.2.2.1 Mortality and Community Effects
from Phyical Stress 195
4.3.2.2.2 Toxicity 199
4.3.2.3 Effects on Epibenthic Invertebrates 201
4.3.2.3.1 Mortality from Physical Stress 201
4.3.2.3.2 Toxicity 203
4.3.2.3.3 Impacts to Food Resources 203
4.3.2.4 Effects on Pelagic Fish and Invertebrates....203
4.3.2.4.1 Mortality from Physical Stress 203
4.3.2.4.2 Toxicity 204
4.3.2.4.3 Impacts to Food Resources 204
4.3.3 Effects on Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds 204
4.3.4 Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species 205
4.3.5 Summary of Biological Effects 208
4.4 Effects on Human Use 208
4.4.1 Fishing Industry 208
4.4.1.1 Short-term effects 208
4.4.1.2 Long-term effects 208
iv
-------
4.4.2 Navigation 20£>
4.4.3 Mineral and other Resources 209
4.4.4 General Marine Recreation 20£i
CHAPTER 5. SITE MANAGEMENT
5.1 Reponsibilities under the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act 210
5.1.1 Responsibilities for Permitting 210
5.1.2 Responsibilities for Enforcement 211
5.1.3 Responsibilities for Site Management 211
5.1.4 Mechanisms for Cooperation 211
5.2 Permitting Process 212
5.2.1 Alternatives Analysis 212
5.2.2 Sampling and Analysis 212
5.2.3 Decision-making 213
5.3 Dredged Material Testing Procedures 213
5.3.1 National Testing Protocol 214
5.3.2 Regional Testing Protocol 214
5.3.3 Future Directions for Testing Protocol Development..217
5.3.4 Reference Site Implications 218
5.4 Site Monitoring and Management 219
5.4.1 Purpose of Site Monitoring 219
5.4.2 Evalution of Monitoring Results 221
5.4.3 Monitoring Techniques 222
5.4.4 COE's DAMOS Program 224
5.4.5 Brief History of MBDS Monitoring 226
5.4.6 Other Management Consideration 226
5.4.7 Management Options for Contaminated Material 227
REFERENCES
ABBREVIATIONS
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number Description Page
1-1 Statistical Summary of Dredged Material Disposal 6
at the MBDS between 1976 and 1987
1-2 Annual Totals for Volumes of Dredged Material 8
Disposed at the MBDS
1-3 Potential Sources of Dredged Material which are 9
located within Economically Feasible Haul
Distances to the MBDS
3-1 Field Studies at MBDS 1985 Through 1987 17
3-2 Average of all Water Chemistry Data Point from 35
June and Sept 1986 and January 1987
3-3 Metal Concentrations in MBDS Sediment Samples 40
3-4 Metals Concentration in 1987 Sediments from MBDS 41
3-5 Results of Chemical Analysis in MBDS Sediment 42
Samples
3-6 Organic Analysis Results of MBDS Sediment Samples 43
(Concentration as dry weight)
3-7 Concentrations of Total Carbon, Arclor 1242, 44
Aroclor 1254, Total PCB, and Total PAH in 1987
Sediments from MBDS
3-8 The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution 46
Control Guidelines for Dredged Material
Classification
3-9 Arsenic Concentrations in Nephtys incisa 83
3-10 Lead Concentrations in Nephtys incisa 84
3-11 Zinc Concentrations in Nephtvs incisa 85
3-12 Chromium Concentration in Nephtys incisa 86
3-13 Copper Concentrations in Nephtys incisa 87
3-14 Cadmium Concentrations in Nephtvs incisa 88
vi
-------
3-15 Mercury Concentrations in Nephtvs incisa 89
3-16 Iron Concentrations in Nephtys incisa 90
3-17 Metals Tissue Levels in Bivalves 91
3-18 PCB Tissue Levels in Nephtys incisa 92
3-19 PCB Tissue Levels in Astarte spp. 93
3-20 PCB Tissue Levels in Plactopecten sp. and 93
Pandalus sp.
3-21 Distribution of Benthic Phyla at MBDS and 102
Reference Stations
3-22 Seasonal Migration Characteristics of Some 105
Important Fish Species
3-23 Summary of Fish Distribution and Life Histories 106
3-24 Common Fish Species of the Gulf of Maine 110
Likely to Occur in the MBDS Vicinity
3-25 Summary of NMFS Survey Bottom Trawls in the 112
MBDS Vicinity
3-26 Average Commercial Fisheries Catch in the 115
Vinicity of the MBDS
3-27 Occurence and Abundance of Larval Fish in 117
Massachusetts Bay
3-28 Feeding Efficiency of Witch flounder and 118
American plaice at MBDS as indicated by
weight of stomach contents
3-29 Invertebrates Captured in NMFS Bottom Trawls 122
in the Vincinity of the MBDS
3-30 Life History Characteristics of Commercially 123
Important Invertebrates at MBDS
3-31 List of Whales, dolphins, and porpoises which 125
commonly (C) or rarely (R) occur in the waters
of the Gulf of Maine
3-32 List of rare (R) and commonly (C) occuring 126
marine turtles in the waters of the Gulf of
Maine
VII
-------
3-33 list of rare (R) and commonly (C) occuring 127
pinnipeds in Coastal waters of the Gulf of
Maine
3-34 Seasonal occurence of seabirds in the Gulf of 128
Maine
3-35 Number of Lobster Boats Fishing in the vicinity 147
of MBDS
3-36 Fish Landings for Statistical Area 514 148
4-1 Distribution of particle diameters in 157
dredged material for the MBDS
4-2 Critical near-bottom velocities for initiation 160
of sediment motion
4-3 Wave Heights required to initiate sediment 164
motion
4-4 USEPA Marine Water Quality Criteria 174
4-5 Background Toxicant Levels at the MBDS 174
4-6 Number of Dumps Resulting in Criteria Exceedances 182
owing to Dredged Material Disposal at the MBDS
during 1982 (5% Unsettleable Solids Assumed)
4-7 Number of Dumps Resulting in Criteria Exceedances 182
owing to Dredged Material Disposal at the MBDS
During 1982 (10% Unsettleable Solids Assumed)
4-8 Cumulative Duration and Maximum Radius of 184
Exceedances owing to Dredged Material Disposal
at the MBDS During 1982 (5% Unsettleable Solids
Assumed)
4-9 Cumulative Duration and maximum Radius of 184
Exceedances owing to Dredged Material Disposal
at the MBDS During 1982 (10% Unsettleable Solids
Assumed)
4-10 Required ocean surface area at MBDS to dilute the 190
concentration of suspended sediments in a dredged
material disposal plume to various threshold
levels
4-11 Summary of Sediment contaminant Levels 202
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Number Description Page
1-1 Location of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site 2
1-2 Location of the Boston Lightship Disposal Site 4
in relation to the MBDS
1-3 Location of the Foul Area Industrial Waste Site 5
3-1 The Dominant Circulation of Surface Waters of 21
the Gulf of Marine in July and August
3-2 Generalized Response of Bottom Currents to 23
strong Easterly Wind Conditions at MBDS
3-3 Major Bathymetric Features of Massachusetts Bay 27
3-4 Locations of Sampling Stations with respect to 30
the MBDS Boundary
3-5 Distribution of Sediment Facies at MBDS as 33
Determined from Side Scan Sonar and REMOTS
Surveys
3-6 Contours of Arsenic Sediment Chemistry Data 47
taken between 1981 and 1989
3-7 Contours of Cadmium Sediment Chemistry Data 48
taken between 1981 and 1989
3-8 Contours of Chromium Sediment Chemistry Data 50
taken between 1981 and 1989
3-9 Contours of Copper Sediment Chemistry Data 51
taken between 1981 and 1989
3-10 Contours of Lead Sediment Chemistry Data 53
taken between 1981 and 1989
3-11 Contours of Mercury Sediment Chemistry Data 54
taken between 1981 and 1989
3-12 Contours of Nickel Sediment Chemistry Data 56
taken between 1981 and 1989
3-13 Contours of Zinc Sediment Chemistry Data 57
taken between 1981 and 1989
IX
-------
3-14 Contours of Total PAH Sediment Chemistry Data 60
taken between 1981 and 1989
3-15 Contours of Total PCS Sediment Chemistry Data 62
taken between 1981 and 1989
3-16 Scatterplot of Arsenic and Distance 64
3-17 Scatterplot of Chromium and Distance 65
3-18 Scatterplot of Copper and Distance 66
3-19 Scatterplot of Lead and Distance 67
3-20 Scatterplot of Mercury and Distance 68
3-21 Scatterplot of Zinc and Distance 69
3-22 Scatterplot of Total PAH and Distance 70
3-23 Scatterplot of Total PCB and Distance 71
3-24 Delineation of Three Strata for MBDS Sampling 73
Stations
3-25 Results of Scheffe's Test for the Strata 74
3-26 Results of Scheffe's Test for Three Sites Within 76
The MBDS
3-27 Scatterplot of Copper and Lead 78
3-28 Scatterplot of Copper and Zinc 79
3-29 Scatterplot of Lead and Zinc 80
3-30 General Movement of Migratory Fish Species 104
in the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean
3-31 Biomass of Potential Invertebrate Prey at MBDS 119
3-32 Prey Biomass Available to Various Feeding 121
Strategy Groups at MBDS
4-1 Schematic Diagram of the Phases Encountered 152
during a Disposal Event
4-2 Ship's Track and Disposal Plume Dispersion 156
Following Disposal Operations using a Hopper
Dredge at SUGSR ISLAND on February 1, 1983
-------
4-3 Modified Shields Diagram for the Initiation 161
of Sediment Motion
4-4 Wave Friction Factor Diagram 162
4-5 Wave Height and Period as a Function of 165
Wind Speed and Duration
4-6 Wind Characteristics Required to Resuspend 166
Sediment of Different Sizes
4-7 FADS Dredge Spoils Dump Volumes 176
4-8 Dump Model Predictions for Solids 178
4-9 Dump Model Predictions for Copper 180
4-10 Cluster Analysis of Benthic Data 198
4-11 Map of the Shelf Waters of the Eastern 206
United States showing 10' Blocks Representing
Areas with a Habitat-use index in the Top 20%
5-1 Generic Flow Diagram for the Tiered Testing 215
and Decision Protocol for the Open Water
Disposal of Dredged Material
5-2 Location of existing mud reference site for 220
MBDS and sites under consideration for
its replacement
XI
-------
CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS")
is to present information which will be used to determine whether
to continue use of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site ("MBDS"),
formerly the Foul Area Disposal Site, for ocean disposal of dredged
material. Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 ("MPRSA"), as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et
seq., gives EPA, after consultation with federal, state, and local
agencies and other interested parties, the authority to designate
sites where ocean dumping may be permitted. On May 7, 1974, the
EPA published a statement of policy on Environmental Impact
Statements ("EISs"). Section (1)(d)(2) of that policy specifies
that EISs must be prepared in connection with ocean disposal site
designations under Section 102(d) of the MPRSA. Final site
designation will make an ocean disposal alternative available for
consideration during case-by-case permit reviews for future
dredging projects in the region. However, it is important to note
the need for the proposed dumping as well as a full spectrum of
available land-based alternatives must be evaluated before ocean
disposal has been chosen as the preferred plan. Only when there
are no practicable alternatives available which have less adverse
environmental impact should ocean disposal be permitted.
Potential sites for ocean disposal are selected so that detrimental
impacts on the environment or on commercial or recreational fishing
activities are minimized. Two types of sites are generally
considered: depositional (or containment) sites which are situated
such that material deposited at the site will remain within the
site boundary, and dispersive sites which are situated such that
wave action at the site will carry deposited material away and
disperse it over a large area. Depositional sites are chosen when
the site is to be used for the disposal of material which may have
pollutants associated with it, thereby confining any potential
biological impacts from these pollutants to within the site.
Dispersive sites are selected when the site will be used for
disposal of clean sand, thereby minimizing any potential physical
impacts from disposal.
Because the MBDS may be used for disposal of dredged material from
several polluted harbors in the area, this DEIS needs to confirm
that the MBDS is a containment site. The environmental suitability
of the MBDS will be evaluated using the general and specific
criteria established by the MPRSA and published in 40 CFR §228 and
other pertinent regulations. Careful consideration of all
environmental and economic aspects of the proposed action will be
incorporated into the decision-making process.
The MBDS is located 10 nautical miles (approximately 12 miles) off
the Massachusetts coast beyond the baseline of the territorial seas
-------
71° 50' 40' 30' 20' 10' 70'
Pi,ure 1-1 Location of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
-------
(see Figure 1-1) and was used for unregulated ocean disposal
activities starting in the 1940s. In the early 1970s, EPA
promulgated the ocean dumping regulations, and subsequently granted
interim site designation status to sites which had been
historically used (see Section 1.1.1 Site History). The MBDS was
included in these sites and is currently operating under interim
site designation status. According to the Ocean Dumping
Regulations at 40 CFR §228.5(e), EPA is required to, whenever
feasible, designate sites that have been historically used.
Therefore, this DEIS will evaluate the effects of continued use of
the MBDS. This evaluation considers potential impacts on human
health, welfare, and amenities; the marine environment; ecological
systems; and economic impacts.
1.1.1 Site History
Industrial waste such as organic and inorganic compounds,
intentionally sunken derelict vessels, and construction debris
have been dumped in the general vicinity of the MBDS since the
1940s. Earlier disposal actions were not conducted at a specified
location, but at a considerable distance from land as judged by the
vessel skipper. Most dredged material was disposed at sites closer
inshore than MBDS, especially at a location called the "Boston
Lightship Disposal Site" (see Figure 1-2). Some dredged material
that was considered "contaminated" (often without any chemical
testing) was disposed in the vicinity of the offshore area termed
the "Foul Area". The MBDS has historically been called the "Foul
Area" because the material on the bottom "fouls" or tears the
fishermen's nets.
The disposal site marker "A" buoy was deployed by the U.S. Coast
Guard at 42°-26.8'N and 70°-35.0'W from August 1963 through January
29, 1975. In 1975, the buoy was moved to its present location
(42°-25.7'N and 70°-35.0'W). In 1977, EPA's Ocean Dumping
Regulations established the dredged material disposal site as a
two nautical mile diameter circle centered one nautical mile east
(42°-25.7'N and 700-34.0'W) of the previous industrial waste site
(see Figure 1-3). Since 1977, this reconfigured site has been used
only for the disposal of dredged material. The repositioning of
the buoy may explain why some dredged material was discovered
beyond the MBDS boundary (see Chapter 3) . However, it is more
likely that lack of appropriate disposal controls in the past and
repositioning of the site are better explanations of this
discovery.
Historically, the chemical composition of the majority of material
disposed at MBDS was not analyzed. Recent testing practices have
revealed that dredged material of varying composition was disposed
at MBDS (see Table 1-1). Caution should be used in interpreting
these data, since the perceived need to test material biases the
results. For example, material from harbors considered to be non-
polluted was not tested, and is not considered in the average (see
-------
Figure 1-2
Location of the Boston Lightship Disposal Site in
relation to the MBDS
Source: SAIC, 1987
4
-------
01
>NNI
» ^
-
P.
r/~x •*
11 M s j r.**um iiif AD
Massachusetts Bay
Foul Area
JL
Industrial Waste Site
OMJ 2MI 4M
Figure 1-3
Location of the Foul Area
Industrial Waste Site
MASSACHUSETTS BAY DISPOSAL SITES
AREA OF LARGEST AMOUNT OF WASTE AND DREDGED MATERIALS
Source: Massachusetts Department of Public Works, June 1988
-------
Table 1-1 Statistical Summary of Contaminants found in Dredged
Material Disposed at MBDS between 1976 and 1987
Hg"
Cd
Pb
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
AS
PCB
%vol
>il
AVG
0.58
2.02
96.50
88.17
65.31
24.08
134.70
8.44
0.25
2.08
1.09
8TDV
0.90
2.19
106.62
116.32
84.12
24.28
145.91
11.34
0.62
2.44
1.77
Weighted
Avg
0.68
2.96
126.84
105.88
104.60
36.76
170.83
12.63
0.22
2.99
2.13
MAX
6.46
8.90
491.50
629.50
448.50
88.83
532.00
52.10
3.00
8.23
7.48
Mass Class II
Greater Than';
0.50
5.00
100.00
100.00
200.00
50.00
200.00
10.00
0.50
5.00
0.50
Mass Class II
Greater Than'
1.50
10.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
100.00
400.00
20.00
1.00
10.00
1.00
Note: Massachusetts Classification guidelines are from 314 CMR §9.00
**A11 Concentrations are in ppm (dry weight)
-------
Table 1-1). In general, the tests were performed on surficial
sediments in the dredging areas considered to be most polluted.
The deeper layers, which are usually less contaminated, generally
have received little or no testing and could represent the majority
of a project's disposed material.
1.2 Need for Action
The harbors of New England require maintenance dredging on a
regular basis because of the accumulation of shoaling material.
The materials that settle in channels and harbors in New England
are fine grained sediments that are transported by river bedload,
storm water runoff, and tidally driven currents to settle in areas
of low current velocities. This settling creates shoals that must
be dredged periodically to ensure the safety of the vessels
navigating harbor channels and anchorages. Dredged material is
typically generated from maintenance dredging of ports and
waterways (to improve navigability) , harbor and channel facilities,
improvement projects, and other marine projects. Also, dredging
may be required for improvements or expansions to individual ports.
The New England Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
("COE") has disposed or permitted disposal of approximately 2.8
million cubic yards of dredged material at the MBDS over the past
ten years (see Table 1-2). The material was from harbors, rivers,
and channels between Gloucester and Plymouth, Massachusetts, but
was primarily generated from Boston Harbor dredging projects. The
majority of the material was silt (60%) while the remainder (40%)
was sand and gravel.
The volume and type of material historically disposed at the MBDS
can be used to project future needs. Future needs for disposal of
dredged material are anticipated to be equivalent to the previous
regional needs of approximately three million cubic yards per
decade (see Table 1-2). However, recent proposals for
infrastructure and harbor improvements in the Greater Boston area
may triple these projections in the upcoming decade. For example,
a large project such as the proposed Boston Harbor Federal channel
maintenance dredging could generate up to 1.6 million cubic yards
of material. Table 1-3 contains a list of rivers and harbors that
could potentially use this site for disposal of dredged material
over the next five decades. Final designation of the MBDS as a
permanent Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site ("ODMDS") would
provide a site of suitable size to accommodate the regional
disposal needs of areas from Gloucester to Plymouth, Massachusetts
and other areas where use of the site is economically feasible and
environmentally acceptable. As discussed in Chapter 2, ocean
disposal of dredged material is permitted on a case-by-case basis
under Section 103 of the MPRSA only after all alternatives to ocean
disposal have been eliminated.
The use of the MBDS as a disposal site for dredging projects in
-------
Table 1-2 Annual Totals for Volumes of Dredged Material
Disposed at the MBDS
YEAR CUBIC YARDS CUBIC METERS
1987 118,800 90,834
1986 232,122 177,480
1985 273,355 209,007
1984 226,369 173,081
1983 282,919 216,320
1982 845,819 646,713
1981 315,204 241,004
1980 15,108 11,552
1979 91,908 70,273
1978 33,116 25,320
1977 50,223 38,400
1976 313,558 239,746
GRAND TOTALS 2,798,502 2,139,730
-------
Table 1-3 Potential sources of dredged material which are located
within economically feasible haul distances to the MBDS
Allerton Harbor
Annisquam River and Smith Cove
Beverly Harbor
Boston Harbor and Nantasket Beach Channel
(Weir River) including:
Boston Inner Harbor
Charles River
Chelsea River
Dorchester River and Neponset River
Fort Point Channel
Island End River
Little Mystic (South) Channel
Main Ship Channel (Board Sound, North,
South, and Narrows Channel)
Nubble Channel
President Roads Anchorage
Reserve Channel
Weymouth Fore, Town and Back Rivers
Cohasset Harbor
Danvers Crane, and Porter Rivers
Duxbury Harbor
Essex River and Castle Neck River
Gloucester Harbor
Green Harbor
Hingham Harbor
Ipswich River and Eagle Hill River
Kingston Harbor
Lynn Harbor
Maiden River
Manchester Harbor
Marblehead Harbor
Mystic River
Plymouth Harbor and Cordage Channel
Rockport Harbor and Pigeon Cove
Rowley River
Salem Harbor
Saugus/Pines River
Scituate Harbor
Swampscott River
Weir River including Nantasket Channel and Sagamore Cove
Winthrop Harbor
-------
specific harbors is dependent in part on the "zone of economic
feasibility" of the site, or the area within economic haul distance
to the site. In general, all rivers, channels and harbors from
Gloucester through Plymouth, Massachusetts that are dredged may
generate material that could be disposed at MBDS. According to COE
records, the majority (by volume) of material disposed at the MBDS
has historically come from Boston Harbor (67%) with those harbors
south of Boston comprising 20% of the material disposed at MBDS.
The remaining 13% was generated from dredging projects in harbors
north of Boston to Gloucester, Massachusetts.
10
-------
CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 Authority
Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972 ("MPRSA"), as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., gives
the Administrator of EPA the authority to designate sites where
ocean dumping may be permitted. On December 23, 1986, the
Administrator delegated the authority to designate ocean dredged
material disposal sites to Regional Administrators. The scientific
investigations associated with the potential designation of the
MBDS were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the
MPRSA and the Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria set forth at
40 CFR §§220 to 229. Interdisciplinary scientific analyses have
been incorporated into this DEIS in order to address the criteria
and guidelines established in the MPRSA and the Ocean Dumping
Regulations. The five general and eleven specific criteria found
in 40 CFR §228 are discussed in detail in Section 2.C.
The purpose of the MPRSA is to regulate the transportation of
material to be disposed and the disposal of such material beyond
the territorial sea baseline. Section 102 of the MPRSA establishes
criteria for evaluating the environmental effects resulting from
disposal of dredged material and gives EPA the authority to
designate recommended sites for such disposal. Under Section 103
of the MPRSA, the Secretary of the Army may issue permits for the
transportation of dredged material for the purpose of disposing it
into ocean waters. Ocean disposal permits for dredged material are
issued when the Secretary of the Army, with the EPA's concurrence,
determines that the disposal will not unreasonably degrade the
marine environment. Additionally, public participation is an
integral part of the permitting process (see also Chapter 5).
Designation of MBDS as an ocean disposal site would only result in
it remaining available as an ocean disposal alternative. Actual
disposal of dredged material at MBDS can take place only after the
material has been specifically evaluated (see Sections 5.B & 5.C)
and open water disposal has been chosen as the recommended option.
This analysis of the practicability of alternative disposal
methods, and review of potential marine impacts from ocean disposal
is conducted through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("COE")
permitting process under Section 103 of MPRSA.
One of the responsibilities of the COE is to maintain the
navigability of waterways under authority of the various River and
Harbor Acts, a task which includes the transportation and disposal
of dredged material in an ecologically and economically acceptable
manner. The COE is not required to issue themselves a permit for
their disposal activities, but is required to meet the criteria
established in MPRSA and the Ocean Dumping Regulations. EPA
concurrence is required for all COE ocean disposal activities.
11
-------
2.2 Alternatives
Pursuant to 40 CFR §228.5(e), EPA is required to, whenever
feasible, designate sites that have been historically used. The
purpose of this DEIS is to evaluate the effects of continued use
of the MBDS and to clarify the site's status over an extended
period. This DEIS will also discuss the potential need to set
restrictions on disposal activities. This evaluation considers
potential impacts on human health, welfare, and amenities; the
marine environment; ecological systems; and economic impacts
associated with past and future use of the MBDS. If it is
determined that continued use of the MBDS is not feasible, EPA will
perform additional studies so that an alternative site can be
identified and the use of the MBDS will be terminated as soon as
a suitable alternate disposal site is designated. Only if this
study shows that the existing site is not suitable for continued
use will other sites in the area be investigated for potential
designation.
However, an analysis of alternatives must be conducted prior to
each disposal event. As discussed in 40 CFR §227 (the regulations
which set forth the criteria for evaluating ocean disposal needs),
applicants for ocean disposal permits must show that no other
practicable alternative locations or methods of disposal (including
recycling) other than ocean disposal exist that have less adverse
environmental impact or potential risk to other parts of the
environment. A practicable alternative is one which is technically
sound and economically feasible. Such alternatives include, but
are not limited to, landfill cover, beach nourishment and erosion
control, upland spread of material over open ground, marsh
creation, bottom habitat enhancement, artificial reef construction,
commercial reuse (i.e. construction aggregate), parks and
recreation, incineration of dried contaminated sediments, borrow
pits or containment islands, and agricultural use.
Permit applicants must also consider feasible alternatives for
upland landfilling of the dredged material. Although several sites
for upland disposal of dredged material exist, the use of these
sites is often logistically constrained. In the Boston
Metropolitan area, dense urban development is usually found within
a two mile radius of ports and harbors, limiting upland disposal
options near the dredge site. Many potential sites are under
consideration for development, making coordination of project times
difficult. Consultation and negotiation with property owners,
community officials, and abuttors would be necessary.
Additionally, environmental constraints, specifically shoreline and
wetland impacts, may also limit upland disposal opportunities.
However, some potential upland disposal sites within a reasonable
distance of the shoreline do exist. These sites would accommodate
only a fraction of the projected disposal capacity needed; it is
estimated that to meet the projected 50 year disposal needs in the
12
-------
area (approximately 15 million cubic yards), upland sites totalling
390 acres would be needed if these sites were to be covered with
a layer of dredged material 26 feet thick (estimate does not
include the acreage needed for dikes, treatment facilities, etc.).
Consequently, upland sites must be considered prior to permitting
even though upland disposal of a large percentage of dredged
material is not expected to be feasible.
Economically, the ocean disposal option does have benefits. A
comparative cost analysis between ocean and upland disposal showed
that ocean disposal is approximately five times cheaper (Sasaki
Associates, 1983) . However, ocean disposal can only be permitted
if it meets the criteria discussed below.
The closest existing ocean disposal sites in the area are the Cape
Arundel Disposal Site which is 45 miles from Gloucester and the
Portland Disposal Site which is 68 miles from Gloucester. As
distance between the dredging site and the disposal site increases,
so does the cost of disposal. It is therefore not economically
feasible for dredged material from the Boston metropolitan area to
be disposed of at these sites.
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office is currently
investigating the feasibility of establishing a dredged material
containment island in Boston Harbor. This site, however, would
only be used for contaminated material that does not pass disposal
evaluation testing, (i.e. bioassay/bioaccumulation testing, see
Chapter 5).
2.3 General and Specific Criteria for Site Evaluation
Under Title II of the MPRSA, the dumping of material into ocean
waters must be monitored in order to assess the ecological, social,
and economic impacts of disposal. A program was developed to
analyze ocean disposal sites in accordance with the criteria set.
forth at 40 CFR §§228.5 and 228.6. To support continued use of the
site for dredged material disposal, scientific analyses must be
documented to substantiate the site's consistency with these
criteria. The purpose of this document is to compile that
scientific information and evaluate the interim status of this site
based on all available data. The criteria in 40 CFR §§228.5 and
228.6 are split into five general and eleven specific criteria
which are listed below.
2.3.1 General Criteria
a. The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only
at sites or in other areas selected to minimize the interference
of disposal activities with other activities in the marine
environment, particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or
shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial or recreational
13
-------
navigation.
b. Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be chosen so
that temporary perturbations in water quality or other
environmental conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal
operations anywhere in the sites can be expected to be reduced to
normal ambient seawater levels or to undetectable contaminant
concentrations or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline,
marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or
shellfishery.
c. If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation
studies, it is determined that existing disposal sites presently
approved on interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet the
criteria for site selection set forth in section 228.6, the use of
such sites will be terminated as soon as suitable alternative
disposal sites can be designated.
d. The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize for identification and control any immediate adverse
impacts to permit the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-range impacts. The
size, configuration, and location of any disposal site will be
determined as a part of the disposal site evaluation or designation
study.
e. EPA will, whenever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that
have been historically used.
2.3.2 Specific Criteria
a. Geographic position, depth of water, bottom topography, and
distance from coast.
b. Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding,
or passage areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases.
c. Location in relation to beaches or other amenity areas.
d. Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of and
proposed methods or release, including methods of packing the
waste, if any.
e. Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
f. Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing
characteristics of the area, including prevailing current direction
and velocity, if any.
g. Existence and effects of present or previous discharges and
dumping in the area (including cumulative effects).
14
-------
h. Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, desalination, fish, and shellfish culture, areas of
special scientific importance, and other legitimate uses of the
ocean.
i. The existing water quality and ecology of the site as
determined by available data or by trend assessment or baseline
surveys.
j. Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance
species in the disposal site.
k. Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any
significant natural or cultural features of historical importance.
15
-------
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("COE"), New England Division, has
been conducting oceanographic sampling at Massachusetts Bay
Disposal Site ("MBDS") since 1973 primarily under the COE's
Disposal Area Monitoring System ("DAMOS") program and specifically
directed site evaluation studies. The DAMOS program investigates
all aspects of dredged material disposal in New England and
actively monitors physical, chemical, and biological conditions at
nine disposal sites throughout New England. A review of the DAMOS
program reports for MBDS, along with pertinent scientific
literature, was conducted to identify data gaps in the
oceanographic knowledge of site specific conditions at MBDS. Upon
completion of this review, extensive site evaluation studies were
conducted to fulfill the criteria of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (see Chapter 1). Although
this report describes the results of these studies, the DAMOS
program continues to monitor MBDS, and continues to conduct
scientific investigations at the site (see Chapter 5).
The field studies conducted to supplement the site designation
studies are listed in Table 3-1. The discussion of these results
are included in the following chapters for each discipline.
3.1 Physical Characteristics
This section discusses the physical characteristics of the MBDS
and the surrounding environment in terms of its overall setting in
the Gulf of Maine. A thorough review of existing literature
relevant to MBDS was conducted, and in-situ measurements were made
during the summer and fall of 1985, winter of 1986, and fall of
1987 to supplement this general information with site specific
data.
3.1.1 Climate
The climate in the vicinity of MBDS is influenced by three major
factors: the prevailing west to east atmospheric flow, northward
and southward fluctuations of tropical and polar air masses on this
eastward flow, and the location on the east coast. The first two
factors create a relatively high degree of variability in the
weather patterns as warm, moist air from the south alternates with
cool, dry air from the north throughout the year. However,
particularly during winter, the tracks of low pressure systems
(northeasters) frequently follow the coastline, causing
precipitation and gale winds. Heavy fog occurs on an average of
two days per month, and precipitation occurs on the average of one
day in every three.
The wind systems affecting the region adjacent to MBDS display a
typical seasonal variability. Wind data for the Massachusetts Bay
area indicates that in the winter months (November through March),
the dominant wind direction is from the northwest while during the
16
-------
Table 3-1 Field Studies at MBDS 1985 through 1987
(For earlier studies see References)
PHYSICAL
Bathymetric Surveys
Current Meters
(deployed)
Current Meters
Direct Reading (DRCM)
Side Scan Sonar Surveys
REMOTS© (sediment/water
interface profile camera)
Sediment Chemistry
(including physical
analyses)
Water Chemistry
Tissue Residues
October 1985; January 1987
June through August 1985;
September through November 1985;
February through April 1986;
October through November 1987
June, July, August, October 1985
January, February, March, and
April 1986; September and October
1987
October 1985; November 1987
June and September 1985; January
1987
CHEMICAL
June and September 1985;
January 1986; September 1987
June and September 1985; January
and March 1986
June and September 1985; January
1986; September 1987
BIOLOGICAL
Benthic Community
Structure (0.1 m2 Smith
Mclntyre)
Finfish Sampling
(Trawls and Demersal
Gill Nets)
Benthic Resource
Assessment Technique
(BRAT)
Manned Submersible
Observations
June and September 1985;
January 1986
June and September 1985; January
1986
September 1985
GENERAL
June 1986
Note: Specific program methods and results can be found in MBDS
Site Designation Studies Data Report, SAIC, 1987
Source: COE, 1988
17
-------
wanner months the dominant direction is strongly from the southwest
(COE, 1988) . Winds over 25 mph occur most frequently from the
northwest between December and March.
These prevailing wind patterns are perturbed throughout the year
by the passage of short duration, high energy, low pressure storm
events which follow the coastal track. These systems, typically
rich in easterly winds, generate the highest velocity winds
affecting the area (COE, 1988). Usually there is a dominance of
northwest and southwest winds, with a very small component from the
northeast quadrant. However, the maximum wind velocities indicate
that virtually all strong winds (exceeding 40 mph) occur from the
northeast and easterly directions.
3.1.2 Oceanography
The MBDS is located in the northeast portion of Massachusetts Bay
which is considered a western extension of the Gulf of Maine. The
oceanography of the area is controlled by three major factors: the
climate, as discussed above; the lack of significant river drainage
into the bay; and the circulation of the Gulf of Maine. The Gulf
of Maine circulation patterns in the vicinity of MBDS are modified
to a large extent by the presence of Stellwagen Bank on the eastern
margin of the Bay which blocks the exchange of water at depth with
the Gulf and the shelf beyond. The absence of a major source of
freshwater means that the water column exhibits characteristics of
an open shelf environment. However, it is important to note that
there is an increased freshwater influence from the peak flows of
the Merrimack River during spring.
3.1.2.1 Water Masses, Temperature and Salinity
The temperature/salinity cycle of Massachusetts Bay is
characterized by seasonal variability, with maximum temperatures
occurring in a stratified water column during August and September
and minimum temperatures occurring in an essentially isothermal
water column in January and February. Annual temperature and
salinity profiles from the vicinity of the Boston Lightship,
approximately 10 nautical miles southwest of MBDS, demonstrated the
structure of the temperature/salinity regime and indicated a
minimum temperature in an isothermal water column of approximately
5°C occurring during the winter months and an extreme high
temperature approaching 17" to 18°C in a highly stratified column
during the late summer. The thermocline occurs at a depth of
approximately 15 meters with the sharpest thermal gradient ranging
from 15° to 10°C over a 5 meter depth interval to 20 meters. Below
20 meters, the water cools gradually to a nominal bottom
temperature of 4° or 5°C. The stratification usually breaks down
through vertical mixing during October and the water column is
usually isothermal from November until April.
The annual salinity cycle follows the expected pattern with minima
18
-------
in both surface and bottom waters occurring in the late spring.
As expected, the surface salinities are less than the bottom values
and show a much greater range of fluctuation, particularly in the
spring months when variations in the amount of runoff can have an
effect. Surface salinities expected at MBDS would have a maximum
ranging between 32 and 33 ppt during the winter months and minimums
on the order of 30 ppt during the spring. The bottom water is much
more consistent, varying slightly around 32 ppt. Bigelow (1927)
was the first to document the seasonal cycle of salinity in
Massachusetts Bay. Butman (1977) described in detail the changes
in water column parameters in the middle of Massachusetts Bay (42°
20'N, 70° 35'W) occurring during the spring runoff of 1973. Butman
(1977) documented the change from a well mixed water column in
March and April to the start of a stratified system where a
thermocline was developed at 15 to 20 meters. It is apparent that
the salinity gradient parallels the coastline and, as expected, the
surface salinities vary from a minimum of 30 ppt in May to 32 ppt
during the winter months. The springtime minimum at MBDS reflects
the increased river runoff prevalent at that time of year, but is
not as pronounced as may be observed at other shelf locations.
Prior to the DAMOS program, the most site specific data obtained
at MBDS were collected by Gilbert (1975) at six stations
distributed throughout the original "Massachusetts Bay Foul Area".
These data compare quite closely with the Bumpus (1974) data for
the Boston Lightship except that they are higher in both
temperature and salinity during the summer months. Surface
temperatures of more than 20 "C may reflect a small temporal
variation in the upper water column during the sampling period and
are not abnormally high values. The salinity of 34 ppt however,
is higher than expected from previous work.
Additional evidence of the stratified thermal structure occurring
at MBDS is shown by the temperature data obtained from the current
meters deployed at the site during September and October in 1985
and 1987 (COE, 1988) . In 1985, there was a decrease in both the
absolute temperature and the variability of the record from surface
to bottom. The temperature decreased from 17°C at the surface to
approximately 7°C at the bottom. The greatest variability in
temperature occurred at the 35 meter depth, where small
oscillations, induced by tidal currents, caused large variability
in the temperature record (up to 2°C). The steep temperature
gradient indicated may be explained by the fact that the meter was
placed in the thermocline. The temperature variability is much
less above and below the thermocline.
An important observation in this record was the impact of Hurricane
Gloria which occurred on September 27th and 28th of 1985. The
passage of this storm resulted in a decrease of surface temperature
and marked increase in subsurface temperatures for a short period
of time. This phenomenon is most likely a combination of turbulent
mixing near the surface and transport of warmer water into the
19
-------
subsurface layers. The fact that all records returned to
essentially pre-storm conditions indicates that no major overturn
of the water column occurred as a result of this event.
The water column at MBDS behaves in a manner typical of
northeastern continental shelf regions, with isothermal conditions
of approximately 5°C during the winter, giving way to stratified
conditions with maximum surface temperatures near 18 "C and a strong
thermocline at 20 meters during the summer months. The water
column overturns during the late fall, returning to isothermal
conditions. Salinity minima occur in late spring owing to
increased runoff, but vary only a few parts per thousand (ppt) with
most values ranging from 30 ppt to 33 ppt.
3.1.2.2 Circulation: Currents, Tides, and Waves
Water circulation in Massachusetts Bay is influenced by the
counterclockwise flow, or gyre, displayed by the Gulf of Maine
(Figure 3-1) (Bigelow, 1927; Sutcliffe et al., 1976; Brown and
Beardsley, 1978; Harris, 1972). However, local tidal currents
(mean tidal range 2 to 3 meters) and wind driven currents
complicate the normal counterclockwise water movements (Bumpus,
1974; Parker and Pearce, 1973; Padan, 1977; MWRA, 1987; EPA, 1988).
Studies of circulation in Massachusetts Bay (Butman, 1977) have
revealed the following key features: current speeds are primarily
a function of semidiurnal rotary tides; currents can be dominated
by wind stress, particularly in winter; and density distributions
established during spring runoff can also alter the normal current
field.
On a large scale, circulation within Massachusetts Bay is one
component of the overall Gulf of Maine system. The circulation of
the Gulf consists of two circular gyres, one counterclockwise
within the interior of the Gulf, and the second, clockwise over
Georges Bank. Massachusetts Bay waters are included in the western
portion of the counterclockwise gyre within the Gulf. Previous
studies using drift bottles and seabed drifters, objects used to
determine current directions, indicated seasonal variability in
this circulation under the combined effects of local wind stress
and the input of freshwater inflows (Bigelow, 1927; Bumpus, 1976).
In general, the circulation gyres are most strongly developed in
the summer. During the winter, the interior gyre tends to move
northward and becomes more diffuse (Bumpus & Lauzier, 1965).
As a result of these regional circulation characteristics and the
variability of the local meteorological regime, Massachusetts Bay
can be expected to have a general counterclockwise circulation with
a moderate degree of temporal and spatial variability. In the
immediate vicinity of MBDS, the long term currents would be
expected to be in a southerly direction. Drifters released near
the crest of Stellwagen Bank were recovered along the eastern shore
of Cape Cod, while those released on the western margin of the Bank
20
-------
Figure 3-1 The Dominant Circulation of Surface Waters of the Gulf
of Maine in July and August
Source: Bigelow, 1927
21
-------
were recovered in Cape Cod Bay (Schlee et al., 1973). In all
cases, the drift velocities were very low, ranging from 2 to 10
cm/sec.
The low frequency surface currents in the vicinity of MBDS flow
northward during the spring months because they are on the western
margin of a clockwise flowing gyre surrounding a lens of lighter,
fresher water introduced from the eastern side of the basin. This
freshwater is derived from the discharge of the Merrimack River
into the Gulf of Maine.
Shorter time scale variability is dominated by the semi-diurnal
component of the local tide field in which tidal currents are more
developed and stronger within the shallow nearshore area. Riser
and Jankowski (1974) noted that the tidal flow trend at the Boston
Lightship Site was southeasterly after high tide and northwesterly
after low tide. These observations compare closely with those of
Bumpus (1974) for the entire Massachusetts Bay area.
The near-bottom circulation of Massachusetts Bay varies primarily
as a function of topography, with highest currents observed over
crest regions of topographic features such as Stellwagen Bank and
lowest currents observed in the depressions located in the central
portion of the Bay. Observations by Schlee et al. (1973) indicated
velocities on the crest remained below 20 cm/sec. These velocities
suggest that winnowing of fine particles and/or erosion of coarser
sediments can occur on the topographic features, but that
deposition of fine materials would be expected in the basin areas.
Gilbert (1975) observed bottom currents within the MBDS area that
were extremely low (less than 10 cm/sec) but had higher velocities
at more shallow depths in the water column. Butman (1977) deployed
a bottom current meter approximately 5 nmi south of MBDS and found
similar conditions, with average speeds of approximately 5 cm/sec
and maximum values less than 20 cm/sec 99% of the time but
approaching 30 cm/sec under extreme conditions. Tidal components
of these currents reached values of only 6 cm/sec oriented in an
east-west direction. Current measurements made under the DAMOS
program also indicated extremely low current velocities, generally
less than 10 cm/sec (NUSC, 1979).
Butman (1977) deployed several bottom current meters for a one year
period throughout Massachusetts Bay and was able to characterize
the response of the bottom currents to meteorological events.
During other months of the year, Butman found no relation between
bottom currents and meteorological events. Figure 3-2 presents a
generalized view of the bottom current circulation associated with
such easterly storms (Butman, 1977). Note that while flow on the
crest of Stellwagen Bank is in the direction of the wind, the
bottom currents in the basin near MBDS are southeasterly with much
lower velocity.
22
-------
71° SO1 40' 30' 20' 10' 70°
Figure 3-2 Generalized Response of Bottom Currents to Strong
Easterly Wind Conditions at MBDS (Vectors were
constructed from measurements made at different
times, but under similar winter wind conditions)
Source: Butman, 1977
23
-------
Previous studies in the vicinity of MBDS indicate that bottom
currents are relatively low (<20 cm/sec) under nearly all
conditions, while mid-depth and surface currents may be higher.
The bottom currents near MBDS may increase in a southerly direction
to speeds of 30 cm/sec during strong northeast winter storms (i.e.,
approximately once every three years), because wind influences sea
surface elevation on the western boundary of Massachusetts Bay.
Previous investigations (Metcalf and Eddy, 1984; Butman, 1977;
Gilbert. 1975; Bumpus, 1974; and Schlee et al., 1973) in
conjunction with more recent site investigations (COE, 1988)
indicate a quiescent environment with low bottom currents at MBDS.
The sampling conducted during 1985 to 1987 obtained on-site current
meter data for September 1985, February 1986, and September 1987.
For the near-surface (10 m) measurements taken during the fall of
1985, the mean speed was 22 cm/sec with peak tidal velocities
averaging approximately 35 cm/sec, except during Hurricane Gloria
(COE,1988). Near bottom (82 m) current speeds for the same period
had a mean value of 7 cm/sec, but had two distinct periods with
different characteristics. Prior to Hurricane Gloria on September
27, 1985, the bottom current speeds were oscillatory in nature with
mean speeds on the order of 20 cm/sec. Following the storm, the
oscillations became less periodic and reduced in speed to an
average of 4 to 5 cm/sec.
Near bottom (85 m) measurements made during the winter of 1986 were
similar to the second portion of the fall measurements with very
low currents averaging 4 cm/sec for most of the record.
The surface current meter record in the fall of 1987 indicates a
dominant flow in the SW direction approximately 56% of the time
with mean velocities of approximately 15 cm/sec. For about 40% of
the time, a NE flow occurs with a mean velocity of 11 cm/sec. Peak
velocities of 72 cm/sec and 53 cm/sec with very short duration
occurred in the SW and NE directions, respectively. On September
20, 1987, the effects of a storm event can be seen as the
elimination of the normal tidal oscillations in the surface layer
for the next four days. Current velocities reached a maximum value
of 72 cm/sec in a SSW direction on September 21, 1987.
A similar effect of the storm can be seen in the current meter
record for the 25 m depth, although the peak velocity was less (56
cm/sec). The dominant flow at this depth was in the SW quadrant
for approximately 65% of the time at mean current velocities of 15
cm/sec. For the remainder of the time, current directions were in
the other three quadrants approximately 10% of the time at mean
velocities from 10 to 13 cm/sec. The current meter record for the
55 m depth indicated a dominant flow in the NW quadrant for 46% of
the time with mean current velocities of approximately 10 cm/sec.
For 30% of the time, a flow in the SE quadrant occurred, also with
mean velocities of 10 cm/sec. Peak velocities at this depth of 23
24
-------
cm/sec occurred during the storm event on September 21, 1987
although tidal oscillations were not significantly affected. At
the near-bottom meter (84 m) , all current velocities were less than
4 cm/sec for over 85% of the time. A weak but dominant flow
occurred in the WNW direction with the secondary flow to the ENE.
These data match those obtained during the 1985 deployment. In
contrast to the effect of the passage of Hurricane Gloria where
tidal oscillations were suspended, the only effect of the September
1987 storm was a reduction in the range of current direction from
NW to NE.
During all deployments, the three hour low pass (3-HLP) current
velocity data indicate that the short-term current fluctuations are
dominated by the semi-diurnal tidal component, as expected, and
that the absolute value of the current velocities are greater near
the surface than in the bottom waters (COE, 1988). Tidal ellipses
for all seven records indicate a strong NE-SW alignment for the
surface water. During 1987, this alignment was extremely
restricted and did not indicate any rotational flow. Bottom waters
have a slight E-W orientation during the fall and a nearly
rotational flow during winter. Peak tidal velocities in the
surface layer averaged approximately 16 cm/sec, reaching a maximum
of 70 cm/sec during the passage of Hurricane Gloria and the storm
of September 18, 1987.
Development of southeasterly bottom currents in response to
easterly storm events was not seen in the bottom current meter
record during Hurricane Gloria. The bottom current clearly changes
from the initial tidal fluctuations during this period and
maintains a westerly flow for approximately a 24 hour period. Once
the storm event passed, the net current transport remained
extremely low. During the September 1987 deployment, the strong
NE winds created a westerly flow in the top 25 m of the water
column but had no strong effect on bottom currents.
During the winter deployment, several small perturbations, which
may be related to meteorological events, to the oscillatory flow
occur. On February 16, 1986, a small peak velocity of 20 cm/sec
occurred and was probably caused by easterly wind activity
associated with a low pressure cell passing offshore (NCDC, 1986).
A similar storm occurred during the period of March 13th to 17th,
1986 (NCDC, 1986), with a low pressure cell passing directly over
the MBDS area, resulting in bottom current velocities on the order
of 20 to 25 cm/sec. Both of these events generated net southerly
drift in the near bottom currents and are indicated in the 40-HLP
data for MBDS (COE, 1988).
The currents at MBDS can be characterized by mean tidal current
velocities near the surface of 15 to 20 cm/sec in NNE-SSW
orientation which decrease with depth to lower velocity, less
periodic currents near the bottom (generally <10 cm/sec). The wave
conditions in the vicinity of MBDS are caused by both local wind
25
-------
wave formation and the propagation of long period waves (swell)
generated on the continental shelf. The sheltering provided by the
coastline severely limits wave generation from the westerly
direction because of land friction. Waves from the westerly
quadrants larger than 1.8 m occur only 0.5% of the time on an
annual basis, and waves over 3.7 m are virtually nonexistent.
Conversely, waves from the easterly quadrant that are over 1.8 m
occur 4.2% of the time, or nearly ten times more frequently, and
waves over 3.7 m occur approximately 0.5% of the year.
3.1.2.3 Bathymetry
Massachusetts Bay is bounded on three sides by the Massachusetts
coast. On the fourth side, the Bay opens to the Gulf of Maine
between Cape Ann and Race Point on Cape Cod. The major topographic
features of Stellwagen Basin are shown in Figure 3-3 (Butman,
1977). The eastern opening is partially blocked by Stellwagen
Bank, which rises to within 20 m of the surface. Most of the Bay
is less than 80 m deep, although maximum depth in Stellwagen Basin,
located in the middle of the Bay immediately west of Stellwagen
Bank, is over 100 m (Boehm et al., 1984). The shape of the sea
floor is characteristic of an area that has experienced glacial
scouring and sediment deposition, as well as postglacial stream
channeling and subsequent modification of bottom contours by
postglacial seas (Padan, 1977).
Bathymetric surveys of the Massachusetts Bay area, including MBDS,
have been conducted by the National Ocean Survey and plotted on an
Outer Continental Shelf Resource Management Map (U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1980). Some bathymetric records were made at MBDS as
part of a short-term underwater television survey (SubSea
Surveyors, 1973). More detailed bathymetric surveys were made at
MBDS under the DAMOS program (NUSC, 1979). These surveys indicated
a broad depression in the south central region of the site with
shoaling in the northeast area toward Stellwagen Bank, and in the
north central region. These surveys were not able to discern any
significant topographic features resulting from previous dredged
material disposal (NUSC, 1979). Surveys made as part of the 1983
dredged material disposal operations from Boston Harbor also showed
no formation of a disposal mound (SAIC, 1985).
On October 17th and 18th, 1985, a combined side scan and
bathymetric survey was conducted at MBDS to define present
conditions and to delineate the detectable spread of dredged
material previously deposited within the site. Earlier side scan
surveys of this general region had been conducted in the past by
EPA and NOAA (Lockwood et al., 1982) and by the COE under the DAMOS
Program. A secondary objective of the 1985 survey was to compare
present results with earlier surveys in order to expand the area
of coverage to the east.
26
-------
0 NAUTICAL MILES 19
42-00N
Tr00f* 40' 20'
Figure 3-3 Major Bathymetric Features of Massachusetts Bay
Source: Butman, 1977
27
-------
The results of the bathymetry survey show that the topography of
the disposal site is characterized by a relatively flat,
featureless bottom throughout most of the site with the notable
exception of steep shoaling in the northeast and northwest
quadrants. The depths throughout the smooth, featureless area are
approximately 85 to 90 meters, with maximum depths occurring in a
broad depression in the south central portion of the site. The
shoals in the northeast quadrant, with minimum depths of 57 meters
within the site, represent glacially formed features associated
with Stellwagen Bank. The smaller shoal in the northwest section
of the survey is a small, circular rise which appears to be a
single, separate feature, although derived in the same manner as
Stellwagen Bank.
There are no significant topographic features related to dredged
material disposal. However, acoustic profiles indicate more varied
microtopography and greater acoustic reflectivity in areas where
dredged material has been deposited than areas of natural silt
bottom (COE, 1988).
3.1.2.4 Sedimentology
The sediment composition in Massachusetts Bay is dominated by
heterogeneous sediments composed primarily of glacial till. This
area was glaciated twice during the Ice Age (Willett, 1972; Setlow,
1973). The floor of Massachusetts Bay is characterized by
outcroppings of bedrock interspersed with areas of cobble, gravel,
and sand, with some of the deeper areas grading into fine mud with
a high clay content (Willett, 1972; Schlee et al., 1973).
Continuing inshore towards the coastline, spatial variability in
grain size increases, with sands dominating along high energy
exposed areas and silts and clays within more sheltered embayments.
These distributions are interrupted irregularly by glacial till
deposits and occasional bedrock outcrops.
The MBDS is located within the northwestern corner of the
Stellwagen Basin, an area dominated by fine silts and clays.
Within the site itself, sediments consist primarily of fine grained
silts and clays with moderate to high concentrations of organic
carbon, characteristics representative of dredged materials.
Immediately adjacent to the site, mean grain sizes increase
slightly with silts dominating distributions along a
northwest-southeast tending line extending over distances in excess
of 10 nmi from the site. Along an east-west trending track, the
initial dominance of fines changes to coarser grained materials
and glacial gravel on Stellwagen Bank. These distributions
indicate that MBDS lies within the depositional basin in the center
of the bay.
Based on surveys made during 1985, the bottom in the general MBDS
area was characterized by four distinct facies, or characteristic
sediment compositions. These facies can be characterized according
28
-------
to representative side scan sonar records taken from particular
locations (SAIC, 1988).
Additional information on the characteristics of sediment at MBDS
was obtained through photography of the sediment-water interface
using a REMOTS© camera in 1985. The grain size of sediments
measured by REMOTS© indicated a sharp gradient between stations in
the northeast quadrant and those located in the rest of the
site.
Stations to the north and east of MBDS consist of coarser sediments
ranging from fine sand (4 to 30) to gravel (0 to -10). Sediments
from the coarse bottom stations are generally poorly sorted, with
fine to medium sand lying over coarser material. There are relict
bedforms in this area, apparently stabilized by dense mats of
polychaete tubes. The construction of dense polychaete tube fields
may have caused the sedimentation and retention of fine-grained
particles. The remainder of the site, in deeper areas to the south
and west, is characterized by fine silt sediments and deposits of
dredged material. The presence of dredged material is indicated
in REMOTS© images by the following features: sand layers in an
otherwise homogeneous mud facies, the presence of buried mud
clasts, mottled sedimentary fabrics, and the presence of "relict"
(i.e. buried) redox layers. The REMOTS© technique is capable of
detecting dredged material for a longer period of time after
disposal than side scan sonar. The primary reason for this is that
the sediment surface returns to a natural condition with respect
to acoustic reflectivity long before the sediment beneath the
surface is fully oxidized.
The results of the bathymetric, side scan and REMOTS© survey were
used to select sample locations to characterize the sediment facies
present in the MBDS area. The sample locations are presented in
Figure 3-4. Samples taken at the reference station (Station REF)
in June and September of 1985 and February of 1986 indicated very
little variation in grain size. The mean grain size averaged 0.013
mm (60) , which is indicative of a fine silt. In nearly all samples
from Station REF more than 95% of the sample, by weight, was silt
or finer. When these deposits are compared with natural mud
samples from within the disposal site, the sediments are virtually
identical with respect to grain size. Thus, sediments at the
reference site are physically similar to the naturally occurring
sediments at the MBDS site.
A sand station ("Station SRF") was also established outside the
MBDS boundary to establish a control for measurements in the
northeast quadrant of MBDS, where a natural sand station ("Station
NES") was also established. Although these stations showed much
more variability, they were similar in composition with 94% by
weight representing sand or larger material. The mean grain size
for Station SRF was 2.71 mm (-10) and for Station NES was 1.24 mm
(00).
29
-------
STATIC* (CS
812-0
STATION W
.BFI
Fir
B
BFG,
2' BF
7 BBF20
BBFI6
HBF9
BSTATIOI SRF
A fluor"
PCS
B SIAIICH OFF
BStAll* REF
BFCI8
B FGZ2
BFC24
BRS3
Figure 3-4 Locations of Sampling Stations with respect
to the MBD8 Boundary
30
-------
Samples obtained from the dredged material deposited at the site
were predominantly fine sand and silt with a mean particle diameter
of 0.065 mm (40) and were slightly more variable than the natural
sediment. In particular, the dredged material contained more sand
sized particles than natural sediment.
Of the two types of natural bottoms, Type 1 areas (hard sand) are
located in the northeast portions of MBDS, where the sandy bottom
is related to the shoaling topography approaching Stellwagen Bank.
To the northwest, beyond the margins of the site, the sand and
coarse sediment associated with an isolated topographic feature
appears to be a relict glacial formation created in the same manner
as the Bank.
The soft, featureless, silty bottoms, Type 2, are found extensively
throughout the southeastern portion of the study area and are the
predominant natural bottom throughout the region of the disposal
site. Dredged material is deposited on top of this natural
sediment.
In the northwest quadrant of the disposal site, the bottom is
covered by objects which have been identified through underwater
television to be canisters and drums deposited on the bottom. Both
chemical and low level radioactive wastes have been deposited at
the site in the past, either in cement canisters or 55 gallon drums
(Lockwood et al., 1982). However, it is impossible to determine
from the side scan record which objects represent which type of
waste. The previous surveys by NOAA and EPA indicate that these
objects are generally concentrated west of the existing disposal
site, although it is highly probable that many canisters or drums
are covered with dredged material in the west central portion of
the site.
The dredged material detected by sidescan sonar is generally
located in the vicinity of the disposal buoy placed by the Coast
Guard at 42° 25.7'N, 70° 35.0'W, although it has been dispersed
over a relatively large area. Some of the spreading is owing to
the fact that not all the disposal activities in recent years have
occurred at the precise buoy location.
It is apparent that the distribution of dredged material is
concentrated in the vicinity of the disposal buoy and extends
westerly into the historically used site located west of the MBDS.
Progressing to the south, the amount of dredged material decreases.
To the north, the boundary between the coarse dredged material and
natural bottom is much more pronounced, and material is seen as
isolated deposits of coarse material or as the circular deposits.
The area to the west of the existing disposal area also exhibits;
evidence of dredged material and is within the boundaries of the
historical disposal site. REMOTS© images from that area do not
reveal evidence of recent disposal activity at any of those
31
-------
stations. The material observed appeared to represent relict
sediments from past disposal activities (greater than 5 cm below
the sediment-water interface).
Figure 3-5 presents the varied sediment types at MBDS as measured
by REMOTS© photography and side scan sonar. The dredged material
deposited at the site has remained in place and there seems to be
very few forces acting on it because it has retained its distinct
signature for more than two years after disposal.
The dredged material distribution can be explained by the
procedures used in disposal at the site. During the clamshell and
scow operations, the tug operators would approach the buoy from
the northwest, swing to the east, and dump material as the scow
passed the buoy. Consequently, there were few dumps to the north,
but when they did occur they can be seen as distinct entities on
the side scan record. Coarse dredged material observed as much as
1000 m to the north of the buoy indicates that careful control of
disposal was not exercised during the initial disposal operation.
As the scow passed the buoy, most of the material was deposited.
However, some material may have been deposited to the south because
the tug was moving in a southerly direction and not all of the
material may have fallen from the scow at once.
The effect of disposal control was further emphasized when the
location of the disposal buoy was moved to the southeast.
Installation of a taut wire moored buoy for control of scow
operations and use of LORAN-C navigation for hopper dredge disposal
were implemented to increase the precision of disposal. The
distribution of dredged material resulting from that operation
covered a substantially smaller area than previous projects
(Morton, 1984) and it was apparent that better control of disposal
would be necessary to properly manage future projects (see Chapter
5).
A third disposal point was established in November 1985 at 42°
25.1'N, 70° 34.5'W and a taut wire buoy was installed at that
location for disposal operations during the winter. In February
1986, REMOTS© photographs were obtained at the stations established
during the 1985 surveys and at 26 stations spaced at 100 m
intervals on a cross centered at the new disposal point.
The dredged material (approximately 197,000 m3) deposited during
the 1985 surveys covers approximately 400 meters in all directions.
To the north, the dredged material overlaps with sediments from
past disposal activity. To the west, apparent patches of dredged
material are evident as far as 600 meters from the center of the
site. Also, at Station 16-9, a layer of dredged material greater
than 17 cm has been identified. A recent REMOTS© survey at the
same disposal point, following the addition of approximately 94,000
m of dredged material has further delineated the spread of dredged
material and verified the stability of these deposits. The REMOTS©
32
-------
TO 37
'42 27
-42 26
-42 25
1
70 30
70 36
T
70*34 70 33
II,1 ,' i
70 32
V^•j-i-,'"£«:- -• -' •
:^lS4S$j:C.< r
a*'1:*' <"
!"?-i ci°iii»
i*:"
3=,'!•*>,
rri'-T H5-:. ;"»•"
£""»-«• i rar p-." "" Jt' ""-"
—I
70 31
42 27-
42 26-
42 25'
REMOTS AND SIDE SCAN SONAR RESULTS
70 37
70 36
70 36
70 34
70 33
I
70 32
70 31
1. Hard sand, cobble, and gravel bottoms associated with steep topographic rises
2. Soft smooth sediment with small, high reflectance targets randomly distributed
over the bottom
3. Extremely coarse dredged material with high reflectance and microtopogrephy on
the order of one or two meters as evidenced by shadows
A. Isolated mounds or deposits of dredged material at some distance from the major
areas of accumulations, often consisting of coarse material
5. Circular high reflectance areas with no relief, frequently adjacent to each other
in a consistent linear pattern and sometimes exhibiting crater-like characteristics
indicative of a specific disposal event
6. Dredged material with stronger reflection than natural sediment but less
intensity than that described in number 3 and lacking the larger microtopographic
features
7. Soft, featureless silty bottoms extending over large areas with occasional trawl
marks providing small-scale topographic relief
Figure 3-5 Distribution of Sediment Facies at MBD8 as Determined
from side Scan Sonar and REMOTSO surveys
Source: SAIC, 1987
33
-------
images obtained in January 1987, at the sane stations previously
observed indicate that disposal of new dredged material has been
tightly controlled and the effects of disposal have not been
expanded beyond the area originally covered.
In the deeper portions of MBDS is a broad depression with natural
sediments composed of fine grained silt. Shoal areas to the north
and northeast are covered by coarser deposits. Dredged material
previously deposited in the site is spread over a relatively large
area, but has not been altered or transported to any significant
degree during the past several years. Recent disposal operations
have shown that with adequate navigation, the spread of material
on the bottom is approximately similar to that in shallow water.
3.2 Chemical Characteristics
3.2.1 Water Column Chemistry
The disposal of dredged material may introduce chemicals to the
water column, sediment, or biota of the disposal site. The
chemical characteristics within the MBDS were analyzed by studying
selected chemical concentrations within samples of the water column
taken at three depths during cruises in June and September 1985,
and January 1986. This data is summarized in Table 3-2.
3.2.1.1 Dissolved Oxygen
The levels of water column dissolved oxygen at MBDS were sampled
at three depths in three seasons and exhibited typical variations
for an open water environment. The lowest oxygen concentrations
recorded were 7.8 ppm in June for near bottom water column and 7.9
ppm in September for surface concentrations. The highest of the
nine sampling points was 12.3 ppm in September 1985, the mid-water
depth averaged value of all seasons was 9.5 ppm. Gilbert (1975)
identified a range of 6.82 ppm to 12.88 ppm, averaging 9.1 ppm in
the vicinity of MBDS. The oxygen levels are generally saturated,
i.e. at maximum dissolved concentrations based on temperature and
salinity (Kester, 1975) or near saturation as in bottom samples for
the June (79% saturated) and February (89% saturated) samples.
3.2.1.2 pH
At MBDS pH ranged from 7.4 to 8.0 for three seasons and three depth
strata, and averaged 7.81. Metcalf and Eddy (1984) and Gilbert
(1975) found similar pH values in the vicinity of MBDS, the latter
identifying a pH range of 7.32 to 8.2, averaging 7.87.
34
-------
Table 3-2 Average of all Water Chemistry Data Points from June
and September 1986 and January 1987
EPA Criteria1 Standard Number
Parameter CMCfCCC) Average Deviation of Samples
PH
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
Total Phosphorous, ppm
Nitrates, ppm
Ammonia, ppm
Cadmium, ppb
Chromium, ppb
Nickel, ppb
Copper, ppb
Zinc, ppb
Arsenic, ppb
Mercury, ppb
Lead, ppb
Total PAH, ppb
Total PCB, ppb
1 The acute concentration, called the Criterion Maximum Concentration
("CMC"), is the concentration which must not be exceeded at a specified point
with a frequency of more than 1 hour every 3 years. However, it is
recognized that this is unenforceable and, therefore, the frequency of
occurence, for enforcement purposes, is increased to 1 day every 3 years.
The chronic concentration, called the Criterion Continuous Concentration
("CCC"), is the concentration which must not be exceeded with a frequency of
more than 4 consecutive days in 3 years.
2 May exceed the EPA CCC water quality criterion (see Section 3.2.1.5.7)
Source: COE, 1988 (Raw data are available in SAIC, 1987)
6.5-8.5
5.0
0.1
-
-
43 (9.3)
1,100 (50)
75 (8.3)
2.9 (2.9)
95 (86)
69 (36)
8.0
9.5
0.035
0.134
0.28
<0.2
0.412
5.0
2.82
<20
2.80
2.1 (0.025) 1.35
140 (5.6)
300
10 (0.03)
1.772
<20
0.012
0.282
1.45
0.023
0.1
0.08
-
0.264
-
1.3
-
1.235
0.82
0.34
-
0.022
9
9
33
30
31
9
34
12
29
36
32
33
30
3
10
35
-------
3.2.1.3 Nutrients
Water column analyses of nutrients (ammonia, nitrates and
phosphorous) were obtained in June and September 1985 and January
1986 from surface, mid-level, and bottom waters. Although little
data is available, nutrient concentrations appeared to vary
seasonally with highest concentration in the winter.
MBDS water column ammonia concentrations ranged from a low of 0.18
ppm in June 1985 surface waters to a high value of 0.46 ppm at 99
meters in January 1986. The average ammonia concentration from 31
samples from MBDS was 0.28 ppm.
Past nutrient investigations at MBDS exhibited both seasonal and
depth dependent concentrations, varying with blooms of
phytoplankton (Gilbert, 1975). The 1973-1974 ammonia data in the
vicinity of MBDS showed ammonia concentrations varying from 0.022
to 0.112 ppm with an average value of 0.045 ppm. During a July
1974 disposal operation of sediments from Boston Harbor, ammonia
concentrations ranged from 0.046 ppm to 0.127 ppm in the water
column (Gilbert, 1975). Both values are lower than the recent COE
averages. These values are indicative of the magnitude of biotic
activity and uptake of nitrogenous compounds, as well as nitrogen
inputs to the system.
The 30 samples of nitrates at MBDS showed a low concentration in
surface water in June 1985 of 0.01 ppm to a high concentration of
0.28 ppm in bottom waters in September of 1985. The average
nitrate concentration was 0.134 ppm. These results are slightly
higher than earlier studies (Gilbert, 1975) which ranged from a
high of 0.256 ppm and a low of <0.1 ppm. The average concentration
in the vicinity of MBDS in 1973-1974 (Gilbert, 1975) was 0.105 ppm.
The lowest occurrence of total phosphorous in the MBDS water column
was in June 1985 surface waters. Total phosphorous values were
below instrument detection limits (<0.01 ppm) for all three
replicates. The highest concentrations occurred in January 1986
mid-water column samples of 0.083 ppm. The average total
phosphorous water column concentration was 0.035 ppm. This value
is higher, but within the range of previous studies (Gilbert, 1975)
that found an average concentration of 0.026 ppm from 80 water
column samples that ranged from 0.001 to 0.061 ppm.
3.2.1.4 Turbidity
The 1973 and 1974 suspended solids concentrations at MBDS were
reported (Gilbert, 1975) as ranging from a low of <0.1 mg
silica/liter in 30 meters of water for October 1974 to a high of
11.2 mg silica/liter in 86 meters (bottom) of water for December
1973. The average concentration was 1.912 mg silica/liter. These
values exhibited increases during a 1974 disposal operation from
1.1 (60 meters) to 19.3 (30 meters) mg silica/liters with an
36
-------
average of 10.0 mg silica/liter.
3.2.1.5 Metals
The water column at MBDS was sampled in three seasons at three
depths for cadmium, chromium, nickel, copper, zinc, arsenic,
mercury, and lead using methods described in Plumb (1981) . The
metals measured are typically present in dredged material.
3.2.1.5.1 Cadmium
Cadmium was analyzed in the MBDS water column in January 1986 with
concentrations below the analytical detection limits of 0.2 ppb
(unfiltered) and 0.5 ppb (filtered). EPA (1976) reported average
seawater cadmium concentrations of 0.15 ppb. Gilbert (1975)
reported MBDS water column cadmium concentrations from a low of
0.03 ppb in July 1974 at 30 meters to a high of 1.0 ppb in December
1973 surface waters, and an average concentration of 0.295 ppb.
3.2.1.5.2 Chromium
Twenty-four of the 34 chromium analyses performed by COE were below
detection limits which ranged from 0.3 to 2.5 ppb. These ranged
from a low of <0.3 for surface water in January 1986 to a high of
2.5 ppb in June 1985 surface waters. Equating the chromium
detection limits (e.g. <0.3 =0.3 ppb) yields an average water
column value of 1.1 ppb. These values are above the range found
in the 1973 and 1974 sampling at MBDS which showed a low chromium
value of <0.05 ppb in April 1985 at various depths and a high of
1.1 ppb in October 1985 surface waters (Gilbert, 1975). The
average concentration reported was 0.41 ppb.
3.2.1.5.3 Nickel
The 1985-1986 COE sampling program revealed nickel water column
concentrations at or below the 5 ppb detection limit. The maximum
concentration detected was 5 ppb from the bottom water samples.
The 1973-1974 samples taken by Gilbert (1975) were similar with a
lowest detection of 0.2 ppb found in October 1974 at 76 meters and
a high value of 6.5 ppb in December 1973 at 60 meters. The average
concentration for all depths and seasons was 2.83 ppb.
3.2.1.5.4 Copper
The 1985-1986 COE sampling found copper as low as <1.4 ppb bottom
samples and as high as 2.9 ppb in surface waters. The average
water column copper concentration (equating values to detection
limits) at MBDS was 2.82 ppb. This ambient value is only slightly
below EPA WQC (1987) . Actual values would be lower due to equating
instrument detection limits to whole value, but in general these
data are consistent with earlier studies. The 1973 to 1974 studies
found the average copper concentration in the water column from the
37
-------
vicinity of MBDS to be 2.3 ppb (Gilbert, 1985). The maximum
recorded concentration was 7.0 ppb from surface waters in October
1974 and a minimum of 0.3 ppb from 60 meters in April 1974.
3.2.1.5.5 Zinc
The 1985-1986 COE sampling indicated zinc was below the 20 ppb
instrument detection limit for all 36 samples. This is lower than
the previous studies that measured zinc at MBDS in 1973-1974
(Gilbert, 1975) as having a maximum concentration of 69 ppb at 60
meters during October 1974 and a minimum of 2 ppb in bottom water
during the April 1974 sampling. The average concentration was 21.9
ppb.
3.2.1.5.6 Arsenic
At the MBDS, 29 of 32 analyses were below instrument detection
limits of 2 to 3 ppb. The January 1986 midwater sample contained
an average arsenic concentration of 6.4 ppb. Equating the
instrument detection limit to a measured value, the average
seawater concentration of arsenic at MBDS was 2.80 ppb. This value
is within the natural range for arsenic in seawater.
3.2.1.5.7 Mercury
Twenty-four of the 33 samples taken at MBDS were below the
instrument detection limits for mercury which ranged from 0.5 to
2.0 ppb. In January, 1986 all nine replicates indicated the
presence of mercury at all three depths (surface, middle, and
bottom), averaging 2.43 ppb. Equating detection limits to whole
values reveals an overall water column mercury average of 1.35 ppb.
This is below the acute WQC, 2.1 ppb, but above the 0.025 ppb
chronic WQC. However, it is important to note that because the
instrument detection limits were above the CCC, the summary
statistics may be misleading. Ambient levels which exceed the CCC
have been measured in other parts of Massachusetts Bay. Mercury
can be termed variable in concentration at MBDS, with elevated
levels (2.43 ppb) detected in January 1986.
3.2.1.5.8 Lead
At MBDS, 27 of the 30 lead water samples were below detection
limits of 1.4 to 2.0 ppb. The three replicates in January 1987
showed water column lead to be in the 1.7 to 3.0 ppb range.
Equating detection limits to whole values, lead averages 1.77 ppb
at MBDS. This is consistent with earlier studies Gilbert (1975)
that found a maximum lead value of 14 ppb at 60 meters in July 1974
and a minimum value of <0.1 ppb at surface waters in October 1974.
The average 1972-1973 lead value was 2.3 ppb.
38
-------
3.2.1.6 Organics
3.2.1.6.1 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polycyclic (or Polynuclear) Aromatic Hydrocarbons ("PAH") are a
large group of hydrophobic organic pollutants. Owing to their
hydrophobicity, PAHs are typically associated with sediments rather
than in solution. The major sources of PAH in the marine
environment are petroleum spills, runoff, and atmospheric
deposition resulting from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels.
Bottom water samples from MBDS in June 1985 showed a concentration
of total PAHs in the water column less than detectable at 20 ppb.
3.2.1.6.2 Folychlorinated Biphenyl Compounds
Polychlorinated Biphenyls ("PCB") are a group of synthetic organic
compounds, isomers of which have varying toxicity to biota
(McFarland, 1986). Although the manufacture of PCB was banned in
1977 in recognition of their toxic potential, these compounds are
still found in the environment today. The persistence of PCBs can
be attributed to their chemical stability and hydrophobicity. The
1985-1986 COE sampling program at MBDS measured PCB in both
dissolved and particulate associated concentrations in bottom water
samples. The dissolved concentrations were 0.006 ppb in June 1985,
0.075 ppb in September 1985 and <0.006 to 0.11 ppb in January 1986.
The September 1985 sample and one replicate from January 1986 was
above the EPA chronic criterion, but below the acute level of 10
ppb. The particulate associated PCB was <0.005 ppb in June 1985,
0.007 ppb in September 1985 and 0.005, 0.006, and 0.006 ppb in
January 1986, all below EPA WQC. Equating instrument detection
limits to whole values gives an average particulate and dissolved
bottom seawater concentration of PCB at MBDS of 0.012 ppb, which
is below the 0.03 ppb chronic criterion.
3.2.2 Sediment Chemistry
Disposal of dredged materials from urban harbors often imparts a
distictive chemical characteristic on the sediment that is
different from ambient conditions at the disposal site. Chemical
properties of dredged material are typically representative of the
pollutant loading to the harbors which are dredged. The existing
sediment chemical characteristics at MBDS and elsewhere in
Massachusetts Bay are discussed in this section.
Figure 3-4 shows the locations of all sediment stations sampled at
MBDS and in the vicinity of MBDS. Tables 3-3 through 3-7 show the
results of these sampling activities. Each of the sampling
stations were analyzed for all or some of the following parameters:
ammonia, petroleum hydrocarbons, oil and grease, mercury, lead,
zinc, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, % carbon, %
hydrogen, % nitrogen, DDT (Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane),
total PAH, total PCB, and the commercial PCB mixtures, Aroclor 1242
and Aroclor 1254.
39
-------
Table 3-3 Metal Concentrations in MBDS Sediment Samples
(Concentrations as ppra dry weight)
Arsenic
Lead
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Cadmium
Nickel
Mercury
Station REF
June 1985
11.3 ± 2.3( 1)
m.3 ± 1.2
95.3 ± 6
70.3 ± 2.1
18.0 ± 1.0
-------
Table 3-4
Metals Concentrations in 1987 Sediment Samples from MBD8
(Concentrations in ppm dry weight)
Station
FG-1
FG-3
FG-4
FG-5
FG-6
FG-7
FG-8
FG-1 2
FG-1 6
FG-1 7
FG-1 8
FG-22
FG-23
FG-24
Cu
112.
35.7
49.0
34.1
32.6
31.7
39.4
20.1
14.6
18.1
16.6
13.8
16.4
15.2
Zn
187.
103.
228.
77.3
80.8
95.5
130.
83.5
67.6
82.0
79.8
65.5
77.1
75.2
Cr
220.
94.8
79.3
65.7
73.6
86.0
76.1
76.0
65.6
78.5
70.1
64.7
71.9
67.3
Pb
97.0
67.9
85.6
61.1
55.4
59.5
69.7
47.0
37.5
46.6
42.8
35.8
42.7
40.3
Ni
20.9
19.8
16.1
14.7
11.9
19.8
20.4
20.3
17.4
20.5
19.7
16.8
20.3
18.9
Cd
2.75
0.441
0.720
0.369
0.750
0.366
0.246
0.209
0.090
0.159
0.158
0.127
0.132
0.104
Mn
195
229
215
215
134
213
232
222
187
218
232
182
235
207
Fe
18100
19800
17700
19100
12800
19000
19400
19800
16500
18300
20300
15200
19600
18500
Hg
0. 144
0.156
0.139
0.110
0.087
0.143
0.165
0.129
0.110
0. 123
0. 105
0.086
0.122
0.113
Source: Pruell et al., 1989
41
-------
Table 3-5 Results of Chemical Analysis in MBDS sediment Samples
(Concentrations in ppm dry weight) (July 1982)
Station
BF18
BF17
BF21
BF19
BF7
BF16
BF20
BF9
%
Volatile
Solids
1.8
3.9
1.5
5.5
1.7
3.8
3.2
1.7
HE
0.13
0.11
0.07
0.20
0.21
0.12
0.07
»
As
11
12
12
19
12
10
13
19
Pb
100
150
30
31
190
100
57
51
Zn
210
270
150
260
210
190
110
170
Cr
12
15
38
39
60
38
15
61
Cu
38
55
21
39
65
36
31
21
* Below Detection Limit
Source: COE, 1988
42
-------
Table 3-6 Organic Analysis Results of MBDS Sediment Samples
(Concentrations as dry weight)
Station REF Station REF
June 1985 January 1986
Total
Carbon, %
Total
Hydrogen, %
Total
Nitrogen, %
Ammon i a , ppm
Oil and
Grease, ppm
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons,
ppm
PAH, ppm
PCB, ppb
DDT, ppb
2.54 ± 0.011
0.71 + 0.05
0.31 ± o.oo
189 ± 8
201*
121*
<3
75 ± 92
<1
2.69 ±0.09
0.72 ± 0.02
0.31 ± 0.02
N. A.
341 ± 28
327 ± 10
N.A.
48 ± 30
N.A.
Station OFF Station ON Station ON
September 1985 September 1985 January 1986
2.70 ± 0.01
0.67 + 0.01
0.30 ± 0.00
N.A.
306 ± 131
195 ± 55
N.A.
4952
N.A.
3.17 ± 0.36
0.61 ±0.06
0.25 ± 0.03
N.A.
1960 ± 480
1640 ± 390
N.A.
1240 ± 400
N.A.
2.94
0.68
0.28
N.A.
1560
1390
N.A.
329 ±
N.A.
± 0.05
± 0.04
± 0.01
±300
± 172
26
Notes: Mean of 3 analyses ± standard deviation
^^an of Duplicate analyses, one replicate an apparent
outliner
Source: COE, 1988
43
-------
Table 3-7 Concentrations of Total Carbon/ Aroclor 1242, Aroclor
1254, Total PCB, and Total PAH in 1987 Sediment Samples
from MBDS (Concentrations in ppb dry weight)
Total
Station Carbon1
FG-1
FG-3
FG-4
FG-5
FG-6
FG-7
FG-8
FG-12
FG-16
FG-17
FG-18
FG-22
FG-23
FG-24
1
2.11
2.78
2.76
2.16
2.34
3.19
2.92
2.94
2.99
2.61
2.82
2.14
2.70
2.81
Aroclor
1242
91.1
13.0
135.0
7.07
7.96
4.29
<1.97
<2.55
<2.21
<2.53
<1.66
<1.82
<1.98
<2.85
Aroclor
1254
706.0
211.0
223.0
156.0
106.0
131.0
1390.0
76.7
37.2
37.4
38.2
31.4
27.1
36.8
Total PCB
1014
298
444
211
155
178
1874
105
53
56
52
42
38
53
Total PAH
16138
12959
16636
15051
23388
11563
26269
7931
6572
7825
5079
5960
6215
8054
Mean of duplicate analyses (Concentrations of total carbon
expressed as percent)
Source: Pruell et al., 1989
44
-------
3.2.2.1 Metals
The results of sediment metals analyses conducted by the COE and
EPA from 1982 to 1988 are described below, along with a description
of ambient sediment pollutant levels in Massachusetts Bay.
3.2.2.1.1 Arsenic
Arsenic concentrations detected in sediments inside the MBDS
boundary ranged from 10.0 to 19.0 ppm, with slightly higher values
occuring on dredged material than off. Outside MBDS, arsenic
values ranged from 11.3 ppm to 19.0 ppm (see Tables 3-3 and 3-5).
Figure 3-6 shows approximate contours of constant concentration of
arsenic in ppm.
Arsenic can be released into the marine environment through mineral
dissolution, industrial discharges, and pesticide applications.
Typical sediment arsenic concentrations in Massachusetts Bay
average 6 to 13 ppm (Barr, 1987). Arsenic concentrations found in
Broad Sound and Massachusetts Bay between 1983 and 1987 ranged from
0.41 to 7.24 ppm (EPA, 1988). The arsenic concentration found in
sediments at the MBDS reference site, Station REF, ranged from 11.3
to 12.1 ppm (COE, 1988).
The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control guidelines
for dredged material classification indicate that arsenic
concentrations in sediments in MBDS would be either Class I (low)
or Class II (moderate) (see Table 3-8).
3.2.2.1.2 Cadmium
Cadmium concentrations on dredged material in MBDS ranged from
0.366 to 4.0 ppm and elsewhere in MBDS ranged from 0.209 to <3 ppm
(the analytical detection limit). Outside MBDS, sediment cadmium
levels ranged from 0.090 to <4 ppm (see Tables 3-3 and
3-4) . Figure 3-7 shows approximate contours of constant
concentration of cadmium in ppm.
Cadmium enters the marine environment through deterioration of
galvanized pipe or industrial discharges. Sampling at a station
10 km south-southwest of MBDS releaved cadmium levels averaging
0.27 ppm (NMFS, 1985). Gilbert (1976) reported cadmium levels to
be highly variable at 32 stations throughout Massachusetts Bay,
ranging from 0.09 ppm to 3.59 ppm. In the vicinity of MBDS,
cadmium levels averaged 0.8 ppm on the surface and 0.87 ppm at the
30 cm depth (approximately 300 to 500 years old) (Gilbert, 1976).
Sediments on MBDS would be ranked as low or Class I under the DWPC
classification scheme since they are <5 ppm (see Table 3-8).
45
-------
Table 3-8 The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control
Guidelines for Dredged Material Classification
(Concentrations in ppm dry weight)
Chemical Constituent
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Total PCB
Oil & Grease1
Class I
<10
<5
<100
<200
<100
<0.5
<50
<75
<200
<0.5
<0.5
Class II
10 to 20
5 to 10
100 to 300
200 to 400
100 to 200
0.5 to 1.5
50 to 100
75 to 125
200 to 400
0.5 to 1.0
0.5 to 1.0
Class III
>20
>10
>300
>400
>200
>1.5
>100
>125
>400
>1.0
>1.0
1 Concentration expressed as percent
Source: Barr, 1987
46
-------
• 15.67
Figure 3-6 Contours of Arsenic Sediment Chemistry Data taken
between 1981 and 1989 (Concentrations in ppm)
47
-------
.13
.13
.10
Figure 3-7 Contours of cadmium sediment Chemistry Data taken
between 1981 and 1989 (Concentrations in ppm)
48
-------
3.2.2.1.3 Chromium
Chromium concentrations detected in recent studies (COE, 1988)
range from 38.0 to 220.0 ppm inside MBDS, with some higher values
occurring on the dredged material mound. Outside MBDS, detected
chromium values ranged from 64.0 to 78.5 ppm (see Tables 3-3, 3-4,
and 3-5). Figure 3-8 shows approximate contours of constant
concentration of chromium in ppm.
Chromium enters the marine system from industrial waste (salts)
and from corrosion control (chromate compounds) in cooling waters.
Sampling cruises conducted during 1979 to 1982 (NMFS, 1985)
averaged 35.2 ppm for chromium from an area approximately 10
kilometers south-southwest of MBDS. Gilbert (1976) reported
Massachusetts Bay chromium concentrations ranging from 3 to
126 ppm. Stellwagen Basin samples from this study averaged 85.9
ppm, and sediments at the 30 cm depth averaged 46.4 ppm chromium.
Gilbert's (1975) reference station (approximately 2.5 kilometers
south-southwest of MBDS) had a 73 ppm chromium surficial
concentration, 111 ppm at 0 to 5 cm depth and 53 ppm at 20 to 25 cm
depth.
Sediment chromium concentrations detected in the COE studies are
similar to those detected elsewhere in Massachusetts Bay, however
some stations in MBDS (e.g., Stations ON and FG-1) exhibited
considerably higher levels. Chromium levels inside MBDS range from
MDWPC Class I (<100 ppm) to Class II (100 to 300 ppm) . Outside
MBDS, all chromium values were within MDWPC Class I (low) category
(see Table 3-8).
3.2.2.1.4 Copper
Copper concentrations recently detected inside MBDS ranged from
20.1 to 112.0 ppm, with higher concentrations on the disposal
mound. Copper concentrations detected outside MBDS ranged from
13.8 to 39.4 ppm (see Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5). Figure 3-9 shows
approximate contours of constant concentration of copper in ppm.
Copper enters the marine system from industrial uses and biological
control applications. Copper values throughout Massachusetts Bay
range from 2.6 to 36.0 ppm, and average values for Stellwagen Basin
are 20.3 ppm (Gilbert, 1976). Other values reported for
Massachusetts Bay and Broad Sound range from 1.09 to 63.28 ppm
(EPA, 1988). Gilbert's (1975) reference station (approximately 2.5
kilometers south-southwest of MBDS) had a surficial copper
concentration of 30 ppm, a 0 to 5 cm strata average of 49 ppm and
a 20 to 25 cm strata copper value of 14 ppm. Stations located 10
kilometers south-southwest of MBDS averaged 7.78 ppm for copper
(NMFS, 1985).
Copper concentrations detected in recent sampling outside MBDS are
similar to those found elsewhere in Massachusetts Bay. Inside
49
-------
• V.J
Figure 3-8 Contours of Chromium sediment Chemistry Data taken
between 1981 and 1989 (Concentrations in ppa)
50
-------
Figure 3-9 Contours of Copper Sediment Chemistry Data taken
between 1981 and 1989 (Concentrations in ppm)
51
-------
MBDS, copper concentrations are somewhat higher. However, the
range of copper concentrations both inside and outside MBDS are
within the MDWPC Class I category (<200 ppm) for dredged material
(see Table 3-8).
3.2.2.1.5 Lead
The recent COE sampling in MBDS revealed sediment lead
concentrations to range from 30.0 to 190.0 ppm within MBDS, with
some of the highest levels occurring on dredged material. In the
vicinity of the site, lead levels ranged from 35.8 to 97.0 ppm (see
Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5). Figure 3-10 shows approximate contours
of constant concentration of lead in ppm.
Lead enters the Massachusetts Bay system from industrial, mine or
smelter discharge, and from combustion of leaded fuels.
Pre-industrial lead levels (30 cm depth) in the vicinity of MBDS
were estimated at 31.1 ppm. Surficial levels in Massachusetts Bay
range from 6.0 to 149.0 ppm, with average surficial lead
concentrations in the vicinity of MBDS of 59.6 ppm (Gilbert, 1976).
The Gilbert (1975) reference area approximately 2.5 kilometers
south-southwest of MBDS contained a surficial lead concentration
of 85 ppm; the 0 to 5 cm depth was 52 ppm; and the 20 to 25 cm
depth was 51 ppm. Samples from 10 kilometers south-southwest of
MBDS averaged 20.02 ppm (NMFS, 1985).
Lead levels detected outside MBDS are similar to levels identified
in other studies. Stations within MBDS exhibit widely varying
concentrations of lead, with some areas containing levels
noticeably higher than the reference site. Sediment lead levels
in MBDS are within the MDWPC Class I (<100 ppm) and Class II (100
to 200 ppm) categories for dredged material (see Table 3-8).
3.2.2.1.6 Mercury
MBDS mercury values for samples taken at stations within MBDS
ranged from 0.07 to 0.24 ppm, with no discernible difference
between samples taken on or off dredged material. Mercury levels
in sediments in the vicinity of the site ranged from nondetectable
(<0.05 ppm) to 0.165 ppm (see Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5). Figure
3-11 shows approximate contours of constant concentration of
mercury in ppb.
Mercury enters the marine system as organic and inorganic salts,
often bound to organic matter. Historically it was used in vessel
bottom paints as a biological (fouling) control agent. Mercury
sediment levels have been reported throughout Massachusetts Bay to
range from below a 0.01 ppm detection limit to 5.5 ppm for 32 sites
(Gilbert, 1986). That study averaged surficial mercury
concentrations in the vicinity of MBDS as 0.21 ppm. Gilbert's
(1975) reference area (approximately 2.5 kilometers south-southwest
of MBDS) measured mercury in 0 to 5 cm sediment depth as 1.2 ppm
52
-------
• 42.7
• 40.1
Figure 3-10 contours of Lead Sediment Chemistry Data taken
between 1981 and 1989 (Concentrations in ppm)
53
-------
. l«
113*
121
Figure 3-11 Contours of Mercury Sediment Chemistry Data taken
between 1981 and 1989 (Concentrations in ppb)
54
-------
and as 0.32 ppm in the 20 to 25 cm depth. Other mercury levels
reported for Massachusetts Bay and Broad Sound ranged from 0.020
to 1.04 ppm (EPA, 1988).
Mercury levels within MBDS and at adjacent areas were similar to
those in other studies. MDWPC classification for dredged material
would place all stations in the Class I (<0.5 ppm) category (see
Table 3-8).
3.2.2.1.7 Nickel
Nickel concentrations found in sediment inside MBDS during recent
sampling ranged from 11.9 to 31.0 ppm, varied between samples taken
on and off dredged material. Stations outside MBDS contained
levels ranging from 16.8 to 33.3 ppm (see Tables 3-3 and 3-4).
Figure 3-12 shows approximate contours of constant concentration
of nickel in ppm.
Nickel is commonly used in industrial processes, herbicides, and
wood preservatives, and can be released through lead and copper
alloy corrosion. Sampling in the vicinity of Stellwagen Basin has
shown nickel sediment concentrations to average 11.04 ppm (NMFS,
1985). Gilbert (1976) identified nickel surficial sediment
concentrations throughout Massachusetts Bay ranging from 3.7 ppm
to 55.9 ppm at 32 stations and in the immediate vicinity of MBDS,
surficial concentrations were 32.8 ppm. Gilbert's (1975) reference
site had surficial nickel concentrations of 57 ppm, 0 to 5 cm
strata concentrations of 33 ppm and 20 to 25 cm strata
concentrations of 31 ppm. Other sampling in Massachusetts Bay and
Broad Sound showed sediment nickel levels ranging from 1.87 to
13.97 ppm (EPA, 1988).
These data indicate that nickel levels in sediments in MBDS and in
Massachusetts Bay generally falls into the MDWPC Class I (<50 ppm)
category (see Table 3-8).
3.2.2.1.8 Zinc
Levels of zinc in MBDS samples ranged from 77.3 to 270.0 ppm, with
no distinct pattern between areas on dredged material and areas off
dredged material. Zinc levels in sediments around the site ranged
from 65.5 to 170.0 ppm, with the highest value at Station BF9 (see
Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5). Figure 3-13 shows approximate contours
of constant concentration of zinc in ppm.
Zinc enters the marine environment from corrosion of galvanized
iron and brass and from industrial discharges. Deeper sediments
may release natural zinc from complexes with Iron and Manganese
(Barr, 1987). Reported zinc concentrations throughout
55
-------
.is.a
Figure 3-12 Contours of Nickel sediment Chemistry Data taken
between 1981 and 1989 (Concentrations in ppm)
56
-------
1T.\
.M.S*
n.2
Figure 3-13 contours of zinc Sediment Chemistry Data taken
between 1981 and 1989 (Concentrations in ppm)
57
-------
Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay sediment range from <9 to 399.7
ppm. In the MBDS vicinity, surficial sediment concentrations
averaged 154.9 ppm, and sediments from the 30 cm strata (300 to 500
years old) averaged 128.6 ppm (Gilbert, 1976). Gilbert (1975)
reported surficial zinc concentrations in an area approximately 2.5
kilomet€-.rs south-southwest of MBDS at 173 ppm; 0 to 5 cm depth at
165 ppm; and 20 to 25 cm depth at 115 ppm. Data from an area 10
kilometesrs south-southwest of MBDS averaged 37.12 ppm zinc (NMFS,
1985) . Other values reported for Massachusetts Bay and Broad Sound
range from 9.7 to 152.5 ppm (EPA, 1988).
Sampling stations just outside MBDS contain zinc levels which are
comparable to the levels found elsewhere in Massachusetts Bay.
Several stations inside MBDS contain zinc levels considerably
higher than ambient, with zinc concentrations falling into either
the MDWFC Class I (<200 ppm) or Class II (200 to 400 ppm) category
(see Table 3-8).
3.2.2.2 Organics
3.2.2.2.1 Ammonia, Carbon/ Hydrogen, and Nitrogen
Total organic carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and ammonia are
indicative of the organic state of the sediment. Carbon is the
major food source for all living things, but its presence in
sediments at high levels can result in high bacterial and microbial
activity, which can result in dissolved oxygen depletion in the
water column.
Total organic carbon values ranged from 2.11 to 3.19% in MBDS and
from 2.14 to 2.99% outside the site (see Tables 3-6 and 3-7).
These values are consistent with the organic carbon levels found
in MBDS in another study (averaging 2.75%), but elevated in
comparison with total organic carbon values for other locations in
Massachusetts Bay. A station 11 kilometers south of MBDS averaged
1.7% and another station 18.5 kilometers southeast of MBDS averaged
0.96% (Boehm et al, 1984).
Carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratios are indicative of the quality of
organic matter available for biotic metabolism, lower values
indicate a better mix of nutrients for organisms. C:N ratios
inside MBDS ranged from 9.0 to 12.7, with the higher values
occurring on dredged material. C:N ratios at the reference site
ranged from 8.2 to 8.7 (see Table 3-6).
3.2.2.2,.2 Oil and Grease
Oil and grease determinations are a general measure of biological
lipids iand mineral (biological and petroleum) hydrocarbons. Oil
and grease concentrations on dredged material within MBDS ranged
from 1560 to 1960 ppm, much higher than the values found off
dredged material within the site or at the references site, which
58
-------
ranged from 201 to 341 ppm (See Table 3-6). These values all fall
within the MDWPC Class I (<0.5% or <5000 ppm) category (See Table
3-8) .
Gilbert (1975) reported a surficial oil and grease concentration
of 170 ppm, a concentration of 1,070 ppm at 0 to 5 cm and a
concentration of 880 ppm at 20 to 25 cm in an area approximately
2.5 km south-southwest of MBDS.
3.2.2.2.3 Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Petroleum hydrocarbons are a subset of oil and grease compounds and
include specifically those organic compounds of petroleum origin.
Petroleum hydrocarbons are contributed to aquatic ecosystems from
a variety of anthropogenic (of human origin) sources which include
deposition of products of incomplete combustion, oil leaks from
marine transportation activities, and runoff. Consequently,
petroleum hydrocarbons are indicative of dredged material from
polluted harbor areas.
Consistent with the oil and grease results discussed above,
petroleum hydrocarbon levels on dredged material (1390 to 1640 ppm)
were much higher than the levels found off dredged material within
MBDS or at the reference site (121 to 327 ppm) (see Table 3-6).
3.2.2.2.4 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons ("PAH"), which encompass a large family
of organic compounds, are a measure of the aromatic fraction of
petroleum hydrocarbons and are ubiquitous in dredged material.
Figure 3-14 shows approximate contours of constant concentration
of total PAH in ppb.
Analyses for PAH were conducted for samples taken in June 1985,
and from two sets of samples taken in October 1987. In June 1985,
concentrations of total PAH were below the detection limit of 3 ppm
at the Station REF (see Table 3-6). In October 1987, using lower
detection limits, only one station on an area of recent deposition
of dredged material, Station 14-9, exhibited the presence of any
PAH in detectable levels. The compounds found included 2-
Methylphenol, Bis(2-chloro-isopropyl)ether, and 2-Nitrophenol (COE,
1988). The second set of October 1987 samples found several PAH
compounds at sites both within and outside of MBDS (see Table 3-
7). On inspection, these data indicate that levels of total PAH
were higher in sediments taken from areas in MBDS containing
dredged material (Stations FG-1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) and areas
outside the site where historic dumping has occurred (Station FG-
8) than in other areas.
Boehm et al. (1984) identified average levels of total PAH within
MBDS to be 3.5 ppm. At a station 11 kilometers south of MBDS,
total PAH concentrations were 1.5 ppm and 18.5 kilometers southeast
59
-------
«rte*
32M
Figure 3-14 Contours of Total PAH Sediment Chemistry Data taken
between 1981 and 1989 (Concentrations in ppb)
60
-------
of MBDS, PAH levels were recorded at 1.9 ppm. MWRA (1988)
measuredPAH concentrations at 15 sites in Massachusetts Bay
shoreward of MBDS and found total PAH concentrations ranging from
0.001 to 26.77 ppm over three separate sampling periods in 1987.
3.2.2.2.5 Polychlorinated biphenyls
Polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCS") are organic compounds which were
manufactured industrially between 1929 and 1977. There are
approximately 210 different chemical isomers that were commercially
combined to form "Aroclors", or specific mixtures of isomers.
Historical levels of sediment PCS should be zero since it is a
synthetic compound. Figure 3-15 shows approximate contours of
constant concentration of total PCB in ppb.
Gilbert (1976) identified total PCB ranges throughout Massachusetts
Bay and Cape Cod Bay to range from <0.00032 ppm to 0.018 ppm from
32 stations. Surficial sediment total PCB concentrations reported
by Gilbert (1976) averaged 0.0061 ppm near MBDS, but the data was
highly variable. Gilbert (1975) identified surficial PCB levels
at 0.021. ppm; 0 to 5 cm strata 0.030 ppm and the 20 to 25 cm strata
at 0.009 ppm. Boehm et al. identified total PCB levels within MBDS
as averaging 0.0829 ppm; an area 11 kilometers south of MBDS
averaging 0.0253 ppm; and an area 18.5 kilometers southeast of MBDS
averaging 0.007 ppm. MWRA (1988) identified total PCB levels in
sediments in Broad Sound and Massachusetts Bay to range from <0.001
to 0.047 ppm. PCB levels in dredged material are considered by
MDWPC (1978) as moderate in the 0.5 ppm to 1.0 ppm range (see Table
3-8) .
PCB levels in sediments in and around the MBDS are shown on Tables
3-6 and 3-7. The PCB levels on dredged material in the site or
where historical dumping has occurred (Stations FG-1, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, eind ON), ranging from 155 to 1874 ppb, are significantly
higher than the levels found off dredged material, where total PCB
levels ranged from 38 to 105 ppb. Aroclor 1254, which contains
more highly chlorinated isomers (and is therefore more toxic) than
Aroclor 1242 was the dominant compound for all samples. One
anomalous value of 4952 ppb PCB was found at Station OFF in
September 1985.
PCB levels on dredged material are somewhat higher than ambient
levels. PCB levels detected off dredged material in the vicinity
of MBDS are comparable to levels identified in other Massachusetts
Bay studies.
3.2.2.2.6 Other Chlorinated Organics
EPA sampled sediments from stations on dredged material in MBDS and
from outside the site for chlorinated pesticides (including DDT and
its "daughter" compounds, dioxins and furans). Levels found were
in the low parts per billion range, with dioxins and furans in the
low parts per trillion range (Pruell et al., 1989). Although there
61
-------
J».J
. M.t
Figure 3-15 Contours of Total PCB Sediment Chemistry Data taXen
between 1981 and 1989 (Concentrations in ppb)
62
-------
is not enough data available to make a statistical determination,
the levels of these compounds (all very low) appear comparatively
higher on dredged material than outside the site.
3.2.2.3 Statistical Analysis of Sediment Chemical Data
This section summarizes the results of a statistical analysis
conduct€:d by EPA on the MBDS sediment chemistry data. The purpose
of these statistical analyses is to determine whether sediment
contaminant concentrations are currently significantly different
within emd outside the MBDS boundary. The data analyzed includes
samples by the COE under their Disposal Area Monitoring System
program and samples taken by EPA. Sampling dates range from
July 1982 to October 1987. Although there are differences in
sampling methods, analytical techniques, and sediment compositions,
these Scimples are roughly comparable. Samples collected for other
studies in Massachusetts Bay were excluded because of the different
analytical techniques employed and different sedimentary regimes
at the sampling sites.
Seventy five sampling stations are represented in this analysis.
Ten of these stations are outside the MBDS boundary, four stations
are on the approximate boundary, and 61 stations are within the
MBDS boundary. The number of samples at each station varies
widely. Many stations contain just one observation, while some
stations contain as many as 26 observations. Although not
significant, this may have skewed the analysis.
In some cases, "less than detection limit" values were reported
where no contaminant was detected. Below detection values are
particularly numerous in the data for mercury (14 of 64, or 22% of
the valid observations) chromium (17 of 115, or 15%) and PAH (3 of
20, or 15%). For the remaining six analytes, detection limits
account for less than 1% of the valid observations. In order to
incorporate these values into statistical analyses, contaminant
concentrations were estimated to be half of the reported detection
limits.
Of the 65 variables in the original database, 8 were selected for
analysis: copper, zinc, lead, mercury, arsenic, chromium, total
PAH, and total PCB. Other analytes either mimic the behavior of
these 3 or have not been analyzed in enough samples to substantiate
a meaningful comparison.
Several types of statistical and descriptive analyses were
conducted to compare contaminant concentrations in marine sediments
within and outside the MBDS boundary. The following analyses were
undertaken: scatterplots depicting the relationship of the eight
analytes to distance from the MBDS center, statistical tests
(t-tests and one-way ANOVA's) comparing the means of different
groups and sites, and correlation matrices between analytes.
63
-------
o\j —
0 40 -
Z
UJ
to
o:
<
u.
o
X 30 -
Q.
d
Z
o
5 20 -
o:
i-
z
LJ
U
Z
0
U 10 -
o -
-a
a
a D a a
a B
Dn a D ^ D
rjD D D D-,
a D
i
0
^~Z_ Approximate FADS Boundary
D
D B Da a
B D
a a H a
*B B
D
I 1 i i
246
DISTANCE (KM) FROM FADS DISPOSAL BUOY
Figure 3-16 Scatterplot of Arsenic and Distance
64
-------
•HOU —
400 -
2
^ 350 -
2
0
or
5 300 -
u_
O
C^ 250 -
2
a
a
*^x
z 200 -
O
t-
^f
* 1 50 -
z
u
u
o 10° -
u
50 -
0 -
D
D
^^
r~i n n D
DDp D
D
D
° D *&
D D
D
@B ,
QtaCP '
_ TJ-1 D
D DD6J
D ^
n_ r-i n
tfa DDU Q
D R i
n —
0
£ Approximate FADS Boundary
D
1
D
Dnfl D nBDn Dr.
1 nUBDu D D
^
n
n m n n
i i i i n
I'*-.'
<&
\(\-^
/^ 1
2 4 6 ^
DISTANCE (KM) FROM FADS DISPOSAL BUOY
Figure 3-17 Scatterplot of Chromium and Distance
65
-------
o:
u
a
Q.
o
o
LL
o
CL
n
z
o:
o
z
o
u
i ou —
150 -
140 -
130 -
120 -
1 10 -
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
i
u
D
D
D D
D
D D
D CD
m
0 D
D
D
D §
D D
D rJP D
D
D
ED D
n nD '
D § DC
D
n
i
0
""" <• — Approximate FADS Boundary
:
•*
] D D g
D ^
r-| H D =
a n ^ n D
D u
I I i i 1
240
a
DISTANCE (KM) FROM FADS DISPOSAL BUOY
Figure 3-18 Bcatterplot of Copper and Distance
66
-------
Q
LJ
-1
L_
O
—
Q.
Q.
Z
O
1-
o:
i-
z
LJ
O
Z
O
(J
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
12.0
100
80
60
40
20
0
_
~
—
-
—
-
~
C
cP
DD
D
D
D ,_,
D
D
D D
D
D
D
DD DD
DD
D
DD
D B°
D
D [
D D n
c
I
)
""* 1 Approximate FADS Boundary
e
n
a n
3 : LJ ^-j
H § D =J~I
S a
- 5~I B D a
1 D D n D D B a
D y
D
\
I I I i 1
2 . 4 6
V"
a
DISTANCE (KM) FROM FADS DISPOSAL BUOY
Figure 3-19 Scatterplot of Lead and Distance
67
-------
/ uu —
600 -
y_
-------
ouu —
700 -
Z 600 -
N
6
^ 500 -
n
n
^ 400 -
0
h-
H 300 -
Z
u
z
g 200 -
100 -
0 -
C
D
n
n n
D
D
n
D
Dn
o
D
eg a D D
DD EJ D
UD n n D
D QTjTL
D D ° m op
° D0D B
I
)
^ — Approximate FADS Boundary
a §
D Q D
? i « £ : i, o 0 i .
\
i i i i •
246
Ci
DISTANCE (KM) FROM FADS DISPOSAL BUOY
Figure 3-21 Scatterplot of zinc and Distance
69
-------
I
<
CL
LL
O
O
Z "
Q o
a:
i-
z
LJ
U
Z
o
U
^"+ —
22 -
20 -
18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10 -
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
D
D D
D
D
D
i
0
D
"*" x* _ Approximate FADS Boundary
D 0 D
D no
D
D
I I I i
246
DISTANCE (KM) FROM FADS DISPOSAL BUOY
Figure 3-22 Scatterplot of Total PAH and Distance
70
-------
m
u
a
u.
o
Z
o
o:
H
z
u
u
z
o
u
1 . D —
1 .4 —
1.3 -
1.2 ^
1.1 -
1 -
0.9 -
0.8 -
0.7 -
0.6 -
0.5 -
0.4 -
0.3 -
0.2 -
0.1 -
0 -
C
B
n
D
D
D D
i
O
B°
)
2 Approximate FADS Boundary
D
" n
11 D B
D |03J D D g D
246
DISTANCE (KM) FROM FADS DISPOSAL BUOY
Figure 3-23 Scatterplot of Total PCB and Distance
71
-------
Figures 2-16 through 3-23 were derived by assuming the disposal
buoy, located at approximately 42° 25* 40"N latitude, 70° 34' 45"W
longitude, to be the center of dumping. This assumption is
supported by the fact that sites adjacent to this buoy generally
have the highest contaminant concentrations of any of the 75 sites
(see Figures 3-6 to 3-15). However, previous investigations at the
site identified mounds of dredged material up to 700 meters away
from this disposal buoy. Additionally, some material was dumped
near the "south buoy" located approximately 1 km south of the main
disposal buoy. Thus, the actual dumping area is somewhat diffuse.
The trends depicted in Figures 3-16 through 3-23 suggest that the
eight contaminants do not form linear dispersal patterns with
distance. Concentrations decline sharply within the first
1.6 kilometers of the disposal buoy. Although there is much
variance within the data, there appears to be a sharp decline in
contaminant concentrations outside the MBDS boundary between 2 and
5 kilometers from the buoy. Concentrations are generally lower
outside of MBDS than inside with a continued outward decline in
concentrations. While this pattern is generally evident for all
eight analytes, these trends are particularly clear for copper,
lead, and zinc.
Many of the individual sampling stations cannot be effectively
compared, because stations with just one observation have no
variance; statistical tests such as the t-test and one-way ANOVA
require the comparison of variances. In order to aggregate the
data into statistically comparable groups, three strata were
created: inside the MBDS boundary, on the approximate MBDS border,
and outside the MBDS boundary (Figure 3-24). However, it is
important to note that these strata contain stations which are
located on and off dredged material. All samples within a given
strata were grouped together, regardless of the specific station.
The result of this grouping is that some stations are statistically
weighted more than others. For instance, in the computation of a
strata average, a station with 20 samples is represented much more
than a station with one sample.
To determine if weighted stations on the MBDS border and outside
MBDS significantly affect the calculation of the mean for their
respective strata, a series of statistical tests (t-tests) were
conducted which compare the mean of two heavily sampled stations
(Stations REF and 17-14) to the mean of the rest of the stratum.
For the analytes with enough observations for the statistical test,
(copper, lead, zinc, chromium, and arsenic), the means of the
heavily sampled stations are not significantly different from the
means of their respective stratum. Therefore, these two heavily
sampled stations are representative of the stratum in which they
lie, and the fact that they are heavily weighted should not
significantly skew the analyses.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA or Scheffe's test) was conducted
for each chemical to determine whether there was a statistically
significant difference in the level of that chemical inside, on the
border,, or outside MBDS. The results these analyses are shown in
72
-------
7036W
7035W
7034W
\
FG16
•
IG22
•
FG1
BF1
, FG3
QBF4
FG4
•
* D9-B
*D15N
D35N9E
BF5
BF19
D20NOE
iW D23W
BF13
V D23W g
>\& •
•13J <^ 020 *
• FGB
• FG13
^ D13E
rS?-031W *
034W 8F1
D1TO , O
* D15W BF18 -
-»• r?. J»
. J BF18
015E 039E 9
BFB^01^
BF10
D35S2W D25N
••
D15S
FG7
•
03SS9E
O»
BF11
D20NOE
3 14-9
D23E D
•011E
D25E
BF14
• 031S9E
• FG14
FG17
FG20
• FG23
7033W
'FG10
O BF6
BF9
•
'INSIDE"
BF12
QBF15
"OUTSIDE"
MBDS
AREA
0210N19E
4225N
• 03SN19E
SRFQ
4225N
FG18
— 42 24N
•
FQ21
FG24
• 42 23N
Station "so"
Lat. 42°20'0(r
Long. 70?28100"
Note: The exact locations of stations BL4, NW#1,NW#2,
and NW#3 are unavailable. However, NW#1, INW#2.
and NW#3 are known to be 400m from the main buoy.
LEGEND
Buoys
600
600
Scale in Meters
•a
H
O
HI O
o o
H M
D t»
0) ft
H-
OJ O
m
H
n
•o o
M Hi
H-
0 4
«Q V
M
n 0
ft O
PI
rt n
H-ft
o M
0 p>
U ft
pi
73
-------
(Sites where "*****" is discontinuous are significantly different)
Copper
INSIDE FADS ON BORDER OUTSIDE FADS
***************************
*******************************
Zinc
INSIDE FADS ON BORDER OUTSIDE FADS
*********** *******************************
Lead
INSIDE FADS ON BORDER OUTSIDE FADS
*********** *******************************
Chromium
INSIDE FADS ON BORDER OUTSIDE FADS
*********** *******************************
PAH
INSIDE FADS ON BORDER OUTSIDE FADS
***************************
*******************************
PCB
INSIDE fADS ON BORDER OUTSIDE FADS
***************************
*******************************
Figure 3-25 Results of Scheffe's Test for the Three Strata
74
-------
Figure 3-25. Six of the eight analytes (copper, lead, zinc,
chromium, total PAH, and total PCB) exhibit significant differences
among the three strata. The concentrations of zinc, lead, and
chromium are significantly higher inside the MBDS area than in the
other two regions. From the MBDS border outward, concentrations
of these three elements appear to decrease steadily, but generally
are not statistically significant. Concentrations of copper, total
PCB, and total PAH are significantly higher inside MBDS than
outside MBDS, but stations on the MBDS border contain
concentrations which are not significantly different from either
adjacent area.
The remaining two analytes, arsenic and mercury, do not follow
predictable patterns. The lowest concentrations of arsenic are
actually inside MBDS, and the highest arsenic concentrations are
found in the border stratum. However, the border strata contains
fewer than ten valid observations. Mercury concentrations seem to
decrease uniformly from inside to outside the MBDS, but there is
only one valid mercury sample in the MBDS border strata.
Additionally, detection values were reported for only 14 of the 64
mercury observations. For these observations, the concentration
was estimated as one half the detection limit.
With one exception, all outside stations are within 6 km of the
MBDS disposal buoy. The exception is COE Station SE, which is over
10 km southeast of MBDS. The mean of the three samples at Station
SE was compared to the mean of outside stations to determine if
concentrations continue to decrease between 6 km and 10 km from
MBDS. The means of Station SE are lower than the means at the
outside stations for four of the five analytes. In particular,
concentrations of copper, lead, zinc, and chromium are lowest in
Station SE than in the other three strata. Arsenic is slightly
higher, and mercury, total PAH, and total PCB were not determined.
However, these differences are not statistically significant.
Additional statistical tests were performed to determine if
significant differences exist between individual stations within
the MBDS boundary. Three heavily sampled stations within MBDS (ON,
OFF, and BF-9) were compared. The results of these tests
(Scheffe's test) for these stations indicate that there are indeed
differences among stations within MBDS (Figure 3-26). In fact, one
station within the MBDS boundary (Station BF-9) is more similar to
the stations outside MBDS than to stations within MBDS. This may
be owing to the sandy bottom conditions at this station. Most of
the measured contaminants were preferentially concentrated on fine-
grained sediment particles. Station BF-9 lacks these fine-grained
materials. Thus, there may be, at least in a westerly direction,
as much varieition within the MBDS strata as there is between MBDS
and the two outside strata.
There is also variability in the outside stratum. While most of
the stations in this stratum contain similar concentrations of the
eight analytes, Station 12-0 contains concentrations of copper,
75
-------
Copper
ON OFF BF-9
********* *************************
Zinc
ON OFF BF-9
********* *********
Lead
OFF
********* ********* *******
ON OFF BF-9
Chromium
ON OFF BF-9
********* ********* *******
No others were significantly different.
(Sites where "*****" is discontinuous are significantly different)
Figure 3-26 Results of Scheffe's Test for Three Sites within
the MBD8
76
-------
lead, zinc, and chromium that are significantly higher than in
other outside stations. These relatively high concentrations in
station 12-0 are similar to concentrations within MBDS, suggesting
that there may be a southwesterly dispersal pattern of
contaminants. Dredged material has been deposited near Station
12-0 in the past.
Correlation matrices for the 8 statistically evaluated constituents
were prepared for the entire data set as well as for each of the
three strata. In each case the strongest correlations are between
copper, lead,, and zinc (Figures 3-27, 3-28, and 3-29) . It is quite
possible that these correlation values are determined as much by
the relationship of each analyte to distance from the center of
the disposal site as by a functional relationship between the three
analytes (in a multiple regression, this effect is known as
multicollinearity). However, these correlations may also suggest
that there is a unique characteristic of dredged material which is
defined by the correlations of these three elements. The
properties determined by these correlations is strongest within the
MBDS boundary and generally becomes weaker in the outside strata.
The statistical analyses described above provide a method for
evaluating the data and reaching supported qualitative conclusions
in characterizing the sediments in the vicinity of MBDS. The data
used in this analysis were not collected with the intent of
conducting statistical analysis and therefore the stations were not
located randomly or with a designed plan. This leads to variations
over time and distance. Potential significant affects on sampling
and analysis, such as sediment type, seasonality, and laboratory
methodology are not considered in this approach.
Significant concentration gradients are apparent for at least six
of the eight analytes (copper, lead, zinc, chromium, total PAH, and
total PCB) and represent the presence of dredged material. The
largest concentrations of these analytes are contained within the
MBDS boundary. Outside the MBDS boundary, concentrations continue
to decrease with distance, but in general these decreases are
gradual and not statistically significant. The means of Station
SE indicate that concentrations may continue to decrease from 6 km
to 10 km, but the paucity of data beyond 6 km precludes further
analysis. Copper, lead, and zinc are clearly correlated inside
MBDS and outside MBDS, although correlations are strongest within
MBDS.
Data from individual stations indicate that there is as much
variability within each stratum as between strata. For instance,
at least one station within MBDS contains concentrations which are
similar to sites several kilometers from MBDS. Conversely, one
station outside MBDS contains concentrations which are similar to
stations within MBDS, but this may be because of past dumping.
Analysis of the available data indicates that although
concentrations decrease outside MBDS, boundary sites are still
contaminated more than sites which are remote from MBDS. The end
77
-------
01
ui
Q_
Q.
O
U
U.
o
d
CL
Z
O
1-
01
1-
z
LJ
u
z
o
u
1 DVJ —
150 -
140 -
130 -
120 -
1 10 -
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
1 r\
I U
D D n
D
d? D
n
R2 = 0.855
D
D
D
n
D
D
n n"& n
D D
D °S D
D D
D
D D
n D D_ p
o n D ?P
D O ^~l QQJ [~1 (§1D
gljp Bgyffi1 D
n [y. ^Jp-Pr3
Lyj--
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
CONCENTRATION (PPM) OF LEAD
Figure 3-27 Scatterplot of Copper and Lead
78
-------
o:
UJ
Q.
CL
O
O
L.
o
"^
CL
CL
s«x
z
0
1-
QL
Z
U
u
o
u
i ow —
150 -
140 -
130 -
120 -
1 10 -
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
1 r\
I U
On D
n
D
n TI
D
0
DD D
LTD D
D D
D
D
B
D D
D R D
Q D
D D R2 = 0.730
D
D _ _ Q D
D^p D n D
LJQ n D
jP° ^D*
(^"^D
i I i I i I i
0 200 400
CONCENTRATION (PPM) OF ZINC
Figure 3-28 Bcatterplot of Copper and Zinc
79
600
800
-------
ouu -
700 -
o 60° -
Z
N
2* 500 -
Q.
Q.
0 400 -
P
o:
t
g 300 -
U
z
o
° 200 -
100 -
o -
c
D
n
n n
R2 = 0.710 n
D D
D D
D
D D D S
n D D ^
D D n U D
a u D cP a
D nr_ D © a n
***">°°
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
) 40 80 120 160 200 240
CONCENTRATION OF LEAD (PPM)
Figure 3-29 Scatterplot of Lead and zinc
80
-------
of the affected area appears to be about 3 km from the MBDS
disposal buoy.
3.2.2.4 Grain Size
Grain size analysis of sediments at MBDS was performed on each
biological benthic grab obtained. This allowed for replicate
sediment grain size results, as well as identifying reasons for
excessive intrastation biological variability, if any was
encountered.
The median sediment grain size for samples taken at Station REF,
in 86.7 meters of water, was 0.013 mm. This represents a substrate
composed of medium to fine silt. The natural bottom station within
MBDS, but off of dredged material (Station OFF), in 87.9 meters of
water, exhibited a median grain size of 0.012 mm. This is also a
substrate composed of medium to fine silt. The substrate in the
dredged material disposal area consisted of sediments
representative of the most recent deposition from various New
England harbors. The median grain size from the station located
on dredged ma.terial (Station ON), 85.5 meters deep, was 0.042 mm,
representing a coarse silt substrate.
The sandy area in the shallower (65.1 meters deep) northeast
quadrant of the disposal circle (Station NES) had a median grain
size of 2.71 mm, representing a granular substrate. The sand
station (Station SRF) east of the MBDS boundary in 46 to 66 meters
of water had a median grain size of 1.1 mm. This variable
sand/granule area has a very coarse sand composition.
Two stations sampled by New England Aquarium ("NBA") in 1975 had
similar depth and grain size distribution to the onsite and the
reference area at MBDS (Gilbert, 1976). These stations were
located 5.5 km northwest and 6 km south-southwest of the center of
MBDS or approximately 4 km outside of the MBDS boundary, in about
80 meters of water. The control station sampled by NEA in 1974
had a sediment composition of 30% fine sand and 70% silts for the
20 to 25 cm strata (Gilbert, 1975) . This station was located
approximately 3.5 km southwest of the center of MBDS, 1.5 km
southwest of the site boundary.
3.2.3 Biotic Residues
The uptake of contaminants from the sediment and water column into
the tissues of organisms results from dietary transfer, passive
absorption or absorption through epithelial tissue. Potential
bioaccumulation of contaminants was measured at MBDS by examining
the tissue concentration (residue) of contaminants in various
organisms. The routes and rates of uptake, metabolic abilities,
and excretion rates vary from specie to specie and therefore values
reported hero should only be considered to be broadly indicative
of contamina.nt bioavailability to a particular specie of a
81
-------
particular feeding mode. The target species analyzed at MBDS were
chosen because of their presence in sufficient biomass density for
efficient sample collection.
At MBDS the species analyzed at each station were the polychaete
worm, Nephtys incisa. and the bivalve, Astarte spp., (except for
Station REF which did not contain any Astarte spp.). Opportunistic
samples of the shrimp, Pandalus borealis. and the scallop,
Placopecten maqellanicus. were also analyzed.
Nephtys incisa is a free-burrowing, non-selective deposit feeder
that ingests sediment as it moves through the substrate. Astarte
spp. burrow just under the sediment surface and filter feed using
short siphons to ingest and expel food items in the overlying water
column. Both can be considered residents of the sampling stations.
Neither species was numerically dominant in the benthic community
structure (see Section 3.3), but were present in sufficient biomass
density to analyze. The shrimp and scallops were analyzed to be
representative of commercially important organisms residing in the
MBDS vicinity.
The partitioning of chemicals into biotic tissue is a highly
variable phenomenon. It is inherently dependent on the size,
physiological metabolism, reproductive status, and lipid content
of the organism. Analytical limitations also contribute to data
variability. For these reasons, statistical analyses of the biotic
residue results at MBDS are minimal, and the data is discussed
qualitatively.
3.2.3.1 Metals
Approximately 200 chemical determinations of tissue trace metal
content in Nephtvs incisa taken in 1985, 1986, and 1987 are
summarized in Tables 3-9 through 3-16. Metal tissue levels for the
bivalves, Astarte spp. and Placopecten sp. (from 54 data points)
are shown in Tables 3-17 and 3-18, and for the shrimp, Pandalus sp.
(from 18 data points) in Table 3-19. The results are discussed by
chemical below (COE, 1988).
3.2.3.1.1 Arsenic
Arsenic residue levels in Nephtys incisa found in and around the
MBDS range from 2.94 to 17.8 ppm wet weight, and are shown in Table
3-9. Arsenic residue levels for other organisms are shown on Table
3-17. These levels are highly variable, and show no distict
pattern between organisms found on dredged material and those found
off the site. These values are consistent with those shown on
Table 3-9.
3.2.3.1.2 Lead
There were no significant differences among lead residue levels
82
-------
Table 3-9 Arsenic Concentrations in Nephtys incisa (ppm)
Station
REF
ON
OFF
SRF
NES
6/85
9/85
1/86
9/85
1/86
9/87
9/85
9/87
9/85
1/86
Dry Weight
50. 38
67. O8
89. 78
19. 7b
u
18. 9b
6.9a
31. Ob
—
58. 7b
21. 2b
Wet Wei
9.158
12. la
17. 88
3.53b
K
3.92b
—
5.3b
—
8.77b
2.94b
9/85 36.5C 4.39C
Notes: a Mean of 3 analyses
b Mean of 2 analyses
c Single analysis
Source: COE, 1988
83
-------
Table 3-10 Lead Concentrations in Nephtys inciaa (ppm)
Station Dry Weight Wet Weight
REF
6/85 3.84a 0.708
9/85 4.27a 0.77a
1/86 4.54a 0.90a
9/87 4.68
ON
9/85 6.08b 1.09b
1/86 3.27b 0.68b
OFF
9/85 4.69b 0.80b
9/87 9.6a
SRF
9/85 7.56b 1.12b
1/86 1.01b 0.14b
NES
9/85 7.60C 0.92C
Notes; a Mean of 3 analyses
b Mean of 2 analyses
c Single analysis
Source: COE, 1988
84
-------
Notes; 8 Mean of 3 analyses
b Mean of 2 analyses
c Single analysis
Source: COE, 1988
Table 3-11 !!inc Concentrations in Nephtys incisa (ppm)
Station Dry Weight Wet Weight
REF
6/85 202a 378
9/85 223a 41a
1/86 177a 35a
9/87
ON
9/85 216b 38b
1/86 181b 38b
OFF
9/85 233b 40b
9/87
SRF
9/85 244b 36b
1/86 58.8b 8.2b
NES
1/85 239C 29C
85
-------
Table 3-12 Chromium concentrations in Nephtya incisa (ppm)
Station Dry Weight Wet Weight
REF
6/85 0.66" 0.12a
9/85 0.99a 0.18a
1/86 0.64a 0.13a
9/87
ON
9/85 1.39b 0.25b
1/86 0.78b 0.16b
OFF
9/85 0.65b O.llb
9/87
SRF
9/85 0.83b 0.12b
1/86 0.93b 0.13b
NES
9/85 0.80C 0.10C
Notes; a Mean of 3 analyses
b Mean of 2 analyses
c Single analysis
Source: COE, 1988
86
-------
Table 3-13 Copper Concentrations in Nephtva inciaa (ppm)
Station
REF
ON
OFF
SRF
NES
6/85
9/85
1/86
9/87
9/85
1/86
9/87
9/85
9/87
9/85
1/86
Dry Weight
8.228
9.37a
6.30a
9.75a
15. 7b
9.66b
7.3a
7.18b
14. la
u
10. lb
7.42b
Wet W
2.49a
1.70a
1.258
—
2.76b
2.00b
—
1.22b
—
w
1.39b
1.04b
Notes: a Mean of 3 analyses
b Mean of 2 analyses
c Single analysis
Source: COE, 1988
9/85 8.68C 1.05°
87
-------
Table 3-14 Cadmium Concentrations in Nephtva incisa (ppm)
Station Dry Weight Wet Weight
REF
6/85 1.12a 0.208
9/85 0.68a 0.12a
1/86 0.728 0.148
9/87 0.78
ON
9/85 0.97b 0.17b
1/86 0.713b 0.15b
9/87 0.538
OFF
9/85 0.78b 0.13b
1/86 0.678
SRF
9/85 2.94b 0.43b
1/86 4.72b 0.66b
NES
9/85 1.44C 0.17C
Notes; 8 Mecin of 3 analyses
Mean of 2 analyses
c Single analysis
Source: COE, 1988
88
-------
Table 3-15 Mercury Concentrations in Nephtys incisa (ppm)
Station Dry Weight Wet Weight
REF
6/85 0.0288 0.005a
9/85 0.0728 0.013°
1/86 0.0748 0.0158
9/87 <0.03a
ON
9/85 0.082b 0.015b
1/86 0.074b 0.015b
9/87 <0.02a
OFF
9/85 0.34b 0.006b
9/87 <0.04a
SRF
9/85 0.467b 0.069b
1/86 0.565b 0.079b
NES
9/85 0.088C 0.011C
Notes: 8 Meem of 3 analyses
b Meem of 2 analyses
0 Single analysis
Source: COE, 1988
89
-------
Table 3-16 Iron Concentrations in Nephtys incisa (ppm)
Station Dry Weight Wet Weight
REF
6/85
9/85 963a 175a
1/86 945a 188°
9/87 1158.3a
ON
9/85 833b 148b
1/86 696b 144b
9/87 796°
OFF
9/85 749b 128b
9/87 1341a
SRF
9/85 665b 99b
1/86 344b 48b
NES
9/85 539C 65C
Notes: a Mecin of 3 analyses
b Meam of 2 analyses
c Single analysis
Source: COE, 1988
90
-------
Table 3-17 Metal Tissue Levels in Bivalves (ppm dry weight)
Astarte spp.
Placopecten sp,
Arsenic
Lead
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Cadmium
Mercury
Iron
SRF
9/85
13. O8
0.5838
69. 7a
1.98a
11. 9a
5.428
0.6098
696a
NES
9/85
9.57b
0.786b
67. Ob
2.09b
13. 4b
4.15b
0.481b
506b
REF
6/85
20. 7C
1.62C
77. 3C
1.12C
13. 2C
6.2C
0.3808
_ _
SRF
1/86
21. 28
1.018
58. 88
0.9298
7.42a
4.72a
0.5658
3448
ON
9/85
6.168
0.2458
88. 98
0.2788
0.8678
3.45s
0.222s
22.4s
Notes: a Single anaylsis
b Mean of 3 replicate anaylses
c Average of values for small and large organisms
Source: COE,, 1988
91
-------
Table 3-18 PCB Tissue Levels in Nephtvs incisa (ppm)
Station Dry Weight Wet Weight
REF
6/85 0.146s 0.026"
9/85 0.2978 0.0548
1/86 0.4508 0.0898
9/87 0.292s
ON
9/85 0.770b 0.135b
1/86 2500.Oc 0.519C
OFF b b
9/85 0.465b 0.079D
9/87 0.668a
SRF
9/85 0.245b <0.036b
NES
9/85 <0.330C 0.040C
Notes: a Mean of 3 analyses
b Mean of 2 analyses
c Single analysis
Source: COE, 1988
92
-------
Table 3-19 PCS Tissue Levels in Astarte spp. (ppm)
Station Dry Weight Wet Weight
REF
6/85 <0.414a <0.063a
SRF
1/85 <0.570a <0.080a
9/85 1.767b 0.210b
NES
9/85 1.933° 0.270°
Notes: a Single anaylsis
b Average of 3 replicates
Table 3-20 1?CB Tissue Levels in Placopecten sp. and Pandalus sp.
(ppm dry weight)
Station Placopecten sp. Pandalus sp.
ON
9/85 <0.210a 0.17°
REF
9/85 — 0.09b
1/86 — 0.08b
Notes; 8 Single anaylses
b Mean of multiple replicates
Source: COE, 1988
93
-------
between stations in and around MBDS. Generally, tissue levels were
all in the 0.7 to 1.62 ppm wet weight range (see Tables 3-10 and
3-17). The highest lead value reported in Nephtys incisa tissues
at MBDS was at a Station SRF in September 1985, at 1.12 ppm wet
weight (see Table 3-10). Reported lead tissue concentrations in
Nephtys incisa throughout the Gulf of Maine range from 5 to 24 ppm
wet weight with stations in the vicinity of MBDS averaging 8.67 ppm
wet weight (Gilbert, 1976).
3.2.3.1.3 Zinc
As shown in Tables 3-11 and 3-17, zinc residue levels range from
about 8 to 40 ppm wet weight for Nephtys incisa and from
approximately 60 to 90 ppm dry weight for bivalves, with no
discernible difference between organisms taken from on or off
dredged material. Zinc residues in Nephtys incisa throughout
Massachusetts Bay range from 31 to 137 ppm wet weight (Gilbert,
1976) . In the vicinity of MBDS, wet weight values for zinc in
Nephtys incisa average 51 ppm (Gilbert, 1976) .
3.2.3.1.4 Chromium
Chromium residue levels in Nephtys incisa ranged from 0.10 to 0.25
ppm wet weight (Table 3-12) and bivalve levels ranged from 0.28 to
2.1 ppm dry weight (Table 3-17). Although the values are slightly
higher on dredged material than off, this difference is not
statistically significant (i.e. the difference is not greater than
the statistical variation associated with the data). Nephtys spp.
chromium tissue levels throughout Massachusetts Bay generally range
from 1.1 to 4.8 ppm wet weight and stations in the vicinity of MBDS
average 1.7 ppm (Gilbert, 1976). The present values are lower than
historic ones, although this could be a function of the lower
detection limits obtained in the most recent sampling.
3.2.3.1.5 Copper
Copper residue levels in Nephtys incisa ranged from 1.04 to 2.76
ppm wet weight (Table 3-13) in and around MBDS, with slightly
higher (although not statistically significant) values on dredged
material. Bivalve levels ranged from less than 1 to 13.2 ppm dry
weight, with the former representing scallop concentrations on
dredged material, and the latter value from Astarte spp. at Station
REF (Table 3-17) . These organisms are mobile, which may account
for these anomalous results. Nephtvs spp. wet weight tissue
concentrations of copper throughout Massachusetts Bay generally
range from 1,.0 to 8.6 ppm, with stations in the vicinity of MBDS
having an average of 2.3 ppm (Gilbert, 1976). Therefore, the
copper residue levels found in the recent sampling are similar to
ambient levels.
94
-------
3.2.3.1.6 Cadmium
Cadmium residue in Nephtvs incisa tissue ranged from 0.12 ppm to
0.66 ppm wet weight (Table 3-14). Cadmium levels for bivalves
ranged from 3.45 ppm to 6.2 ppm dry weight (Table 3-17). The 5.42
ppm bivalve value at Station SRF in September 1985 was
statistically higher than other samples, but this is probably
because of the statistical problems inherent when comparing single
samples since quantitatively this is a realistic value. Cadmium
values in shrimp tissue, Pandalus borealis. ranged from 0.15 to
0.29 ppm wet weight. By comparison, Gilbert (1976) identified
Nephtys spp. cadmium tissue levels throughout Massachusetts Bay as
ranging from 0.31 to 2.71 ppm wet weight, with stations in MBDS
vicinity having an average of 0.387 ppm.
3.2.3.1.7 Mercury
Mercury residue in tissue of Nephtvs incisa ranged from 0.005 to
0.079 ppm wet weight at stations in and around MBDS (Table 3-15).
Bivalve mercury data ranged from 0.222 to 0.609 ppm dry weight
(Table 3-17). Mercury residue levels in shrimp, Pandalus borealis.
tissue ranged from 0.047 ppm to 0.11 ppm wet weight. For
comparison, Gilbert (1976) identified wet weight mercury levels in
Nephtys sp. throughout the Massachusetts Bay systems as ranging
from <0.01 ppm to 0.130 ppm. In the vicinity of MBDS, mercury
residues averaged <0.020 ppm (Gilbert, 1976).
3.2.3.1.8 Iron
Iron was analyzed in Nephtys incisa tissue as an indicator of the
amount of sediment present in the gut of the organisms. Had
disparate or anomalous high metal residue levels been found in some
organisms, the iron levels would have helped to determine whether
those levels were because of bioaccumulation of the metal into the
organisms tissues or simply an excess of sediment contained in the
organism. Iron ranged from 48 to 696 ppm wet weight for all
organisms and all stations (Tables 3-16 and 3-17). No significant
correlations between metals residue levels and iron levels are
obvious.
3.2.3.2 Organics
Organic residue levels in and near MBDS were measured in 1985,
1986, and 1987 in the polychaete worm, Nephtvs incisa; the bivalve,
Astarte sp.; the scallop, Placopecten magellanicus; and the shrimp,
Pandalas borealis at various seasons.
3.2.3.2.1 DDT
Replicate samples from Station REF in June 1985 showed DDT tissue
levels in Nephtys incisa and Astarte spp. to be less than the
detection limits of 0.030 ppm and 0.079 ppm dry weight (0.005 ppm
95
-------
and 0.012 ppm wet weight) respectively.
3.2.3.2.2 PC13
PCS tissue levels in Nephtys incisa ranged from 0.146 ppm dry
weight (0.026 ppm wet weight) at Station REF to 0.770 ppm dry
weight (0.135 ppm wet weight) at Station ON. One anomolous value
of 2500 ppm dry weight (0.52 ppm wet weight) was found on dredged
material (see Table 3-18).
As shown in Table 3-19, Astarte spp. PCB tissue levels ranged from
below instrument detection levels, <0.414, to 1.933 ppm dry weight
(<0.063 to 0.270 ppm wet weight). Shrimp, Pandalus sp., PCB
tissue levels; ranged from 0.08 to 0.17 ppm dry weight and one
scallop, Placopecten sp., had no detectable PCB in its tissues
(Table 3-20).
PCB concentrations have been examined in various species in
Massachusetts Bay. Bivalves such as the surf clam, Spisula
solidissima; black clam, Arctica islandica; hard clam, Mercenaria
mercenaria; and blue mussel, Mytilus edulis all of which are
bottom-dwelling filter-feeders, had PCB tissue levels ranging from
nondetectable to 0.5 ppm wet weight (Swart, 1987). Additionally,
PCB tissue levels in Nephtvs incisa in the Gulf of Maine near Cape
Arundel were generally below the analytical detection limit of 0.2
to 0.4 ppm wet weight.
The presence of PCB in biotic tissues indicates contamination of
the ecologica.l system. The most recent sampling efforts at MBDS,
using lower PCB detection limits, indicates several locations in
Stellwagen Basin are affected by PCB, but the data does indicate
elevated PCB tissue levels in organisms on dredged material. The
values are comparable with other areas of the Gulf of Maine, but
are slightly higher on dredged material than in the areas
immediately surrounding MBDS.
3.2.3.2.3 PJlH
In September 1985 and January 1986, a total of nine Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbon ("PAH") samples were obtained at MBDS. These
values were reported as total PAH levels in shrimp, Pandalus
borealis. tissue. Station REF PAH residue averaged 0.09 ppm (S.D.
= 0.02, n=3) wet weight in September 1985 and 1.4 ppm (S.D. = 0.7,
n=3) wet weight in January 1986. PAH tissue residue levels in
shrimp at Station ON averaged <0.10 ppm wet weight.
Additional PAH residue analyses in Nephtys incisa were performed
in September 1987, analyzing for specific compounds as recommended
in Clarke and Gibson (1987). These results showed Station REF PAH
totals averaging 0.3564 ppm (S.D. = 0.130, n=3) dry weight.
An area four kilometers south of MBDS averaged 0.1746 ppm (S.D. =
96
-------
0.047, n=3) for PAH residue. Station OFF had highly variable
results averaging 0.7741 ppm (S.D. = 0.9144, n=3) dry weight.
Analysis of Nephtys incisa on the dredged material disposal area
revealed a significant increase in total PAH; averaging 2.4767 ppm
(S.D. = 0.2949,n=3). An area 1 kilometer southwest of the disposal
buoy, but on dredged material disposed in prior years averaged
2.1962 ppm (S.D. = 0.7794, n=3) dry weight.
The lowest concentration area (0.1746 ppm) 4 km south of MBDS was
dominated by phenanthrene (36.8%); pyrene (28.9%) and floranthene
(25.6%). The Station REF (0.3564 ppm) was dominated by
benz(a)anthracene and chrysene (33.2%), pyrene (16.3%),
benzo(a)pyrene (15.1%), and fluoranthene (14.6%). Station OFF
(0.7741 ppm) was dominated by benz(a)anthracene and chrysene,
pyrene (20.4%), and fluoranthene (18.0%). At the dredged material
disposal site (2.4767 ppm) the dominant PAH compounds in Nephtys
incisa tissue were benz(a)anthracene and chrysene (44.0%),
fluoranthene (16.5%), and pyrene (14.7%). One kilometer southwest
of the disposal buoy (2.1962 ppm) the total PAH levels in Nephtys
incisa was dominated by benz(a)anthracene and chrysene (54.3%),
benzo(a)pyrene (18.0%), and pyrene (14.9%).
Boehm (1984) reported dry weight total PAH tissue residue in jonah
crabs from Massachusetts Bay to range from 0.007 ppm to 0.457, dab
from <0.001 ppm to 0.012 ppm, and flounder from <0.001 ppm to 0.010
ppm.
Although limited comparative literature in available regarding
Nephtys incisa PAH tissue levels, this study showed elevated PAH
tissue levels at areas where dredged material has been disposed.
The dominant compound group was benz(a)anthracene and chrysene.
Stations which were affected by dredged material had a total PAH
range from 2.2 ppm to 2.5 ppm dry weight.
Areas not significantly affected by dredged material had total PAH
ranges from 0.17 ppm to 0.77 ppm dry weight. Although not heavily
dominated by any one compound, the area is generally affected by
phenathrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, and benz(a)anthracene, and
chrysene.
3.3 Biological conditions
This section presents information on existing biological conditions
at MBDS and the surrounding area of Massachusetts Bay. Biological
communities described include plankton, benthic invertebrates,
fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds. The site specific
data and general information on Massachusetts Bay used in these
descriptions are from COE studies conducted from 1984 to 1987 and
other historical studies in the Gulf of Maine.
97
-------
3.3.1 Plankton Resources
3.3.1.1 Phyt oplankton
Several studies on phytoplankton and primary productivity have been
conducted in the Gulf of Maine and its coastal embayment,
Massachusetts Bay. No site specific phytoplankton data is
available at MBDS, but the phytoplankton assemblages at MBDS
usually exhibit the similar patterns and composition as other areas
of Massachusetts Bay since it is part of the same water mass. Some
of the differemces in the phytoplankton community can be attributed
to disposal activities.
Phytoplankton populations over the northeastern continental shelf
consist of a diverse assemblage of species that differ seasonally
in composition across the shelf. The most abundant phytoplankters
can be divided into three major groups: the small-sized diatoms,
the phytoflagellates, and the nannoplankton (2 to 10 /xm size
range). The small diatoms are associated with the spring and fall
bloom periods, with highest concentrations near large estuary
systems. Lower diatom densities generally occur seaward with
patches of high densities associated with Georges Bank. The
phytoflagellates occur in high numbers in late spring and summer.
Species of this group occurred over the entire shelf, though
numerically they are more prevalent nearshore. The nannoplankton
component of the phytoplankton is generally non-flagellate and is
generally abundant and widespread throughout the year over the
continental shelf (Marshall and Conn, 1983).
Phytoplankton communities of low densities (approximately 50,000
cells per liter), generally dominated by dinoflagellates or
diatoms, occur from November to February in the Gulf of Maine and
Massachusetts Bay (TRIGOM, 1974). Various diatom species bloom
from February to June resulting in densities of over a million
cells per liter. Summer blooms of small-sized coccolithophores are
common in open basins of the Gulf of Maine while certain diatoms
may bloom in early fall in coastal areas. Secondary late summer
and fall blooms of some diatoms and small plankters occur in
Massachusetts Bay (TRIGOM, 1974).
Maximum phytoplankton densities in Massachusetts Bay occur during
spring (March to May) and fall (September to October), where
biomass maximums were reported as 6 and 3.6 gC/m2, respectively
(MWRA, 1988; Parker, 1974). Primary productivity was generally
highest during the spring bloom period in March (Parker, 1974;
Sherman et al., 1984) . There appears to be a marked offshore trend
of decreasing primary productivity and phytoplankton biomass
associated with a parallel decline in nutrient concentration (EPA,
1988).
Variation in productivity rates and chlorophyll a content in
Massachusetts Bay appear to be directly related to nutrient
98
-------
availability (specifically nitrogen) which influences the
initiation and duration of major bloom periods (Parker, 1974) .
Nutrient addition from land drainage is transported into
Massachusetts Bay and may be the most significant contribution to
spatial differences in primary productivity. Nitrogen appears to
be the limiting nutrient in these waters, based on production
levels and nitrogen to phosphorus ratios (MWRA, 1988) .
The principal components of the phytoplankton communities in
Massachusetts Bay surveys reflect normal occurrence of the summer
flora in New England coastal waters with flagellates being abundant
throughout the summer and diatom blooms occurring in spring and
fall (Marshal and Conn, 1983; Marshal, 1984a; Marshall, 1984b,
Marshall, 1984; NMFS, MARMAP 1978-1985). Trends of decreasing
productivity, chlorophyll a concentration, and phytoplankton
density with increasing distance from shore occur in Massachusetts
Bay. The limiting nutrient for phytoplankton production in the
study area appears to be nitrogen.
3.3.1.2 ZooplanXton
Zooplankton comprise the animal component of the plankton
community. Little site specific information is available on
zooplankton in the study area. The impacts on zooplankton are
usually limited to changes in water quality (Section 4. B.I).
These changes typically are of minor temporal and spatial
importance. Consequently, zooplankton are discussed only briefly
in this section.
The zooplankton community of Gulf of Maine waters (including
Massachusetts Bay) is generally dominated by the ubiquitous
copepods, Calanus f inmarchicus. Centrophaqes typicus. and
Pseudocalanus minutus. Calanus f inmarchicus is the dominant
species from spring through early autumn, when Centrophaqes typicus
becomes dominant (Sherman et al., 1988). Other typical components
of the zooplankton community include the copepod, Metridia lucens;
the euphausid, Meqanyctiphanes norvegica; and the chaetognath,
Sagitta elegans.
Zooplankton biomass in coastal Gulf of Maine waters peaks in July
and October (Sherman et al., 1988). In the Gulf of Maine, peak
zooplankton biomass occurs in May and gradually declines through
autumn. Although no specific data is available on spatial trends
in zooplankton densities, it is likely that the relative density
of zooplankton reflect the relative densities of their food source,
phytoplankton. Therefore, zooplankton densities usually decrease
with increasing distance from shore in Massachusetts Bay.
Microzooplankton (<333 ^m) are another important component of the
Gulf of Maine zooplankton community. Principal components of the
microzooplankton include immature copepods (eggs, naupuli, and
copepodites) , and members of the copepod genus Oilthona. The
99
-------
microzooplankton component is most abundant in summer and autumn.
Zooplankton encountered in winter and early spring are primarily
adults. Microzooplankton biomass in northeast shelf waters is
approximately 30% of the total zooplankton biomass.
3.3.2 Benthos
The marine macrobenthic community is likely to be one of the better
indicators of the long-term environmental condition of a marine or
estuarine ecosystem because the adult stages of this community are
relatively non-motile and long-lived. The benthos can reflect the
more long-term environmental conditions of the water and sediment
prior to the time of sampling, while planktonic organisms often
reflect more short-term conditions indicative of sampling time.
Although fish have a long life span with respect to plankton, they
are mobile, and can therefore avoid areas which may be less
suitable owing to any transient condition.
There have been relatively few studies of the benthic fauna in the
Massachusetts Bay and Stellwagen Basin area. An extensive study
conducted in 1987 in an area 5 to 10 miles inshore of MBDS showed
spionid polychaetes to be the dominant infaunal taxa (MWRA, 1987).
The spionids are sedentary worms generally characterized by a pair
of elongate palpi used to sweep the sediment surface and bottom
waters for food (Gosner, 1971; Dauer et al., 1981). This taxon was
abundant in a range of sediment types and depths in Massachusetts
Bay. In 1976, another survey of the benthic community of
Massachusetts Bay indicated that the benthic community is dominated
by spionid polychaetes such as Spio limicola. and to a lesser
extent Prionospio steenstrupi (Gilbert et al. , 1976). Benthic data
was also collected from various locations in Cape Cod Bay. The
results of this survey showed that the area is dominated by Spio
limicola and Mediomastus californiensis. representing 40 to 50% of
the total individuals. Secondary species which were abundant in
the MBDS vicinity included Euchone incolor. Cossura lonqocirrata.
and oligochaeites (Batelle, 1987) .
An analysis of the benthic community in the MBDS was undertaken to
evaluate the impacts associated with dredged material disposal
(SAIC, 1987). The survey revealed two major grain size facies at
MBDS (silt-clay and coarse sand), and three types of biological
community. The three biological communities consisted of dense
aggregations of near-surface living tube-dwelling polychaetes
(stage I pioneering organisms), infaunal deposit feeders (stage
II) , and high-order successional stage organisms that typically
feed at depth in a head down orientation (stage III).
Five benthic stations were established near the MBDS (Figure 3-4).
This includes; a mud and a sand station within the MBDS (Stations
OFF and NES, respectively) , and a mud and sand reference station
outside of MBDS (Stations REF and SRF, respectively). In addition
a station was; located on dredged material (Station ON) .
100
-------
Table 3-21 shows the distribution of benthic phyla at these
stations from June 1985, September 1985, and January 1986. Annelid
worms constituted approximately 90% of the organisms present at all
stations for all sampling dates. Mollusks and anthropods comprised
between <1 to 9% of the organisms present. The dominant organisms
at stations outside the MBDS boundary were the polychaete worm,
Paranois gracilis. averaging 29.2% of all organisms and the annelid
worm, Heteromastus filiformis. averaging 10.1% of all organisms.
Average overall benthic density for the three seasons investigated
was 5,936 organisms/m2 from an average of 44 species/m2.
The benthic population sampled in September 1985 from Station OFF
contained similar dominance of the polychaete, Paranois gracilis.
(18.9%) and an average total density of 8746 organisms/m from 37
species. The dredged material disposal station within MBDS,
Station ON, was clearly dominated by oligochaetes in September
comprising 24.7% of its 26,548 organisms/m2 from 55 species. These
assemblages are typical for populations colonizing recently
disturbed habitat, such as the dredged material, exploiting the
available high organic content of the substrate. The mud station
outside MBDS was dominated by the polychaete, Levinsenia qracilis
(18.3 %) with an average total density of organisms of 8746/mzin
September.
The sandy station east of MBDS was dominated in September 1985 by
the polychaete, Exogone veruqera. representing 15.4% of its 9190
organisms/m2 from 63 species. Station NES within MBDS was also
dominated by Exoqone veruqera. at 20.5% of its 4622 organisms/m
from 69 species.
These results indicate benthic population impacts at the point of
dredged material disposal, with higher densities of organisms
colonizing the disposed dredged material. At Station OFF, the high
densities of oligochaetes may have been introduced from dredged
material disposal or another type of perturbation. The sandy area
within MBDS was similar to sandy areas outside MBDS which have
benthic communities typical of Massachusetts Bay.
3.3.3 Finfish and Shellfish Resources
Quantitative information on fish and shellfish communities in
Massachusetts Bay is somewhat limited and not site specific.
However, a wide variety of fish investigations have been conducted
in the Gulf of Maine and Massachusetts Bay. Understanding the
population dynamics of fish in the Gulf of Maine as well as
Massachusetts Bay is important because of the cosmopolitan and
migratory nature of fish. Many fish and shellfish species move
back and forth between Massachusetts Bay and other Gulf of Maine
waters.
Seasonal temperature variations have the greatest influence on the
seasonal abundance, distribution and species composition of the
101
-------
Table 3-21 Distribution of Benthic Phyla at MBDS and Reference
Stations (Expressed as percent of total)
Stations and Sample Dates
Phylin
Annelida
Mollusca
Arthropoda
Other
ON(9/85)
94.5
4.4
0.4
0.7
OFF(9/85)
91.0
4.8
0.4
3.7
SRFC9/85)
85.9
7.1
4.3
2.6
SRF{1/86)
86.1
4.2
8.6
1.1
NES(9/85)
86.1
4.2
8.6
1.1
REF(6/85)
95.4
0.5
2.0
2.1
REF (9/85)
89.6
6.4
0.8
3.2
REF(1/86)
93.9
1.1
3.7
1.3
Source: COE, 1988
102
-------
fish fauna in the Massachusetts Bay and the Gulf of Maine.
Seasonal temperature conditions that influence the fish populations
in the area include the cold water barrier at Cape Cod, which
separates th« Gulf of Maine from the Mid-Atlantic Bight from June
to September by means of a sharp temperature differential. During
the rest of the year, a temperature continuity usually exists
between the areas. Temperatures in the Gulf of Maine waters are
generally similar throughout the Gulf seasonally while the
temperature of Mid-Atlantic Bight waters varies (TRIGOM, 1974).
The Mid-Atlantic Bight contains very few permanent residents and
is composed of continuously shifting populations, while the Gulf
of Maine contains mostly endemic species with some seasonal
variation in species composition. In the Mid-Atlantic Bight, a
population of southern migratory fishes typically follows a
northern dispersal to Cape Cod (Figure 3-30) . Many of these
species including spiny dogfish, American shad, hakes, and
mackerel, enter the Gulf of Maine and Massachusetts Bay and remain
there throughout the summer. In winter, they migrate either south
or to warmer continental slope waters in the Gulf of Maine. The
Mid-Atlantic Bight populations are replaced by a limited seasonal
diffusion of a few species which are endemic to the Gulf of Maine,
but inhabit the Mid-Atlantic' Bight in winter (Table 3-22) (TRIGOM,
1974) .
During winter, many summer migratory species move to the warm slope
waters off southern New England. These species include, but are
not limited to, red hake, silver hake, scup, butterfish, summer
flounder, and goosefish. The winter component of fishes migrating
from the north and east consist of Atlantic cod, yellowtail
flounder, and longhorn sculpin (TRIGOM, 1974) . Generally, the fish
species sited in the summer are most abundant on inshore grounds
where the water temperature is similar to that of the offshore
environment.
Almost all non-migratory species exhibit some seasonal movement.
Fish are generally scarce along nearshore areas in the Gulf of
Maine in winter, with only sea raven or longhorn sculpin occurring
in shallow waters in winter. In March, winter flounder, ocean
pout, sculpin, and little skate appear nearshore. Later in the
summer, cunners, alewife, and lumpfish have been sited. In the
fall the process is reversed (TRIGOM, 1974).
Table 3-23 presents information on the life histories of several
species occurring in Massachusetts Bay (Bigelow and Schroeder,
1953; TRIGOM, 1975; Grosslein and Azaroute, 1982).
3.3.3.1 Finfish Community Composition in Massachusetts Bay
The species likely to occur in Massachusetts Bay, near the vicinity
of the MBDS, are listed in Table 3-24. All of these species are
widely distributed in the Gulf of Maine and North Atlantic waters
north of Cape Cod.
103
-------
44'
SUMMER TEMPERATURE
BARRIER
SO
NAUTICAL MILES
SOURCE: TRIGOM. 1974
Figure 3-30 General Movement of Migratory Fish Species in the
Northwestern Atlantic Ocean
104
-------
Table 3-22
Sezisonal Migration Characteristics of Some
Important Fish Species
Common Name
Species Name
I. Southern summer migrants (north to Cape Cod)
Summer flounder
Scup
Weakfish
Klngfish
Mullets
Black seabass
Filefishes
Pompanos
Northern puffer
Paralichthys dentatus
Stenotoaus chrysops
Cynoscion regal is
Meaticirrhus saxatilis
Hugil sp
Ceotropristes striata
Aluterus sp., Monacanthus sp.
caranx hippos and other species
Sphaeroides maculatus
II. Northern summer migrants (north into the Gulf of Maine)
Spiny dogfish
Silver hake
Red hake
White hake
American shad
Striped bass
Menhaden
Bluefish
Atlantic mackerel
Butterfish
Bluefin tuna
III. Southern winter dispersal
Atlantic herring
Atlantic cod
Pollock
Squalus acanthi as
Merluccius bilinearis
Urophycis chuss
Urophycis tenuis
Alosa sapidissima
Horone saxatilis
Brevoortia tyrannus
Pomatoaus saltatrix
Scomber scombrus
Peprilus triacanthus
Thunnus thynnus
Clupea harengus
Gadus morhua
Pollachius virens
Source: TRIGOM, 1971.
105
-------
Table 3-23 Summary of Fish Distribution and Life Histories
Western Atlantic
Range and Distribution
Common Name
Scientific Name
Spawnlnq Type
Spawnlnq Time
Spawnlnq Areas
Peed i nq
Blueftshe*
Bluefish
PoMtomidae
Pomatomus saltatrlx
Butterfishes Strcxsateldae
New York Right, southern New
Rnqland, and North Carolina In
summer and Florida in winter.
Codfishes
Atlantic
Cod
Gadldae
Gadua norhua
Newfoundland to Florida. Most
t *VJ S * t**j P ?? * n * h*» t> w« •» n Srti i f h #» r n HRW
Rnqlanil and Cape HAt.teraa.
Found around Iceland, southern
Greenland, and from Baffin Island
to North Carolina. New England
aubstock - Georges Rank, Gulf of
Maine (North of Provincetown, HA),
and southern New Rnqland.
Rnqs and larvae Junn-Aunust.
are pelagic. Peak in July.
Rqgs and larvae May-June
are oelagle.
Rggs and larvae
pelagic. Seek
bottom at 4 en.
Chiefly In winter.
Within a few miles of
bhore over most of
their range.
Consume fish (hutterclah, round,
herring, sand lance, menhaden
sllverslde, mackerel. And anchovy)
and Invertebrate." (shrimp, squids,
crabs, mysids, and annelid worms).
Offshore, 18m to edge Feeds on copepods, sirall fish,
of continental shelf, polychaetes, small jellyfish,
waters warmer than IS C. and garamarld amphlpods.
Not above Cape Cod.
Not below 90m Eastern
Georges Rank, Browns
Bank, Mass. Bay 3-10
miles off-shore,
Ipswich Bay.
Frequently feed on benthic inverte-
brates! crsbs, clams, mussels, and
molluscs.. Also eat fish.
Haddock
Pollock
Red Hake
Me1anogramnus
aeqlafinls
Pollachlu* vlrens
Urophycla chuss
Labrador to Florida.
Summer in Gulf of Maine.
Labrador to Florida.
Summer In Gulf of Maine.
Along continental shelf from
southern Nova Scotia to North
trated from the southwestern part
of Ceorgea BaKk to Hudson Shelf
Valley). Summer in area between
Martha's vineyard and Long Island
and on Georges Hank.
Bogs snd larvae
pelagic.
Eggs and larvae
pelagic.
Feb.-May. Peak in
March-April.
Nov.-March.
late Dec.
Peak,
Bqqs and larvae Summer.
pelagic.
Carolina. (Most heavily concen-
Flroken bottom of nixed
rock, gravel, mud and
sand. 4-7 C.
Various inv
stars, biva
amphlpods,
starfish, s
dollars, ae
rtebratea (brittle
ve mollusks, worms,
raba, gastropods,
a urchins, n.in.l
cucumbers, and
squid) and occasionally fish.
Chiefly region of Mas*. Primary plankton eaters. Moat
Bay. 27-90m. (-8 C. Important food Item is the euphasld
Meganyctiphones norveglca. Also cat
fish.
Relatively shoal water,
within 100m isobath.
Primarily feed on amphlpods.
Also eat flah, squid, shrimp, and
various invertebrates.
Silver Merlucclus
Hake hlllnearls
Found along the continental shelf
between South Carolina and the
between Cape .Sable, Nova Scotia,
and New York.
Rggs and larvae June-Sept.
pelagic. Principally in
Entire coaatsl zone
from Long Island to
slopes shoaler than
40m. Most Important
N t 6 of Cape Cod.
Opportunistic and
consists primarily
predacious. Diet
of fish, crusta-
106
-------
Table 3-23 (Continued) Summary of Pish Distribution and Life
Histories
Common Nan*
White
Hake
Dagf Ish
Shark!
Spiny
Dogfish
DnaBS
Weak f lah
Bel Pout*
Ocean Pout
Herring*
Alewlfe
American
Shad
Atlantic
Herring
Atlantic
Menharlen
Bluehack
Herrlnq
Klllif lahea
Hiunmlchoq
Scientific Name
tirophycia tenuis
Sqnalldae
Squalus acanthlaa
BelMnldM
Cynoscion recalls
loarcldaa
Macro* oarcea
doped! aa
Aloaa
paeudoharengua
Aloaa sapldlaalraa
Clupea harenqu*
harengxia
Brevoortia tyrannua
Alosa aeatlvalla
Cypr i nodont Idae
Fundu tun
net erocl itus
Western Atlantic
Range and Distribution
Same aa Red Hake.
Labrador to Florida.
Gulf of Maine in Summer.
Proa southern Florida to
Maaaachusetta Bay to Nova Scotia.
Pron Labrador to Delaware Bay*
Moat common fron the aouthern
to New Jeraey. Abundant off Long
laland in "Inter and aprinq.
Newfoundland to North Carolina
(centerinq between the Gulf of
Maine and Oieaapeak Bay). Aggregate
on the continental shelf between
Block laland and Cape May in aprlng.
Pron the St. Lawrence River,
Canada to the St. Johns River,
Florida.
Greenland and Labrador to Cape
Hatteras. Georges Dank in aprinq
and fall.
Maine to Florida. One of the more
abundant f lane's In the New York
Biqht, especially from May to
October.
Nova Scotia to Florida. Most
abundant south of New England.
Concentrated on the continental
shelf between southern New England
and Cane May in spring and in the
Gulf in Maine in autumn.
Labrador to Florida.
Summer In Gulf of Maine.
Spawn i nq Type
EQO.S and larvae
pelagic.
Omnlvoroua.
Eqas buoyant.
Eggs laid In
gelatinous
dememal .
Anadroraous.
Eqgs demersal.
Anadronous.
Eggs semi-buoyant
not sticky.
Eggs adhesive,
demersal.
Larvae pelagic.
Bnga and larvae
pe 1 ag 1 c .
Anadromous.
Eqga demersal.
Eqq
-------
Table 3-23
(Continued) Summary of Fish Distribution and Life
Histories
Common Name
Left eye
Plounders
Summer
Flounder
Scientific Nane
Bothldao
Parallchthya dentatua
Western Atlantic
Range and Distribution
Prom Nova Scotia to Florida.
Spawning Type
Eggs and larvae
are pelaqic.
Spawning Time
Sept. -Feb. In a north
to south progression.
Rarly Sept. for the
Gulf of Maine.
Spawning Areas
Deep water within 46ka
of shore, 12-19 C.
Feeding
Predominantly eat find. Hill also
consume rock crabs, squids,
shrimps, small bivalve molluscs,
saall crustaceans and snails,
marine and sand dollars.
rldae
Mackerels
mackerel
Porgles Boarldae
Scup Stenotomus chrysops
Rlghteya Plaoronactl&a*
Flounders
Hlnter Pseudopleuronectes
Flounder anarlcanua
Yellowtall Llmanda ferruqlnea
Flounder
Sand Lances Aacndytldae
American Ammodytes amerlcanus
Sand l.ance
Scorpionf ishes Scorpaenldae
Redfish or Sebastes marlnua
Ocean Perch
western North Atlantic from Black
!s!±r.4. L£*;r:4or to **e?L«fort.-
North Carolina. Gulf of St.
Lawrence In summer. Overwinter
on the continental shelf from Sable
Inland Rank to the Chesapeake Bay
reqlon.
Primarily found from Cape Hatteraa
to Cape Cod.
Occur In significant numbers from
Cape Cod Bay through the Gulf of
Maine. Proa Cape Hatteras to Nova
Scotia in spring and autumn.
Labrador to Chesapeake Ray. Moat
abundant In New York Bight, off
New England to Georges Bank, off
the south shore of Nova Scotia
near Sable Island, and on Grand
Rank. Between New York Right
and Georges Rank and as far
south as Delaware In Ray In spring.
Prom Cape Hatteraa to Hudson Rtw
and Greenland.
Island to Nest Greenland to
southeastern Labrador to
New England.
P.ggs and larvae
Eggs and larvae
are pelagic.
Eggs sink and
adhere (demersal,
nonbuoyantI.
Larvae have mimed
planktonlc-
benthlc behavior.
Bgqa and larvae
are pelagic.
Spring-early summer.
Peak Mav-June.
May-August.
Peak May-mld-July.
Jan.-May.
March-August.
Eggs-demersal,
adhesive.
Autumn and early
winter, late Nov.
-late March.
Eggs develop and Peak late .Tune to
hatch within the early July.
oviduct. Larvae
pelagic.
Primarily Chesapeake Bay Opportunistic. Peed largely on
to Cane Cnn*. 9-13 C. calanoM copeoods and oteropods.
no spawning grounds.
P.stusriea, bays and
inshore waters,
10-20 C. Not above
Cape Cod.
Consume coelenteratpn, polychactes,
crustaceans, molluscs, and
quantities of vegetable debris.
In shoal wster, 7m In Peed primarily on Invertebrates;
backwaters of bays and coelenteratea, nemertaana,
estuaries and on polychaetes, crustaceans, molluscs,
Georges Bank at 43n-72m. and aacldlana. will also consume
SC. Sandy bottom. plant materiel.
Water 46 to 64 meters Prey upon Invertebrates, primarily
deep, over ssnd bottom, small crustaceans Including
amphipods, polychaete worms, and
a few small molluscs.
Inshore and off-shore
above 27m. Sandy
bottom.
Roth Inshore and
offshore. Rocky and
hard ground. 2-9 C.
Predomlnently copei>O'1s. Also fend
upon crustacean larvae. Inver-
tebrate eggs, polychaets larvae,
larvaceana, fish eq-js, pteropoHs,
and clrrlpede larvae.
Eats various Invertebrates, espec-
ially crustaceans including!
mysdl euphasld, decapo.1 shrimps, &
small molluscs. Also eats fish.
-Cont inued-
108
-------
Table 3-23
(Continued) Summary of Fish
Histories
Distribution and Life
Common Name
Scientific Name
Western Atlantic
Range and Distribution
Spawning Type Spawning Time
Spawning Areas
Feeding
Bculplns
Lonqhorn
Sculpln
8llver*ldes
.".£ i »£ I —
Sliveraide
Skate*
Little
Skate
Smelt*
Rainbow
Smelt
Sturgeon*
Short-nosed
Sturgeon
Temperate
Baaaea
Striped Bass
Trout*
Atlantic
Salmon
Wrasse*
Cunner
Tautog
Cottldae
Hyoxocephalus
octodeeemplnosus
AtherlnldM
Rajldae
Raja erlnacea
eridae
Osneru* mordax
AclpenMrldaa
Aclpenser
brevlroatrun
.PerclchthylIda*
Horone saxatlll*
Balsnnldae
Salmo aalar
Labrldae
Tautoqolabrua
adspersus
Tautoga onttla
Eastern Newfoundland to New Jersey.
Commonly found In Block Island
Round from November through April
and oft New York from September
to May.
Labrador to Florida.
Cimxr In Gul f of Maine. Pxtremelv
abundant south of Cape Cod.
North Carolina to the southern side
of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Aggregate off eastern Long Island
during spring.
Labrador to Florida.
Gulf of Maine In si
Oulf of Maine. A rare and
endangered apeclea.
Canada to northern Florida. Center
of abundance lies between Cape Cod
and Cap* Hatteras.
Fran Greenland to Massachusetts.
From Newfoundland to the mouth of
Cheaapeake Bay., Moat abundant In
Massachusetts Ray and between
Cape Cod and Long Island.
June-August.
Bqqs demersal, May-July. Primarily
adhesive, larvae May and early June.
pelagic.
Fertilisation Is All year.
Internal) lays
eggs.
Anadromous. Once a year.
Eggs adhesive, March-May.
demersal} larvae
pelagic.
crabs.
Anadromous. Late April (In
lower Hudson).
Anadromous. Rggs May-early June.
and larvae are
pelagic. Eggs
semi-buoyant.
Anadromoua.
Pqgn demersal.
Eggs and larvae
are pelagic.
Eastern shore of Nova Scotia to Eggs and larvae
South Carolina. Center of dlstrlbu- are pelagic.
tlon lies between Cape Cod and
Delaware Capes.
Late Oct.- early Nov.
May-Oct.
Early to mid-summer.
May-August.
Bays and sounds.
Not above Cape Cod.
Shallow bays and
marshes, 15-22 C,
over sandy bottoms.
Not deeper than 27n
on sandy bottoms.•
Fresh or barely
brackish coastal
atreama. 4-12 C.
Spawns In rivers.
Feed primarily on Crustacea,
particularly Cancer crabs. Also
consume fish fry and are considered
to be significant herring egg
predators.
Omnivorous.
Predominantly prey upon benthlc
Invertebratesi primarily decapods.
amphlpods, laopods, polychaetes,
and molluscs. Mso eat fish.
Feeds on small crustaceans, primar-
ily decapods, my a Ida, and
gaasnarlda. Alao feed on,small fish
ahellflsh, squid, annelid worms, ad
Brackish to fresh water Opportunistic. Mostly consume
of Hudson River 14-15 C, shad, river herring, and menhaden.
as high as 20 C. Also, est crabs, shrimp, squid,
clams, and other inutrtebratea.
Streams, level
gravelly bottom.
P.ata small fish (herring, capelln,
and whiting) and amphlpods and
shrimp.
Throughout their range. Omnivorous.
coastal, 10-11 C.
Lower estuaries and
shallow coastal areas.
Feed on Invertebrates (chiefly
univalve and bivalve molluscs.
Chiefly below Cape Cod. mussels, and barnacles). Also eat
crabs, sand dollars, scallops,
amphlpods, shrimps, Islpods, and
lobsters. May also prey upon sea
worms.
Source! Adapted from Blqelnw and Rhroeder, 195); TRIcriM, 1984; Hrosslein and Azarnvltz, 1982.
109
-------
Table 3-24
Common Fish Species of the Gulf of Maine Likely to
Occur in the MBDS Vicinity
Cmmmn name
Scientific name
Distribution'
.a
Substrate
Economic
Habitatb Preference6 Valued
Spiny dogfish
Little skate
Barndoor skate
Winter skate
Thorny skate
Blueback herring
Aleuife
American shad
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic herring
Goosefish
Fourbeard rockI ing
Atlantic cod
Haddock
Silver hake
Pollack
Red hake
White hake
Cusk
Ocean pout
Bluefish
Scup
Cunner
Snakeblenny
Daubed shanny
Radiated shanny
Wrymouth
Rock gunnel
Atlantic wolfish
American sandlance
Atlantic mackerel
Bluefin tuna
Butterfish
Redfish
Northern searobin
Sea raven
Shorthorn sculpin
Longhorn sculpin
Alligatorfish
Lumpfish
Fourspot flounder
Windoupane
Witch flounder
American plaice
Yellowtail flounder
Winter flounder
Squalus. acanthi as
Raja erinacea
Raja Itievis
Raja ocellata
Raja rtidiata
Alosa nestivalis
Alosa pseudoharengus
Alosa !;apidissima
Brevooi-tia tyrannus
dupe a harengus
Lophius americanus
Enchelvopus cimbrius
Gadus riorhua
Helanojirammus aeglef inis
Her luceius bilinear is
Pollacliius virens
Urophysis chuss
Urophysis tenuis
Brosme brosme
Macrozoarces americanus
Pomatoimjs saltatrix
Stenotcxnus chrysops
Tautogolabrus adspersus
Lumpenus iumpretaeformis
Lumpenus maculatus
Ulvariii subbifureata
Cryptai:anthodes maculatus
Pholis gunnel Ius
Anarhii:has I upas
Amroodyres hexopterus
Scomber seombrus
Thunnus thynnus
PepriIus triacanthus
Sebastiis marinus
Prionotus carolinus
Hemitripterus americanus
Myoxoc'?phalus scorpius
Myoxoc'iphalus octodecimspinosus
Aspidoiahoroides moropteryqius
Cyclopterus lumpus
Parali:hthys oblongus
Scopthalmus aquosus
Glypto:ephalus cynoglossus
Hippoglossoidcs platessoides
limanda ferruginea
Pseudopleuronectes americanus
nearshore to offshore (sm) P-D
nearshore to offshore D P.S.M
nearshore to offshore D SM,S,G
nearshore to offshore D
offshore to oceanic (bk, bs) D S,G,SH,SM
estuarine to coastal (sm) P C
freshwater to coastal P C,S
freshwater to coastal (sm) P S
coastal (sm) P C
coastal (bk) P C
nearshore to oceanic D HS,P,G,S,SH,SM
nearshore to offshore D SHS
coastal to oceanic (bk) D-P R,S,SH,G C,S
coastal to offshore D-P G.CL.S.SH C.S
coastal to offshore (sm) P-D S,G,H C
coastal (bk) P-D C.S
nearshore to oceanic (sm) D SB C
nearshore to oceanic (sm) D SB C
coastal to oceanic (bk) D R S
nearshore to coastal (bk, bs) D S,G,R C
nearshore to offshore (sm) P S
nearshore to offshore (sm) D SM,R
nearshore to offshore (cbk) D R
nearshore to offshore D H,HB
offshore (bs) D
nearshore to coastal (bs) D HB
nearshore to offshore (bs) D SM
nearshore to offshore (cbk) D P,G,R
nearshore to offshore D HB
nearshore, banked edges D S
coastal to offshore (sm) P C.S
coastal to oceanic (sm) P C.S
nearshore to offshore (sm) P-D
nearshore to oceanic (bk, bs) D-P R.HB.M C.S
nearshore to offshore D SHB
nearshore to offshore D HS,R,P,HC
nearshore to coastal D SB,M,S,P
estuarine to offshore (bk) D
coastal (bk, bs) D P.S.SM
nearshore to coastal D R
coastal to offshore (bk) D
nearshore to coastal D S
coastal to oceanic (bk, bs) D H.CL.HS C
coastal to oceanic (bk, bs) D S,H,SB C
coastal to offshore (bk) D S,M-S C
estuaries to offshore (bk) D SB,MS C.S
Nearshore = to 15 m; Coastal = to 91 m; Offshore = 91 m to Continental slope; Oceanic = open ocean; bs = deep basins
of the Gulf of Maine; bk = shallow offshore banks; cbk = coastal banks; sm = seasonal migrant to the Gulf of Maine
P = pelagic; D = demersal
C = commercially important; S = sportfish
CL = clay; G = gravel;
P = pebbles; R = rock;
HB = hard bottom; HC = hard clay; HS = hard sand; M = mud; MS = muddy sand; M-S = mud-sand;
S = sand; SB = soft bottom; SH = shells; SM = soft mud; SHS = smooth muddy sand
Source: Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; BLM, 1977; Clayton et al.,
1978; Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982; and TRIGOM, 1974
110
-------
Although the majority of species likely to be present in the
vicinity of MBDS are year round residents in Massachusetts Bay, 12
species are seasonal (mostly summer) migrants. Approximately 80%
of the species likely to occur near the MBDS are demersal or
semi-demersal. Twenty one species, including nine seasonal
migrants, are: important to commercial and sport fisheries (Table
3-24).
NMFS bottom trawl data from 1979 to 1984 (at depths greater than
60 meters), within six nautical miles of the MBDS center point,
captured 36 species of fish (COE, 1988). Yields from bottom trawls
are summarized in Table 3-25 (data from individual trawls are
presented in COE, 1988). The most frequently occurring species in
spring and feill surveys were American plaice, witch flounder, red
hake, silver hake, Atlantic cod, ocean pout, and longhorn sculpin.
Both juveniles and adults of most species were present. American
plaice was predominate throughout the year, and generally accounted
for the largest percentage of total catch by weight. American
plaice is on€: of the most common species captured in bottom trawls
in Massachusetts Bay (Lux and Kelly, 1978, 1982).
Principal subdominates found in spring trawls included Atlantic
cod, ocean pout, and witch flounder. Subdominates in fall included
silver hake, red hake, Atlantic cod, and Atlantic herring. All
these species are common in Massachusetts Bay and most are
important commercially (Lux and Kelly, 1978, 1982).
Trawl yields indicate that a moderately productive fishery exists
in the vicinity of MBDS. Small seasonal variation was seen in fish
caught with trawls.
3.3.3.2 Finfish Community Composition at MBDS
Studies conducted during 1985 and 1986 documented the occurrence
of 32 fish species at the MBDS (COE, 1988) . Trawls were conducted
at two stations off of MBDS: one sandy bottom area and one muddy
bottom area,, as well as two locations on MBDS (SAIC, 1987) .
Overall, these studies suggest that American plaice, witch
flounder, and redfish are predominate non-migratory demersal
species present at MBDS. Principal seasonal migrants are silver
hake, red hake, and spiny dogfish.
In June 1985 approximately 90% of fish caught in gill nets were
spiny dogfish (COE, 1988) . Spiny dogfish are seasonal migrants to
the Gulf of Maine and schools are common in Massachusetts Bay
during the spring and fall (Bigelow and Shroeder, 1953).
Commercial fisherman indicate that dogfish typically arrive in the
vicinity of MBDS in late May through early June. Other fish found
at MBDS included snakeblenny, ocean pout, flounder, and sculpin
(COE, 1988). Snakeblenny, a small demersal fish, was most common
on mud/clay substrate. Ocean pout and sculpins were predominate
on cobble. Sand lance larvae were noted on mud/clay bottom.
Ill
-------
Table 3-25 Summary of NMPS Survey Bottom Trawls in the MBD8
Vicinity (1979 to 1984)
% by Number of Total Catch
Common name Winter Spring Summer Fall
American plaice 66 67 80 29
Winter flounder 5 14 00
Pollack 8000
Witch flounder 2071
Atlantic cod <1 1 2 9
Silver hake 6 0 0 18
Ocean pout 1303
Atlantic herring 5 0 0 <1
Alewife <1 0 0 23
Redfish 1 0 00
Sea raven <1 0 0 0
Thorny skate 0321
American sandlance 0500
Winter skate 0 <1 00
Spiny dogfish 0010
Red hake 0034
Fourspot flounder 0 0 1 0
Golden redfish 0005
Goosefish 0 0 0 <1
Source: COE, 1988
112
-------
Predominate species caught in October 1985 were redfish and
American plaice. Silver hake, red hake, thorny skate, witch
flounder, cusk, ocean pout, atlantic wolffish, and Atlantic cod
were the principal subdominates (COE, 1988) .
Predominate species captured in the February 1986 COE trawls at
MBDS were American plaice, cusk, ocean pout, redfish, witch
flounder, and silver hake (COE, 1988). Species characteristic of
mud bottom and cobble were obtained.
Species reported from MBDS by fishermen, but not caught in other
studies, were bluefish and bluefin tuna. Both are pelagic, summer
migrants to Gulf of Maine.
3.3.3.3 Fish Abundance in Relation to Bottom Conditions at MBDS
Although the available data does not allow a rigorous evaluation
of fish communities at MBDS on dredged material versus relatively
undisturbed substrates, some comparisons are possible. Submersible
observations suggest that dredged material recently deposited
within MBDS may support fewer fish than natural mud or cobble
bottom (SAIC, 1987). Replicated bottom trawls in October at MBDS
(station OFF) and a nearby reference location caught similar
numbers of fish (COE, 1988). Mean catch weight, however, was
significantly lower within MBDS. Although American plaice was the
most abundant species at both locations, witch flounder was the
most abundant species by weight at MBDS. The relative importance
of other species at the two sites varied. Witch flounder and
redfish were principal subdominates on dredged material, while
silver and red hake were the principle subdominates at the
reference location. Mean length of American plaice caught within
MBDS was slightly less than for those caught at the reference
location, although this difference was not statistically
significant (SAIC, 1987).
As discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.3.6, the differences in
weight and dominant species inside MBDS versus outside the site is
probably owing to differences in prey size. Witch flounder feed
on smaller prey than American plaice. Since smaller prey is more
abundant inside MBDS than outside, there is a greater biomass of
witch flounder inside MBDS.
3.3.3.4 Commercial Fisheries Near MBDS
Based on fisheries landing data from NMFS and MDMF as well as
interviews with local fisherman, a viable commercial fishery
appears to exists in the vicinity of MBDS (SAIC, 1987). Catch is
dominated by American plaice and witch flounder. Wolfish, redfish,
cusk, haddock, and pollock are caught in lesser amounts. Witch
flounder and American plaice are caught throughout the year on soft
bottom. Reddish and wolffish are occasionally caught on or near
patches of hard bottom. Directed fisheries capture silver hake in
113
-------
the fall and pollock in the winter. There is also a directed
fishery for spiny dogfish on Stellwagen Bank during summer and
fall. Winter flounder and yellowtail flounder are caught near the
MBDS but are more abundant in shallower inshore waters. Cod are
caught by directed fisheries in late winter and spring. Herring
are caught on Stellwagen Bank and in Massachusetts Bay, southwest
of MBDS.
NMFS commercial catch statistics from the vicinity of the MBDS
indicate that the area is a productive fishery resource. Average
finfish and shellfish yields for 1982-1984 from the NMFS "10 minute
square" which includes the MBDS was 6,316,000 kg (Table 3-26).
Although this 10 minute square represents <3% of the NMFS
statistical area (514) which includes Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts
Bay, and Stellwagen Bank, it accounted for approximately 11% of
total landings for the area in 1984 (see Section 3.4.4).
Target species of sportfishermen near MBDS include cod, cusk,
haddock, mackerel, bluefish, and bluefin tuna. Wolffish, flounder,
and pollock are also caught.
3.3.3.5 Occurrence of spawning and Fish Larvae at MBDS
At any given time a number of different species are likely to be
spawning at or near MBDS. Most species spawn during a period of
several months, and over a wide geographical area. Common species
which spawn in open water near MBDS include American plaice, silver
hake, witch flounder, and Atlantic mackerel. MBDS is within the
principal spawning grounds of silver hake and pollock (TRIGOM,
1974). At its closest point, the major spawning ground for
Atlantic cod in Massachusetts Bay is 8 nmi southwest of MBDS
(Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).
Although specific data concerning the occurrence and abundance of
fish eggs and larvae at MBDS are lacking, information is available
from nearby coastal stations at Seabrook, New Hampshire and
Plymouth, Massachusetts (Normandeau, 1985; Boston Edison, 1986; Lux
and Kelly, 1978) . Given the proximity of Seabrook and Plymouth to
MBDS, and water circulation patterns in the Gulf of Maine, it is
likely that these data will, at least qualitatively, identify
seasonal ichthyoplankton peaks at MBDS.
Highest concentrations of planktonic eggs occur from June through
August at Seabrook and during June and July at Plymouth (COE,
1988). Eggs of cunner, yellowtail flounder, mackerel, hakes, and
rockling are predominate during the summer peak at both Seabrook
and Plymouth. Although concentrations of planktonic eggs are low
from October through April, substantial numbers of demersal eggs
may be present at this time, in suitable habitats. Among demersal
spawners, eggs of American sand lance and Atlantic herring appear
to be predominate in the Gulf of Maine during the fall and winter.
114
-------
Table 3-26 Average Commercial Fisheries Catch in the vicinity of
the MBDS (1982 to 1984)a
Commercial landings
Common name 1000's of kg % of total
Atlantic cod 1861 29
American plaice 1036 16
Winter flounder 692 11
Yellowtail flounder 636 10
Haddock 428 7
Witch flounder 406 6
Silver hake 312 5
Pollock 304 5
Menhaden 184 3
Herring 174 3
Spiny dogfish 95 2
Shrimp 85 1
Wolfish 42 1
Red hake 39 1
Lobster 17 <1
Summer flounder 5 <1
Total: 6316
8 Catch from 10' square centered at 40° 25'; 70° 35'
Source: COE, 1988
115
-------
Planktonic larvae are most abundant in Massachusetts Bay during
May and June (Table 3-27). Atlantic mackerel and cunner are the
predominate species at this time. Secondary peaks dominated by
American sand lance (January to May) and Atlantic herring
(September to December) also occur. Planktonic larvae exhibit a
weakly bimodal distribution at Plymouth, with peaks occurring in
April and June (COE, 1988). American sand lance and sculpins are
predominate in spring, while Atlantic mackerel, cunner, and
rockling are predominant in summer.
In the Gulf of Maine, American sand lance, Atlantic herring,
Atlantic mackerel, cunner, and redfish larvae are most abundant.
The seasonal occurrence and peak concentrations of predominant
Massachusetts Bay larval fishes are presented in Table 3-27.
Highest reported concentrations are of American sand lance
(December to April), Atlantic mackerel (May to June), and Atlantic
herring (September to November) (Morse et al., 1987).
3.3.3.6 Food Utilization
Most species exhibit some degree of preference for certain prey
groups. Feeding preferences may vary with season, geographic
location, age:, and the relative abundance of available prey items.
Feeding efficiency of Witch flounder and American plaice caught at
the MBDS are summarized in Table 3-28.
The Benthic Resources Analysis Technique ("BRAT") was used to
examine trophic relationships between various invertebrate groups
and demersal fish with prey availability as determined by
quantitative benthic samples (Lunz and Kendall, 1982). Fish and
benthic samples for this analysis were taken at MBDS and at Station
REF (SAIC, 1<)87) .
The analysis of feeding strategy groups focused primarily on
American plaice and Witch flounder, the most common finfish at MBDS
and the reference location. These species predominantly preyed on
benthic invertebrates. Fish were placed into three primary feeding
strategy groups based on prey size preference as determined from
stomach cont«;nt analysis (COE, 1988) . Group I consisted primarily
of small American plaice and Witch flounder feeding on small prey
at MBDS. Group II generally consisted of intermediate sized fish
which exploited a range of prey sizes at both MBDS and the
reference location. Group III consisted of large plaice or witch
flounder feeding on large prey at either MBDS or the reference
location.
Biomass of potential invertebrate prey at MBDS is summarized in
Figure 3-31. Total prey biomass available at the three sites was
similar. Dredged material and natural bottom at MBDS, however,
yielded much greater quantities of small prey relative to the
reference area. Prey biomass on dredged material, and to a lesser
116
-------
Table 3-27 Occurence and Abundance of Larval Fish in
Massachusetts Bay
Common name
Occurence and Abundance
JFMAMJJASOND
Pollack
American sancllance
American pla:Lce
Haddock
Atlantic mackerel
Redfish
Atlantic cod
Yellowtail flounder
Windowpane
Witch flounder
Gunner
Hakes (Urophvcis spp.)
Silver hake
Atlantic herring
H M M M M M
VH VH VH M M M
H H M
L M M
VH VH H M
L L M M
M H H M
M M M M
L L
M H
H
M M M L L
L M M
VH
L
M M
L L
H M M M L L
H H H M L L
M H H M M
M H H H M M L
VH VH VH H
8 Based on Offshore MARMAP Surveys from 1977 to 1984
b Maximum Reported Concentrations per 100 m2
VH: 1,001 to 10,000
H: 101 to 1,000
M: 11 to 100
L: 1 to 10
Source: Morse et al., 1987
117
-------
Table 3-28 Feeding Efficiency of witch flounder and American
plaice at MBDS as indicated by weight of stomach
contents
Common name
Witch flounder
Size class (cm)
10 to 14.9
15 to 19.9
20 to 24.9
25 to 29.9
30+
10 to 14.9
15 to 19.9
20 to 24.9
25 to 29.9
30+
1 n = number of fish analyzed
Source: COE, 1988
American plaice
Mean weight of food per
stomach (g)
MBDS (n)
0.02 (3)
0.20 (11)
0.40 (10)
0.50 (20)
0.60 (20)
0.01 (11)
0.07 (20)
0.13 (20)
0.65 (16)
0.79 (7)
REF (n)
0.17 (1)
0.16 (5)
0.23 (6)
0.18 (5)
0.55 (20)
0.01 (20)
0.04 (20)
0.06 (20)
0.31 (20)
1.31 (13)
118
-------
Dredged material
Natural bottom
Reference
0.50 1.00 2.00 3.35
Prey Size (mm)
(retaining sieve size)
6.35
Figure 3-31 Biomass of Potential Invertebrate Prey at MBDS
Source: COE, 1988
119
-------
extent on natural bottom at MBDS, was concentrated near the surface
(SAIC, 1987).,
Prey biomass available to the various feeding strategy groups is
summarized in Figure 3-32. Dredged material yielded greater
quantities of prey biomass available to Group I, and II than
natural bottom within MBDS, or the reference location. The
reference location and natural bottom within MBDS provided greater
amounts of prey biomass than where dredged material had been
deposited for Group III fish. This analysis suggests that disposal
activities at MBDS may have enhanced food resource availability for
relatively small American plaice and witch flounder. Disposal of
dredged material, and resulting changes in prey size distribution,
may have reduced habitat suitability for larger American plaice.
This would explain the greater biomass of witch flounder at Station
ON than at Station OFF and the greater biomass of American plaice
at Station OFF than at Station ON.
3.3.3.7 Shellfish Resources
Limited information is available concerning shellfish resources in
the vicinity of MBDS. General distribution maps indicate that
American lobster, Homarus americanus; sea scallops, Placopecten
maqellanicus; longfin squid, Loligo pealei; shortfin squid, Illex
illecebrosus; and ocean quahog, Artica islandica occur in eastern
Massachusetts Bay (Grosslein and Azarovitz 1982) . Bottom trawls
near MBDS captured these species as well as small numbers of rock
crab, Cancer irroratus. and jonah crab, Cancer borealis (Table
3-29) .
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") does not recommend
commercial shellfishing within MBDS. A lobster fisherman, however,
indicated that substantial yields of apparently high quality
lobsters are possible at MBDS. The fisherman reported that
lobsters were absent from MBDS in the summer through September
(COE, 1988). Lobsters are typically concentrated inside Boston
Harbor in the summer and are abundant in Massachusetts Bay in fall
and winter.
General information concerning habitat preference and life history
of commercicilly important shellfish species at MBDS is presented
in Table 3-30. Several species show pronounced seasonal movements.
Short-fin sqiiid and long-fin squid are summer migrants, and likely
to be absent at MBDS from late fall through spring. Northern
shrimp show a pronounced shoreward migration in fall. Lobsters are
likely to be present during late fall, winter, and early spring,
but absent during the summer.
Spawning by squid, or release of newly hatched larvae by northern
shrimp and lobsters, does not occur in the vicinity of MBDS. Ocean
quahog eggs and larvae may occur near MBDS from June through fall.
Sea scallop eggs and larvae may occur near MBDS from September
120
-------
ai
in
a
B <-
o ts
«rt J
CO "*
II
M
III
Feeding Strategy Group
• Dredged material
B Natural bottom
D Reference
Figure 3-32 Prey Biomass Available to Various Feeding Strategy
Groups at MBDS
Source: COE, 1988
121
-------
Table 3-29 Invertebrates Captured in NMF8 Bottom Trawls in the
Vicinity of the MBDS (1979 to 1984)
Mean number caught per trawl
Common name Spring Summer Fall Winter
Short-fin squid 0 39 20 0
Long-fin squid 0 0 26 0
Lobster 7 065
Rock crab 0 0 <1 0
Jonah crab 0 100
Sea scallops 4000
Number of trawls: 4 153
Source: COE,, 1988
122
-------
Table 3-30
Life History Characteristics of Commercially Important
Invertebrates at MBDS
Spec i es
American lobster
Homarus americanus
Rock crab
Cancer irroratus
Jonah crab
Cancer boreal is
Red crab
Geryon quinquedens
Northern shrimp
Panda I us boreal is
Short-fin squid
11 lex illecebrosus
~..ig-fin squid
Loligo pealei
Sea scallops
Placopecten magellanicus
Ocean quahog
Arctica islandica
Habitat preference
Depth: 0 to 700 m; prefers
irregular bottom, but freq.
occur on mud or sand
Depth: 0 to 600 m; sand or mud,
sometimes gravel
Oepi:h:
bouom
0 to 800 m; prefers rocky
Dep"h: prin. 320 to 640 m;
pre-fers silty clay, found on
both hard and soft bottom
Deprh: 9 to 329 m; prin. 100
to 250 m; prefer unconsolidated
bofcom (mud, sand, silt)
peliigic
pel.agic
Depth: 0 to 200 m; prin. 40
to 100 m; sand or silty sand
Depth: prin. 11 to 250 m;
most abundant on soft sandy
mud or silty sand
Seasonality
moves nearshore during
spring and summer;
prob. absent from HBDS
Jun to Sep
young move inshore fall,
winter, and spring
small to medium sized
individuals found
nearshore seasonally
adults move inshore
during winter
Reproduction
mating occurs Hay to Jul;
eggs held by female until
following summer; larvae
pelagic for 3 to 6 weeks
mating occurs late fall
early winter (Maine); eggs
held by female until Jun to
Aug; larvae pelagic 1.5 to 2 m
mating season Jun to Dec;
larvae pelagic, late spring
to summer
mating occurs Sep to early
summer; eggs held by female until
hatching (Apr to Jun); larvae
pelagic for prolonged period
mating occurs Aug to Sep;
eggs held by female until
hatching (Feb to Apr); larvae
pelagic for 2 months (inshore)
migratory between coastal spawning occurs prin. offshore
and offshore; prob. most on coastal shelf
common at HBDS from summer
through early autumn
same as Short-fin squid
no directed movements
or seasonal migrations
no directed movements
or seasonal migrations
spawning occurs Apr to Sep;
eggs demersal in clusters at 3
to 30 m
spawning Sep to Oct;
larval period 35 days
spawning occurs late Jun
to early Oct (peak Aug);
60 day larval period
Source:
Fefer and Schettig, 1980; Grosslein and Azarovitz,
1982; Morse et al., 1987; TRIGOM, 1974; Williams, 1984
123
-------
through November. Crabs mate near MBDS from fall through early
summer. Larval crabs may be present at MBDS during spring, summer,
and early fall.
3.3.4 Mammals, Reptiles/ and Birds
The shelf waters of the northeastern United States can be separated
into three major oceanographic regimes which differ in terms of
bottom topography, sea water temperature, and salinity: the Gulf
of Maine, Georges Bank, and the mid-Atlantic Bight (Bumpus 1976;
Edwards 1983). Movement of large mammals and turtles are typically
studied over regional bases because of their extensive migratory
ranges.
The Gulf of Maine is within the range of approximately ten species
of marine mammals, two species of marine turtles and approximately
32 species of seabirds. Aerial surveys have confirmed these
findings. Tables 3-31 through 3-34 list the mammals, reptiles, and
birds that may inhabit the MBDS. Several threatened and endangered
species found in the vicinity of MBDS are discussed in detail in
Section 3.3.5. Other commonly occurring species are discussed
below.
3.3.4.1 Mammals
3.3.4.1.1 Minke Whale
The minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata. is the smallest member
of the family Balaenopteridae. The range of the minke whale in the
northwest Atlantic extends across shelf waters from Baffin Island,
Ungava Island and Hudson Strait south to the Gulf of Mexico and the
Caribbean Seei (Sergeant, 1963; Mitchell, 1974c; Leatherwood et al.,
1976; Winn and Perkins, 1976). Seasonal north-south, onshore and
offshore movements (similar to that of the finback whale) are
likely. Minke whale sightings in all but excellent conditions are
limited due to the inconspicuousness of the species; therefore
seasonal trends are more difficult to determine. However, during
spring and summer, the range of the minke whale in the northwest
Atlantic extends north from Cape Hatteras.
Minke whales occupy wide regions of the shelf, especially in spring
and summer. The area of greatest abundance as described by CETAP
(1982) is a U-shaped area extending east from Montauk Point, Long
Island, southeast of Nantucket Shoals to the Great South Channel,
then northward along the 100 m contour outside Cape Cod to
Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge. All sightings south of Nova
Scotia from mid-April to October generally are concentrated in this
region (Main et al. 1981). In late summer, their range extends
into the northern Gulf of Maine, and their range is contracted in
fall and winter. Although winter sightings are reported from the
Gulf of Mexico (Gunter 1954), northeast Florida and the Bahamas
(Katona et al., 1977) winter sightings in shelf waters southeast
124
-------
Table 3-31
List of whales, dolphins/ and porpoises which commonly
(C) or rarely (R) occur in the waters of the Gulf of
Maine
Species
Scientific Name
Status
Suborder: Mysticeti (Baleen Whales)
Family: Balaenopteridae
Blue Whale
Finback Whal€:
Minke Whale
Sei Whale
Humpback Whale
Family: Balaenidae
Northern Right Whale
Family: Ziphiidae
Northern Bott.lenosed Whale
Dense-beaked Whale
True's Beaked Whale
North Sea Beaked Whale
Balaenoptera musculus Endangered R
Balaenoptera phvsalus Endangered C
Balaenoptera acutorostrata C
Balaenoptera borealis Endangered R
Meqaptera novaeanqliae Endangered C
Eubalaena glacialis
Hvperoodon ampullatus
Mesplodon densirostris
Mesplodon mirus
Mesplodon bidens
Endangered C
R
R
R
R
Suborder: Odontoceti (Toothed Whales)
Family: Phocoenidae
Harbor Porpoise Phocoena phocoena
Family: Delphinidae
Bottlenosed Dolphin
Spotted Dolphin
Striped Dolphin
Common Dolphin
White-sided Dolphin
White-beaked Dolphin
Grampus (Risssa's Dolphin)
Atlantic Pilot whale
Killer Whale
Family: Physeteridae
Sperm Whale
Pygmy Sperm Whale
Family: Monodcnitdae
Beluga
Tursipos truncatus R
Stenella plagiodon/attenuata R
Stenella coerueoalba R
Delphinus delphis C
Laqenorhvnchus acutus C
Lagenorhvnchus albirostris C
Grampus griseus R
Globicephala melaena C
Orcinus orca R
Physeter macrocephalus
Koqia breviceps
Delphinapterus leucas
Endangered R
R
Sources: Hain et al., 1981; CETAP, 1982; Katona et al., 1983;
Payne
-------
Table 3-32 List of rare (R) and commonly (C) occurring marine
turtles in the waters of the Gulf of Maine
Species Scientific Name Status
Family: Cheloniidae
Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta Threatened C
Green Turtle Chelonia mydas Endangered R
Atlantic Ridleys Turtle Lepidochelys kempi Endangered C
Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered R
Family: Dermochelydae
Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered C
Source: French, 1986
126
-------
Table 3-33 Lis1; of rare (R) and commonly (C) occurring pinnipeds
in coastal waters of the Gulf of Maine
Species Scientific Name Status
Family: Phocidae (True or Hair Seals)
Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina concolor C
Ringed Seal Phoca hispida R
Gray Seal Halichoerus grypus C
Harp Seal Pagophilus groenlandicus R
Hooded Seal Cystophora cristata R
Family Odobeniclae
Atlantic Walrus Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus R
Source: Katona «t al., 1983
127
-------
Table 3-34 Seasonal occurrence of seabirds in the Gulf of Maine
Species Winter Spring Summer Fall
Common Loon X X X X
Gavia immer
Red-throated Loon X X
Gavia stellata
Northern Fulmar X X X X
Fulmarus qlacialis
Cory's Shearwater X X
Puffinus diomedea
Greater Shearwater X XX
Puffinus qravis.
Sooty Shearwater X
Puffinus griseus
Manx Shearwater X X
Puffinus puffinus
Leach's Storm-Petrel X
Oceanodroma lu€!corhoa
Wilson's Storm-P«2trel XXX
Oceanites oceariicus
Northern Phalarope X X X X
Phalaropus lobcitus
Pomarine Jaeger X X
Stercorarius pomarinus
Parasitic Jaeger X XX
Stercorarius parasiticus
Glausous Gull X X
Larus hvperbureus
Iceland Gull
Larus qlaucoides
Great Black-backed Gull X
Larus marinus
Herring Gull X
Larus argentatus
Ring-billed Gull X
Larus delawarensis
128
-------
Table 3-34 (continued) Seasonal occurrence of seabirds in the Gulf
of Maine
Species
Laughing Gull
Larus artricilla
Bonaparte's Gull
Larus Philadelphia
Black-legged Kittiwake
Rissa tridactyla
Cross Tern
Sterna hirundo
Arctic Tern
Sterna paradissea
Least Tern
Sterna albifrons
Alcidae spp.
White-winged Scoter
Melanitta deqla.ndi
Black Scoter
Melanitta negri
Surf Scoter
Melanitta perspicillata
Common Eider
Somateria mollisima
Red-breasted Merganser
Mergus serrator
Double-crested Cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritas
Great Cormorant
Phalacrocorax carbo
Old squaw
Clanqula hyemalis
Northern gannet
Sula bassanus
Winter
X
X
Spring
X
X
X
Summer
X
X
X
Fall
X
X
X
X
Source: COE, 1988
129
-------
of Nantucket (south of 40° 00' N) are rare.
Minke whales are secondary and tertiary carnivores that feed
primarily on schooling fish and euphausids (Sergeant, 1963;
Mitchell, 1973, 1974b, 1974c, 1975c; Leatherwood et al., 1976;
Jonsgard, 1982) . In the Gulf of Maine, minke whales eat fish,
especially herring and sand eel (Katona et al., 1977).
Owing to the limited detectability of this species at sea,
abundance estimates based on sighting data likely are biased
downward. In the Gulf of Maine, abundance estimates from shipboard
surveys (MBO, 1980 to 1985) range from 30 (winter) to 520 (summer) .
Estimates resulting from CETAP (1982) surveys range from 0 (winter)
to 113 (summer).
Minke whales commonly are observed in the northern Stellwagen/
southern Jeffreys Ledge area from March until November of each
year. Overwintering in the area may occur, although survey
coverage was limited during the winter period. While all areas are
used by minkes, southern Jeffreys Ledge seems to be the preferred
habitat.
Recent site specific studies have described two peaks in minke
whale abundance in the study area during the year: 1) minkes were
seen commonly in the spring, and during this time, they are usually
alone, with other conspecifics in the vicinity and 2) the largest
concentrations are observed during late summer and early fall.
Aggregations of 15 to 20 animals are not uncommon at this time.
During 1984 these concentrations were found on Jeffreys Ledge.
During 1985 they were seen on northern Stellwagen.
Surface feeding by minke whales has been reported, but most feeding
seems to take place below the surface. Breaching, commonly
reported in other areas, has only been observed in the MBDS area
on three occasions. Only twice have minkes small enough to be
considered calves been observed within MBDS.
3.3.4.1.2 Atlantic Pilot Whale
The Atlantic pilot whale, Globicephala melaena. is common from
Greenland, Iceland, and the Faeroe Islands (Saemundsson, 1939;
Sergeant, 1958; Kapel, 1975; Mercer, 1975; Mitchell, 1975) south
to at least Cape Hatteras (Leatherwood et al., 1976; Katona et al.,
1981; CETAP, 1982) and east across the north Atlantic to European
waters (Brown, 1961) .
From Cape Hatteras to northeast Georges Bank, including the Gulf
of Maine, the distribution of pilot whales generally follows the
shelf edge between the 100 m and 1000 m contour. During midwinter
to spring (December to May), sightings have been reported along the
shelf edge of the mid-Atlantic and southern New England regions.
Throughout spring sightings increase along the shelf edge and north
to Georges Bank. They are most abundant on Georges Bank from May
to October (Main et al., 1981; Powers et al., 1982; Katona et al.,
130
-------
1977; CETAP, 1982). During summer and fall, sightings occur on
central Georges Bank north along the northern edge of the Bank, and
into the central Gulf of Maine. This trend continues as pilot
whales move north to the inshore Newfoundland waters by June
(Sergeant and Fisher, 1957; Sergeant et al., 1970).
Pilot whales are tertiary consumers that feed primarily on squid
(Mercer, 1975; Caldwell et al., 1971; Scott et al., 1983), with
fish and invertebrates as alternative prey items (Sergeant, 1962;
Mercer, 1967; Katona et al., 1977). The preferred food of the
pilot whale off Newfoundland, is the short-finned squid (Sergeant,
1962). Alternative prey include Atlantic cod and Greenland turbot
(Mercer, 1967; Sergeant, 1962). Within the MBDS, the long-finned
squid and Atlantic mackerel have been suggested as likely prey
items in the mid-Atlantic Bight during winter and spring (G.
Waring, NMFS/NEFC).
Pilot whales are present on Georges Bank summer through winter with
scattered sightings along the northern edge of the Bank and in the
Great South Channel in fall. Thus, during the fall migration
south, sightings occur over a broader area of the shelf than during
the spring northward movement which occurs principally along the
shelf edge. Pilot whales have been sighted in the northern
Stellwagen/southern Jeffreys Ledge area in the fall. This species
appears to prefer Jeffreys Ledge, but are seen in the MBDS vicinity
several times each year during October and November.
3.3.4.1.3 White-sided Dolphin
In the western North Atlantic, Leatherwood et al. (1976) reported
white-sided dolphins, Lagenorhynchus acutus. from Davis Strait
south to Hudson Canyon. The first confirmed report of white-sided
dolphins from Cape Cod occurred in 1956 (Schevill, 1956). The
southernmost extent of their range was redefined to the
mid-Atlantic Bight near Chesapeake Bay by Testaverde and Mead
(1980). This southern range limit was supported by Hain et al.
(1981), CETAP (1982), and Powers and Payne (1983). White-sided
dolphins are widespread throughout the Gulf of Maine and Georges
Bank throughout the year south to approximately 40° 00' N (Hain et
al., 1981; CETAP, 1982). Within these regions they are most
abundant in the southwestern Gulf of Maine. Hain et al. (1981)
suggested that their distribution is most widespread from October
to November. In the spring and fall, sightings occurred along the
shelf edge from south of Nantucket to Virginia. White-sided
dolphins were the most abundant cetacean observed by Scott et al.
(1981) and CETAP (1982).
White-sided dolphins are tertiary carnivores reported to feed on
a variety of fishes, including Atlantic herring, silver hake,
smelt, and squid (Schevill, 1956; Sergeant et al., 1980; Katona et
al., 1977; 1978; Kenney et al., 1985). In the Gulf of Maine and
on Georges Bank white-sided dolphins have been seen with feeding
humpback and fin whales (Katona et al., 1977; Hain et al., 1981;
Mayo, 1982) which are believed to be feeding on sand eel (Overholtz
131
-------
and Nicolas, 1979; Main et al., 1982; Mayo, 1982; Payne et al.,
1986). Thus, it seems likely that white-sided dolphins also feed
on sand eel. Most sightings of feeding in this region occurred
over shelf edges, or along shelf bottoms with rugged relief, often
in the presence of whales. Sightings of feeding were common in the
southwest Gulf of Maine, between the 70 and 100 m depth contours.
The apparent prey during surface feeding activity were sand eel
(Mayo, 1982).
White-sided dolphins in the study area were most widespread winter
and spring, eind most abundant in summer. This species is found
year-round only in the Gulf of Maine where it is the dominant
delphinid. The areas of greatest concentrations were in the south
and southwest regions of the Gulf of Maine, including the MBDS.
3.3.4.1.4 White-beaked Dolphin
The range of the white-beaked dolphin extends from Cape Cod north
to Greenland (Leatherwood et al., 1976; Katona et al., 1983). They
are found only in the North Atlantic and are the more northerly
distributed of the two Laqenorhynchus species, being far more
numerous in waters off Canada and Greenland (Sergeant and Fisher,
1957; Katona et al., 1977; Whitehead and Glass, 1985).
Within the Gulf of Maine sightings occur most frequently between
April and November in the Great South Channel, including Jeffreys
Basin (CETAP,, 1982) . This species is thought to have been more
common around Cape Cod in the 1950s than at present. This decline
may be associated with increase in sightings of white-sided
dolphins (Katona et al., 1983).
In Canadian waters white-beaked dolphins feed on schooling fishes
(herring and capelin), and squid (Van Bree and Nigssen, 1964).
CETAP (1982) suggested that white-beaked dolphins in the Gulf of
Maine feed on sand eel.
Atlantic white-beaked dolphin, Lagenorhynchus albirostris. are
common off the North Atlantic coast especially near Newfoundland.
They range south to Massachusetts Bay and have been observed within
the MBDS study area. They feed mainly on fish and squid. Within
the study area they have been observed predominantly at the
northern end of Stellwagen Bank.
3.3.4.1.5 Harbor Porpoise
The harbor porpoise, Phocoena. is abundant in temperate waters of
the northern hemisphere, principally in shallow shelf waters
(Gaskin et al., 1974; Leatherwood et al., 1976; Prescott and
Fiorelli, 1980; Gaskin, 1984). They have been reported from the
Davis Straits south to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Mitchell,
1975c; Leatherwood et al., 1976; CETAP, 1982; Payne et al., 1984);
within this range they are most common in the Bay of Fundy and off
southwest Greenland (Neave and Wright, 1968; Gaskin et al., 1974;
1975; Kapel, 1975, 1977; Leatherwood et al., 1976; Gaskin, 1977,
132
-------
1984; Prescott and Fiorelli, 1980; Kraus and Prescott, 1981; Kraus
et al., 1983; Gaskin and Watson, 1985).
The diet of harbor porpoise consists of small schooling fishes,
polychaetes, and cephalopods (Rae, 1965; Smith and Gaskin, 1974).
In the Gulf of Maine herring, mackerel, squid and likely sand eel
are important prey items (Katona et al., 1983).
In the Bay of Fundy and northern Gulf of Maine in summer, harbor
porpoise would be classified as "abundant" in comparison with all
other areas examined (Gaskin, 1977). Densities of harbor porpoise
in the lower Bay of Fundy, upper Gulf of Maine increased in late
June to mid-July, and remained high in August to September, then
decreased throughout fall. These results compare quite closely
with results obtained previously by Neave and Wright (1968).
Prescott and Fiorelli (1980) indicated that the northern Gulf of
Maine and the Bay of Fundy might support as much as 80% of the
total summer population south of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. During
the high abundance levels of summer in the northern Gulf of Maine,
sightings throughout the southwestern Gulf of Maine and Cape Cod
Bay are rare (CETAP, 1982) . In the winter the distribution of
harbor porpoise shifts markedly to the south and offshore.
Sightings are scattered throughout the lower Gulf of Maine and
Georges Bank and overall numbers are drastically reduced (CETAP,
1982). Sightings south of 40° OO'N in coastal bays increase during
the winter (MBO, unpublished survey data 1984-1985). Prescott and
Fiorelli (1980) suggest that other offshore Banks (i.e. Grand
Banks) may also provide winter habitat for this species. By
mid-spring sightings of harbor porpoise again are concentrated in
the southwest Gulf of Maine.
Estimates of harbor porpoise abundance in summer range from
approximately 8,000 to 15,000 in the Gulf of Maine (Kraus et al.,
1983) to approximately 2,500 in the Gulf of Maine in the winter
(CETAP, 1982). Kraus et al. (1984) suggested that aerial surveys
locate approximately 14% of the total harbor porpoise present in
an area. Therefore, applying this factor to the aerial estimates
of CETAP (1982) results in a modified estimate of approximately
16,000 harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine. This is consistent
with the findings of Kraus et al. (1983).
Harbor porpoise are observed in the Gulf of Maine infrequently
after early spring. Sightings are common during late March and
early April. Only one sighting occurred outside this period.
Their distribution in the MBDS during winter is unknown. Most
sightings involve small groups of two to seven animals. Not more
than 15 organisms have been observed per day. This species usually
is observed on the northwest corner of Stellwagen Bank.
Preliminary data indicate that this western tip is used more than
any other. The effort was biased in that spatial coverage of the
entire study area was incomplete. The greatest effort was in the
outer half of the study area and along the northern edge of
Stellwagen Bank. Consequently, the number of sightings presented
are considered a minimum.
133
-------
3.3.4.1.6 Common Dolphin
Common dolphins, Delphinus delphis. are widespread from Cape
Hatteras northeastward to the eastern tip of Georges Bank (35° 00'N
to 42° 00'N) in mid-to-outer shelf waters on a year-round basis
(Hain et al., 1981; CETAP, 1982; Powers et al., 1982; Powers and
Payne, 1983). Sightings in the Gulf of Maine are limited to fall
and winter, and generally occur on the northeastern edge of Georges
Bank. Common dolphins, are considered year-round residents south
of the Gulf of Maine, and occur as stragglers into the Gulf of
Maine, especially in fall and winter.
3.3.4.1.7 Harbor Seal
The harbor seal, Phoca vitulina. is common from Labrador to Long
Island, New York, and are found occasionally as far south as South
Carolina (Bri::nley, 1931) and Florida (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1969).
Along the eastern North American coast, harbor seals are widely
distributed in nearshore waters.
Harbor seals are opportunistic feeders, eating species which are
regionally and seasonally dominant (Boulva, 1976; Pitcher, 1980a,
1980b; Brown and Mate, 1983), with a preference for small,
schooling fishes (Boulva and McLaren, 1979). Katona et al. (1983)
report that seals feed on fish and invertebrates as available,
primarily herring, squid, alewife, flounder, and hake. However,
after analyzing fecal samples collected south of Maine, Payne et
al. (1985) reports two distinct faunal communities taken by seals
in southern New England. The community of fishes selected by
harbor seals from the Isle of Shoals, New Hampshire was diverse,
and was representative of the bottom fishes characteristic of the
relatively deep waters of the Gulf of Maine. These included:
redfish, cod, herring, and yellowtail flounder. In contrast, the
prey selectee! from the relatively shallow waters adjacent to Cape
Cod was dominated by sand eel (Payne et al., 1985).
Harbor seals prefer sheltered and undisturbed rocky ledge sites of
coastal bays, and estuaries from Maine south to Plymouth,
Massachusetts;, and isolated sandy beaches and shoals south of
Plymouth. Their present breeding range in the northwest Atlantic
extends from ice-free waters of the Arctic to New Hampshire, though
previously harbor seals bred as far south as Cape Cod Bay in the
first half of the twentieth century (Katona et al., 1983).
Currently, they are seasonal residents in southern New England,
appearing in late September and remaining until late May (Payne and
Schneider, 1984). The present geographical and breeding ranges
probably are a direct result of a state-offered bounty on harbor
seals in southern New England which remained in effect in
Massachusetts; until 1962. The bounty undoubtedly resulted in an
overall reduction of seal numbers throughout southern New England,
limited southward dispersion of seals from Maine rookeries (Payne
and Schneider, 1984) , likely led to the extirpation of breeding
activity south of Maine (Katona et al., 1983), and the present
134
-------
seasonal occurrence of harbor seals south of Maine. To date, all
breeding activity, which occurs from late April to mid-June takes
place north of Massachusetts (Katona et al., 1983).
Since the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, the
abundance of harbor seals in New England has increased steadily.
Current population estimates derived from aerial surveys show that
the Maine population is increasing and is now 12,000 to 15,000
animals (Katona et al., 1983). Approximately 4000 seals overwinter
south of Maine and 60% of these animals occur near Cape Cod,
Massachusetts (Payne et al., 1985). Transient individuals may be
found in the vicinity of MBDS boundary, but this area is not a
significant habitat for Harbor Seals.
3.3.4.1.8 Gray Seal
Gray Seals, Halichoerus grypus, are the most abundant pinnipeds in
the southern reaches of eastern Canada from Labrador south through
the Bay of Fundy. Approximately 40,000 to 50,000 inhabit the
Canadian Maritimes, and that stock is expanding (Beck, 1983; Katona
et al., 1983). Small colonies in the Gulf of Maine are found in
the Grand Manan archipelago of the Bay of Fundy (Richardson et al.,
1974). Non-breeding colonies also are located in the Penobscott
Bay area (Katona et al., 1983). Katona et al. (1983) estimated a
total of approximately 600 gray seals in the Maine area. A small
population, sited south of Cape Cod, may have emigrated from Maine
across the study area.
Gray seals consume fish and invertebrates as available, the most
common food items in the Bay of Fundy and eastern Canada are
herring, cod, flounder, skate, squid, and mackerel (Beck, 1983;
Katona et al., 1983). Sherman (1983) suggests that the Nantucket
gray seals feed primarily on skates, alewives, and sand eel; all
of which are abundant in that area from mid-winter to late spring.
The Massachusetts population of 70 or more gray seals in the early
1940's was reduced by bounty killing to 20 or less by 1963 when the
bounty was repealed (Sherman, 1986). This population, located
southwest of Nantucket Island, is the only actively breeding
population in the eastern United States. Pupping occurs in
mid-winter, although pup production has been very low in recent
years (Sherman, 1983) . Despite the low pupping rate of the
Nantucket population, the total overwintering population in
Massachusetts exceeded 100 animals in 1986. This recent population
growth probably is due to the immigration of seals from eastern
Canada where the stock is expanding rapidly. This hypothesis is
strengthened by the repeated occurrence of animals in southern New
England that were tagged as pups" on Sable Island, Nova Scotia
(Beck, 1983; Sherman, 1983). This species may transit the MBDS
study area, but it is not a significant habitat for Gray Seals.
3.3.4.2 Seabird Species
Approximately forty species or species-groups of marine birds are
135
-------
found throughout the year in the waters of the Gulf of Maine.
These include gulls, alcids, jaegers, phalaropes, gannets, terns,
scoters, fulmars, shearwaters, petrels, kittiwakes, mergansers, and
cormorants.
The occurrence of these species is based on data collected by
observers from the Manomet Bird Observatory aboard research vessels
conducting standardized surveys in these waters between 1980-85.
The seasonal distribution of seabirds in the Gulf of Maine is
listed in Table 3-34. Sea birds which were sited near the MBDS are
discussed below.
3.3.4.2.1 Northern Fulmar
Northern fulmars, Fulmarus qlacialis. were recorded inshore of the
MBDS in spring, while offshore of the site fulmars were recorded
from spring to fall. Greatest densities occurred in the fall
offshore of MBDS.
3.3.4.2.2 Shearwaters
In the Gulf of Maine, greater shearwaters, Puffinus gravis. were
the most abundant shearwater found near MBDS. Greatest densities
occurred in the summer and fall, and a marked increase in the
densities of birds offshore relative to waters inshore of the site
was observed. Sooty shearwaters, Puffinus griseus. were seen
adjacent to the MBDS only in summer and Cory's shearwaters,
Puffinus diomedea. were recorded only in summer. No manx
shearwaters, Puffinus puffinus. were observed in the study area.
3.3.4.2.3 Storm-petrels
Adjacent to the MBDS, Wilson's storm-petrels, Oceanites oceanicus.
were very common in summer, although much greater densities were
recorded offshore.
3.3.4.2.4 Northern Gannet
Gannets, Sula bassanus. are abundant in the Gulf of Maine from fall
to spring, and uncommon north and east of Cape Cod in summer.
Greatest densities occur from Stellwagen Bank south through the
Great South Channel in fall. In fall, most of the birds are
subadults, while in spring, the majority of the birds sited were
adults. Gannets were abundant within and adjacent to Massachusetts
Bay from fall through spring. Additionally, gannets were the most
abundant bird recorded during the winter-spring aerial surveys.
Large concentrations were observed feeding near feeding groups of
cetaceans. There was no appreciable difference in the densities
recorded between waters inshore and offshore of the MBDS.
3.3.4.2.5 Phalaropes
Red phalarop€!S, Phaloropus fulicarisu, were not recorded in waters
adjacent to the MBDS or in any season as the majority of birds
136
-------
remain offshore during their migrations. Northern phalaropes,
Phalaropus lobatus. generally migrate closer to the coast and were
recorded only in summer in waters contiguous to the disposal site
(Table 3-34).
3.3.4.2.6 Jaeger
Pomarine jaegers, Stercorarius pomarinus. were the only jaegers
recorded and they were observed near the MBDS in both summer and
fall. The parasitic jaeger, Stercorarius parasiticus. has been
observed in the Gulf of Maine from spring to fall.
3.3.4.2.7 Gulls
Herring gulls, Larus argentatus. and great black-backed gulls,
Larus marinus. were abundant in the MBDS vicinity throughout the
year (Table 3-34). There was no apparent difference in the density
of birds found inshore and the density recorded offshore of the
disposal site. During the aerial surveys, both herring and great
black-backed gulls were observed in large flocks attending fishing
vessels and feeding aggregations of cetaceans.
Black-legged kittiwakes, Rissa tridactyla. occurred near the
disposal site in large numbers in the fall and were the most
abundant bird species recorded in winter.
3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Section 3.3.4. discusses in detail the distribution of several
non-endangered mammals and seabirds in the MBDS area. This section
discusses the occurrence of threatened or endangered species
including the Humpback whale, the Finback whale, the Northern Right
whale, the Sei whale, and the Sperm whale, all of which are
Federally listed endangered species in accordance with the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Additionally, the Atlantic Ridley's, the Green turtle, the
Hawksbill turtle, the Leatherback turtle, and the threatened
Loggerhead turtle are discussed. Tables 3-31 through 3-33 list
mammals and reptiles common to the Gulf of Maine.
3.3.5.1 Whales
3.3.5.1.1 Humpback Whale
In the northwest Atlantic, the major summer concentrations of
humpback whales, Megaptera novaeanqliae. occur off the coast of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and off the coasts of New England in the
Gulf of Maine (Katona et al., 1980; Whitehead et al., 1982).
During this period, feeding is their principal activity. The major
winter concentrations occur along the Antillean Chain in the West
Indies, principally on Silver and Navidad Banks which lie north of
the Dominican Republic (Winn et al., 1975; Balcomb and Nichols,
137
-------
1978; Whitehead and Moore, 1982). Conception and calving are the
primary activities in this region. The migratory routes between
regions of winter breeding and summer feeding occur in the deeper,
slope waters off the continental shelf (Hain et al., 1981; Kenney
et al., 1981; CETAP, 1982; Payne et al., 1984, 1986). For the Gulf
of Maine stock, the Great South Channel has been suggested (Kenney
et al., 1981; Payne et al., 1986) as the major migration route
between offshore and the Gulf of Maine feeding areas.
Between mid-March and November, humpback whales are located
throughout the Gulf of Maine (north of 40° 00'N) (Hain et al.,
1981; Kenney et al., 1981; CETAP, 1982; Payne et al., 1984; Mayo
et al., 1985). CETAP (1982) reported only ten winter sightings
between 1978 and 1981. Payne et al. (1984) confirmed these low
figures via s;hipboard surveys. Within this spatial and temporal
framework, concentrations are greatest in a narrow band between 41°
00' and 43° 00'N, from the Great South Channel north along the
outside of Cape Cod to Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge.
Humpback whales are secondary and tertiary carnivores and have been
described as generalists in their feeding habits (Mitchell, 1974b).
The principal prey of humpbacks in the Gulf of Maine are small,
schooling fishes including: Atlantic herring, mackerel, pollack,
and the American sand eel (Gaskin, 1976; Katona et al., 1977;
Watkins and Schevill, 1979; Karus and Prescott, 1981). In recent
years, observations of feeding humpback (Hain et al., 1982; Hays
et al., 1985; Mayo et al., 1985; Weinrich, 1985) indicate that sand
eel are an important prey item in the Gulf of Maine. Overholtz and
Nicolas (1979) suggested that humpback and fin whales were feeding
on sand eel on Stellwagen Bank. Hain et al. (1982) identified sand
eel in 50% and 75% of the feeding observations on Stellwagen Bank
during 1978 and 1979 respectively. Sand eel were the only
confirmed prey eaten by humpback whales between 1975 and 1979 on
Stellwagen Bank (Mayo, 1982). Kenney et al. (1981) and Payne et
al. (1986) suggest that the observed distribution of the Gulf of
Maine humpbacks is due to the distribution of sand eels, although
feeding behavior and bottom topographies also are critical factors
in the foraging strategy of humpbacks (Hain et al., 1982).
In the northwest Atlantic, humpback whales have been exploited
heavily since; the 16th century (Mitchell and Reeves, 1983) . In
1915, only a few hundred humpbacks were reported to remain in the
northwest Atlantic (Sergeant, 1966). This species was officially
protected from commercial whaling in 1965 (Sergeant, 1966). Most
of the recent knowledge on the biology, stock discreetness, and
population size of humpbacks has been the result of a technique of
individual identification based on the markings of the underside
of the flukes, or tails, which are unique to each individual
(Schevill and Backus, 1960; Katona and Kraus, 1979; Katona and
Whitehead, 1981; Katona et al., 1982). Mayo et al. (1985) provided
photographs of the flukes of 216 individual whales photographed
between 1976 and 1984.
138
-------
Population estimates and abundance estimates for humpback whales
in the north Atlantic presently range from 2,000 to 6,000. In the
Gulf of Maine, the estimate for humpback whales ranges from
approximately 200 to 300 individuals (Katona et al., 1984).
Abundance estimates from aerial surveys in the Gulf of Maine
between 1978 and 1980 ranged from 0 (winter) to approximately 600
(summer) for data both corrected and uncorrected for dive times
(Scott et al., 1981; CETAP, 1982). Estimates from shipboard
surveys ranged between 30 (winter) to approximately 320 (summer and
fall) .
Use of the northern Stellwagen waters, including the water
surrounding the MBDS, by humpbacks varies both annually and
seasonally. Concentrations of whales are usually greatest in the
summer and early fall and lowest in winter and early spring.
Little use was observed in August 1985, although this is a month
in which many'humpbacks usually reside on northern Stellwagen Bank.
Similarly, spring of 1984 involved a higher than normal abundance
of humpbacks.
One of the most important uses of Stellwagen Bank by cetaceans is
for feeding. However, the intensity of surface feeding behavior
on northern Stellwagen Bank is quite variable. Between 1980 and
1985, feeding on Stellwagen was very active. Groups of up to 100
humpbacks were commonly found feeding on sand eel. Most members of
the groups were adults, and most were using the bubble cloud
feeding style described by Main et al. (1982) and Mayo et al.
(1985). Identified prey were sand eel on all but eight
observations; those eight involved feeding on dense concentrations
of euphausids. Although humpbacks 1 to 3 years old were seen
surface feeding at this time, they were observed feeding much less
often than adults. The Cetacean Research Unit (CRU) believe that
these young whales engage in more sub-surface feeding. Feeding was
observed less frequently in the immediate vicinity of the MBDS than
on northern Stellwagen Bank.
The short-term movements of humpback whales within the northern
Stellwagen system appear to be dictated primarily by prey
availability. Some locations on Stellwagen consistently receive
high use, while other areas in the immediate vicinity of Stellwagen
receive high use periodically. For example, in October of 1985,
most of the humpbacks were observed in the vicinity of the study
area.
3.3.5.1.2 Finback whales
Finback whales, Balaenoptera physalus. an endangered species, are
the most cosmopolitan and abundant of the large baleen whales
(Reeves and Brownell, 1982). They also are the most widely
distributed whale, both spatially and temporarily, over the shelf
waters of the northwest Atlantic (Leatherwood et al., 1976),
139
-------
occurring as far south as Cape Lookout, North Carolina and
extending inside the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
In the shelf waters of the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank,
the frequency of finback whale sightings increases from spring
through the fcill (Hain et al., 1981; CETAP, 1982; Powers and Payne,
1982; Payne et al., 1984; Chu, 1986). The areas of Jeffreys Ledge,
Stellwagen Ba.nk and the Great South Channel have the greatest
concentrations of whales during spring through fall. There is a
decrease in shelf sightings of finback whales in winter. However,
finback whales overwinter in the Gulf of Maine, as indicated in
Stellwagen Bank and within the Great South Channel.
In the northern hemisphere, finback whales are considered secondary
and tertiary, euphagous carnivores feeding predominantly on
schooling fishes, euphausids, and copepods depending on seasonal
availability (Jonesgard, 1966; Mitchell, 1974; Sergeant, 1966,
1977; Katona et al., 1977; Brodie et al., 1978; Overholtz and
Nicholas, 1979; Watkins and Schevill, 1979; Mayo, 1982). In the
Gulf of Maine, schooling fishes are the apparent preferred prey,
principally Atlantic herring and American sand eel. All the
coastal waters of Massachusetts and Maine are considered major
feeding grounds for finback whales (Chu, 1986) .
In the Gulf of Maine, the estimated number of finback whales shows
clear seasonal fluctuations. Data collected between 1980 and 1985
from shipboard observations supports evidence of seasonal estimates
between 151 (winter) and 1,862 (summer). These estimates are lower
than those obtained from sighting data collected during aerial
surveys from 1978 to 1980 which were corrected for the diving
behavior of the animals (CETAP, 1982). CETAP's (1982) estimates
for the Gulf of Maine show peak abundance in spring at
approximately 3,000 individuals, and a decrease to approximately
200 animals in winter. Both data sets show prominent densities
occurring from Jeffreys Ledge and Stellwagen Bank south along the
100 m contour outside of Cape Cod and into the Great South Channel.
Concentrations of finback whales also are found along the boundary
between the Gulf of Maine and the northern edge of Georges Bank.
Finback whales are found in the waters of northern Stellwagen Bank
year-round. Although there is an overall decrease in the number
of finback whales within the Gulf of Maine in winter, CETAP (1982)
found little decrease in the number of finback whales present in
Massachusetts Bay.
Finback whaler are widely distributed within the MBDS study area
than are humpback whales. However, like humpbacks, finback whales
will aggregate to feed. Concentrations of up to 50 finback whales
have been observed in the northern Stellwagen area and have shown
a relatively consistent pattern of habitat use between years.
Surface feeding behavior by finback whales has been observed on
Stellwagen Bank. In all but one observation the prey was sand eel.
140
-------
Finback whales on Jeffreys Ledge appear to feed consistently on
euphausids.
Finback whale cow/calf pairs were most frequently observed from
late spring to summer. Approximately 10 to 14 finback whale
cow/calf sightings have occurred each year. Most sightings occur
on the northern edge of Stellwagen Bank but some sightings have
occurred inshore toward Gloucester.
Residence time of individual finback whales in the study area is
minimal. Most animals were sighted for a period of one to seven
days. Individual movements are widespread within the Gulf of Maine
seasonally. Finback whales photographed at northern Stellwagen
Bank and southern Jeffreys Ledge have been matched to photographs
taken as far away as Bar Harbor, Maine, and the Great South
Channel.
Among the three 10' blocks surrounding MBDS, the offshore block
receives the highest use, particularly on the western side. The
middle quadrat containing MBDS, receives moderate to heavy use
based on aerial surveys conducted during this study, primarily from
spring through fall. The eastern quadrant is used by finback
whales primarily during the winter months.
3.3.5.1.3 Northern Right Whale
The north Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena glacialis. is one of the
most endangered large whales in the world. It has been suggested
that the north Atlantic has two stocks of right whales. The first,
along the eastern North Atlantic, between the Bay of Biscay and the
coast of Iceland (Allen, 1908), is thought to have disappeared,
(Reeves and Brownell, 1982). The northwest Atlantic stock
transpires from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland into the lower Bay of
Fundy and throughout the Gulf of Maine south to Cape Cod Bay and
the Great South Channel in the spring and summer (Sergeant, 1966;
Mitchell, 1974b, 1974c; Sutcliffe and Brodie, 1977; Hay, 1985b;
Arnold and Gaskin, 1972; Kraus and Prescott, 1981, 1982, 1983;
Reeves et al., 1983; Kraus et al., 1984; Watkins and Schevill,
1976, 1979, 1982). In the winter, right whales reside from Cape
Cod Bay south to Georgia and Florida and into the Gulf of Mexico
(Watkins and Schevill, 1976; Moore, 1952; Layne, 196; Kraus et al.,
1984; Kraus, 1986; Moore and Clark, 1963; Schmidley, 1981).
Between December and March, small numbers of right whales occur in
waters of the Gulf of Maine and western Georges Bank. Another
wintering ground for this species occurs in the Georgia-Florida
Bight where possibly newborn calves have been observed (Kraus et
al., 1984; Kraus, 1986). Approximately 10 to 20 right whales are
sighted annually at this location. Identification of individuals
based on callosity patterns on the head (Watkins and Schevill,
1982; Payne et al., 1983) has linked this wintering group with
those whales that move into the Gulf of Maine. In the spring,
141
-------
right whale concentrations in the Gulf of Maine occur principally
in three locations, the Great South Channel, Cape Cod Bay north to
Jeffreys Ledge, and the northern Gulf of Maine or the lower Bay of
Fundy. A few right whales have been reported in Massachusetts
waters through the summer, however most of the population spends
the summer and fall in the Bay of Fundy and on the Nova Scotian
shelf (Kraus et al., 1984; Kraus, 1986). Movements of individual
right whales within the Gulf of Maine have been well documented
(Kraus et al., 1984).
Right whales feed almost exclusively on copepods and euphausids.
Surface feeding or "skimming" is frequently observed in the Gulf
of Maine and Cape Cod Bay (Watkins and Schevill, 1976; Mayo et al.,
1982). Feeding whales follow an erratic path when observed from
the air or plotted against plankton patches and can be seen to
follow "discrete patches of plankton" (Watkins and Schevill, 1976,
1979; Mayo et al., 1982). Watkins and Schevill (1976) suggest that
subsurface feeding is the usual feeding mode. Prey items of right
whales in the Gulf of Maine and Cape Cod Bay include copepods and
euphausids (Allen, 1916; Watkins and Schevill, 1976).
Right whales have been protected from commercial hunting since
1935. However, the north Atlantic population is estimated at no
more than a few hundred (Mitchell, 1973a, 1974b; Winn et al.,
1981). The Largest sighting (70 to 100 whales) occurred in 1970
in Cape Cod Bay (Watkins and Schevill, 1982). Much of the entire
northwest Atlantic population likely moves through the Gulf of
Maine on a seasonal basis. Estimates from shipboard surveys for
the Gulf of Maine (MBO, 1980-85) range from 0 in winter and fall,
to 14 in summer and 166 in spring.
Right whales are known to occur in the northern Stellwagen Bank and
southern Jeffreys Ledge regions. However, information on their
occurrence, movements, and behavior is limited. Most sightings
have occurred in the spring, during March to April, although a
second peak in sighting frequency occurs in July. Although right
whales were not recorded within the MBDS study site during the
aerial surveys, they are considered common with respect to thier
abundance because they migrate through the area during spring.
Survey coverage of the region during early spring was limited to
1985. In mid-April of 1985, a considerable number of right whales
were observed approximately one mile south of quadrant II. During
a four day effort between April 18th and 21th, 1985, 20 to 30
organisms were observed. Behaviors observed included courtship,
breaching, and apparent juvenile play behavior (rolling, hanging
with mouth opened, and investigating the vessel). Two mother/calf
pairs were identified.
Right whales were observed on two of four cruises to northern
Stellwagen during the period between April 8th and 24th. A total
of seven animals were identified, including two mother/calf pairs.
142
-------
Both mother/calf pairs were also seen in the large concentration
south of quadrant II. Behaviors seen on northern Stellwagen
included breaching, and possible nursing.
Although survey effort on northern Stellwagen Bank was limited
prior to 1985, one right whale was seen during the cruise taken in
April 1983, and two were observed during a cruise in March of 1982.
Throughout the spring months, northern Stellwagen is an important
area for right whales, although not used as consistently or by the
same numbers that frequent Cape Cod Bay during the same period.
Although surface,feeding is frequently observed in Cape Cod Bay,
it was not observed on northern Stellwagen.
The second period of right whale sightings occurred in July, where
observations were concentrated on northern Stellwagen. During this
period most animals were traveling to the north or northeast, in
an apparent migratory pattern. This corresponds to known movement
patterns of right whales between Cape Cod Bay and the Bay of Fundy.
Many of the animals sighted in the vicinity of MBDS have been
resighted in the Bay of Fundy within four to six weeks.
Mother/calf pairs were most frequently observed during July; 55%
of the nine sightings during this period have been mothers with
calves. Right whales make another appearance in the fall, during
October and November. At this time, they are seen rarely on
northern Stellwagen, but are seen with some frequency on Jeffreys
Ledge.
3.3.5.1.4 Sei Whale
The sei whale, Balaenoptera borealis. an endangered species, is
found in most of the world's oceans, excluding tropical and extreme
polar seas. Evidence suggests that two stocks of sei whales occur
in the northwest Atlantic (Mitchell and Chapman, 1977) ; one off
eastern Nova Scotia and another centered in the Labrador Sea. In
the western North Atlantic, this species ranges from Greenland and
Iceland south to southern New England waters. Sightings in the
shelf waters off the northeastern United States occur along the
outside of Georges Bank and generally not in the three ten-minute
squares study area around MBDS. Sei whales were observed twice on
northern Stellwagen. In both cases a lone sei whale was observed
in a finback whale aggregation. Sei whales are considered
incidental visitors nearshore.
3.3.5.2 Marine Turtles
3.3.5.2.1 Atlantic Ridleys Turtle
The Ridleys sea turtle, Lepidochelvs kempi. an endangered species,
has the most restricted breeding range of any sea turtle. Their
adult life is spent in the Gulf of Mexico; however, juveniles have
been sited as far north as New England either by actively swimming
or drifting in the Gulf Stream (Lazell, 1976; Shoop, 1980;
143
-------
Prescott, 1986). Juvenile Ridleys which turn up in Massachusetts
are generally 10" to 12" long and weigh up to seven pounds
(Prescott, 1986). Waters off southern New England are important
feeding areas; for Ridleys turtles and are considered important
habitat for this species (Lazell, 1980). Each fall as water
temperature drop in Cape Cod Bay between 12 and 30 immature Ridleys
strand on Cape Cod (Prescott, 1986) . This species may transit the
MBDS study area, but usually follows an offshore pattern.
3.3.5.2.2 Leatherback Turtle
The leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. an endangered
species, is the largest and most distinctive of the sea turtles.
It is widespread in the oceans of the world (National Fish and
Wildlife Laboratory, 1980d). Leatherbacks nest on tropical
beaches, after which the adults move into temperate waters to feed.
This is the second most common turtle along the eastern seaboard
of the United States, and the most common north of 42° 00'N.
The leatherba.ck is a strongly pelagic species. The large flippers
and streamlined body allow prolonged, fast swimming. Their large
body size and a special arrangement of blood vessels in the skin
and flippers enable them to retain heat generated during swimming.
Leatherbacks maintain body temperatures several degrees above the
temperature of the surrounding water, facilitating their travel to
cool temperate waters where food is abundant. However, their
physiological adaptations to pelagic life make leatherbacks poorly
suited to decil with obstructions in shallow waters. Leatherbacks
possess a limited ability to maneuver and cannot swim backward to
disentangle themselves from fishing nets and lobster pot lines.
Leatherbacks are reported to have died of intestinal blockage after
eating floating plastic bags, which they presumably mistake for
jellyfish, their desired prey. They are also occasionally killed
by collisions; with boats.
Adults migrate extensively throughout the Atlantic basin. There
are numerous records of leatherbacks in New England and as far
north as NOVJI Scotia and Newfoundland (Ross, 1986) . Sightings off
Massachusetts are most common in the late summer months, and
usually of adult sizes (Shoop et al., 1981; CETAP, 1982). The
leatherback's seasonal migration is the reverse of that of the
Loggerhead. Leatherback turtles move northward beyond the
shelfbreak, possibly to within the Gulf Stream; therefore there are
few sightings in the spring months (CETAP, 1982). They appear in
the Gulf of Maine in late May to June, and in shelf waters from
June through October (Shoop et al., 1981). Sightings of
leatherbacks peak during the summer, most in the southern New
England coastal regions (CETAP, 1982) , and are not seen above Cape
Hatteras in winter.
144
-------
3.3.5.2.3 Loggerhead Turtle
The threatened loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta. is the most
widespread sea turtle along the eastern seaboard (CETAP, 1982;
Payne and Ross, 1986) . Its range during the winter and early
spring is south of 37° 00'N in estuarine rivers, coastal bays, and
shelf waters of the southeastern United States. Their distribution
is most restricted during the winter months where sitings are
usually south of Cape Hatteras. Their widespread distribution in
summer and fall coincides with a northward dispersal following the
peak nesting period. At this time sightings occur throughout shelf
waters north to Massachusetts.
Loggerheads are usually absent in shelf waters north of Cape Cod,
but have been sited in the Gulf of Maine, specifically Cape Cod
Bay. Lower temperatures found in the higher latitudes may shorten
the nesting period (Nelson, 1988). Prolonged exposure to water
temperatures lower than 15°C may cause dormancy, shock, or death.
The northward dispersal results in limited sightings along outer
Cape Cod and the islands midsummer through fall. Loggerheads
occasionally get trapped inside Cape Cod Bay in late fall and
winter, resulting in shock or death. Massachusetts is at the
northern range limit for this species, therefore these waters are
considered mariginal habitat (Payne and Ross, 1986).
3.4 Fishing Industry
Nationally, fisheries statistics are generated by point of catch
and grouped in ten minute squares which are assigned to statistical
areas. The MBDS is located in statistical "area 514". It is
estimated that approximately 100 commercial fishing vessels fish
in area 514. Interviews were conducted with fishermen in
Gloucester, Cohasset, and Scituate during the summer of 1985.
Commercial fishing in the area consists of draggers, gill netters,
and lobster boats, all of which are discussed below.
3.4.1 Dragging
Draggers fish on smooth bottom in the vicinity of the MBDS at
various times during the course of the calendar year. These
include vessels from: Salem, (2); Lynn, (2); Nahant, (1); Boston,
(5 to 6), Scituate, (12); Gloucester, (20); Green Harbor, (2); and
Plymouth, (6). From the interviews it was determined that while
most of these draggers stay away from the disposal site, some
boats from Gloucester and Scituate fish on the southwestern and
southeastern portions of MBDS.
The fish caught by draggers typically are flounder and American
plaice. These species are harvested throughout the year. This
type of catch is usually found on the flounder ground, a flat
bottom section of the ocean floor where trawlers can operate
without fear of damaging their equipment. Additionally, redfish
145
-------
and wolffish are caught near patches of hard bottom. Other species
important to the fishing industry are winter flounder and
yellowtail flounder. In the winter, lobster and cod are important
commercial species for draggers. Although these species are not
caught in great numbers in MBDS, they are harvested in other areas
near the disposal site. The MBDS is not recommended by the FDA for
shellfishing.
According to the NMFS, a large amount of fish landed by New England
draggers is caught in statistical area 514. In this area, 14.6%
of the total catch was American plaice. Area 514 represented 7.9%
of the winter flounder, 3.4% of the yellowtail flounder, and 12%
of the witch flounder caught off the northeastern United States.
Although a substantial percentage of the species caught by draggers
are found in area 514, most are not caught in the MBDS.
3.4.2 Gill netting
Gill nets are typically used from 10 to 20 miles offshore, but very
few gill netters fish in the MBDS. Cod is the usual target species
for gill netters who fish off the Massachusetts coast. In the
spring and winter, most gill nets are set shoreward in areas where
the sea floor is rough in order to avoid the operations of draggers
which may damage their nets. Furthermore, State laws keep draggers
out of areas used by gill netters.
Gill netters from ports north and south of Boston, have
occasionally set their nets within MBDS. Based on an interview,
one fisherman stated that the catch size for cod was occasionally
large. Another fisherman reported that he no longer fishes in the
MBDS after his gear was contaminated by black, foul-smelling mud.
3.4.3 Lobstering
Lobster boats change their catch locations in accordance with
seasonal lobster migrations. In the winter, lobsters move to
deeper waters in search of warmer water and to avoid storms. In
summer months, lobsters migrate toward shallow water. Table 3-35
provides an estimate of the number of lobster boats fishing in the
vicinity of MBDS. Only one lobsterman stated that he had fished
in MBDS. He reported that the lobsters there were all legal size
and appeared to be of high quality. On one occasion he reported
that his potis were fouled with black mud, 300 feet north of the "A"
buoy. Some areas of MBDS were reported to be devoid of lobsters
because of disposal activities. In general, lobster boats avoid
the MBDS.
3.4.4 Fishing Utilization
Catches for area 514 in 1984 are presented in Table 3-36. In 1984,
this area landed approximately 84.3% of the dogfish, 27% of the sea
herring, 32% of the red hake, and 21% of the silver hake off the
146
-------
Table 3-35 Number of Lobster Boats Fishing in the vicinity of
MBD8 (Based on 1985 survey interviews)
PORT NUMBER
Gloucester 12
Beverly 5-6
Marblehead 4
Swampscott 2-3
Nahant 1
Lynn 1
Boston 4-5
Weymouth 2
Cohasset 10
Scituate 2
Saugus 1-2
Hull 2
Source: COE, 1988
147
-------
Table 3-36 Fish Landings for Statistical Area 514
Percentage of
Common name Total pounds Off North East Coast
Bluefish 158,712 1.7
Butterfish 53,427 0.2
Cod 7,350,695 6.3
Cusk 195,476 4.1
Winter flounder 2,558,483 7.9
Summer flounder 19,710 0.1
Witch flounder . 1,737,096 12.0
Yellowtail flounder 1,319,006 3.4
American plaice 3,265,541 14.6
Haddock 1,269,828 4.0
Red hake 1,651,624 32.2
White hake 702,423 4.2
Halibut 7,550 2.5
Sea herring 19,902,069 27.0
Mackerel 1,112,472 3.6
Menhaden 52,152,510 9.4
Redfish 327,776 3.1
Pollock 5,629,373 12.5
Dogfish 8,164,094 84.3
Skates 461,163 5.1
Silver hake 9,819,091 20.8
Wolffishes 331,657 13.4
Lobster 45,381 0.1
Shrimp 522,229 7.3
Soft shell clam 205,597 0.1
Sea scallop 689,969 1.3
Long-fin squid 34,415 0.1
Short-fin squid 8,860 0.2
Total: 119,696,227 5.7
Source: COE, 1988
148
-------
northeastern United States.
The total U.S. landings in area 514 increased from 88,681,543
pounds in 1974 to 123,972,150 pounds in 1984, an increase of
approximately 28%. The increase may be because of the exclusion
in 1977 of foreign fishing vessels from waters within 200 miles of
the coastline.
In 1984, the total number of pounds landed for all species in area
514 was 123,972,150 which was valued at $18,840,350. Within the
MBDS, the total number of pounds landed was 41,937,628 which was
valued at $2,461,807. These quantities comprise approximately
33.8% of the landings from area 514 and 13% of the value of the
catch in this area.
3.4.5 Landings Value for MBDS
EPA estimated the total value of the fishing landings in MBDS by
adding the number of pounds landed, with its corresponding value,
for each species in the area latitude 42° 25' and longitude 70°
35'. The landings and values were collected and averaged for the
three year period lasting between 1982 and 1984. The mean value
for three years was then multiplied by 6%, MBDS percentage of the
total area of latitude 42° 25' and longitude 70° 35'. Using this
methodology, a maximum potential catch value for all species in
MBDS was estimated to be $21,320 per year. This would represent
an upward limit on the value of MBDS because it assumes a uniform
fishing effort over the entire 10 minute square which, from
evidence presented above, is not likely. Cod, flounder, and
American plaice were the most economically important species caught
in the three ten minute squares surrounding MBDS.
3.5 Other Factors
3.5.1 Shipping
According to :maps published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the
location of MBDS does not interfere with the main shipping lanes
into Boston Harbor. MBDS is north of the harbor shipping lanes and
therefore do€:s not interfere with commercial channel traffic.
3.5.2 Mineral, oil, and Gas Exploration and Development
According to the U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals
Management Service (MMS, 1983), there are no oil or gas exploration
sites in MBDS.
3.5.3 Generail Marine Recreation
There have been a number of sightings of whales in the MBDS
vicinity. As a result, other marine recreation including whale
watching, must be taken into consideration when discussing MBDS.
149
-------
Various sightseeing vessels pass through MBDS in order to reach
areas where whales have been spotted. Although data was not
collected on recreational fishing and sightseeing activities in
the area of MBDS, impacts to whales and recreationally important
fish are not expected to be significant.
3.5.4 Marine Sanctuaries
The MBDS is not located within any designated marine sanctuary.
However, Stellwagen Bank, 5.5 km east of MBDS, has been announced
as an active candidate for designation as a National Marine
Sanctuary (54 FR 15787). Currently, NOAA is preparing an EIS to
investigate management strategies, boundary alternatives, and
resource protection with respect to Sanctuary designation. Owing
to the distance between MBDS and Stellwagen Bank, and also because
most dredged material disposal occurs on the western portion of the
site, EPA does not anticipate ocean disposal activities to have
significant adverse effects on Stellwagen Bank.
3.5.5 Historic Resources
It is unlikely that significant historic artifacts are contained
within the MBDS. Prehistoric sites are not anticipated to be
found, as this area was not above sea level during the last
glaciation, when Pleistocene megafauna and early Amerinds began
migrating into New England (Moi and Roberts, 1979) . The only
historic shipwrecks reported within MBDS are a steel hulled Coast
Guard boat which was blown up with plastic explosives (42° 25'N;
70° 34.5'W), and a 55 foot fishing vessel (42° 25.7'N; 70° 33.5'W),
both of which sank in 1981 (Jim Dailey, NOAA). Unrecorded historic
wrecks may be located within MBDS. However, during the extensive
bottom surveys conducted by the COE, no evidence has been revealed
indicating that an unrecorded wreck exists within the area.
150
-------
CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
As a result of previous work in the region and the recent studies
conducted at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site ("MBDS"), the
environmental consequences of dredged material disposal and the
interaction of the disposal operation with the physical environment
can be projected. The following sections provide interpretation
of the data presented under the Existing Conditions Sections as
they relate to the observed and projected effects of disposal at
MBDS.
4.1 Effects; on the Physical Environment
4.1.1 Short Term Effects
Short term effects are defined primarily as those which may occur
during and immediately after disposal of dredged material and
include such parameters as plume formation, convective descent,
bottom colleipse, and initial dispersal of material.
Although disposal of dredged material and other waste has taken
place in the: vicinity of the MBDS since the start of the century,
control and monitoring of the disposal operations has only been
accomplished during the past ten years. Consequently, the most
pertinent data on the short term effects of disposal are available
through studies conducted by the COE.
4.1.1.1 Disposal Processes
Disposal of dredged material at MBDS is conducted through release
from either disposal scows or hopper dredges. Regardless of the
type of vessel utilized during a disposal operation, there are
three major phases (Figure 4-1) which affect the behavior of
dredged material:
1) The Convective Descent Phase, during which the
majority of the dredged material is transported to the
bottom under the influence of gravity as a concentrated
cloud of material;
2) Th« Dynamic Collapse Phase, following impact on the
bottom where the vertical momentum present during the
Convective Descent Phase is transferred to horizontal
spreading of the material; and
3) The Passive Dispersion Phase, following loss of
momentum from the disposal operation, when ambient
currents and turbulence determine the transport and
spread of material.
The major difference between hopper dredge and scow disposal
151
-------
CONVECTIVt
Descent
DYNAMIC COUAPSE ON •OTTOM
LONO-TERM PASSIVE
DIFFUSION
BOTTOM
ENCOUNTER
OlFFVSIVe SPREADING
one Ate* THAN
DYNAMIC SPREADING
Figure 4-1 Schematic Diagram of the Phases Encountered during
a Disposal Event
152
Source: Brandsma & Divoky, 1976
-------
results from the dredging operation, not the disposal process.
The hopper dredge utilizes a hydraulic pump to transfer the dredged
material from the bottom to the surface, a process that entrains
a substantial amount of water and effectively breaks down the
cohesiveness of the dredged material. As a result of this process,
the hopper-dredged sediment tends to be relatively homogenous and
fluid. In cases where scow disposal occurs following clamshell
dredging of cohesive sediments, the dredging procedure has less
effect on the geotechnical properties of the sediment. Therefore,
the material remains cohesive and is often transferred to the
disposal site as large clumps of sediment.
During the Convective Descent Phase of the disposal process, water
is entrained with the disposal cloud resulting in a gradual
decrease in the density of the discharged material. If the water
is deep enough and stratified, the density reduces to a value
approaching the surrounding water and neutral buoyancy is attained.
At that point, the vertical motion of the cloud ceases and passive
dispersion of material occurs through transport by ambient
currents. Studies by Stoddard et al. (1985) have shown that for
a relatively large disposal vessel (4000 m3) , the depth of neutral
buoyancy is greater than 300 meters. Since the MBDS location has
an average depth of less than 90 meters, it is safe to assume that
neutral buoyancy will not occur at this location and that the
dredged material will impact the bottom during the Convective
Descent Phase.
The fact that the dredged material reaches the bottom during the
Convective Descent Phase is extremely important in assessing the
potential transport of material during the disposal process.
Bokuniewicz et al. (1978) measured the rate of convective descent
as approximately 1 m/s during three separate disposal operations.
Therefore, at the MBDS site, where the average depth is
approximately 90 meters, the majority of material can be expected
to impact the bottom within two minutes of disposal. Since the
maximum current velocities measured at the site were approximately
30 cm/s, the worst case transport of material during convective
descent would only amount to 36 meters. This is well within the
error of positioning of the disposal vessels and, therefore, the
effect of currents, either tidal or non-tidal, on the shape or
distribution of the disposed dredged material deposit would be
negligible. This is in agreement with observations made at other
disposal sites within the New England area (Morton, 1986) where,
even in regions of strong, oscillatory tidal flow, no orientation
of the dredged material deposit in the direction of tidal current
has been oiaserved. During dumping at MBDS, barge crews are
supposed to release their dredged material as close as possible to
a marker buoy permanently taut-moored for that purpose. However,
under rough weather conditions with high seas and winds, safety and
other considerations may result in dumping at a significant
distance from the marker buoy. Prior to placement of the taut-
moored buoy several years ago, dumping ocurred throughout MBDS.
153
-------
Since the thermocline in the vicinity of MBDS occurs at depths less
than 20 m, it is safe to assume that at that depth, the dredged
material will be in the Convective Descent Phase and the density
of the disposal plume will not be close to neutral buoyancy.
Therefore, the relatively small fluctuations in the ambient water
density associated with the thermocline will have no effect on the
majority of the dredged material which will be transported directly
to the bottom.
The entrainment of water during the Convective Descent Phase and
the residual dispersal of sediment washing out of the disposal
vessel will result in some portion of the dredged material
remaining in suspension throughout the water column after disposal.
It can be expected that, in the case of cohesive sediments,
slightly more of this material will be dispersed during a hopper
dredge operation as opposed to scow disposal because the sediments
would be in a more fluid state. However, in either case, the
relative percentage of dispersed material is small compared to that
transported to the bottom in the Convective Descent Phase. Several
investigators, including Bokuniewicz (1980), Johnson (1978), and
Tavolaro (1982) have all estimated the amount of material remaining
in suspension, either through in-situ observation or modeling of
the physical processes. These estimates range from 3 to 5% (dry
mass basis) depending on the conditions existing at the site and
the properties of the dredged material.
Since these suspended sediments are not transported as part of the
Convective Descent Plume, the ultimate fate of this material
depends primarily on its settling rate and the ambient currents in
the area. Fine silt particles, which are the predominant materials
remaining in suspension, settle in quiescent waters at a rate on
the order of 0.7 cm/s (Stoddard et al., 1985). Therefore, the time
required to settle to the ambient bottom of 90 meters at MBDS would
be nearly four hours. Assuming the "worst case" 50 cm/s currents
present in the area, this would result in transport of the
particles for a distance of more than 4 km, well beyond the margins
of the disposal site. However, currents of 30 cm/s generate
sufficient turbulence to keep such fine sediments in suspension
indefinitely; in fact nearly any current in excess of 5 cm/s is
sufficient to transport fine silt (Hjulstrom, 1935). Consequently,
one should assume that essentially all fine silt particles left in
suspension following disposal will be dispersed beyond the margins
of the disposal site and that these sediments will be diluted until
they are part of the background suspended sediment load of the
region.
It is important to note that the contribution of this suspended
dredged material to the overall suspended sediment concentration
of the site is minuscule. Assuming a 4000 m3 disposal load, with
a sediment density of 1.2 gm/cm3, even if 10% of the sediment
remains in suspension, and is dispersed over a 1 km area, 90 m
154
-------
deep, then the increase in suspended sediment concentration over
ambient for that volume of water would be 0.005 mg/1. Since the
average suspended sediment load in the area is 1 mg/1 (Morton,
1984) the initial contribution of this sediment is less than 0.5%.
Furthermore, this concentration will decrease at an exponential
rate as the material is dispersed during transport away from the
disposal site and will be virtually undetectable within a short
period (hours) following disposal.
Several inve:stigators have been able to track disposal plumes for
short periods of time (Proni, 1976; Bokuniewicz, 1978; Morton,
1984) and have documented the return to ambient conditions. There
have been some instances, (Proni, 1976; Morton, 1984) where
increased concentrations of material have persisted at depths
exhibiting strong density gradients (pycnoclines) for longer
periods of time, but never more than several hours.
The only quantitative measurements related to the disposal of
dredged material in the vicinity of MBDS were made by Morton
(1984). These measurements were conducted during a single dump
from the hopper dredge SUGAR ISLAND on February 1, 1983. Figure
4-2 indicates the spatial distribution of the plume 15 minutes
after disposal while the crosshatched section shows the spatial
distribution one hour later. During the 75 minute survey period,
the maximum extent of dispersion was approximately 750 meters in
a southeasterly direction. This represents a dispersal rate of 16
cm/s or 0.3 knots.
Although this spatial distribution provides an indication of net
transport, the acoustic records provided a much more detailed view
of the plume dissipation. Immediately after disposal, the 50 KHz
channel had substantially stronger reflections than the 200 KHz
channel indicating that relatively coarse particles were in
suspension. Furthermore, both channels indicated a narrow column
of material extending from the surface to the bottom which rapidly
expanded into a turbidity cloud in the lower portion of the water
column. These phenomena strongly suggest that the material dumped
by the hopper dredge acted in the same manner as material dumped
from scows in that most of the sediment was transported to the
bottom in a convective flow, which, upon impact with the bottom,
spread radially and deposited most of the dredged material in a
turbid deposit within a few minutes of disposal. This was verified
by sampling the resulting deposit, which showed no increased
expansion resulting from the hopper dredge operation (Morton,
1984).
In summary, whether the disposal operation is conducted with either
a hopper dredge or scow, both theoretical and observational data
indicate that the majority of the dredged material will be
transported to the bottom at MBDS as a discrete plume during the
Convective Descent Phase. If the material dredged is cohesive
155
-------
42* 25.8'
19 MIN
P08T-DI3P6SA
Figure 4-2
Ship's Track and Disposal Plume Dispersion Following
Disposal Operations using a Hopper Dredge at SUGAR
ISLAND on February 1, 1983
Source: Morton, 1984
156
-------
silt, the scow disposal is more apt to result in a concentration
of cohesive clumps of material on the bottom and the hopper dredge
is more apt to disperse slightly more material into the water
column. However, in both cases, the differences will be small, the
total area of the bottom covered by the dredged material will be
similar and the amount of material lost as suspended sediment will
be a low percentage of the total transported to the site.
4.1.1.2 Mound Formation/Substrate Consolidation
As discussed in the previous section, most of the sediments
disposed at the MBDS site, whether from hopper dredge or scow, will
be transported to the bottom during the Convective Descent Phase.
When this material reaches the bottom, the vertical momentum will
be transferred to horizontal momentum during the Dynamic Collapse
Phase. Depending on the geotechnical properties of that sediment,
one of two types of deposit will form. If the material consists
primarily of cohesive silt, then a concentration of cohesive
clumps, interspersed with soft mud will be created. This deposit
will be surrounded by a deposit of mud that extends beyond the
clump area for some distance. If the material is sand, or non-
cohesive silt, then the deposit can be expected to be more uniform.
In either caise, the overall spread of the material will be similar,
since the potential energy available for both types of disposal is
essentially identical, and the transfer of vertical to horizontal
momentum will take place in the same manner when the material
impacts the bottom. The main difference in the deposit results from
the distribution of kinetic energy between the large cohesive
clumps which will absorb a great deal of energy without much
horizontal movement and the more fluid muds which will readily flow
until that energy is dissipated. The distribution of particles
expected in the dredged material is given in Table 4-1 (COE, 1988).
Ta.ble 4-1 Distribution of particle diameters
in dredged material for the MBDS
Type Diameter Percent
(mm) by Weight
Silt and clay < 0.063 62
Sand 0.063 - 2.0 37
Gravel > 2.0 1
The overall size and thickness of the resulting disposal mound will
depend on the amount of material disposed at the site and the
navigation control exercised during the disposal effort.
Additional information concerning mound formation is presented in
Section 4.1.2.2.3, Additional Factors.
157
-------
4.1.2 Long Term Effects
Long term physical effects are changes in environmental conditions
that occur and persist over extended periods of time as a result
of dredged material disposal and include such factors as:
permanent changes in the topography of the site, alterations in the
benthic habitat as a result of disposal, and changes in current
patterns or hydrographic structure that may result from the
topographic features created.
4.1.2.1 Bathymetry and circulation
The MBDS region has been used for disposal of dredged material and
other waste products for more than 50 years. Consequently, the
center and western areas of the site are covered with dredged
material deposits, however, there are no significant topographic
features associated with those deposits. The dredged material
deposits are relatively thin, broad layers consisting primarily of
silts and some coarser sediments. There are localized regions with
concentrations of cohesive clump deposits in the vicinity of
disposal buoy locations.
Previous disposal operations at MBDS have not created any
significant topographic features, although the accumulation of
material in specific areas has altered the bottom conditions.
Studies of the disposal process (Morton, 1984; SAIC, 1987) have
indicated that control of the disposal point can restrict the
spread of material to relatively small areas; consequently, the
potential exists for future operations to accumulate more sediment
into more typical mound features.
The capacity of the MBDS area for disposal of dredged material is
virtually unlimited relative to the amount of sediment that would
have to be deposited at the site before significant topographic
changes would occur that might impact the circulation pattern of
the area or the stability of deposits. If disposal operations
resulted in covering a circular area of 1 km radius, then a mound
two meters high would require more than 6,000,000 m of material
to be deposited. Such a mound would have virtually no effect on
currents and the depth change would be so small that the forces
acting on the sediment would be unchanged. It is significant to
note that 6,000,000 m3 is more dredged material than has been
deposited at the site during the past ten years.
4.1.2.2 Potential for Resuspension and Transport
The potential for dredged material resuspension at the MBDS is an
important factor affecting the suitability of this site for
permanent dredged material disposal. If a significant fraction of
the material deposited is likely to be resuspended in the water
column and thus transported away from the disposal site by
currents, MBDS cannot be considered a controlled repository for
158
-------
this material. The following section presents an analysis of
potential for sediment resuspension at MBDS.
4.1.2.2.1 Conditions for Resuspension
Resuspension of noncohesive sediment is determined by the size and
density of the sediment particles and by the shear stress imparted
by currents and waves onto the ocean bottom (Vanoni, 1975). For
steady currents, the conditions leading to the initiation of
sediment motion are given by the Shields diagram (Shields, 1936).
The validity of this approach for wave induced shear stresses was
established by Madsen and Grant (1976). Their modified Shields
diagram is given in Figure 4-3. This diagram gives the condition
for incipient sediment motion in terms of two dimensionless
parameters:
To
and S. = - /(s-l)gd
(s-1) pgd 4v
where TO = bottom shear stress (kg/m/s2)
s= ssediment density relative to water (dimensionless)
g= acceleration of gravity (m/s2)
d= particle diameter (m)
v= kinematic viscosity of water (m2/s)
p = density of water (kg/m3)
For steady currents, the bottom shear stress is given by:
f
8
(1)
where: f= Darcy-Weisbach friction factor often presented in the
form of the Moody diagram (Daily and Harleman, 1966)
p = density of water (kg/m )
U= current speed (m/s) The speed measures 1 m above the
bottom and can be used in conjunction with a reference
height, D, of 10 m in the Reynolds' number and
relative roughness.
This formula can be used for waves also, by replacing U by Ub, the
bottom orbital wave velocity, and using the wave friction factor
diagram given in Figure 4-4 to determine f = 4fM (Jonsson, 1966).
In this diagram, Aj, is the bottom orbital excursion, which is given
by: Aj, = UbT/2rr. From linear wave theory, we have:
TTH 1 gT2
and L = tanh(2irh/L) (2)
T sinh(2»rh/L) 2ir
159
-------
where: T = wave period (s)
L = wave length (m)
H = wave height (m)
h = water depth (m)
For a given particle diameter, the bottom shear stress required for
initiation of motion can be determined from Figure 4-3. A fixed
particle density s = 2.57, representative of quartz in seawater,
can be used. The corresponding current or wave velocity can be
determined using the appropriate friction factor diagram. These
critical velocities are listed in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2 Critical near-bottom velocities for initiation
of sediment motion
Particle
Diameter
d
(mm)
0.063
0.10
0.16
0.29
0.46
0.74
1.36
2.15
3.42
Critical
Steady
Current
34.2
33.4
34.0
37.0
41.1
50.0
69.5
92.3
119.2
Velocity
6.3 s
14.5
14.0
14.7
17.7
19.5
22.4
31.1
41.9
54.2
for initiation
(cm/s)
Wave Period
10 s 12 s
16.3 17.3
15.6 16.5
16.2 17.0
18.5 18.9
21.2 22.1
25.0 26.4
34.5 36.3
46.1 48.4
61.0 64.7
of motion
14 s
18.3
17.3
17.8
19.4
23.0
27.8
38.7
50.6
68.4
It is clear from this table that the near-bottom fluid velocities
required to initiate motion are significantly higher for steady
currents than for wave induced currents. The reason is that the
bottom boundary layer thickness is much smaller for oscillatory
motion than for steady current, leading to larger bottom shear
stresses and higher potential for erosion.
Once fine sediment particles have been destabilized from their
resting place on the bottom, for near-bottom velocities larger than
the critical values derived above, they are relatively easily put
in suspension in the water column because of turbulence. Thus, the
initiation of motion criterion is a reasonable indicator of
particle resuspension. Once particles are resuspended in the water
column, they are readily transported by the current.
Depth-averaged tidal current amplitudes at the MBDS are on the
order of 10 cm/s. This yields a tidal excursion on the order of
1.4 km, which is the estimated distance that a particle would be
transported away from the site during one half tide cycle.
160
-------
-o 2
01
no''
II
10
i i
i IT
MOTION
NO MOTION
1
5 10' 2
I02 2
FIGURE 4-3 MODIFIED SHIELDS DIAGRAM FOR THE INITIATION
OF SEDIMENT MOTION (MADSEN AND GRANT, 1976)
161
-------
ID
2
'1
w
10
i
3
i | i i 1
i 1 1 1 1 1
1 i i 1
i 1 1 ii
. . .
i i i 1 1 1 1
TT
/
1 1 1 1 II 1
1 1 1 1
ROUGH TURBULENT
SMOOTH TURBULENT'
I I I I _Lll.L.I
1,
L_i_l_i_iJ
i in 11
i i i i i i M i
A.
2 -
1 i I 1
I i I i 1 1 1
I02 2
5 I0 2 5
5 I05 2 5 I06 2 5 I07
RE =
I/
FIGURE 4-4 WAVE FRICTION FACTOR DIAGRAM (JOHNSON, 1966)
162
-------
4.1.2.2.2 Application to the MBDS
The highest near-bottom steady currents observed at the MBDS are
on the order of 30 cm/s, approximately once every three years,
(COE, 1988) and this value is less than the lowest steady current
needed to cause erosion, as indicated in Table 4-2. Thus
resuspension of dredged material deposited at the MBDS can only
occur through wave influence or a combination of waves and
currents.
For a given water depth, the wave heights required to generate the
critical bottom velocities listed in Table 4-2 can be determined
from Eq.(2) as a function of the wave period. Graphical solutions
of these equations, such as presented in the Shore Protection
Manual (CERC, 1984), can be helpful since determination of the wave
length, L, from Equation (2) is not straightforward. Wave heights
needed for resuspension of sediment at the MBDS are presented in
Table 4-3. based on a water depth of 85 m. Smaller wave heights
are required for longer period waves.
An analysis of the combined effect of waves and current was
conducted following the methodology proposed by Grant and Madsen
(1986). For a given wave height, the presence of a steady current
increases the bottom shear stress, because both the current and the
waves genere.te near-bottom velocities should be added. Thus, as
currents increase, the critical wave height required for sediment
resuspension decreases. The largest reduction of critical wave
height because of current will be for waves causing small
near-bottom velocities. Using 12 second waves and 0.1 mm sediment
particles, the wave height needed to cause sediment motion was
found to decrease by a maximum of 15% when occurring in conjunction
with a near-bottom current of 10 cm/s. This is the typical
near-bottom tidal current speed, which occurs 4 times a day.
Because of this small relative effect compared to the uncertainty
of the overall analysis, this aspect was not considered to be
significant.
The largest waves in Massachusetts Bay are generated by winds
blowing from the northeast, because the fetch is limited for other
wind directions. For northeast winds, the resultant wave heights
are duration limited. For those conditions, significant wave
heights and peak spectral periods are plotted as a function of wind
speed and duration in Figure 4-5 (CERC, 1984) . Based on these and
the wave characteristics listed in Table 4-3, the range of wind
speeds and durations needed to resuspend sediment particles of
different diameters are plotted in Figure 4-6.
Records of hourly wind speeds at Logan Airport for the year 1981
were analyzed to determine the frequency of occurrence of different
wind speeds and duration. Running vector averages over 6 and 12
hours were computed. The highest average speeds obtained were
31 mph and IL4 mph for 6 and 12 hours, respectively. These are
163
-------
Table 4-3 Wave heights required to initiate sediment motion
Particle
Diameter
d
fmm)
0.063
0.10
0.16
0.29
0.46
0.74
1.36
2.15
3.42
Critical
Wave Height
(m)
Wave Period (sec)
8.0
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
10
8.0
7.7
8.0
9.1
10.4
12.3
17.0
**
**
12
3.7
3.5
3.6
4.0
4.7
5.6
7.7
10.3
13.7
14
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.6
3.1
3.8
5.3
6.9
9.3
** = wave height larger than breaking wave height
164
-------
3
O
c
.O
ra
Q
30
40
50
Wind Speed (mph)
60
LEGEND
WAVE HEIGHT
WAVE PERIOD
(PEAK SPECTACLE PERIOD)
FIGURE 4-5 WAVE HEIGHT AND PERIOD AS A FUNCTION
OF WIND SPEED AND DURATION
165
-------
if?
o
c
.0
30
40
50
Wind Speed (mph)
60
70
FIGURE 4-6 WIND CHARACTERISTICS REQUIRED TO RESUSPEND
SEDIMENT OF DIFFERENT SIZES
166
-------
below the threshold of wind conditions needed to achieve
resuspension for any size particles. Wind speeds at Logan Airport
are however, lower than in the middle of Massachusetts Bay and 1981
represents only one year for which data was readily available. The
year 1981 was relatively calm with respect to wind. The use of
wind data from this year may have underpredicted actual sediment
resuspension at MBDS.
Wind roses for Massachusetts Bay indicate that winds capable of
resuspending sediment particles of less than about 0.5 mm do occur
infrequently. A more quantitative characterization would require
analysis of wind records from a measuring station in Massachusetts
Bay, such as the Boston Lightship over several years. Although
1981 data was used in this modeling effort, data from 1978 to 1985
was also analyzed. EPA analyzed hourly wind velocity and duration
data during this period and found that winds capable of causing
significant resuspension ocurred once in February 1978.
4.1.2.2.3 Additional Factors
The smallest sediment size included in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 is
0.063 mm and this represents the approximate lower limit of
applicability of this approach. Smaller size sediment, mainly silt
and clay, tend to become cohesive over time. The critical velocity
for initiation of motion is therefore dependent on the time elapsed
after deposition. Erosion of cohesive sediment is an area where
considerable uncertainty remains. For short consolidation times,
the critical velocities would be on the same order as those
obtained for d = 0.06 mm. After longer times, higher near-bottom
velocities would be required to initiate motion.
Table 4-1 shows that a large fraction of the dredged material is
susceptible to consolidation. Other factors affecting the
potential for resuspension at the MBDS include the presence of
cohesive clumps in the dredged material and bioturbation.
Clumps of fine cohesive sediment can result from clamshell type
dredging. Such clumps tend to remain aggregated through the
dumping process and are resistent to resuspension because of their
large size. However, large clumps tend to increase the bottom
shear stress; so that individual particles may erode from the clumps
and consequently resuspend.
As discussed further in Section 4.1.2.3, bioturbation can increase
or decrease the cohesiveness of fine sediments. Another factor
possibly influencing resuspension is the armoring of the bottom
which occurs; when fines are removed from the top layer. The larger
particles remaining are capable of resisting erosion and protect
finer particles located underneath. This means that during
resuspension events, only a fraction of the particles small enough
to be resuspended would actually be resuspended. The magnitude of
this fraction depends on 1) the fraction of particles subject to
167
-------
resuspension, 2) the height of the deposit mound on the ocean
floor, 3) the frequency of resuspension events compared to the
frequency of dumping and 4) the amount by which successive dumps
overlap.
The average dump load is on the order of 2000 m3. Assuming a
deposition radius of 50 m leads to an average deposit mound height
of 0.25 m. The fraction of the particles subject to resuspension
is uncertain because of the potential for consolidation of very
fine particles. Assuming all the particles of less than 0.5 mm
diameter would be resuspended, the resuspended fraction would be
on the order of 95%, based on Table 4-1. Then the layer thickness
which would need to be removed before armoring occurs is about
0.5/0.05 = 10 mm. Thus fines in the top 4% of the deposition mound
would be resuspended, representing 3.8%, or approximately 4%, of
the total mass discharged. New deposits will protect older ones
so that a smaller percentage of the total mass discharged since the
last resuspension event would be resuspended. This estimate is
obviously very approximate.
In summary, resuspension of dredged material deposited at the MBDS
will occur only infrequently owing to waves during large storms.
Although a thorough analysis of winds was not conducted, the data
reviewed indicates that significant resuspension could occur
approximately once every three or four years. Owing to
consolidation of silt and clay and because of armoring, the
fraction of deposited sediment which will resuspend during any
resuspension event was estimated at approximately 4% of the recent
(unconsolidated) deposits.
The dredged material appears to be very stable once it has been
deposited. Samples of material that had been in place for more
than two years still displayed the reduced, high organic, black mud
characteristic of dredged material from estuaries in the region.
Side scan sonar and REMOTS© surveys also documented the
distribution of dredged material and presence of cohesive clumps
in areas where disposal had taken place several years earlier.
Consequently, it is apparent that neither physical disturbance from
currents and waves, nor bioturbation significantly affect these
deposits.
4.1.2.3 Bioturbation
Bioturbation, the movement or modification of sediment by benthic
organisms, can either enhance or reduce the potential for sediment
resuspension, depending on the type of benthic infauna present and
their interaction with the sediment (Rhoads and Boyer, 1982). In
most cases where burrowing organisms are active, pelletization and
"dilation" (increasing porosity) of the fine-grained sediment
eliminates the cohesiveness between particles, making the seafloor
more susceptible to erosion. Furthermore, bioturbation by larger
animals breaks down the cohesive clumps into smaller features,
168
-------
making them !aore accessible to the burrowing infauna. Conversely,
some tube-dwelling animals, such as amphipods and small
polychaetes, create mats of tubes cemented together by organic
secretions which serve to stabilize the sediment surface, making
it resistant to erosion. Similarly, the resulting mucous from en-
hanced microbial production also tends to stabilize the sediment
surface.
In most cases, deposition of dredged material will drastically
alter the structure of the benthic community in the immediate
vicinity of the deposit; the magnitude and duration of this impact
on the benthic population will depend on the amount and type of
material deposited, the level of contaminants present in the
disposed material, and the time of year when disposal occurs. The
sequence of infaunal communities which recolonize an area after a
disturbance, such as deposition of dredged material, is described
in detail in Rhoads and Boyer (1982). Biological assemblages which
stabilize the sediment are more frequently present during the first
stages of recolonization, while the deeper-burrowing animals which
decrease sediment shear strength gradually infiltrate the site over
a period of time.
Most estimates of the stress required for initiation of sediment
motion, including those discussed in the previous sections, depend
on empirical laboratory criteria. These estimates are based upon
experiments using flat beds of abiotic, uniform non-cohesive
^sediments. Currently, one of the most intensely studied topics in
the field of marine research is the effect of animal-sediment-fluid
interactions on sediment stability. In particular, the potential
for sediment, resuspension under given hydrodynamic conditions as
a function of the type of biological assemblage present is being
examined (e,.g., Rhoads et al., 1978; Yingst and Rhoads, 1978;
,Eckman et al., 1981; 1981; Grant et al., 1982; Carey, 1983; Jumars
and Nowell, 1984; Eckman and Nowell, 1984; Muschenheim et al.-,
1986). Unfortunately, there are still no absolute predictions
.which can be made concerning sediment transport, even if the
biological community is known. Without doing controlled
experiments, biological processes cannot be absolutely classified
as stabilizing or destabilizing. The different functional types
of assemblages described above make different contributions to
stabilizing or destabilizing the sediment-water interface and these
contributions are not linearly additive. Most research to date
-documents the effects of a single biological process on initial
sediment motion; however, even though these estimates are
important, it is the sum of all biological and physical effects
within a given sediment which determines stabilization or
destabilizat.ion.
Sediments for which the effects of bioturbation are readily
apparent are more susceptible to erosion and transport than freshly
deposited, cohesive dredged material that is either azoic or
inhabited only by small tubicolous, opportunistic polychaetes
169
-------
characteristic of initial colonizing benthos. The intensive
particle bioturbation characteristic of these mature, equilibrium
communities is associated with fine grained sediments with water
contents greater than 60% and commonly over 70%.
Over time, the dredged material at MBDS will be progressively
repopulated which will be accompanied by further biogenic
remolding, dilation, and pelletization of the sediment surface to
depths comparable to those measured on the ambient seafloor.
Typically, such biogenic processing is markedly seasonal,
especially in coastal waters which experience large seasonal
changes in bottom water temperatures. For each 10°C change in
temperature, bioturbation rates can be expected to change by a
factor of 2 to 3 owing to the effect of temperature on metabolic
rates. During the thermal maximum, the critical threshold erosion
velocity may be significantly reduced as a result of this biogenic
activity. However, it is important to note that bottom
temperatures at MBDS do not vary significantly over the year (see
Section 3.1.2.1) and that periods of highest temperature are least
likely to have strong storm events which would create easterly
winds. Therefore, the effects of bioturbation should be smaller
and less variable over the seasons than in more shallow sites.
4.1.3 Summary of Physical Effects
The MBDS is located in the northern portion of Massachusetts Bay
west of Stellwagen Bank. The topography of the site is sharply
divided into two areas, a shoal region in the northeast quadrant
of the area and a deep, relatively flat depression with an average
depth of approximately 85 to 90 m over the remainder of the site.
The shoal areas are covered with coarse sand deposits while the
natural sediments in the deeper regions consist of fine silt
deposits.
The water column at MBDS is characteristic of the shelf regime
throughout New England, with strong stratification near the surface
during the late summer and isothermal conditions during the winter.
Near-surface currents in the area are dominated by tidal flow in
northeast-southwest directions with maximum tidal velocities on the
order of 30 cm/s. Based on the results of the current meter
deployment in September 1987, the midwater depths experience mean
current velocities from 10 to 15 cm/s with a dominant northwesterly
flow. At the lower depths, there was a secondary component to the
southeast. Small amounts of fine grained sediment separate from
the dredged material plume during convective descent and remain in
suspension. During periods when a distinct pycnocline exists,
these sediments could be concentrated at that level and potentially
be transported away from the disposal point. The actual amount of
this material will be determined by the physical characteristics
of the sediment, the volume of material disposed, and method of
disposal but may range from 3 to 5%. When the pycnocline, or
density gradient, is near the surface, net transport would be in
170
-------
a SW or NE direction.
Near-bottom currents are very low, averaging less than 7 cm/s.
Occasional higher velocities reaching up to 20 cm/s in a westerly
direction have been observed in near-bottom waters in response to
easterly storm events that occur during the fall or winter. No
strong bottom currents were observed as a result of storm events,
however moderate storm induced currents were in a westerly
direction, not the southeasterly direction predicted by Butman
(1977) . However, other studies have indicated different
predominant currents. Based on these data it is apparent that the
near-bottom currents at MBDS are not sufficient to resuspend
sediments. However, should resuspension occur because of waves,
the currents; generated in response to easterly storm events could
be sufficient to transport material beyond the boundary of the
site. The wave regime in the vicinity of MBDS is controlled by the
lack of fetch from a westerly direction and the fact that storms
are duration-limited in their ability to generate waves. Since
storms generally approach the MBDS region over land from the south
and west, northeast storms do not affect the waters of
Massachusetts Bay until they are essentially at the site.
Consequently the duration of these storms in Massachusetts Bay is
quite short (maximum of 1 to 2 days). These limitations, combined
with the depth of the site (>85 m) , greatly restrict the generation
of waves large enough to cause resuspension of dredged material at
MBDS. Resuspension may occur once every three or four years. When
resuspension does occur, at most only 4% of the material would be
involved.
4.2 Effects on the Chemical Environment
4.2.1 Water Quality
Water quality at MBDS is subject to spatial and temporal
fluctuations. Physical processes contributing to these
fluctuations; include: seasonal density stratification and
destratificaition, tidal and wind induced current patterns and
rainfall related coastal freshwater discharges. Data defining
stratification and circulation at MBDS are discussed in Section
3.1.1. Chemical data defining sediment and water quality
fluctuations at MBDS are presented in Section 3.2.1. Superimposed
on background fluctuations are both immediate and longer-term
cumulative sediment and water quality variations caused by dredged
material disposal.
The process of disposal has the potential to elute some portion of
the various chemical contaminants adsorbed to the dredged sediment
particles. Chemical concentrations of contaminants typically
adsorbed to particulates are in the parts per million ("ppm" or
"mg/kg") range, while water quality concentrations resulting from
elution of those chemicals are typically in the parts per billion
range. The solubility of sediment absorbed contaminants depends
171
-------
in part on individual chemical equilibrium partitioning
coefficients and the physical and chemical properties of the
particles and water column.
Contaminants initially contained in dredged material solids
disposed of at MBDS rapidly partition between solids and the
surrounding waters. Resultant concentrations within the sediment
and the water phases are controlled by chemical-specific
equilibrium partition coefficients, as well as the physical and
chemical characteristics of both phases. Higher partition
coefficients result in a larger portion of dredged material
contaminants being introduced into the water column than do lower
partition coefficients.
The analysis presented in this section consists of a screening of
historical dredged material disposal data at the NBDS to determine
USEPA Marine Water Quality Criteria ("WQC") which were likely
exceeded in the past and the duration and areal extent of these
exceedances. The results generated were used to estimate worst
case water quality impacts associated with continued use of the
MBDS.
A numerical model was developed to determine temporal and spatial
variations of water column toxicant levels, e.g., heavy metals and
PCBs, within a dump patch during and subsequent to each historical
barge disposal event at the MBDS in 1982. The year 1982 was chosen
as a worst case year because the greatest volume of material
disposed of at MBDS of all recorded years occurred then. Moving-
average toxicant concentrations corresponding to 1-hr, 1-day and
4-day time periods were calculated for each historical dump
starting at dump initiation and extending forward in time.
Model predicted water column toxicant levels are defined as total
levels per unit volume of seawater, such that the sum of the
sediment sorbed and dissolved toxicant components (ambient levels
and dredged material disposal) are included. Modeling of total
water column toxicant levels is consistent with the laboratory
bioassay methodology used by EPA to determine criteria toxicant
levels. Model-predicted total water column toxicant levels
resulting from each disposal event were then compared to EPA
recommended acute and chronic marine WQC and the number of dredged
material disposal events likely to have resulted in criteria
exceedances during 1982 were determined. The model was also used
to determine the cumulative duration of criteria exceedances at the
center of all MBDS dredged material disposal patches during 1982.
Additionally, the model predicted the maximum distance from
individual disposal patch centers at which WQC were expected to be
exceeded during 1982.
4.2.1.1 Water Quality Criteria
USEPA WQC are developed as national guidance to ensure protection
of designated uses of water bodies, as defined in state and federal
172
-------
water quality standards. Since the MBDS is located within
Massachusetts Bay, an important marine fisheries resource, the
criteria us«d in this evaluation are those that were designed
primarily to protect aquatic biota which inhabit this water body
during all or part of their life cycles.
The three components of a water quality criterion are magnitude,
duration, and frequency. For an aquatic life criterion, the
magnitude is the concentration of a pollutant which, if exceeded
for a given duration and at a given frequency, will result in a
significant adverse impact on the aquatic biota. Duration is the
time period over which field (or model predicted) concentrations
are averaged for comparison with the criteria. The frequency
component of a criterion defines how often its magnitude may be
exceeded without significantly impacting the aquatic biota.
WQC for the protection of aquatic life contain two values for
allowable magnitude (concentration) of various toxicants: a
criterion mciximum concentration ("CMC") and criterion continuous
concentration ("CCC"). The CMC is established to protect the biota
against short-term acute toxicity, whereas the CCC protects against
long-term, chronic toxic effects.
The time-averaging period (duration) used for comparison of field
measurements (or model predictions) and the CMC magnitude is one
hour. In practice, one day averaging periods are used for
determining compliance with acute criteria because field
measurements; of toxicant concentrations at shorter time intervals
are not often available. The time-averaging period used for
comparison with the CCC is four consecutive days.
The frequency at which exceedance of a criterion (time-averaged)
concentration is allowed depends on site specific factors (USEPA,
1985) . Howesver, EPA recommends a frequency of once in three years
for both the CMC and CCC. Based on these frequencies, it is found
that exceedances of the CMC and CCC occurred less than 0.09 and
0.37% of the time, respectively. Current acute and chronic
criteria concentrations established by USEPA for each toxicant are
given in Table 4-4.
4.2.1.2 Background Toxicant Levels
In order to account for background water quality conditions, the
mean of measurements taken within the MBDS at three depths, during
June and September 1985 and January 1986 were used as background
toxicant levels. These levels are listed in Table 4-5.
Background levels for toxicants other than heavy metals and PCB's
were not measured during these surveys. Mean toxicant levels were
used as background levels in the dump model. Background levels for
173
-------
Table 4-4 EPA Marine Water Quality Criteria
Toxicant Name
Criteria Concentration (ppb)
Acute fCMCl Chronic (CCC)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
PCB's
2-nitrophenol
Di-n-butyl phthtalate
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthtalate
2-methyl phenol
Flouranthene
69
43
1100
2.9
140
2.1
75
95
10
850
400
400
5800
40
36
9.3
50
2.9
5.6
0.025
8.3
86
0.03
-
-
-
-
16
Table 4-5 Background Toxicant Levels at the MBDB
MBDS Measurements (ppb)
Toxicant Name Mean Std Dev Samples
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
PCB's
2.80
<0.2
0.412
2.80
1.77
1.35*
5
<20
0.012
1.235
—
0.264
1.235
0.34
0.82
-
0.022
32
9
34
29
30
33
12
36
10
Exceeds the EPA chronic (CCC) WQC
174
-------
zinc and cadmium were found to be below the analytical detection
limits. In these cases, one half the detection limit was used as
background levels in the dump model.
4.2.1.3 Belaction of Historical Period
Available data on individual dredged material disposal events
between 1976 and 1987 was reviewed to determine the year during
which the lairgest volume of dredged material was disposed of at
MBDS. The iiodel was then used to predict impacts of individual
disposal events during this worst case time period.
During 1982 the total volume of dredged material disposed at MBDS
was 646,713 cubic meters (COE, 1988). This annual volume was over
two times larger than the next largest annual volume (241,004 m )
recorded during the period between 1976 and 1987. Thus, 1982 was
selected for use as a worst case historical period in this modeling
analysis.
The disposal date, volume and source (dredge project site) of each
MBDS dump occurring during 1982 was obtained from COE. Data on the
level of toxicants in the surface sediments at each dredge project
site were also obtained from COE. Data for a total of 17 dredge
projects and over 370 individual dump events were developed using
the available data. Figure 4-7 demonstrates the frequent
overlapping of dredging projects and MBDS disposal events during
1982. The model simulates each disposal event individually,
despite the fact that several disposal events can occur within the
MBDS on a given day.
In most cases, the individual dump dates and volumes were
available. However, data on individual projects often consisted
of dump start and end dates and a total project dump volume. For
these cases, it was assumed that one dump occurred on each day
during the project and that individual dump volumes were equal
throughout the project.
4.2.1.4 Modeling of Historical Dump Events
During disposal of dredged material at MBDS the majority of the
released solids fall quickly through the water column under the
influence oJ: gravity as a concentrated cloud. This is referred to
as the convective descent phase as discussed in Section 4.1.1.1.
During convoctive descent within MBDS, water is entrained into the
cloud, resulting in a gradual decrease in its density until impact
with the bottom at depth of about 90 meters.
Bokuniewicz (1980), Gordon (1974), Johnson (1978), and Tavolaro
(1982) have estimated, through either in-situ measurements or
numerical modeling of the dominant physical processes, that between
3 and 5 percent of the dumped sediment remains suspended within the
water column below the disposal vessel as a cloud, and
175
-------
a
E
o
-------
is subsequently advected and mixed horizontally by ambient
currents. EPA used two different scenarios, with either 5% or 10%
remaining in suspension following dumping at the MBDS.
A numerical model was developed to simulate the effects of
horizontal mixing on total (dissolved plus sediment sorbed)
toxicant levels within each historical dump patch as it moved with
the currents following dumping. The model simulates a barge dump
as an instantaneous rectangular source of solids released into a
vertically mixed, flowing environment of unlimited lateral extent
and constant depth. Thus, vertical variations are neglected.
Solids settling following the initial convective descent phase is
not accounted for and the frame of reference moves with the center
of the dump patch. Solution of the three dimensional advective
diffusion equation for the above conditions leads to the following
formulation for toxicant concentration:
M L/2+X L/2-X W/2+Y
C = [erf( -7= + erf( )][erf(
4LW
Where C is the toxicant concentration at any location (X,Y), at
any time following injection. M is the mass of toxicant which
remains in suspension following a dump, L and W are the initial
horizontal length and width of the patch at mid-depth. X and Y
are the horizontal coordinates of the point of interest referenced
to the centetr of the patch. Ex and Ey are horizontal turbulent
diffusion coefficients, which increase in time following dumping
as the patch grows in size, in accordance with the following
equation:
Ex = Ev = 0.0027-t1-3*
* y
Ex and Ey are in units of square centimeters per second and t is
the elapsed time from dumping in seconds. The coefficient 0.0027
was calculated based on field measurements by Okubo (1971). The
error function, erf, was approximated using a six term polynomial.
Figure 4-8 shows results of the modeling for suspended solids
during one of the historical dump events in 1982. Each of the
curves represents the predicted instantaneous concentrations for
a section teiken through the center of the dump patch, at various
times subsequent to dumping.
After only 10 minutes, the modeling showed the patch to remain as
a concentrated cloud, approximately as long and wide as the
disposal barge. However, after 1 hour the patch spread
horizontally and the concentration at its center has decreased
slightly. After 2 hours, patch spreading has resulted in a
decrease in the concentration at its center by approximately 50
percent.
177
-------
Section Through Spreading Dump Plume
E
a
a
c
o
c
Q>
o
c
o
o
(ft
(ft
/\ ,-10-Minutes
2-Hours
4-Hours
-200
-100 0
Distance from Center of Plume (meters)
100
FIGURE 4-8 DUMP MODEL PREDICTIONS FOR SOLIDS
178
200
-------
The levels of toxicants corresponding to calculated patch solids
concentrations were determined for each 1982 dump at MBDS using
data supplied by COE on dredge project surface sediment toxicant
concentrations (milligrams toxicant per kilogram of dry solids).
Use of these data in the modeling is a conservative assumption,
since sediments dredged from relatively contaminated areas, such
as Boston Inner Harbor and the Chelsea River, also consist of
deeper sediments which typically have lower levels of toxicants
than do surface sediments.
The toxicant modeling was limited to parameters for which dredge
project sediment quality data were available. These parameters
included: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
nickel, zinc, and PCB. In addition, several other priority
pollutants were modeled using the highest levels measured in Quincy
Bay sediments (EPA, 1988) as a conservative assumption. These
additional parameters included: Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 2-
nitrophenol, Di-n-butyl phthalate, Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 2-
methyl phenol, and fluoranthene. Since data on MBDS background
levels for these toxicants are not available, zero background
levels were used in the modeling.
Because of the wide range of data available to define the fraction
of dredged material solids which would remain in suspension
following dumping of MBDS, separate runs of the model were made
using 5% and 10% unsettleable fractions.
Figure 4-9 shows the temporal variation of model-predicted
instantaneous copper levels at various distances from the center
of a patch, following dumping. It is seen that copper levels at
the patch center remain constant for approximately one hour after
dumping and decrease rapidly thereafter. In contrast, at distances
greater than the initial patch radius, the copper concentration is
equal to zero at time zero. As spreading progresses, copper
contained in the dump reaches locations further outside the initial
patch. Copper levels increase at these locations until a peak
level is achieved. The time required to reach the peak toxicant
level at any location outside the initial patch, i.e., diffusion
time, is related to the diffusion rates, Ex and E , and distance
from the outer boundary of the initial dump patch.
Assuming, for illustrative purposes, that the copper CMC criterion
was specified as an instantaneous level not to be exceeded at any
time and that the background copper level was zero, using the dump
model predictions in Figure 4-9, EPA estimated the maximum distance
from the patch center at which a copper CMC exceedance occurred was
approximately 35 meters and the duration of the CMC exceedance at
the patch center was approximately 3 hours. The dump model
determines the above maximum distances and durations, for each dump
event and toxicant, using instantaneous model predictions averaged
over time periods consistent with the appropriate criteria time-
averaged period.
179
-------
Instantaneous Values
10 -T
m
0-
d
c
o
c
0)
u
c
o
o
t_
0)
a
a
o
O
•-Patch Center
T
12
(Thousands)
Ellapsed lime since dump (SEC)
FIGURE 4-9 DUMP MODEL PREDICTIONS FOR COPPER
180
-------
4.2.1.5 Number/ Duration and Areal Extent of Criteria
Exceedances
Model predictions of the number of disposal events violating each
criterion at any point in the water column during 1982 are given
in Table 4-6 and 4-7, for 5% and 10% unsettleable solids fractions,
respectively. Model results for the priority pollutants found in
contaminated Quincy Bay sediments, e.g., fluoranthene, suggest that
EPA WQC for the toxicants were not exceeded in the water column
because of disposal at the MBDS during 1982.
In addition, the model was used to assess the total duration of
criteria exceedances likely to have occurred at the center of
patches following all dumps events at the MBDS during 1982. The
distances from individual patch centers at which the criteria
limits were achieved for only one criteria time-averaging period
(1-hour, 1-day, and 4-day) were determined. The maximum distance
from the point of disposal at which exceedances occurred during
1982 for each toxicant were then estimated. Results for criteria
exceedance duration and maximum distances are given in Tables 4-8
and 4-9, for assumptions of 5% and 10% unsettleable solids
fractions, respectively.
The radius of MBDS is 1 nautical mile or 1.9 kilometers. None of
the maximum radii for criteria exceedances were greater than the
MBDS radius. However, it is important to note that all disposal
path radii eire relative to patch centers and that the model does
not predict the actual location of patch centers over time
following disposal, owing to transport by tidal and wind induced
currents. Depending upon the actual disposal location within MBDS,
the disposal radius could extend beyond the MBDS boundary.
4.2.1.5.1 Arsenic
Based on 1-hour time-averaging and assuming a 10% unsettleable
solids fraction, the arsenic CMC was exceeded two times following
approximately 10% of the dumps. The radius of the areal extent of
this exceedemce was 14 meters. Based on 1-day time-averaging the
arsenic CMC was not exceeded for either assumption of the
unsettleable solids fraction. Also, the arsenic CCC was not
exceeded at the MBDS during 1982.
4.2.1.5.2 Cadmium and Chromium
Neither the CMC or CCC criteria for cadmium and chromium were
exceeded at the MBDS during 1982 as the result of dredged material
disposal.
4.2.1.5.3 Copper
It is seen that if a 1-hour time-averaging period is used as the
exceedance basis, then the acute (CMC) criterion for copper was
181
-------
Table 4-6
Number of Dumps Resulting in Criteria Exceedances
owing to Dredged Material Disposal at the MBDB during
1982 (5% Unsettleable Solids Assumed)
Acute
Toxicant
1-hr
Exceed
1-day
Exceed
Chronic
4-day
Exceed
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
PCBs
0
0
0
354
38
34
22
206
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
9
*
0
0
34
Note: * Ambient toxicant level exceeds criterion
Table 4-7
Number of Dumps Resulting in Criteria Exceedances
owing to Dredged Material Disposal at the MBD8 During
1982 (10% Unsettleable Solids Assumed)
Acute
Toxicant
1-hr
Exceed
1-day
Exceed
Chronic
4-day
Exceed
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
PCB
34
0
0
354
84
75
34
288
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
35
*
2
0
95
Note: * Ambient toxicant level exceeds criterion
182
-------
exceeded following all 354 dump events in 1982, for both of the
unsettleable solids fractions assumed. However, if a 1-day time-
averaging period is used, then the copper CMC and CCC were exceeded
for approximately 10% of the 1982 dump events. The reason for the
large number of copper criteria exceedances predicted by the model
is the fact that the background copper level in the MBDS vicinity
is 2.81 ppb, which is only 0.09 ppb below the acute and chronic
criteria, therefore only minor amounts of copper in dredged
material will cause exceedances.
The copper CMC is exceeded at patch centers (based on 1-hour time-
averaging) for 419 days and 313 days, assuming 10% and 5%
unsettleable solids fractions, respectively. It should be noted
that the duration of copper CMC exceedances (1-hour time-averaging)
is greater than the one year period over which all dumps occurred.
This is not unrealistic, since CMC exceedances were found to
persist at the center of individual dump patches for up to 4 days.
The maximum distance from patch centers at which one CMC (1-hour
average) exceedance occurred for copper was 1235 meters and 874
meters, assuming 10% and 5% unsettleable solids fractions,
respectively. If a 1-day time-averaging period is used for
determination of the copper CMC exceedances, the CMC was exceeded
for a total of 64 days and 54 days, assuming 10% and 5%
unsettleable solids fractions, respectively. Similarly, the
maximum distance from patch centers at which one CMC (1-day
average) exceedance occurred was 1147 meters and 776 meters,
assuming 10% and 5% unsettleable solids fractions, respectively.
The CCC criterion for copper was exceeded at patch centers for a
total of 148 days and one CCC exceedance occurred at a maximum
distance ol: 737 meters, assuming a 10% unsettleable solids
fraction. It is important to note that there may be temporary
water quality exceedances outside of the MBDS boundary depending
on where the buoy is placed. If the buoy is maintained at the
current loceition, the patch will extend approximately 620 m beyond
the site boundary if a 10% unsettleable solids fraction is assumed.
4.2.1.5.4 Lead
The number of lead CMC exceedances, based on 1-hour time-averaging,
was found to be sensitive to the unsettleable solids fraction
assumed, with 24% and 11% of the dumps resulting in CMC (1-hour
average) exceedances, assuming 10% and 5% unsettleable solids
fractions, respectively. Based on 1-day time-averaging, the lead
CMC was not exceeded. The lead CCC was exceeded as the result of
10% and 3% of the dump events, assuming 10% and 5% unsettleable
solids fractions, respectively. Duration of WQC exceedances ranged
from 0 to 141 days while the radius of the areal extent ranged from
0 to 43 meters.
183
-------
Table 4-8 Cumulative Duration and Maximum Radius of Exceedances
owing to Dredged Material Disposal at the MBD8 During
1982 (5% Unsettleable Solids Assumed)
Toxicant
Cumulative Duration of
Exceedances (days)
CMC CCC
1-hour 1-day 4-days
Maximum Radius of
Affected area (m)
CMC CCC
1-hour 1-day 4-days
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
PCBs
0
0
0
313
3
4
1
17
0
0
0
0
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
142
36
*
0
0
137
0
0
0
874
24
24
14
34
0
0
0
0
776
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
434
24
*
0
0
24
Note: * Ambient toxicant level exceeds criterion
Table 4-9 Cumulative Duration and Maximum Radius of Exceedances
owing to Dredged Material Disposal at the MBDS During
1982 (10% Unsettleable Solids Assumed)
Toxicant
Cumulative Duration of
Exceedances (days)
CMC CCC
1-hour 1-day 4-days
Maximum Radius of
Affected area (m)
CMC CCC
1-hour 1-day 4-days
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
PCBs
2
0
0
419
8
9
3
33
0
0
0
64
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
148
141
*
8
0
384
14
0
0
1235
34
43
24
0
0
0
0
0
1147
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
737
43
*
24
0
34
Note: * Ambient toxicant level exceeds criterion
184
-------
4.2.1.5.5 Morcury
The number of mercury CMC exceedances which occurred at the MBDS,
based on 1-hour time-averaging was found to be sensitive to the
unsettleable solids fraction assumed, with 21% of the disposal
events resulting in CMC exceedances of 9 days over a 43 meter
radius area a.nd 10% of the disposal events resulting in CMC (1-hour
average) exceedances of 4 days over a 24 meter radius area,
assuming 10% and 5% unsettleable solids fractions, respectively.
Based on 1-day time-averaging, the mercury CMC was not exceeded.
Background levels of mercury at the MBDS (1.17 ppb) were found to
exceed the CCC of 0.025 ppb. As a result, the CCC for mercury was
exceeded at all times during 1982.
4.2.1.5.6 Nickel
The number of dumps resulting in nickel CMC exceedances (based on
1-hour time-averaging) was found to be insensitive to the
unsettleable solids fraction assumed. Approximately 9% and 6% of
the dumps resulted in CMC (1-hour average) exceedances, assuming
10% and 5% unsettleable solids fractions, respectively. Based on
1-day time-averaging, the nickel CMC was not exceeded owing to any
of the 1982 disposal events. The CCC criterion for nickel was
exceeded following only two dumps events in 1982, assuming an
unsettleable solids fraction of 10%. Assuming a 5% unsettleable
solids fraction, nickel CCC exceedances would not have occurred.
Exceedances of WQC ranged from 0 to 8 days over areas with radii
ranging from 0 to 14 meters.
4.2.1.5.7 Zinc
The number of dumps which exceeded the acute criterion for zinc
(based on 1-hour time-averaging) was found to be sensitive to the
unsettleable: solids fraction assumed. Approximately 81% and 58%
of the dumps resulted in zinc CMC (1-hr average) exceedances,
assuming 101; and 5% unsettleable solids fractions, respectively.
These events resulted in criteria exceedances to 33 days for a 34
meter radius area and 17 days for a 24 meter radius area, assuming
10% and 5% unsettleable solids fractions respectively. Based on
1-day time-civeraging, the zinc CMC was not exceeded following any
of the 1982 dump events. The zinc CCC was not exceeded during any
of the 1982 dumps.
4.2.1.5.8 PCB
The CMC criterion for PCB was not exceeded following any of the
dump events, based on both 1-hour and 1-day time-averaging of model
results. However, the CCC for PCB (0.03 ppb) was exceeded for 384
days following 27% of the dump events over a 34 meter radius area
and for 137 days following 10% of the dump events over a 24 meter
radius area, assuming 10% and 5% unsettleable solids fractions,
185
-------
respectively.
In summary, all exceedances of WQC will be confined to the disposal
area and are not expected to have a significant affect on the water
quality of Massachusetts Bay. The extent of copper exceedance of
criteria is because of the high background level. Typical copper
and mercury levels within other portions of Massachusetts Bay are
somewhat lower than those measured at MBDS. Disposal of dredged
material at MBDS over many years may be a reason for this trait.
Use of MBDS ambient levels in the modeling is appropriate because
elevated background levels of copper and mercury at MBDS will
persist if continued use of the site is feasible.
4.2.2 Sediment Chemical Environment
The disposal of dredged material at MBDS is anticipated to continue
at the present rate or potentially increase with the advent of
major construction activities proposed for the greater Boston
metropolitan area. The chemical quality of major improvement type
dredging is different than for maintenance type dredging. The
disposal of uncontaminated "Boston Blue Clay" from areas underlying
Boston Harbor should not add to the chemical contaminant levels at
MBDS and if combined with dredged material already deposited at the
MBDS may lower average sediment contaminant concentrations. The
short-term and long-term effects of disposal activities, with
respect to chemical quality, are best predicted by analyzing the
quality of previous disposals.
Table 1-1 in Chapter 1 summarizes the qualities and quantities of
dredged material disposed at MBDS since 1976. An average chemical
quality and standard deviations of test results are presented along
with the maximum concentrations. The weighted average data are
most representative of total potential impacts, since they
compensate for large volume disposals versus small volume
disposals, the former's chemical impact being more significant than
for the latter. These data are highly biased toward the worst
case, or elevated contaminant levels because testing protocol calls
for samples of sediment chemistry to be taken from areas in the
system that are anticipated to be most contaminated. Less
contaminated dredged material is therefore not equally represented.
Stellwagen Basin is a natural settling area for fine particulates
in the lower Gulf of Maine system. Sediment accumulation rates for
the area are approximately 1 to 2 mm per year, with estimates of
sediments at 30 cm deep being 300 to 500 years old (Gilbert, 1976).
Therefore, the approximate 11,650 m2 surface area of MBDS receives
approximately 11.65 m of fine-grained particulates annually from
natural processes. Short term impacts are influenced by the
quality of materials settling on MBDS and the disposed material.
186
-------
4.2.2.1 Alterations in the Chemical Environment
The chemical alterations at the disposal site can be predominantly
associated with the fine-grained dredged material with a
representative contaminant level as listed in Table 1-1.
Using the MDWPC (1978) classification of dredged material, the
ambient sediment regime at MBDS is altered with inputs of moderate
levels (Class II) of mercury, lead, chromium, arsenic and high
levels of oil and grease. Statistical analysis revealed
significantly elevated levels of copper, lead, zinc, chromium, PAH
and PCB within the MBDS boundary. Existing sediment chemistry
characteristics at MBDS are discussed in detail in Section 3.2.2.
Arsenic inputs are classified as moderate (Class II) by the MDWPC
(1978) system, but their quantities (avg. 12.63 ppm input, 6 to 13
ppm ambient) are in the range of ambient or unimpacted substrates
(Barr, 1987). Therefore, because the classification range of 10
to 20 ppm is; considered elevated and encompasses natural levels
found in this study. Consequently, there is not statistical
difference between arsenic at sites off versus on MBDS.
Mercury levels at Station ON in dredged material are below 0.01
ppm, much lower than the 0.68 ppm weighted average for inputs.
Mercury was historically used as a biocide in anti-fouling marine
paints. The elevated inputs (Class II 0.5 to 1.0 ppm) are in the
lower end of the MDWPC moderate range and may be biased by larger
inputs in the 1970's.
Copper is statistically elevated at MBDS in comparison to outside
the MBDS boundary. Quantitatively, however, Station ON average
copper levels are low at 69.8 ppm and in reasonable agreement with
the weighted average 104.6 ppm inputs.
Zinc inputs to MBDS have a weighted average of 170.8 ppm, while
Station ON concentrations were similar, averaging 220 ppm. The
input range is in the upper Class I category (< 200 ppm) while the
in-situ average (220 ppm) was in the lower Class II (200 to 400
ppm) range.
Nickel and cadmium had low input levels from past disposal
operations and were not present in significantly elevated
quantities at MBDS nor were they statistically different from
reference areas.
The concentration of lead at the disposal site is higher than
ambient and statistically elevated in comparison to the reference
station. Lead inputs from past disposal operations averaged 126.8
ppm, in a Class II range. Concentrations of lead at Station ON
agreed with inputs averaging 156.8 ppm (also Class II).
Chromium levels at the disposal site were statistically elevated
187
-------
in comparison to outside the MBDS boundary. Weighted average
chromium inputs to the disposal site were 105.9 ppm, a low Class
II (100 to 200 ppm) value. This was similar to in-situ
concentrations of chromium averaging 115 ppm at Station ON.
The elevated weighted average of oil and grease levels input to
MBDS averaged 2.13%, a Class III (>1.0 %) value according to MDWPC.
The disposal area was not sampled for oil and grease contents, but
field notes identified Station ON as having "an oily sheen".
Specific oil and grease compounds of concern are Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons ("PAH") which were found as 0.51 ppm of
flouranthene. These levels reported are not exceptional in the
perspective of urban dredged material. Phthalate compounds were
also found at MBDS at a 7.6 ppm level. However, PAH levels have
not been established for low versus high classifications in dredged
material.
Impacts resulting from deposition of dredged material will have a
short-term impact on water column chemistry (see Section 4.2.1)
that potentially could be accumulated by filter feeding benthos as
tissue residue in biota. The deposit feeding benthos that pioneer
the disposal mound may bioaccumulate contaminants present in the
substrate. The results of tissue residue analysis for this project
indicates limited bioaccumulation potential at MBDS (COE, 1988)
(See Section 4.3).
4.2.3 Summary of Chemical Effects
Reviewing the historical disposal data, the water column chemistry,
the in-situ versus ambient sediment chemistry, it is evident that
disposal of dredged material at MBDS imparts a chemical signature
in a low to moderate (Cr, Cu, Pb, and Zn) range for sediments.
Levels of contaminants detected in sediment cores at the disposal
site are consistent with those found in bulk sediment tests from
dredged material. Water quality impacts are temporary and limited
to the period immediately following the disposal event. A few
exceedances of acute and chronic water quality may occur for a
limited duration over generally a small area within MBDS during
disposals.
4.3 Effects on Biota
4.3.1 Effects on Plankton
Dredged material disposal at MBDS probably will not significantly
impact plankton populations in Massachusetts Bay. Any impacts to
plankton at MBDS will be related to short-term changes in water
quality in the immediate vicinity of a dredged material disposal
plume as described in Section 4.2.1.
4.3.1.1 Mortality from Physical Stress
During a disposal event phytoplankton below the disposal barge will
188
-------
be exposed to shear stress, and to abrasion by high concentrations
of suspended sediments. Small, flagellated species are typically
more susceptible to damage by turbulent shear (Smayda, 1983) and
abrasion than such organisms as diatoms, many of which are armored
which siliceous cell walls. The stress from this physical impact
will result :Ln mortality and subsequent short-term reduction in the
plankton community. Some phytoplankton may be carried below the
euphotic zone with the descending mass or entrained water and
dredged material. Additional plankton may become adhered to
sediment, and subsequently sink below the euphotic zone (Pequegnat,
1978). Phytoplankton below the euphotic zone will die because of
lack of light.
4.3.1.2 Sublethal Effects
Increased concentrations of suspended sediments in the vicinity of
the disposal point will temporarily reduce the penetration of light
through the water column, and therefore may temporarily reduce
phytoplankton productivity (Pequegnat, 1978). Although even low
concentrations of suspended sediments (10 mg/1) can reduce
phytoplankton productivity in clear coastal waters (Smith, 1982),
the area likely to be impacted by disposal activities is small.
Using a simple, conservative model (see Table 4-10), it is
estimated that, for a typical disposal event, the area of the water
column at MBDS impacted by significant (> 10 mg/1) concentrations
of suspended solids is 0.225 km2. This area is only a small
fraction (2.1%) of the total surface area of MBDS. Additionally,
within hours; of disposal, suspended solids concentrations will
return to ambient levels (see Section 4.1).
Zooplankton entrained within the jet will also be temporarily
exposed to elevated concentrations of suspended sediments. To
date, no studies have examined the effects of suspended sediments
on any of the three predominant Massachusetts Bay copepod species.
Studies of the neritic copepod, Arcartia tonsa. indicate that
suspended sediment concentrations greater than 50 mg/1 may reduce
prey ingestion rates (Stern and Stickle, 1978). For a typical
disposal event at MBDS, the surface area that may be impacted for
a few hours iby suspended solid concentrations greater than 50 mg/1
is about 0.11 km (see Table 4-10). Since this area does not
represent a significant proportion of the total surface area of
MBDS, no impacts on zooplankton populations outside the disposal
site are anticipated. The predicted impacts associated with
contaminants in the water column for zooplankton are the same as
those predicted for phytoplankton.
t
Ocean disposal of dredged material may result in the release of
nutrients and chemical contaminants into the water column (see
Section 4.2). The release of nutrients, particularly ammonia, may
stimulate growth of phytoplankton entrained in the conjective jet
(Pequegnat, 1978). Because rapid dilution of a dredged material
plume will occur at MBDS, it is unlikely that disposal could
precipitate a sustained algal bloom.
189
-------
Table 4-10
Required ocean surface area at MBDS to dilute the
concentration of suspended sediments in a dredged
material disposal plume to various threshold levels0
% of Dredged Material
Settling at Point of
Disposal
Required Surface Area (tan )
Concentration Threshold (mg/1)
10 100 500
0
50
95
4.5
2.3
0.23
0.45
0.23
0.023
0.090
0.045
0.0045
8 Calculations based on a simple model presented by JRB
(1984) and the following assumptions:
1. All material not settling immediately at
the disposal point remains in suspension for
a sufficient period of time to allow dilution
to threshold concentrations
2, No significant amount of bottom sediments
are resuspended as a result of disposal
operations
3,. Suspended sediments are uniformly
distributed throughout the water column
4., Average volume of dredged material disposed
= 3000 m3
5.. Bulk density of dredged material = 1200
kg/m3
6. Average water depth at MBDS = 80 m
190
-------
4.3.1.3 Toxicity
As discussed in Section 4.2.2, several EPA WQC may be exceeded for
protection of aquatic life within the disposal site. Assuming the
worst case scenario of 10 percent unsettable solids, EPA predicted
that WQC for acute effects (CMC) would be exceeded for copper,
lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, and arsenic while chronic criteria
(CCC) would be exceeded for copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and PCB
(ambient levels of mercury already exceed this criterion). The
largest areal extent of the CMC exceedance is for copper and is
predicted to be 4.80 km2. The largest areal extent of a CCC
criteria exceedance is also for copper and is predicted to be 1.71
km . Assuming 5 percent unsettleable solids (a more realistic
estimate), EPA predicted that water quality criteria for acute
(CMC) effects will be exceeded for copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
and zinc while chronic criteria (CCC) will be exceeded for copper,
lead, mercury and PCB. The largest areal extent of the CMC
exceedance is for copper and is predicted to be 2.40 km2 while the
extent of the CCC exceedance for copper is predicted to be less
that 0.60 km2. A high background level of copper is one
explanation the large areal extent of exceedance. For the rest of
the chemicals, the largest areal extent of exceedance is never
greater than 0.006 km2. These areas of exceedances would normally
be contained in the site, but may surpass the boundary of MBDS
depending on tide, winds, and location of disposal event. It is
unlikely that these exceedances will have a significant effect of
the plankton community because of the short life cycles and high
reproductive potential of plankton, allowing them to recover
rapidly from disturbances. Furthermore, the EPA WQC for protection
of marine ac[uatic life are very conservative since they are based
on studies with organisms which are particularly sensitive to
stress.
The sea surface microlayer has been shown to be an area of high
concentrations of contaminants, with magnitudes greater than the
rest of the water column (Hardy, 1982). Disposal activities can
add fine, low density sediments to the surface layer (Pequegnat,
1978). Contaminants from these sediments become concentrated at
the surface microlayer, where they may potentially have an effect
on the phytoneuston, phytoplankton inhabiting the thin surface film
of the ocean called the neustor. Phytoneuston will be exposed to
elevated concentrations of organic and inorganic contaminants which
may be toxic or have sublethal effects (Hardy, 1982) . Disposal
activity could have dramatic local effects on phytoneuston, but
will not have a significant effect on Massachusetts Bay
phytoneuston populations.
The disposal of dredged material at MBDS will not significantly
impact the plankton population of Massachusetts Bay. Localized
spatial impacts on plankton of short (< 4 hours) temporal duration
will potentially result from elevated suspended solids
concentration. Mortality from physical processes and toxics may
191
-------
occur to a minor extent, but will not have significant impact on
the Massachusetts Bay plankton community.
4.3.2 Effects on Fish and Benthic Resources
As discussed in previous sections, the disposal of dredged material
will alter the physio-chemical environment and benthic community
structure at MBDS. Some of the consequences of disposal operations
have the potential to exert short and long-term impacts on
fisheries resources. Of greatest concern are impacts related to
the temporary degradation of water quality, the deposition of
contaminated sediments, and changes in benthic invertebrate (prey)
communities. The following sections present discussions of these
impacts.
4.3.2.1 Effects on Fish Eggs and Larvae
4.3.2.1.1 Mortality From Physical Stress
Some plankton eggs and larvae will be entrained within the
descending mass of water and dredged material that forms following
disposal (Truitt, 1986). It is likely that many of these eggs and
larvae will be damaged or killed by shear forces or abrasion.
Mortality of these fish eggs and larvae are not likely to have a
significant effect on the fish community as a whole because of the
very limited areal extent and duration of the disposal.
Elevated suspended sediment levels in the vicinity of the disposal
site probably will not cause significant direct fish egg mortality.
Concentrations of suspended sediments in the water column on the
order of 200 to 1000 mg/1 are likely immediately following
disposal. These levels will be quickly reduced by settling and
dilution, and the ocean surface area containing high (>500 mg/1)
concentrations will probably be less than 0.015 km2. Fish eggs in
this area will have a short term exposure to these high
concentrations of suspended sediments, which will not likely cause
significant mortality. Eggs of various anadromous and freshwater
species appear tolerant of prolonged exposure to high
concentrations of suspended sediments (Stern and Stickle, 1978;
JRB, 1984; Schubel and Wang, 1973). Hatching success of eggs of
Atlantic herring, a marine species with demersal eggs, was
unaffected by continuous exposure to concentrations in excess of
7000 mg/1 (Messieh et al., 1981). Although caution is advised when
extrapolating these results to marine species with planktonic eggs
it seems likely that short term exposure to high suspended sediment
concentrations at MBDS will not result in significant egg
mortality.
Elevated suspended sediment levels during disposal may result in
some direct mortality of planktonic larvae. Exposure to levels of
500 mg/1 for 2 to 4 days elicit significant lethal effects in
larval shad, yellow perch, and striped bass (JRB, 1984).
192
-------
Planktonic larvae at MBDS will be exposed to elevated
concentrations for a much briefer period, but may be more sensitive
to suspended sediments than those of freshwater or anadromous
species.
Larval crustaceans and molluscs are more sensitive to suspended
sediments than adults. Larval lobsters are very sensitive of
exposure to specific grain sizes of suspended sediments (Barr,
1987) . Although few lobster larvae are present at MBDS, larvae of
rock crab and Jonah crab may be present during the late spring and
summer, and may be sensitive to suspended sediments.
Demersal eggs and larvae near the disposal point will be subject
to direct burial by dredged material. Settling of resuspended
sediments following disposal will subject additional eggs and
larvae to saltation. All eggs and larvae subject to burial, and
a fraction of those experiencing siltation will be killed (Sweeney,
1978). At MBDS, the potential loss of demersal eggs is greatest
during the fall and winter when the majority of demersal species
are spawning eggs. Eggs of many of these species have prolonged
incubation periods, and would be at a risk for.»a substantial period
of time.
The substrate at MBDS in the vicinity of the disposal point is
largely soft: mud or dredged material. Relatively common species
in the vicinity of MBDS likely to spawn on this type of substrate
include snakeblenny and alligator fish. Species which spawn
preferentially on hard or rocky substrate (e.g. Atlantic herring,
American san.dlance, and ocean pout) probably will not deposit eggs
at the disposal site. Although some spawning by these species may
occur on hard bottom in the northeast section of MBDS, this area
will not be subject to significant siltation from disposal
activities.
4.3.2.1.2 Kublethal Effects
Individual ichthyoplankters exposed to dredged material may suffer
sublethal effects owing to natural and anthropogenic environmental
stressors including toxic substances and reduced dissolved oxygen
concentrations (Rosenthal and Alderdice, 1976). Stressors may
elicit various adverse physiological, morphological, or behavioral
responses. Ultimately the growth rate, survivorship, and the
reproductive potential, or fecundity, of the affected organisms may
be reduced but given the limited spatial extent of dredged material
disposal, significant population level impacts are not expected.
Elevated suspended sediment levels can elicit sublethal responses
in fish eggs and larvae. Prolonged exposure to suspended sediment
concentrations of 100 mg/1 slightly lengthened the incubation
period of several anadromous and freshwater species (Schubel and
Wang, 1973) . Concentrations of suspended sediments greater than
3 mg/1 have been noted to reduce the feeding success of Atlantic
193
-------
herring larvae (Messieh, 1981). Rosenthal and Alderdice (1976)
found that suspended sediments (red clay) entrained by herring
larvae prevented ingestion of captured prey. Swenson and Matson
(1976) noted behavioral changes in lake herring exposed to moderate
(26 to 28 mg/1) concentrations of red clay. The impact on
population composition at MBDS should be minimal because actual
exposure time to high concentrations of suspended solids is short.
4.3.2.1.3 Toxicity
Numerous toxic substances can elict a variety of sublethal effects
on fish eggs and larvae (Rosenthal and Alderdice, 1976; Rand and
Petrocelli, 1985; Longwell and Hughes, 1980). However, the effects
of toxic substances from dredged material at MBDS should be
minimal, and highly localized because of rapid dilution. Neustonic
(near surface) eggs and larvae are probably most vulnerable since
disposal operations can form a surface slick of low density,
organic material (JRB, 1984; Pequegnat, 1978). Neustonic
ichthyoplankton drifting with the slick, could be exposed to
elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons, organohalogens, and heavy
metals. During summer months at MBDS entrainment of suspended
sediments at a thermocline might also lead to the prolonged
exposure of some ichthyoplankton to contaminated suspended
sediments. Morphological adaptations of larvae which aid
floatation such as oil globules or high surface/volume ratios,
would tend to promote bioconcentration of toxins (Bond, 1979).
Phytoplankton and zooplankton readily accumulate toxins from the
surface microlayer (Duce et al., 1972), thus ichthyoplankton may
bioaccumulate toxins via prey. Longwell and Hughes (1980) found
significant correlations between various measures of mackerel egg
health and hydrocarbon levels in plankton, and heavy metal levels
in surface waters.
Although the effects of environmental stressors on fish eggs and
larvae is well documented in the laboratory (Rosenthal and
Alderice, 1976; Rand and Petrocelli, 1985), little is known about
population level responses in the field. If impairment of growth
and development rates of larval fish occur due to exposure to
elevated concentrations of suspended solids and toxics, profound
effects on larval mortality may occur. Assuming the daily
mortality rate of fish larvae is 50%, and exposure to suspended
sediments lengthens the larval period for the entire population by
one day. The total survival rate would be reduced by 50% because
of this factor alone (Wedemeyer et al., 1984). Whether this impact
has any ecological significance depends on the proportion of the
population affected, and the compensatory action of density
dependent population-level processes, all of which are dependent
on the spatial and temporal persistence of the impact.
The potential impact of disposal operations on eggs and larvae will
be greatest during late spring and summer when peak concentrations
of ichthyoplankton occur. Disposal impacts during the fall and
194
-------
winter, and early spring will be largely confined to demersal eggs
of a few species, and the planktonic larvae of American sandlance
and Atlantic herring.
The total ocean surface area affected by disposal will represent
only a very small fraction of the total spawning area, or the area
represented in the ichthyoplankton of any species. Even in the
event that all eggs and larvae exposed to moderate concentrations
of suspended sediments are killed, ocean disposal at MBDS would
not have a significant impact on the marine resources of the Gulf
of Maine.
4.3.2.2 Demersal Fish and Benthic Invertebrates
4.3.2.2.1 Mortality and Community Effects from Physical Stress
Mortality during disposal should be largely limited to those few
fish that are entrained within, or buried by, the descending mass
of dredged material. Even if dredged material is highly
contaminated, short term increases in the concentration of chemical
contaminants or suspended solids are unlikely to adversely affect
substantial numbers of fish in the vicinity of the disposal point.
Laboratory studies generally indicate that adults and juveniles of
freshwater, anadromous, and coastal species are tolerant of
exposure to high concentrations of uncontaminated suspended
sediments (Stern and Stickle, 1978; Peddicord and McFarland, 1978;
Wakeman et al., 1975). Mortality is related to the clogging of
gills and subsequent respiratory failure and has generally only
been noted after prolonged exposure to concentrations above those
likely to occur during disposal operations. Fish may, however, be
much more sensitive to highly contaminated sediments. Juvenile
striped bass suffered increased mortality after only several hours
of exposure to contaminated sediments (Peddicord and McFarland,
1978) . Various sublethal effects have also been attributed to
elevated concentrations of suspended sediments (Sherk et al., 1975;
Stern and Stickle, 1978).
Studies by Sherk et al. (1975) suggest that demersal species are
more tolerant of suspended sediments than are pelagic species.
Demersal species are regularly exposed to elevated concentrations
of sediments;, and have probably evolved compensatory physiological
or morphological adaptations (Baram et al., 1976). Most of the
fish inhabiting MBDS are demersal or semi-demersal, and thus are
probably somewhat resistant to suspended sediments.
Settling of dredged material at the disposal site will result in
the temporary displacement of the benthic community, including
possible burial of demersal fish or prey resources (benthic
invertebrates). Although some immediate recolonization is
possible, it is likely that biotic abundance, and perhaps
diversity, will be reduced for a period of time following disposal
195
-------
(Durkin and Lipovsky, 1977). Recovery of the demersal fish
community will be closely linked to the recovery of benthic
invertebrate biomass and diversity. Bottom conditions near the
disposal buoy usually maintain an early successional benthic
invertebrate community dominated by polychaetes. BRAT analyses
(Section 3.2) suggest that the resulting demersal finfish community
would be dominated by witch flounder and other fish capable of
exploiting relatively small prey items. The relative abundance
among large American plaice and other fish able to exploit prey
more characteristic of undisturbed sites (e.g., larger echinoderms)
would be reduced on the disposal mound. Any effect on the
structure of the demersal fish community at the disposal site will,
however, be highly localized and insignificant relative to the
marine resources of Massachusetts Bay.
The MBDS has been used for dredged material and various waste
disposal for a number of years. There is evidence that the benthic
community at stations sampled in the MBDS vicinity have been
altered to some degree by disposal operations. Although there was
some similarity in the dominant species between samples at the
disposal site and other samples from Stellwagen basin, the disposal
area was characterized by lower abundances and diversity of
organisms (Gilbert et al., 1976). Since future disposal activities
are predicted to be similar to previous years, alteration of
benthic community structure is also expected to continue.
The process of disposing sediments buries organisms which inhabit
the site. As a result, local populations of benthic organisms are
decimated. Disposal operations may be considered an episodic
disturbance to the benthic community. Recolonization of dredged
material from larval recruitment and adult immigration is usually
rapid. The pattern of recovery of benthic populations to this
physical disturbance can be viewed in a successional content.
The existing paradigm for succession in soft-bottom benthic ecology
is that early colonizing species facilitate colonization for later
successional stages (Rhoads and Boyer, 1982). The initial
colonizers are typically species with high dispersal capabilities,
that are capable of rapid population increases (McCall, 1977).
These early colonists rework the sediments through feeding and
burrowing activities. This biological mixing of the sediment
substrate, bioturbation, homogenizes and oxygenates the upper few
centimeters of the sediment, making the area favorable for later
successional stages. Benthic community structure, if left
undisturbed, may eventually return to the pre-impact condition over
time.
Benthic community structure will also be affected by the frequency
of disturbance. Areas subject to frequent disturbances generally
have low species diversity, characterized by high abundance of
opportunistic species. An intermediate frequency of disturbance
may enhance species diversity (Huston, 1979).
196
-------
The effect of a recent disposal operation at MBDS can be assessed
qualitatively by comparing the benthic data collected on dredged
material at Station ON before and after disposal. The most obvious
effect of dredged material disposal at MBDS is the decrease in the
biogenic mixing depth ("BMD"). The region of shallow BMD coincides
with the distribution of dredged material at the disposal site,
where extremely shallow BMD depths are apparent on the recently
disposed dredged material.
From the REMOTS© photographs it can be seen that head down deposit
feeders are widespread in this area, indicating recolonization of
the dredged material and vertical migration of adults from adjacent
areas. This rapid infaunal recovery of much of the dredged
material suggests that certain benthic taxa characteristic of the
ambient silt-clay facies at MBDS are relatively resilient to
disturbances caused by disposal operations. The heterogeneity in
benthic community types observed at this site may reflect the
process of infaunal recolonization on the dredged material.
A hypothesis which might account for the high diversity and
increased number of individuals is related to the substrate. The
disposal of poorly sorted material provides a heterogeneous
patchwork of. substrate types consisting of sand, silt, and mud.
This diversity would allow many organisms with different substrate
requirements to inhabit the area.
A cluster analysis was performed on all the data collected for MBDS
using Bray-Curtis similarity index and group average sorting (COE,
1988) . This type of analysis uses all of the information available
on abundances and species composition. Species which were found
only in one sample were dropped from the analysis. The results of
the analysis;, similarity matrix and cluster diagram are presented
in Figure 4-10.
The cluster analysis separates the data into three major groups,
mud stations (REF and OFF), sand stations (NES and SRF) and a mud
station impacted by the dredging operation (ON). There is a clear
separation between the sand stations and mud stations with respect
to species composition and abundance. The sand station within MBDS
clustered with the sand station outside of MBDS (SRF), and the mud
station within MBDS (OFF) clustered with the reference station.
This suggests that the impacts of dredged material disposal on the
benthic community are not observable outside the immediate area of
disposal. The clustering pattern suggests that the mud station on
dredged material, Station ON, is statistically different from the
other samples, presumably reflecting subtle differences in the
benthic community caused by disposal impacts.
The most similar samples were the samples taken in September 1985
at Station REF and Station OFF. The September Station REF was more
similar to Station OFF than to samples at the same station taken
197
-------
STATION NAME
ID
STATION ON 9/85 1
STATION OFF 9/85 2
6
7
4
5
Q
STATION REF 9/85
STATION REF 1/86
STATION SRF 9/85
STATION NES 9/85
STATION SRF 1/86
SIMILARITY INDEX
f-
I
0.831
a.
1
0.732
0.606
0.484
0.360
0.236
Figure 4-10 Cluster Analysis of Benthic Data
Source: COE, 1988
198
-------
during the June and January cruises, suggesting a seasonal
component. This community structure similarity suggests disposal
impacts are not observable, at the benthic community level, outside
of the immediate disposal site (Station ON).
Physical impcicts from sedimentation to the benthic community should
be limited to the point of disposal. These impacts include
temporary docimation of the community by burial, shifts in
community composition to early successional stages, and dominance
by pollution tolerant species.
4.3.2.2.2 Toxicity
Demersal fish and benthic invertebrates are exposed to contaminants
by direct contact with sediments and interstitial water (Pequegnat,
1978), or from dietary sources. Exposure may result in
bioaccumulation via passive diffusion of substances across gills
or other epithelial tissues, or uptake from ingested materials
(Kay, 1984; O'Connor and Pizza, 1984). Although the potential for
bioaccumulation exists at MBDS, no significant uptake of heavy
metals or PCB in bivalves or crustaceans was noted (COE, 1988) .
Some accumulation of PCB and PAH compounds was evident at the
disposal site in Nephvts incisa (see Section 3.2.3). In measuring
contaminant concentrations in worms, the COE allowed worms to purge
their guts first to allow measuring of tissue content only and not
the total bioavailability of the contaminant. No information is
available concerning the bioaccumulation of contaminants in fish
at MBDS. However, potential for detectable bioaccumulation at MBDS
is probably greatest for relatively resident demersal species such
as witch flounder, and those species feeding on benthic species.
Persistent organic contaminants, such as PAH, are a bioaccumulation
concern.
Tissue concentrations of PAH and PCB in Nephtvs incisa at MBDS were
2.2 to 2.5 F'pm/g of tissue (dry weight) and 0.7 to 0.8 ppm/g of
tissue (dry weight), respectively. The FDA limit on PCB in food
items is 2 ppm/g of tissue (wet weight). The bioaccumulation of
PAH or PCB is a function of several things, including the
bioavailability of the chemical, the organism's ability to
metabolize the chemical once it is absorbed, and the organism's
ability to excrete the chemical. The bioavailability of the
chemical is dependent on its form (dissolved or particle
associated), size (molecular weight and configuration), and route
of exposure (diet, water column, or sediments).
PAH and PCB are very hydrophobic, so they quickly associate with
particles when introduced into the water column. However, a small
percentage of these compounds will remain dissolved and is the most
bioavailable fraction. PAH and PCB can also be accumulated from
the sediments and through the diet (Kay, 1984). PAH and PCB of a
certain size range or configuration may be accumulated, many
199
-------
individual compounds of these two classes of pollutants are too
large or complexly configured to be absorbed.
Once absorbed, these organic compounds can be metabolized by many
marine species (Stegeman, 1983). The larger organics must be made
more water soluble by metabolism prior to excretion. Nereis
virens. a polychaete worm, can very quickly and quite extensively
metabolize PAH. McElroy (1985) showed that after 4 days, over 75%
of benz(a)anthracene, a four ringed PAH, was present as
metabolites, thus analysis for PAH in tissue that does not include
metabolite concentrations may seriously underestimate the actual
PAH concentrations present. The concentrations reported in worms
from MBDS do not include metabolites and therefore underestimate
the total PAH and PCB body burden.
Bioaccumulation of metals does occur with food uptake and physical
adsorption for copper, zinc, selenium, arsenic, chromium, lead, and
cadmium (Kay, 1984; Langston & Zhon, 1986). Different organisms
also show varying abilities to regulate or eliminate tissue
residues of metals (Amiard, 1987). Lake et al. (1985) demonstrated
uptake of PCB, PAH, copper, and chromium by polychaetes exposed to
dredged material with elevated levels of these contaminants in the
tissue.
The metal concentrations in sediments at the disposal site are
estimated to be high enough to result in detectable metal
concentrations in polychaetes via physical adsorption or food
uptake. Subtle contaminant uptakes occurring throughout Stellwagen
Basin would be difficult to identify because system wide and
disposal impacts are difficult to isolate.
Contaminants in the sediments may result in other affects to
demersal and benthic species including toxicity, reduced
reproductive potential and neoplastic alterations in individuals
of sensitive populations (Wolf et al., 1982). Very little
quantitative or conclusive information is available on
concentrations of toxics in the sediments and the associated
effects on demersal and benthic organisms. Established criteria
to evaluate sediment chronic and acute toxicity are available for
a limited number of chemicals. The sediment quality criteria
values for PCB (Arochlor 1254) and benzo(a)pyrene (model PAH) are
41.8 and 1,063 /ig/g C. Even at a specific concentration, toxicity
of a given constituent may vary between different sediment types
owing to differences in bioavailability of the constituent (Windom
et al., 1982). Realizing these limitations, EPA has conducted a
review of over 35 scientific papers on sediment toxicity studies
on heavy metals and organics occurring in dredged sediments in
support of the MBDS site designation. The results of this review
indicate that in experimental studies, there is a very wide range
of concentrations that may cause no effects or adverse effects on
a variety of marine species (including demersal fish, polychaetes,
and amphipods) and these ranges overlap greatly. Table 4-11
200
-------
presents a comparison of the range of concentrations of various
constituents causing adverse affects to the range of concentrations
of these constituents inside the MBDS boundary. With the exception
of arsenic and mercury, the ranges of concentrations of all
constituents at MBDS overlap with ranges shown to cause no effects
as well as ranges shown to cause adverse effects in scientific
studies.
Table 4-11 presents the range of sediment concentrations at a
contaminated site (Quincy Bay, Massachusetts; EPA, 1988) associated
with adverse: affects to demersal organisms. The adverse effects
included neoplastic alterations, stomach lesions, and gill lesions
in winter flounder. It is important to note that the sources,
including toxins and viral agents, responsible for inducing these
alterations have not been identified. The range of concentrations
of sediment constituents at MBDS overlaps with the ranges of Quincy
Bay. However, no direct conclusions can be drawn from this since
the bioavailability of these constituents may differ between MBDS
and Quincy Bay. Additionally, the specific toxins causing adverse
affects have not been identified.
Based on the above discussion, it appears that sediment
contaminantconcentrations at MBDS may (depending on
bioavailability) cause or contribute to adverse effects on demersal
and benthic organisms. These effects include toxicity, reduced
reproductive potential, and pathological alterations in susceptible
resident species.
Sedimentation and sediment toxicity may result in changes to the
benthic and demersal communities. Sedimentation will result in
shifts in the community structure resulting in less diverse
communities. Sediment contamination may result in mortality
because of toxicity, reduced reproductive potential,
bioaccumulation, and pathological alteration in individual
organisms. These impacts are generally confined to the disposal
site. Although impacts may be locally significant, the impacts on
the total benthic resources of Massachusetts Bay are not
significant.
4.3.2.3 Efl'ects on Epibenthic Invertebrates
4.3.2.3.1 Mortality from Physical Stress
Disposal activities at MBDS will result in the burial, and likely
mortality, of some commercially important benthic invertebrates.
Because marine crustaceans and molluscs are generally tolerant of
exposure to high concentrations of suspended sediments for
prolonged periods, it seems likely that short-term exposure to
elevated suspended sediment concentrations at MBDS will result in
little mortality of adult crabs, lobsters, or molluscs (Saila et
al., 1972; Stern and Stickle, 1978).
201
-------
Jale 4-11 Summary of Sediment Contaminant Levels (ppm)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
PAH (Total)
PCBs (Total)
Range
1.0
0.37
3.5
12
10
at
to
to
to
to
to
MBDS
25.6
2.75
111
157
126
-0. 11
61
75
10.7
0.22
to
to
to
to
119
789
23.2
1.21
Range Observed
to Cause
No Affect( ])
<51 to
<1 to
<86 to
20 to
<21 to
<0.18 to
13.9 to
<99 to <51
2 to
0.1 to
<72
5800
1130
1000
380
1.7
>96
,000
<129
1.22
Range Causing
Non-Mortality
Adverse Affect^ 1
<1 to
<53 to
<33 to
<0.28 to
51 to
2 to
0.16 to
<70
>5800
<95
<17.8
>120
>1.1
<85
>200
<3900
36.8
Range
Causing
; Mortality11'
ND
6.9 to >5000
ND
ND
>130 to >300
ND
ND
ND
<122 to 200,000
>0.13 to >0.16
Range at Known
Contaminated. Site
(Quincy BayT
0.1 to 1
5.6 to
6.8 to
6.6 to
0.02 to
ND
ND
1.27 to
0. 1 to 1
.62
215
111
161
218
113
.22
ND = No data
1. Based on review of more than 35 scientific studies.
2. Source: EPA, 1988
202
-------
The effects of disposal on lobsters will be greatest during the
late fall, spring, and early winter when lobsters are presumably
most abundant at MBDS. Effects of disposal on rock and jonah crabs
is probably greatest during the spring or early summer when
spawning and molting occurs (Williams, 1984). Long-finned and
short-finned squid are seasonal migrants to Massachusetts Bay,
hence only likely to be abundant at MBDS during the summer.
Although oc€:an quahog and sea scallop are present near or at MBDS,
they are not likely to be present in large numbers on dredged
material or soft mud bottom because they prefer sandy substrates.
4.3.2.3.2 Toxicity
As discussed in Section 4.2.2, there is a potential for exceedances
in WQC for protection of aquatic life. CMC exceedances for copper,
lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc and CCC exceedances for copper,
lead, mercury, and PCB are expected to occur during disposal.
However, these exceedances will be of limited duration and occur
only within the MBDS. It is unlikely that any significant adverse
affect will occur to invertebrates owing to the limited areal
extent of the exceedances with respect to the Gulf of Maine, the
limited exposure time, and the motility of the organisms in
question.
4.3.2.3.3 impacts to Food Resources
Benthic invertebrate resources in the Gulf of Maine do not appear
to be significantly affected by short-term changes in water quality
caused by continued disposal of dredged material at MBDS. However,
adverse impacts to individual organisms will occur, but will be
insignificant outside the immediate vicinity of the MBDS. These
adverse impacts include mortality associated with physical stress
and water column toxicity. Any changes in community structure
related to impacts on benthic food resources will be localized and
insignificant to fisheries resources in Massachusetts Bay.
4.3.2.4 Effects on Pelagic Fish and Invertebrates
4.3.2.4.1 Mortality from Physical Stress
Most of the pelagic species (e.g., silver hake and Atlantic
mackerel) are summer migrants to the Gulf of Maine and likely to
be present at MBDS only during the late spring, summer, and fall.
Pelagic species are mobile and able to avoid localized areas with
high concentrations of suspended sediments (Johnston and Wildish,
1981; Wildish and Power, 1985; Messieh et al., 1981; Pequegnat,
1978; and Stern and Stickle, 1978). The threshold level to elict
avoidance behavior in juvenile Atlantic herring is 10 to 35 mg/1
(Messieh et al., 1981), which would be limited to an area
approximately 1 km2 at MBDS, following a disposal event.
Pelagic invertebrates such as squid and shrimp will be subject to
203
-------
entrainment in the descending disposal jet.
4.3.2.4.2 Toxicity
As discussed in Section 4.2.1, limited WQC exceedances will occur
after a disposal event. These exceedances will be for short
durations. Because of the limited exposure time and the motility
of the organisms, it is unlikely that disposal operations will
cause any significant adverse effects to pelagic finfish.
4.3.2.4.3 Impacts to Food Resources
Disposal of dredged material will have only a minor affect on the
feeding behavior or food resources of pelagic species. High
suspended sediment concentrations may briefly curtail feeding by
fish entrained in the disposal conjective jet plume. Disposal
operations will probably result in short term reductions in prey
(i.e. plankton) productivity (see Stern and Stickle, 1978; Barr,
1987) . Any impact to primary or secondary producters is likely to
be highly localized, and ecologically insignificant to mobile
planktivores.
4.3.3 Effects on Mammals/ Reptiles, and Birds
The limited spatial and temporal distribution of impacts to
endangered species as a result of dredged material disposal are
discussed in detail in section 4.3.5. The impacts of disposal on
the dominant marine mammals, including the minke whale,
Balaenoptera acutorostrata; the white-sided dolphin, Laaenorhynchus
acutus; and the harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena. as well as the
subdominants (see Section 3.3.4), can be correlated to habitat
displacement and prey reduction. These two potential impacts would
also be of concern for the dominant seabirds, i.e. the northern
fulmar, Fulmarus glacialis; shearwaters, Puffinus spp.; storm
petrels, Hvdrobatidae spp.; northern gannet, Sula bassanus;
Pomarine Jaeger, Stercorarius pomarinus; gulls, Larinae spp.; and
alcids , Alcidae spp..
The distribution of physical impacts from approximately 80 disposal
events per year, imparting elevated suspended solids concentrations
for approximately four hours, is described as affecting
approximately 0.23 km2. (see Sections 3.1 and 4.3.1). The
chemical impacts from disposal of dredged material are primarily
restricted to within the disposal site. Biological impacts to
endangered species are discussed in Section 4.3.4, and have shown
that there are virtually no anticipated, significant adverse
impacts to marine mammals, their habitat, or prey species.
Marine birds may be affected by disposal of dredged material if
their prey (pelagic fish and plankton) are at risk. Detailed
evaluation of fisheries impacts (section 4.3.2) indicate that
significant potential impacts to seabird prey do not exist. The
204
-------
disposal of dredged material at MBDS is not likely to cause
significant adverse effects to marine mammals, reptiles, or birds.
4.3.4 Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species
Significant impacts of disposal activities on marine mammals and
cetaceans in particular have not been identified in this study.
All physical, chemical, and biological effects associated with
disposal activities are spatially confined to within the MBDS
designated boundary. The water column impacts are temporary and
spatially restricted to a small percentage of the MBDS.
Contaminant impacts to prey items of whales are not anticipated
since these species do not inhabit the deepwater silt/clay bottom
of MBDS. Entrainment of planktivorous prey items during disposal
is also anticipated to be minimal.
Humpback whales, Right whales, and Finback whales have been
identified as occurring in the vicinity of the disposal area. This
area has been identified (Kenney, 1985) as a 90 to 95th percentile
high cetacea.n use area, with the 10 minute square east of MBDS in
the >95th percentile (see Figure 4-11). Some whalewatching
activity often begins by heading east or southeast from MBDS
disposal buoy approximately 6 km to Stellwagen Bank's northeast
tip. The Bank itself is a sandy/cobble area 3.7 to 7.4 km wide and
25 to 35 meters deep extending 41 km to the south-east. The bank
rises 60 meters upward of the Stellwagen Basin area. On the east
side, the transition to the 80 meter depth is relatively steep.
This rise or edge on the east side of the bank creates currents and
eddies that bring nutrient rich cold, deep waters upward into the
30 meter photic zone. The Bank's substrate is ideal for certain
cetacean prey items to inhabit, including sand lance which
proliferate near Stellwagen Bank.
Sand lance are small schooling fish that are one of the alternative
prey items of humpback whales. In order to assess anthropogenic
impacts on sand lance, the National Marine Fisheries Service
("NMFS") analyzed the organic residue levels of samples of this
species from three different stations across the Bank during the
Albatross 8109 cruise (Gadbois, 1982). The results of this study
indicated low PCB contamination of sand lance (<0.1 ppm whole fish)
and a slight (ppb) uniform level of PAH contamination throughout
the Bank. These results indicate baywide PCB influence and fossil
fuel combustion impacts throughout the entire Bank, without any
noticeably detectable elevations of organic contaminants in
proximate areas, but 6 km distant, to disposal activity at MBDS.
Current metor analyses (see Section 3.1) performed for this site
evaluation study did not describe significant vectors having a
potential to transport contaminated dredged material to the Bank.
A majority of flows, even during seasons of thermal stratification,
are remote from Stellwagen Bank. Bottom currents average only 3
205
-------
|>95thpercentile
90-95thpercentile
Q80-90thpercentile
Figure 4-11
Map of the Shelf Waters of the Eastern United States
showing 10' Blocks Representing Areas with a
Habitat-use Index in the Top 20%
Source: Kenney, 1985
206
-------
to 5 cm/s, not strong enough to resuspend any contaminated
sediments that might be present.
Water column impacts are minimal and well within the confines of
MBDS boundary. As Section 4.2.1, described even in worst case
analysis the large mixing volume and the relatively small amounts
of contaminants would make long-term exceedances of EPA marine
water criteria unlikely. Physical impacts associated with
suspended solids concentrations are largely restricted to the MBDS
boundary water column even during periods of thermal stratification
(see Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.2.1).
Barge traffic is not likely to adversely affect or harass whales.
Whales would be less impacted by disposal barges than by
whalewatching vessels, who at least minimally, pursue the
organisms.
Loggerhead and leatherback turtles are typically not found in the
vicinity of MBDS owing to its depth and substrate. Of these two
species, leatherbacks feed predominantly on jellyfish. The
potential for entrainment of significant numbers of jellyfish owing
to disposal activity (approximately 80 events per year) is low,
given the disposal entrainment volume of 160,000 m3, (17% of MBDS)
available water column and short temporal persistence of
entrainment impacts (minutes). Additionally, jellyfish are
seasonal in abundance and restricted to foraging in the upper water
column. Other prey items of turtles are not anticipated to occur
in significant densities at the disposal point. In the northern
and northeastern portion of MBDS the sandy/cobble substrate on the
60 meters isopleth may contain various turtle prey items, including
crabs, mussels, and anemones.
Given the low numbers of turtles in the area and the presence of
other similar foraging areas outside of the site, disposal
operations in the area are not likely to impact turtle populations.
In summary, the continued disposal of dredged material at MBDS is
not likely to significantly impact threatened and endangered
species, their prey, or their critical habitat. In particular,
suspended solids and contaminant loads to the water column do not
have the potential to impact the water column beyond the immediate
vicinity of disposal activity. Contaminant levels in prey species,
such as sand lance, are indicative of Massachusetts Baywide
contamination. No evidence of significant contaminant
remobilizatlon exists with regard to dredged material disposal at
MBDS. Turtle prey items, such as jellyfish and crabs, are also not
anticipated to be significantly impacted because of their
remoteness from the point of disposal and the limited spatial and
temporal disposal impact persistence. Current vectors have not
been identified as having the potential to transport contaminants
near the critical habitat of endangered species. Finally, the tug
and barge activity would not interfere significantly with
207
-------
endangered species, given their ability to avoid the traffic, and
the minimal activity at MBDS with respect to nearby Boston Harbor
traffic lanes.
4.3.5 Summary of Biological Effects
The disposal of dredged material will not have a significant
adverse effect on the populations of marine organisms in
Massachusetts Bay. However, disposal will result in direct
mortality of non-motile marine biota at the MBDS, but the areal
extent of this mortality will be small with respect to
Massachusetts Bay. Marine mammals and reptiles usually avoid the
MBDS during disposal events, and therefore will not be affected.
A statistical analysis performed on the benthic data showed a
distinct difference between the area of dredged material deposition
and the reference areas. The area of recent dredged material
deposition was dominated by oligochaetes, which is an indication
of disturbance. Several benthic species were analyzed for various
contaminants and were found to have abnormally high levels of PCB
and PAH in the tissue.
4.4 Effects on Human Use
4.4.1 Fishing Industry
According to the NMFS, the quadrat number 514 surrounding the MBDS
is a relatively productive fishing area. According to NMFS
statistics, it has about 5.7% of the total fish production capacity
in the sixty statistical areas of the northeast.
4.4.1.1 Short-term effects
The short-term effects of continued use of the MBDS on fishing will
be minimal because, as discussed in Section 4.3.2, impacts to the
fish community are expected to be limited. At the present time,
most fishing vessels tend to avoid the disposal site and conduct
their operations in alternative locations. Fishermen operating
within the site have, not unexpectedly, had their gear fouled by
black mud. As a result, short-term effects on the continuation of
this site as a disposal area will be the continuation of present
regional fishing practices.
4.4.1.2 Long-term effects
Long-term effects of the MBDS on fishing and other marine related
activities are not easily predicted. Based on estimates for a
three year period provided by NMFS, it was determined that the
maximum value of landings in the MBDS vicinity was approximately
$20,000 per year, at most, for various species. The average number
of pounds landed was 147,000 for the site (see Appendix III and
text for actual pounds landed and their values for years 1982 to
208
-------
1984) . These estimates were based on the fact that the MBDS is 6%
of the surface area of the 10 minute square (42° 25'; 70" 35').
The extended long-term effects may include reduced landings. The
number 147,000 pounds is at best a rough estimate of the number of
pounds potentially harvestable from within MBDS. Given the
assumption of uniform fishing effort over the entire area, it
represents an upper limit. This is because fish usually avoid the
MBDS during a disposal event, which would tend to increase the
density of fish in the surrounding area. Therefore, it can be
argued that not fishing in MBDS may increase the value of
surrounding area thereby offsetting the loss in MBDS. In view of
this, the loss in MBDS probably will not have a significant adverse
effect on the fishing industry in Massachusetts Bay.
4.4.2 Navigation
In accordance with the main channel servicing Boston Harbor, use
of the MBDS will not have any negative impacts on navigation either
into or out of the harbor. The main channel servicing the harbor
is south of the MBDS and disposal operations are not expected to
interfere with navigation. To date, there are no future plans to
expand the navigation channel into Boston Harbor. Thus, there are
no foreseeable effects of the MBDS on navigation either into or out
of Boston Harbor.
4.4.3 Mineral and other Resources
Reports of the Mineral Management Service (MMS, 1983), U.S.
Department of Interior, indicate that there are no future plans for
exploration or gas development in the MBDS vicinity.
4.4.4 General Marine Recreation
General marine recreation at this site, 15 miles offshore will most
likely not be impacted by disposal operations. Barge traffic,
fisheries impacts, and substrate alternations are all not
anticipated to be significantly affected by continued disposal at
MBDS.
209
-------
CHAPTER 5. SITE MANAGEMENT
This chapter describes the procedures to be used to properly manage
the MBDS. After designation, site management is the mechanism used
to ensure that the site is being properly maintained, that
contaminated materials are being contained within the site and that
no significant adverse impacts to the marine environment are
occurring outside the site boundary. Site management generally
involves an integrated monitoring and permitting effort to identify
and control impacts to the marine environment.
5.1 Responsibilities under the Marine Protection. Research and
Sanctuaries Act
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
("MPRSA") specifies that all proposed operations involving the
transportation and dumping of dredged material into ocean waters
be evaluated to determine the potential environmental impact of
those activities. More importantly, the principal intent of §103
is to regulate and limit adverse ecological effects associated with
ocean disposal. This is done through three mechanisms: permitting,
enforcement and site management.
5.1.1 Responsibilities for permitting
As discussed in Section 5.2, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
("COE") is the permitting authority for ocean disposal of dredged
material. EPA reviews each permit to ensure that the proposed
dumping will comply with the Ocean Dumping Criteria set forth in
40 CFR §227.4. Specifically, the criteria state that the proposed
disposal should not unduly degrade or endanger the marine
environment, and that ocean disposal is acceptable only when it
presents:
(a) no unacceptable adverse effects on human health and
no significant damage to the resources of the marine
environment;
(b) no unacceptable adverse effect on the marine
ecosystem;
(c) no unacceptable adverse persistent or permanent
effects due to the dumping of the particular volumes
or concentrations of these materials; and
(d) no unacceptable adverse effect on the ocean for
other uses as a result of direct environmental
impact.
Permits can be used to manage an ocean disposal site by limiting
the types and quantities of material disposed, by setting
restrictions, on times of disposal (e.g. to avoid sensitive spawning
seasons), or by requiring capping of contaminated material or other
containment techniques.
210
-------
5.1.2 Responsibilities for enforcement
Enforcement of the MPRSA and its accompanying regulations is a
joint responsibility of EPA and the COE. The COE may revoke
disposal permits, or suspend them for a specified period of time
if any of the conditions of the permit are violated. Additionally,
disposing of dredged (or other) material into the ocean without a
permit is a violation of MPRSA. EPA is responsible for assessing
the civil liability of the violator by considering the gravity of
the violation, prior violations and the demonstrated good faith of
the violator in attempting to achieve rapid compliance after
notification of a violation. Knowing violation of permit
conditions may be punished by imposing fines up to $50,000 or
imprisonment up to one year, or both.
Enforcement is an important site management tool because it ensures
that the requirements set out in the disposal permit are complied
with and that no other unanticipated impacts can occur as a result
of "short-dumping" (dumping outside the site) or dumping of non-
permitted materials. An onboard COE representative accompanies all
vehicles transporting materials for ocean dumping.
5.1.3 Responsibilities for site management
EPA has the primary responsibility for management of ocean disposal
sites, as set forth in 40 CFR §228. In particular, 40 CFR §228.3
defines site management as:
"...regulating times, rates, and methods of disposal and
quantities and types of materials disposed of; developing
and maintaining effective ambient monitoring programs for
the site; conducting disposal site evaluation and
designation studies; and recommending modifications in
site use and/or designation (e.g., termination of use of
the site for general use or for disposal of specific
wastes)...."
Site management integrates permitting, enforcement, monitoring, and
data interpretation to continually evaluate the appropriateness of
ocean disposal in relation to MPRSA and the Ocean Dumping Criteria.
5.1.4 Mechanisms for cooperation
On July 27, 1987 the COE and EPA signed a national Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") which sets forth the basis for both Agencies'
cooperative effort and funding for final designation and management
of ocean dredged material disposal sites. Because site designation,
permitting, and management are all closely related, the national
MOU was established to allow EPA and the COE to fulfill their
shared responsibilities in a timely and cost-effective manner.
EPA Region I and the New England Division of the COE have developed
211
-------
a regional MOU which institutes the requirements of the national
MOU. The regional MOU establishes the basis for cooperative effort
between the COE/New England Division ("COE/NED") and the EPA/Region
I for final designation, management and monitoring of ocean
disposal sites in New England, including the MBDS. The regional
MOU requires that after final designation, the MBDS be monitored
on a regular basis by the COE/NED to ensure that use of the site
is not unreasonably degrading or endangering the marine environment
or human health, and that the mitigation measures specified in this
designation EIS are being satisfied. The types of monitoring
activities that could be undertaken at the MBDS are discussed in
detail in Section 5.3 and typically include bathymetric and
biological istudies. The regional MOU requires that the scope of
such monitoring be jointly agreed upon by COE/NED and EPA/Region
I prior to the initiation of the monitoring, and that it be
sufficient to determine whether the site is suitable for continued
use within the requirements of MPRSA and this designation EIS.
5.2 Permitting Process
The major tool in site management is permitting, because it governs
the types and quantities of materials allowed to be disposed at an
ocean site. The COE permitting process consists basically of three
parts: alternative analysis; sampling and analysis; and decision-
making.
5.2.1 Alternatives Analysis
As discussed in Chapter 2 of this document, the need for ocean
disposal, arid potential land-based alternatives, must be thoroughly
examined prior to permit issuance. This is required in part
because the ocean dumping regulations stipulate that material may
be ocean disposed only if there are no practicable alternative
locations or methods of disposal or recycling available that have
less adverse environmental impact or potential risk to other parts
of the environment than ocean disposal. This alternatives analysis
is somewhat independent of disposal site location, except in
relation to economic analyses. For most dredging projects along
the Massachusetts and New Hampshire coastlines, the cost of hauling
dredged material to the MBDS is compared to the cost of other land-
based dredged material disposal alternatives to determine the
economic feasibility of upland disposal.
5.2.2 Sampling and Analysis
After the need for ocean disposal has been established, all dredged
material that has not met the conditions for exclusion discussed
in Section 5.3.2, and which is proposed to be ocean disposed must
be sampled and tested to determine its suitability for ocean
disposal. The sampling must be representative of the area to be
dredged and must thoroughly define the horizontal and vertical
extent of any sediment contamination in that area. The existence
212
-------
of point source discharges in the dredging area, or other causes
for concern such as historical occurrence of chemical or oil
spills, roust be considered in developing the sampling plan. The
sampled material is then tested to determine the extent of chemical
contamination. The testing consists of several steps, emphasizing
the detection of potential biological effects of disposal, and may
include bulk sediment, bioassay, bioaccumulation and elutriate
tests (when limited dilution is available). A determination
regarding the suitability of the dredged material for unrestricted
open water disposal is made after the bulk chemical and biological
evaluations have been completed. The testing protocol is discussed
in greater detail in Section 5.3.
5.2.3 Decision-making
The permit decision-making process takes into account both the
results of the material testing and public and agency comments.
Each permit application is announced via a public notice and
typically, thirty days is allowed for public comment. Also,
comments are sought from state and federal agencies. For example,
under the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.,
1972) permit applications for dredging activities affecting water
use in the coastal zone may not be issued prior to issuance of a
certification from the State's coastal zone management office. All
projects are also closely coordinated with EPA, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), and the National Marine Fisheries
Service ("NMFS"), all of whom receive sediment testing results.
If EPA determines that the proposed project will not comply with
the ocean dumping criteria, a permit cannot be issued. The NMFS
and the USFWS share this obligation, but final veto authority
resides with EPA.
Ultimately the decision to deny, approve, or place restrictions on
a permit is subjective because the regulations do not prohibit
environmental change but rather "unacceptable adverse impact." As
a result, EPA and the COE must cooperatively decide upon an
appropriate course of action in light of the magnitude of potential
impact that is considered to be acceptable under the environmental,
economic, social, and political conditions related to the operation
in question.
5.3 Dredged Material Testing Procedures
Both the permitting and monitoring aspects of. site management
involve testing of the water, sediments, and biota in or
surrounding the disposal site, or being considered for disposal,
to determine potential or actual adverse impacts. Since EPA's
Ocean Dumping Criteria are concerned primarily with adverse
ecological effects associated with ocean disposal, evaluative
techniques such as bioassays and bioassessments tend to be
emphasized. Such techniques provide relatively direct estimates
of the potential for environmental impact.
213
-------
5.3.1 National Testing Protocol
In July of 1977, the EPA and the COE published a manual which
established procedures to be used for evaluating potential
ecological effects from ocean disposal of dredged material. This
manual, entitled "Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of
Dredged Material into Ocean Waters, Implementation Manual for
Section 103 of Public Law 92-532 (Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972)" and known as the "Implementation Manual"
or "green book", presents detailed guidance on sediment and water
sample collection, preparation, and preservation; chemical analysis
and bioassay techniques; and methods for estimating bioaccumulation
potential arid initial mixing.
Although this manual has been used for many years, it has not been
revised to account for advances in analytical techniques and recent
research concerning the ecological effects of chemicals.
Furthermore, since the manual presents national guidance,
additional guidance is necessary to adapt the procedures to
regional situations. For example, regional guidance is needed to
define the particular types of organisms to be used for bioassay
tests and the chemical constituents to be analyzed for in sediments
of aquatic tissues that are consistent with the regional marine
ecosystem.
5.3.2 Regional Testing Protocol
In May of 1989, in consultation with NMFS and USFWS, EPA and the
COE revised their regional testing protocol (see Appendix A) . This
regional protocol modernizes the sampling and analytical techniques
described in the Implementation Manual and provides more specific
guidance on regional issues. The testing protocol is intended for
use by permit applicants who wish to dispose of dredged material.
The regional protocol sets out a tiered approach to testing, as
illustrated in Figure 5-1. The first tier involves a determination
of whether certain types and concentrations of contaminants are
likely to be present in the sediments to be dredged. Such a
determination is made by a review of available information such as
permit applications, relevant studies, non-point source discharges,
and reports of major pollution incidents. Pursuant to 40 CFR
§227.13(b), the material to be dredged may be excluded from further
testing if one or more of the following conditions prevail.
• The dredged material is composed predominately of sand,
gravel, rock or any other naturally occurring bottom
material with particle sizes larger than silt
(approximately 0.0625 mm), and the material is located
in areas where high currents or wave energies prevail,
such as streams with large bed loads or coastal areas
with shifting bars and channels; or
214
-------
PROJECT PROPOSED
ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS
Dispose within
Appropriate Env.
Laws & Regs.
—yes—
Non-Open water
Disposal Option
Available or
Feasible?
i
no
TIER I
DATA REVIEW
TIER II
CHEMICAL EVALUATION
(Bulk Chemistry)
TIER III
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
(Bioassay/
Bioaccumulation)
-no-
Is there reason to believe the
sediment is contaminated or
doesn't satisfy Exclusion Criteria?
—yes-
yes
-no-
Is there a potential for
Toxicity/Bioaccumulation of
Sediment Contaminants?
-yes-
yes
•(option)-
Do tests show
Potential Impacts
to Marine Ecosystem?
no
Is Capping
Viable?
yes
Unconfined
Open Water
Open Water Disposal
with Capping
No Open Water
Disposal
Figure 5-1
Generic Flow Diagram for the Tiered Testing and Decision Protocol
for the: Open Water Disposal of Dredged Material.
215
-------
• The dredged material is to be utilized for beach
nourishment or restoration and is composed predominately
of sand, gravel, or shell with particle sizes compatible
with material on the receiving beaches; or
• The material proposed for dumping is substantially the
same as the substrate at the proposed disposal site; and
the proposed dredging site is far removed from existing
and historical sources of pollution, thereby providing
reasonable assurance that such material has not been
contaminated.
If it is determined that the dredged material meets these
exclusions, further testing is not required. If not, the second
tier is initiated.
The second tier is the prebioassay stage. When the first tier
investigations indicate potentially contaminated sediments, bulk
sediment chemistry and grain size analyses are required to
determine the types and levels of chemicals associated with the
sediments to be dredged. These levels can be compared to levels
found in clean sediments or appropriate bioaccumulation models and
sediment quality criteria (if available) can be applied to forecast
potential bioavailability and toxicity to marine species around the
proposed disposal site. If the concentrations of chemicals found
in the sediments and projected marine organism body burdens are of
concern, the next tier of testing is required.
The third t:Ler consists of bioassay and bioaccumulation testing,
direct indicators of potential ecological effects. Bioassay tests
are performed by establishing a series of experimental test and
control chambers, adding test organisms to the chambers, incubating
under standard conditions for prescribed periods of time, and
examining the surviving organisms at designated intervals to
determine if the test material is causing an effect. The organism
survival rate and observed sublethal effects are compared for
chambers containing sediments proposed for dredging, sediments from
a designated reference site (which represents ecological conditions
at a site similar to but not impacted by the disposal site) and
control sediments (to ensure that observed effects are caused only
by differences in sediment quality and not differing laboratory
conditions). In general, whole sediment bioassays are conducted
to determine the effect of the dredged material on appropriate
marine species.
Bioaccumulation testing involves analyzing the tissues of organisms
surviving the bioassay tests to determine if those chemicals found
in high levels in the sediments during the Phase II bulk chemistry
testing were taken up by the organisms, and at what levels they
exist in the; organism's tissues. The levels of chemicals found in
the tissues are indicators of levels which could accumulate in
tissues of higher food web organisms, including humans.
216
-------
The significance of the bioassay and bioaccumulation test results
is determined by comparing those results between the organisms
exposed to the test sediment and the organisms exposed to the
reference sediment. Differences in the number of surviving
organisms or the levels of accumulated chemicals in tissues may
indicate that ecological effects could occur at the disposal site
as a result of disposal of the test sediments. In particular for
bioassays, when an increase in the mortality of the organisms
exposed to test sediment versus reference sediments is
statistically significant, then the dredged material may not be
suitable for unconfined ocean disposal. Mortalities between test
and reference organisms must vary by at least 10% (15% for
Ampelisca abdita) before statistical significance can be
considered, to account for the level of inherent laboratory
variation in the bioassay procedure. Similarly, statistically
significant differences (and differences of greater than 10%) in
the levels of chemicals found in the tissues of organisms exposed
to test and reference sediments can also indicate that the test
material is not suitable for unconfined ocean disposal. Another
indicator would be the existence of sublethal effects in organisms
exposed to the test sediment, but not in organisms exposed to the
reference sediment.
Although differences in test results between reference and test
sediments indicate the potential for ecological effects at the
ocean disposal site should the test material be dumped there, they
do not necessarily preclude permitting of the disposal with
appropriate control measures. For example, the material may be
able to be capped with clean material, and therefore isolated from
potential biological exposure, provided that enough "clean" capping
material is available and capping has been shown to be viable at
the proposed disposal site. Definitive capping studies have not
been conducted at the MBDS to date, so the viability of capping as
a means of isolating contaminated sediments at the site is not yet
established (see further discussion in Section 5.3.5).
5.3.3 Future Directions for Test Protocol Development
The new regional protocol improves EPA's ability to manage ocean
disposal sites by providing better information on potential
ecological impacts of dredged material disposal. For example, the
inclusion of the amphipod, Ampelisca abdita as a new test organism
will be a refinement, since it is very sensitive to the presence
of pollutants in dredged material. Also, because the majority of
contaminants within a disposal site reside in the surface layers
of the sediments, the addition of surface deposit feeding bivalves
such as Yoldia limatula and Macoma balthica will improve the test
sensitivity with respect to bioaccumulation potential.
Additionally, these organisms do not metabolize Polyaromatic
Hydrocarbons (compounds of particular concern for bioaccumulation)
and therefore will represent maximum bioaccumulation potential for
217
-------
these compounds.
It is expected that the regional protocol will continue to evolve
as new testing requirements, changes in testing methodologies or
new evaluation approaches are developed. In particular, EPA hopes
to develop more quantitative measures of ecological effects and
potential public health impacts from ocean disposal of dredged
material. For example, currently bioaccumulation tests consider
only the potential for bioaccumulation and do not provide
information on actual bioaccumulation or biomagnification that
could result from steady state exposures of marine organisms to
dredged material. Also, the cause and effect relationships between
levels of contaminants in tissues and biological effects is not now
known. In the future it may be possible to provide quantitative
scientific guidance on the potential environmental or human health
impacts associated with a specific concentration of a particular
contaminant in the tissues of marine organisms.
In addition, EPA and the COE are also in the process of revising
the Implementation Manual to incorporate many of the new testing
procedures contained in the regional protocol into the national
guidance. Also, changes have been made to the MPRSA through the
1988 Ocean Dumping Ban Act and the ocean dumping regulations (40
CFR §§220 to 228). Upcoming revisions to the Implementation Manual
will incorporate these changes.
5.3.4 Reference site Implications
As discussed above, the suitability of dredged material for
unrestricted open water disposal is determined through comparison
of bioassay and bioaccumulation results between the test and a
reference se:diment. Reference sediment must be obtained from the
natural marine environment for these tests. The purpose of the
reference sediment is to serve as a point of comparison to identify
potential ecological effects of chemical contaminants in the
dredged material.
In order to appropriately simulate organism responses, the
reference sediment should (i) be substantially free of
contaminants:, (ii) be as similar as possible to the dredged
material with respect to grain size, and (iii) represent conditions
that would exist in the vicinity of the disposal site if no
disposal had ever occurred. The grain size issue is an important
one since some of the test organisms are particularly sensitive to
changes in grain size. As a result, differences in organism
mortality which might occur because of incompatibility with grain
size must be minimized so that the observed differences accurately
portray the potential ecological impacts associated with disposal
of the dredged material in question.
A "clean" reference site is an essential part of ocean disposal
site management, as it may govern what material is suitable for
218
-------
disposal at that site. The reference site currently used for
testing associated with dredged material disposal at the MBDS is
located at 42° 24.7'N and 70" 32.8'W (see Figure 5-2). EPA is
currently evaluating the appropriateness of the existing reference
site. The sites "A" and "C" indicated on Figure 5-2 are two of the
sites that EPA is currently investigating as potential new
reference sites.
5.4 site Monitoring and Management
5.4.1 Purpose of Site Monitoring
The ability to manage ocean disposal sites both spatially and
temporally is essential to minimizing adverse effects to the marine
environment from the disposal of dredged material at those sites.
As discussed previously, EPA is responsible for conducting long-
term monitoring surveys to assess progressive changes in the
ecosystem surrounding the designated ocean disposal sites caused
by disposal operations at those sites.
The primary purpose of the monitoring program is to evaluate the
impact of disposal on the marine environment by comparing the
monitoring results to a set of baseline conditions. EPA and the
COE require full participation from permittees, and encourage full
participation from other Federal, State, and local agencies in the
development and implementation of disposal site monitoring
programs. When disposal sites are being used on a continuing
basis, such programs may consist of the following components:
(1) Trend assessment surveys conducted at intervals
frequent enough to assess the extent and changes over
time of any observed environmental impacts.
(2) Monitoring immediate and short-term impacts of
disposal operations by permittees.
In short, the ocean dumping regulations identify two broad areas
which should be regarded in monitoring. These areas are (1) short-
term or acute effects immediately observable and monitored before,
at and immediately following the time of disposal, and (2) long-
term or progressive effects measurable only over a period of years
and indicated by subtle changes in selected characteristics of the
ecosystem or the ocean environment.
The scope of monitoring efforts is dependent on the amount of
scientific data needed to determine whether the site is suitable
for continued use within the requirements of the MPRSA and the site
designation EIS. When developing a monitoring plan for a
particular disposal site, several factors must be considered
including the availability and relevance of historic data, the time
and rate that the material is disposed, the types and amounts of
materials being disposed at the site, climate, and monetary
219
-------
Figure 5-2
Location of existing mud reference site for MBDS and
sites under consideration for its replacement
220
-------
constraints. The monitoring program should be designed in light
of the aforementioned concerns and should consider different ways
to monitor the movement of the disposed material, but at the same
time must allow for modification of the strategy if significant
adverse impacts are revealed.
5.4.2 Evaluation of Monitoring Results
The determination of ecological effects resulting from disposal on
the marine environment near the disposal site should be evaluated
using all pertinent data. The ocean dumping regulations at 40 CFR
§228.10 specifically identify several types of effects to be
considered in determining the extent of any marine impacts
resulting from disposal:
(1) Movement of materials into estuaries or marine
sanctuaries, or onto oceanfront beaches, or shorelines;
(2) Movement of materials toward productive fishery or
shellfishery areas;
(3) Absence from the disposal site of pollution-sensitive
biota characteristic of the general area;
(4) Progressive, non-seasonal changes in water quality
or sediment composition at the disposal site, when these
changes are attributable to materials disposed of at the
site;
(5) Progressive, non-seasonal changes in composition or
numbers of pelagic, demersal, or benthic biota at or near
the disposal site, when these changes can be attributed
to the effects of materials disposed of at the site;
(6) Accumulation of material constituents (including
without, limitation, human pathogens) in marine biota at
or near the site.
Impacts can be categorized according to the overall condition of
the environment and the nature and extent of the effects
identified. The categories that have been established for dredged
material demonstrating a potential for adverse effects are set
forth in 40 CFR §228. If one or more of the following conditions
prevail and can be attributed to ocean disposal activities, the
site is considered to be in Impact Category I:
• There is identifiable progressive movement or
accumulation, in detectable concentrations above normal
ambient values, of any waste or waste constituent from
the disposal site.
• The biota, sediments, or water column of the disposal
221
-------
site exhibit the presence of any waste constituent from
the disposal site above normal ambient values or are
adversely affected by the toxicity of that constituent
to the extent that there are statistically significant
decreases in the populations of valuable commercial or
recreational species, or of specific species of biota
essential to the propagation of such species, compared
to populations of the same organisms in the reference
area.
• Solid waste material disposed of at the site has
accumulated at the site or in areas adjacent to it such
that major uses are significantly impaired.
• There are adverse effects on the taste or odor of
valuable commercial or recreational species.
• When any toxic waste, toxic waste constituent, or toxic
byproduct of waste interaction, is consistently
identified in toxic concentrations above normal ambient
values outside the disposal site more that 4 hours after
disposal.
Sites which do not exhibit the characteristics listed above are
classified as Impact Category II sites. When EPA determines that
activities at a disposal site have resulted in that site being
classified in Impact Category I, EPA is required to place
limitations on the use of that site as necessary to reduce the
impacts to acceptable levels. The MBDS is currently considered an
Impact Category II site.
5.4.3 Monitoring Techniques
At MBDS, monitoring surveys will be conducted at least annually,
or more often depending on the volume and types of sediments
disposed at the site and the findings of each survey. Survey
techniques used will, as appropriate, include those described
below.
Bathymetry is a depth measurement technique that is typically used
to identify disposal mounds. Through the use of a fathometer and
precise navigation controls, it is possible to identify and monitor
changes in disposal mounds over time, the precise dredged material
distribution and consequently, the movement of any deposited
sediments away from the disposal site boundary.
Remote Ecological Monitoring of the Seafloor ("REMOTS©") and other
sediment profile cameras are techniques which use a camera to
determine: (1) the extent and thickness of dredged material which
is not detectable with bathymetry, and (2) the progress of benthic
colonization on areas which have not recently been affected by
disposal. REMOTS© surveys assist in mapping dredged material
222
-------
distribution and in evaluating benthic habitat conditions and the
process of rocolonization in the disposal area. REMOTS© has proven
valuable in ascertaining the stability of sediment mounds.
Side scan sonar is an instrument used to map specific features of
the ocean bottom. Side scan sonar is usually used in combination
with REMOTS© or precision bathymetry to present a general picture
of the ocean floor.
Sediment chemistry is used to determine the levels of contaminants
in the sediment at or near the disposal site. When used in
combination with bioassay tests, sediment chemistry facilitates in
concluding which chemical constituents are the probable cause of
any demonstrated toxicity or mortality.
Benthic Resources Assessment Technique ("BRAT") is typically used
to monitor the coupling or linkage between benthos and fisheries.
BRAT studies; are employed to statistically compare the stomach
contents of infauna-feeding fish with the infauna, such as
polychaetes, of the study area. BRAT is a tool used to assess
effects with respect to site utilization as a feeding ground for
bottom feeding fish, such as flounder.
Disposal Area In-situ Monitoring System ("DAISY") is an instrument
used to investigate bottom sediment movement. The DAISY is usually
used to estimate resuspension and transport of contaminants and
dredged material. The sediment-water interface dynamics at the
boundary layer, that layer of water immediately adjacent to the
sediment surface and which plays a key role in sediment transport,
is identified. Water movement interactions including wave action
activities on the boundary layer, bottom shear stress, internal
>waves and currents all affect bottom currents. Deployments of the
DAISY system on the East Coast have shown sediment resuspension and
changes in bottom microtopography owing to surface waves, tidal
currents, and storms (Butman, et al., 1978). .
Plume studies are research techniques used to ensure that dredged
material is maintained within the disposal site boundary once
disposed. Plume studies can be used to determine the fate of fine-
grained material. They are particularly useful to determine the
size and movement of plumes from loads dumped at different points
within the disposal site.
Body burden analysis of benthic organisms, such as bivalves, worms,
or fish, are; used to identify levels of bioaccumulation occurring
around the site. Mussel platforms can be used to predict whether
increases in tissue concentrations of a particular contaminant can
be attributed to dredged material disposal and whether such
increases ccin be correlated with changes in characteristics such
as mortality, wet to dry tissue ratios, or gonadal development.
Microwave positioning units interfaced to computerized navigation
223
-------
and data acquisition systems have reduced the error in replicate
sampling and surveying to less than five meters. By using such
accurate navigation systems in combination with bathymetric and
sediment sampling operations, sampling programs can very accurately
determine disposal mound topography as well as the distribution of
dredged material at the site. Differences observed within and
between surveys can thus be attributed to actual changes resulting
from disposal rather than random variability. Diving observations
coordinated with remote measurements have confirmed an ability to
distinguish these small scale changes.
5.4.4 COE's DAMO8 program
Monitoring for environmental effects is usually a process in which
benthic communities are sampled at disposal and reference sites
both before and after initiation of disposal. Such an approach
normally includes continual systematic time series observations of
predetermined components of the marine ecosystem for a period of
time sufficient to determine existing levels, trends, and
variations (NOAA, 1979). At the MBDS, the primary mechanism for
site monitoring is the Disposal Area Monitoring System ("DAMOS")
program, a multidisciplinary environmental monitoring program
instituted by the New England Division of the COE to assess and
minimize the environmental impact associated with dredged material
disposal in coastal waters of New England.
The integrated DAMOS management/monitoring program starts with
initial designation of a disposal site, and proceeds through time,
addressing predisposal baseline conditions, interim disposal
control, post disposal baseline and continued monitoring. This
monitoring program is based upon a prospective tiered monitoring
scheme. The DAMOS approach involves clearly defining thresholds
at which ecological impacts resulting from material disposal will
be adverse prior to monitoring a disposal site, and then
determining through a tiered monitoring program whether those
thresholds have been exceeded. DAMOS, as it applies to management
of open water dredged material disposal sites, is geared to be
prospective, in that it attempts to identify indicators of adverse
effects before such effects happen.
In an ideal prospective program, desirable and undesirable
biological or environmental conditions (i.e., unacceptable adverse
effects or unreasonable degradation) are clearly defined before the
sampling is begun. Additionally, resources near the disposal site
that may be at risk are identified, and the magnitude and extent
of potential impacts predicted.
These predictions incorporate physical and chemical change
thresholds for undesirable biological responses. Such thresholds
establish early warnings that unacceptable adverse biological
effects are being approached. The lowest tiers of the monitoring
program provide information about increased risk of impacts to the
224
-------
resources of concern, thus allowing for management decisions
relating to modifications of disposal practices prior to the
occurrence of unacceptable adverse biological effects.
The tiered monitoring approach generally includes information
regarding biology, regional hydrodynamics, and the anticipated
disposal activity. When adverse effects have been identified,
several actions can be taken, including exercising project
management options to alleviate the impacts observed or proceeding
with more intensive monitoring.
Monitoring efforts are developed commensurate with the effects
anticipated. For example, the first and subsequent tiers of a
monitoring program may not involve any biological testing for cases
where cause: and effect relationships are well documented.
Appropriate management decisions are also commensurate with the
effects identified. For example, a minimal degree of change in
sediment characteristics, condition index, or population density
may be considered acceptable, but a substantial reduction in
average population density would not be allowed in most cases.
The first step in the tiered approach is identification of the
phases of effects which would have to occur prior to causing an
adverse impact. The following phases are considered: (1) transport
of contamina.ted sediment beyond the site boundary, (2) deposition
of contaminated sediment in a feeding area, (3) absorption and
bioaccumulat.ion of contaminants by the benthos, (4) consumption of
sufficient amounts of contaminated benthic species by fish, and (5)
the presence: of contaminants in harmful quantities in fish muscle
which could affect human health.
Ideally, the; first tiers of the monitoring program are relatively
inexpensive to conduct and focus on identifying easily
interpretable intermediate ecological effects which usually occur
prior to any adverse effects. Initial surveys usually include a
collection of bathymetric data, measurement of currents, sampling
of sediments for bulk chemistry analysis, determination of
background chemical accumulation levels in benthos, and
characterizeition of the benthic population in the disposal areas.
At MBDS, the first tier usually relates to whether contaminated
sediment is being transported out of the site above a predetermined
and conservative threshold. To address this specific question, the
design of the sampling program is based on predictions of the
direction, magnitude, and aerial extent of sediment transport may
employ techniques such as mussel platforms or plume studies during
disposal, REMOTS®, precision bathymetry, and DAISY following
disposal. If transport above the threshold is identified, the next
tier of the monitoring program is initiated to determine the extent
of deposition at feeding grounds, and management controls are
implemented.
225
-------
5.4.5 Brief history of MBDS monitoring
Among the most recent DAMOS monitoring surveys conducted by the COE
at the MBDS are two studies performed in February 1987 and in the
Fall of 1988. The 1987 survey consisted primarily of bathymetric
profiles, REMOTS®, sediment chemistry analyses, and benthic body
burden evaluations. The 1988 survey included bathymetric profiles,
REMOTSC surveys, and routine water column chemistry tests such as
density, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and salinity (SAIC 1987;
COE 1987-1989; EPA 1989).
Future monitoring activities at MBDS can now be directed toward a
more detailed evaluation of those effects identified and reported
in this EIS. Specifically, the uptake of organic contaminants by
the polychaete Nephtys incisa as an indication of potential trophic
transfer of contaminants (see Chapter 4) is of concern. Future
monitoring will analyze this phenomena in Nephtys incisa to
determine if elevated levels exist consistently over large areas.
Also, the next trophic resident, witch flounder, Glyptocephalus
cynoglossus will be analyzed to determine if the contaminants of
concern have been transferred up the food chain. The residue
levels of indigenous organisms will be monitored to identify future
trends in contaminant mobility prior to disposal. Newly developed
testing procedures for bioaccumulation testing will be implemented
as soon as such methods are verified.
5.4.6 Other Management Considerations
A primary consideration for managing MBDS as an ocean dredged
material disposal site is to maintain the disposal buoy at given
points for several years at a time. A taut wire buoy combined with
onboard inspectors is used to assist in sustaining point dumping
and theoretically allows layering of earlier disposal episodes with
more recent ones, thereby creating a mound. However, the effects
associated with waves, currents, and precise navigation can impact
the viability of this mounding. Using the estimate of three
million cubic yards to be disposed at the MBDS over the next decade
(see Chapter 2) , point disposal would theoretically allow formation
of a 5 meter high mound within a 450 meter radius after
approximately 4 years of buoy deployment at a particular location.
Limiting the impact of disposal to a specific area would be
biologically advantageous since only a limited portion of the site
would be affected at any given time.
The actual disposal operation at MBDS is monitored by the COE to
identify the precise location and method of each disposal event.
The barges towed to the MBDS have onboard COE inspectors who record
the LORAN-C coordinates at which the barge stops and the distance
to the buoy. This information is reported to the COE for each
disposal episode as reguired in the permit. Historically, disposal
was from a moving barge and affected a larger area (incidentally,
this is one explanation for some of the elevated levels of
226
-------
contaminants found in the vicinity of the MBDS boundary).
Currently, there are requirements within permits which specify that
disposal rous:t be point discharged so that any impacts associated
with disposal will be restricted to a spatially limited area.
COE permits may require the permittee to conduct certain monitoring
tasks as a special condition of the permit or participate in a
short-term monitoring program to detect changes induced by the
disposal of dredged material. Permittees are required to abide by
this plan as a condition of any future permit.
Since grain size within the MBDS varies greatly, disposal of
material should be permitted only in the area of the MBDS which has
a corresponding grain size. For example, the disposal of rock
could occur on the northern and northeast section of the MBDS which
consists of cobbley substrate. Such a strategy could establish a
reef like structure and possibly increase habitat diversity. The
cobbley northeast section is generally thirty meters shallower and
nearly two kilometers from the disposal buoy, and would therefore
minimize contaminant interaction with reef habitat.
5.4.7 Management Options for Contaminated Material
For any proposed disposal, if the chemical and bioassay testing
discussed in Section 5.3.2 has been completed and indicates that
there is a potential for adverse environmental impact, several
options are available to mitigate such impacts. One alternative
is denial of. a permit to ocean dispose. However, other factors
may be considered in evaluating the potential impacts of each
dredging project. These are discussed below, and include: the
project's disposal alternatives based on environmental and economic
considerations; the proposed method and time of dredging; and the
viability of potential mitigation measures such as capping.
Permit applications are evaluated in part on the need for dredging,
cost, and the availability of other disposal alternatives. As a
result, even though the potential for environmental impacts may be
indicated during the testing process, permit denial is not always
a viable alternative. As discussed in detail in Chapter 2, there
are many alternatives to open water disposal of dredged material.
The options available for a particular dredging project depend in
part on the nature of the sediments. These factors are thoroughly
evaluated prior to determining that ocean disposal is the preferred
alternative.
Some dredged material disposal impacts can be managed through the
imposition of permit conditions on the method and time of disposal.
The majority of dredging occurs in winter months to avoid summer
boating activities. Disposal during winter months appears to allow
winter and spring recruitment of benthic organisms onto the
disposal mound. Biogenic mixing of the top 10 to 20 centimeters
of sediment can be relatively intense throughout summer and autumn.
227
-------
Consequently, biogenic mixing appears to be a potential pathway for
contaminant remobilization. If disposal of contaminated material
were restricted to winter and followed by a capping of clean
material (see below), this route for contaminant transport could
be eliminated. As an additional alternative, EPA could impose
seasonal restrictions on disposal activities in order to prevent
impacts to spawning, recruitment, or fishing activities.
Options for controlling water column and benthic impacts include
bottom discharge via submerged diffusers, which minimizes the
suspension and transport of fines during disposal, and restricting
disposal operations to slack tide times, which allows maximum
settling time while minimizing particle transport by tidal
currents. These measures would aid in ensuring that the majority
of the dredged material disposed remains within the disposal site
boundary.
Capping is a procedure where contaminated material is deposited
first and is subsequently covered with clean material of similar
grain size. Such a sequencing theoretically prohibits the release
of contaminants into the water column since they are isolated in
the underlying strata and cannot diffuse through the layer of clean
sediment. Additionally, if disposal events are limited to a
precise buoy location, a pioneering benthic community would be
maintained on the disposal mound. Biogenic reworking of the
sediments is typically short-lived and would occur only on the
upper few centimeters of clean substrate, thereby limiting
resuspension and biological exposure to contaminants.
Precise navigation controls are imperative during any disposal and
capping operation. Ensuring that all disposal events occur at the
designated location reduces the area covered by dredged material
and, therefore, the amount of capping material required, if capping
is the preferred mitigation option. For example, if dredged
material covered an area of bottom with a 500 m radius, similar to
the deposit created during 1986 disposal operations, a minimum of
441,000 m3 of material would be required to produce a cap deposit
0.5 meters thick extending 30 m beyond the edge of dredged material
(since the cap is formed by depositing individual scow loads at
evenly spaced points over the dredged material deposit, it would
probably actually require more material to insure that the cap was
at least 0.5 m thick over the entire area). However, if, through
controlled dumping, the dredged material area were reduced to a 300
m radius, the minimum amount of capping material becomes 171,000
m .
Management of dredged material at MBDS should emphasize navigation
control of the disposal operation. Recent surveys at MBDS have
shown that dredged material can be restricted to an area with a
radius of approximately 500 m around the taut moored buoy for a
deposit of about 250,000 m3. Tighter control of the scows with
respect to dumping at the buoy could potentially reduce this area.
228
-------
If this accuracy could be maintained throughout the entire disposal
operation, capping of contaminated sediments could be a feasible
mitigating measure at MBDS. Accurate navigation control would also
permit dilution of contaminated sediment levels through deposition
of both contaminated sediments (typically from the upper portion
of the dredged area) and relatively uncontaminated sediments
(typically from the deeper portion of the dredged area) at the same
location.
Although capping has not been conducted at MBDS, previous
operations at other disposal sites have demonstrated the
effectiveness of disposal control in restricting the spread of
material, an important factor in a capping operation. If the
disposal location is a containment site (as is the MBDS), capping
could be feasible if a sufficient quantity of clean material is
available. Currently, there is not enough information to support
whether capping is a feasible management option. However, many
members of the scientific community remain skeptical whether
capping is a viable management option.
Some of the unresolved issues include, but are not limited to:
(i) whether the contaminants in the underlying strata
diffuse through the cap;
(ii) if "clean" material is available in sufficient
quantity and similar in grain size at the same time the
"contaminated" dredged material is proposed for ocean
disposal;
(iii) whether capping is feasible in deeper water;
(iv) whether the studies used to demonstrate that capping
is a viable management option accurately reflect actual
disposal operations;
(v) even if a cap was shown to be viable, would potential
impacts from dispersal of fine material or equilibrium
partitioning of contaminants into the water column during
dumping have unacceptable adverse impacts;
(vi) stability of the capped mound during a storm event;
(vii) Identification of the depth of an effective cap
(including the depth of the cap needed to isolate the
contaminated material from bioturbation); and
(viii) equilibrium partitioning between the contaminants
of concern in the dredged material and the water column
has been established to avoid exceeding EPA marine WQC.
The COE, in conjunction with the Massachusetts Department of
229
-------
Environmental Management JFK Library project, has proposed to
conduct a study which will discern whether a mound can be created
at the MBDS. This will be a first step in determining the
feasibility of capping at the MBDS. Until these studies and others
are completed, viability of capping as a mitigation measure at the
MBDS remains uncertain.
230
-------
REFERENCES
Acey, R., P. Healy, T.F. Unger, C.E. Ford and R.A. Hudson, 1987.
Growth and aggregation behavior of representative
phytoplankton as affected by the environmental contaminant
Di-n-butyl Phthalate. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39:1-6.
Ainley, D.G., and G.A. Sanger, 1979. Trophic relations of seabirds
in the northeastern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. pp. 95-122
in (J.C. Bartonak and D.N. Nettleship, eds.) Conservation of
Marine Birds of Northern North America. U.S. Fish and Wildl.
Serv., Wildl. Res. Rept. 11, Washington, D.C.
Allen, G.M., 1916. The whalebone whales of New England. Mem.
Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 8:107-322.
Allen, J.A. 1908. The North Atlantic right whale and its near
allies. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 24:277-329.
Allen, K.O. and J.W. Hardy. 1980. Impacts of Navigational Dredging
on Fish and Wildlife. Bio. Ser. Prog. US FWS. FWS/OBS-80/07
Allen, K.R. 1971. A preliminary assessment of fin whale stocks
off the Canadian Atlantic coast. Rept. Int. Comm., Spec.
Issue 10.
Amiard, J.C., C. Amiard-Triquet, B. Berthet and C. Metayer. J. Exp.
Mar. Biol. Ecol. 106: 73-89.
Anguillar, A. In press. A review of old basque shaling and its
effect on the right whales of the North Atlantic. Rept. Int.
Comm., Spec. Issue 10.
Anthony, V.A. and G. Waring, 1980. The assessment and management
of the Georges Bank herring fishery. ICES Rapp. Proc.-Verb.,
177:72-111.
Arnold, P.W. and D.E. Gaskin, 1972. Sight records of right whales
(Eubalaena glacialis) and finback whales (Balaenoptera
physalus) from the lower Bay of Fundy. J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Canada 29:1477-1748.
Babcock, H.L. 1919. The turtles of New England. Memoirs Boston
Soc. National. Hist. 8:325-431.
Balcomb, K.C. and G. Nichols, 1978. Western North Atlantic
humpback whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 28:159-164.
-------
Baram, M. S., D. Rice, and W. Lee. 1976. Marine Mining of the
Continental Shelf, Legal, Technical and Environmental
Considerations. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA.
Barr, Bradley W. 1987. Dredging Handbook - A primer for dredging
in the coastal zone of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Publication #14,870-181-500-6-87-CR.
Batelle, Draft Enviromental Impact Report for Identification of
Dredge material sites in Cape Cod Bay, 1987
Beamish, P. 1981. Rare sighting of a right whale (Eubalaena
qlacialis). J. Ceta-Res. 2:2.
Beck, B. 1983. The grey seal in Canada. Underwater World. Dept.
of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa. 4 pp.
Bent, A.C. 1921. Life histories of North American gulls and terns.
U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 113: -345, Wash. D.C.
Bent, A.C. 1922. Life histories of North American petrels and
pelicans and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 121:1-343,
Wash. D.C.
Bigelow, H.B. 1927. Physical Oceanography of the Gulf of Maine.
Bull, U.S. Comm. Bur., 40:511-1027.
Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of
Maine. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull. 53. 577 pp.
Bleakney, J.S. 1965. Reports of marine turtles from New England
and Canadian waters. Canadian Field Nat. 79:120-128.
BLM. 1977. OCS Sale No. 42. Draft EIS. Dept. of Interior.
Boehm, P.O., W. Steinhauser, and J. Brown. 1984. Organic pollutant
biogeochemistry studies in the Northeast U.S. marine
environment. Final report to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NA-83-FA-C-00022). Batelle New
England Marine Research Laboratory. 61 pp.
Boehm, P.O., W. Steinhauer, and J. Brown, 1984. Organic Pollutant
Biogeochemistry Studies in the Northeast U.S. Marine
Environment. Report to NOAA, Duxbury, MA. NMFS Contract No.
NA-83-FA-C-00022.
Bohlen, W.F. 1981. An Evaluation of the Causes of Shorefront
Erosion: Castle Island, Boston, Massachusetts. Prepared for
Fay, Spofford and Thorndike, Inc., Boston, MA 33 pps. and
Illustrations.
-------
Bokuniewicz, H.J., J. Gebert, R.B. Gordon, J.L. Higins, P.
Kaminsky, C.C. Pilbeam, M. Reed, and C. Tuttle, 1978. Field
study of the mechanics of the placement of dredged material
at open water disposal sites. Tech. Report D-78-7, U.S. Army
Waterways Experiment Station.
Bokuniewicz, H.J., J. Gebert, R.B. Gordon, J.L. Higins, p.
Kaminsky, C.C. Pilbeam, M. Reed, and C. Tuttle, 1978. Field
study of the mechanics of the placement of dredged material
at opert water disposal sites. Tech. Report D-78-7, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station (WES),
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Bond, C.E. 1979. Biology of Fishes. Saunders.
Borrego, J.J., F. Arrabal, A. deVicente, L.F. Gomez, P. Roneco.
1983. Study of microbial inactivation in the marine
environment. JWPCF 55:297-302
Boston Edison Co. 1986. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation
of the Pilgrim Station. Semi-annual Rep. No. 27. Boston, MA.
Bothner, M.H., E.Y. Cambell, G.P. DiLisio, C.M. Paramenter, R.R.
Rendigs, M.W. Doughten, R.G. Johnson, J.R. Gillison and N.
Rait. 1986. Analysis of trace metals in bottom sediments in
support of deepwater biological processes studies on the U.S.
North Atlantic continental slope and rise. Outer Continental
Shelf Study - MRS 86-0008. Minerals Management Service. U.S.
Dept. of Interior.
Boulva, J. and I.A. McLaren, 1979. Biology of the harbor seal,
Phoca vitulina. in Eastern Canada. Bulletin of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada, No.200. 24 pp.
Bourque, B. and M. Roberts, 1979. A summary and analysis of
cultural resource information on the Continental Shelf from
the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras, Vol. Ill - Historic Ship.
Institute for Conservation Archaeology, Peabody Museum,
Harvard University Report 88. (Done for the Bureau of Land
Management - Contract No. AA551-CT8-18).
Bowman, R. E. and William L. Michaels, 1984. Food of seventeen
species of northwest Atlantic fish. NOAA Tech. Men. NMFS -
F/NEC-2B Woods Hole, Mass.
Bowman, R.E. 1981. Stomach contents of twenty-four species of fish
caught in Cape Cod Bay and/or Massachusetts Bay during the
period 1972-1978.
Braham, H.W. 1984. The Status of Endangered Whales: An Overview.
Mar. Fish. Rev., Spec. Issue 46: 2-6.
-------
Brimley, H.H. 1931. Harbor seal in North Carolina. J. of Mammal
12:314.
Brodie, P.F., D.D. Sameoto, and R.W. Sheldon, 1978. Population
densities of euphausiids off Nova Scotia as indicated by net
samples, whale stomach contents, and sonar. Limnol. Oceanogr.
23:1264-1267.
Brown, R.F. and B.R. Mate, 1983. Abundance, movements, and feeding
habits of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, at Netarts and
Tillamook Bays, Oregon. Fishery Bulletin 81:291-301.
Brown, R.G.B., S.P. Barker, D.E. Gaskin, and M.R. Sanderman, 1981.
The foods of Great and Sooty shearwaters Puffinus gravis and
P. griseus in eastern Canadian waters. Ibid 123:19-30
Brown, R.G.B., D.N. Nettleship, P. Germain, C.E. Tull and T. Davis,
1975. Atlas of eastern Canadian seabirds. Canadian Wildl.
Service, Information Canada, Ottawa. 220 pp.
Brown, S.G. 1958. Whales observed in the Atlantic Ocean. Notes
on their distribution. Mar. Obs. 28(181-182):142-146,
209-216.
Brown, S.G. 1961. Observations of pilot whales (globicephala) in
the North Atlantic Ocean. Norsk: Hvalfanst-tid. 50:225-254.
Brown, W.S. and R.C. Beardsley, 1978. Winter Circulation in the
Western Gulf of Maine: Part 1. Cooling and Watermass
Formation. J. Phys. Oceanorg. 8(2):265-277.
Brownawell, B.J. and J.W. Farrington. 1985 Partitioning of PCBs
in marine sediments. In Marine and Estuarine Geochemistry,
edited by A.C. Sigelo and A. Hattori.
Bryan, G.W. and L.G. Hummerstone.1971. Adaptation of the polychaete
Nereis diversicolor to estuarine sediments containing high
concentrations of heavy metals. I. General observations and
adaptations to copper. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 51:845-863.
Bumpus, D.F. and L.M. Lauzier, 1965. Surface Circulation on the
Continental Shelf of Eastern North America Between
Newfoundland and Florida. Am. Geograph. Soc., Serial Atlas
of the Marine Environment, Folio 7.
Bumpus, D.F. 1974. Review of the physical Oceanography of
Massachusetts Bay. Technical Report WHOI-74-8. Unpublished
M.S. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA.
-------
Bumpus, D.F. 1976. Review of the Physical Oceanography of Georges
Bank. Intl. Comm. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. Res. Blu. No.
12:119-134.
Burghard, A. 1935. Whaling in Florida waters. Florida Conservator
1:4-5.
Burnham, K.P., D.R. Anderson, and J.F. Laake, 1980. Estimation of
density from line transect sampling of biological populations.
Wildl. Monogr. No. 72. 202 pp.
Butman, B. 1977. On the Dynamics of Shallow Water currents in
Massachusetts Bay and on the New England Continental Shelf.
Unpublished Manuscript. Report No. WHOI-77-15. Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 174 pp.
Calabrese, A., E. Gould, and F.P. Thurberg. 1982. Effects of toxic
metals in marine animals of the New York Bight: some
Laboratory observations. Pages 281-298 IN G.F. Mayer (ed) .
Ecological stress and the New York Bight: science and
management.
Caldwell, D.K. and F.B. Golley, 1965. Marine Mammals from the
coast of Georgia to Cape Hatteras. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci.
Soc. 81:24-32.
Caldwell, D.K. and M.C. Caldwell, 1966. Observations on the
distribution, coloration, behavior and audible sound
production of the spotted dolphin, Stenella plagiodon (Cope).
Los Angeles County Mus. Contrib. Sci. 104:1-28.
Caldwell, O.K., M.C. Caldwell and D.W. Rice, 1966. Bei-avior of
the sperm whale. Pp. 677-717 In K.S. Norris (ed.) Whales,
dolphins, porpoises. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley.
Caldwell, D.K., M.C. Caldwell, 1969. The harbor seal, Phoca
vitulina concolor, in Florida. J. of Mammal 50:379-380.
Caldwell, D.K. and M.C. Caldwell, W.F. Rathjen, and J.R. Sullivan.
1971. Cetaceans from the Lesser Antillean Island of St.
Vincent. Fish. Bull. 69:303-312.
Caldwell, D.K. and M.C. Caldwell, 1975. Dolphin and small-whale
fisheries of the Caribbean. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada
32:1105-1110.
Carey, D.A. 1983. Particle resuspension in the benthie boundary
layer induced by flow around polychaete tubes. Can. J. of
Fish, and Aqu. Sci., Vol. 40: 301-308.
Carr, A. 195:2. Handbook of Turtles. Comstock Pub. Assoc., Ithaca,
N.Y. pp 1-542.
-------
Carter, G.R., F.M. Fairfield, and H.E. Winn, 1981. Occurrence of
beaked whales (Family Ziphiidae) in the western North
Atlantic. Abstr. only, Fourth Biennial Conference on the
Biology of Marine Mammals, 13-18- Dec., San Francisco, CA.
Castello, H.P. and M.C. Pinedo, 1979. Southern right whales
(Eubalaena australis) along the southern Brazilian coast. J.
Mammal. 60:429-43.0.
CETAP. 1982. A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in
the mid- and north Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer
continental shelf. Final Report of the Cetacean and Turtle
Assessment Program, Bureau of Land Management, Contract No.
AA551-CT8-48, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Wash. D.C. 450 pp.
Chapman, P.M. 1986. Sediment quality criteria from the sediment
quality triad: an example. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5:957-964.
Chapman, P.M. and E.R. Long. 1983. The use of bioassays as part
of a comprehensive approach to marine pollution assessment.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 14(3):81-84.
Chapman, P.M. and J.D. Morgan. 1983. Sediment boiassays with oyster
larvae. Bull. Environ. Toxicol. 31:438-444.
Chapman, P.M. and R. Fink 1984. Effects of Puget Sound sediments
and their elutriates on the life cycle of capitella capitata.
Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 33:451-459.
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter, and E.R. Long. 1987a. Synoptic
measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal
community composition (the sediment Quality Triad) in San
Francisco Bay. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37:75-96.
Chapman, P.M. , R.C. Barrick, J.M. Neff, and R.C. Swartz. 1987b.
Four independent approaches to developing sediment quality
criteria yield similar values for model contaminants. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 6:723-725.
Charnov, E.L. 1976. Optimal Foraging: the Marginal Value Theorem.
Theo. Pop. Bio. 9:129-136.
Chu, K. 1986. Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). In T. French
(ed.), Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Vertebrate
Species in Massachusetts. Mass, Div., Fish & Wildlife,
Non-game and Endangered Species Program. Boston, MA 02202
(in press).
Clarke, J.U. and A.B. Gibson, 1987. Regulatory identification of
petroleum hydrocarbons in dredged material: Proceedings at
a workshop. Miscellaneous Paper. D-87-3. U.S. Army Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
-------
Clay, A.M., T.R. Gilbert and G.C. McLeod, 1978. Critique and
proposal for the management of dredged material in
Massachusetts Bay waters. New England Aquarium, Boston, MA.
- under NED contract DACW33-76-C-0096.
Clayton, G., C. Cole, and S. Murawski. 1978. Common Marine Fishes
of Coastal Massachusetts. Coop. Ext. Ser. Univ. MA. Amherst.
Clarke, J.R.,, J.M. Patrick, Jr., J.C. Moore, and E.M. Lores. 1987.
Waterborne and sediment-source toxicities of six organic
chemicals to grass shrimp (Palaemonetes puaio) and amphioxus
(Branchiostoma caribaeum). Arch.Environ.
Contam. Toxicol.16:401-407.
Clarke, J.U.. and A.B. Gibson, compilers. 1987. Regulatory
identification of petroleum hydrocarbons in dredged material:
proceedings of a workshop. Misc. Paper D-87-3. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1984. Shore Protection
Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
Research Center, 1984. Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Miss. 2 Vols.
COE, 1984. Environmental effects of dredging. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Info. Exchange Bull. Vol. D-84-2. May 1984. Pp
1-10.
Cohen, E.B., M.D. Grosslein, M.P. Sissenwine, F. Steimle, and W.R.
Wright, 1982. Energy budget of georges Bank, p. 95-107 In
M.C. Mercer (ed.) Multispecies approaches to fisheries
management advice. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59.
Courtney, W.A. and W.J. Langston. 1978. Uptake of polychlorinated
bipheny.L (Arocolor 1254) from sediment and from seawater in
two intertidal polychaetes. Environ. Pollut. 15:303-309.
Cramp, S. (eel.), 1977. Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle
East and North Africa. Vol.1, Ostrich - Ducks. Oxford Univ.
Press, Oxford.
Csanady, G.T. of 1974. Barotropic currents over the Continental
Shelf. J. of Phys. Oceanogra. 4:357-371.
Dailey, James - NOAA, Rockville, Maryland. Feb., 1988. Personal
communication. Information from NOAA files concerning wrecks
in MBDS.
Damiani, V., R. Baudo, S. DeRosa, R. DeSimone, 0. Perretti, G.
Izzo, and F. Serana, 1987. A case study: Bay of Pozzuoli
(Gulf of Naples, Italy). Pages 201-211 IN R. Thomas, R.
Evans, A. Hamilton, M. Munawar, T. Reynoldson, and H. Sadar
(eds). Ecological effects of in situ sediment contaminants.
-------
Davis, J.D. 1984. Western Cape Cod Bay: Hydrographic, Geological,
Ecological and Meterological Backgrounds for Environmental
Studies. Pages 1-18 in Davis, J.D. and D. Merriman (eds.).
Observations on the Ecology and Biology of Western Cape Cod,
Massachusetts. Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine
Studies, Vol. 11. Springer-Verlag.
Dilon, T.M. 1984. Biological Consequences of Bioaccumulation in
Aquatic Animals: an Assessment of the Current Literature. TR
D-84-2. U.S. Army Waterways Exper. Stat. Vicksburg, Miss.
Doggett, L. amd S. Sykes. 1980. Commerically important
invertebrates. In An Ecological Characterization of Coastal
Maine. S.I. Fefer and P.A. Schettig (P.I). US FWS.
FWS/OBS-80/29.
Donnely, B.C. 1969. Further observations on the southern right
whale, Eubalaena glacialis, in South African waters. J.
Reprod. Fert. Suppl. 6:347-352.
Duce, R.A., J.G. Quinn, C.E. Olney, S. R. Piotrowicz, B.J. Ray,
and T.L. Wade. 1972. Enrichment of heavy metals and organic
compounds in the surface microlayer of Naragansett Bay, Rhode
Island. Sci. 176: 161-163.
Durkin, J.T. and S.J. Lipovsky. 1977. Aquatic Disposal Field
Investigations Columbia River Disposal Site, Oregon. Appendix
E: Demersal fish and decapod shellfish studies. Tech. Rep.
D-77-30. U.S. Army Waterways Exper. Stat. Vicksburg, Miss.
Eberhardt, L.L. 1978. Transect methods for population studies.
J. Wildl. Manage. 42:1-31.
Eberhardt, L.L., D.G. Chapman, and J.R. Gilbert, 1979. A review
of marine mammal census methods. Wildl. Monogr. No. 63. 46
pp.
Eckman, J.E., A.R.M. Nowell and P.A. Jumars, 1981. Sediment
destabilization by animal tubes. J. Mar. Res., 39: 361-374.
Eckman, J.E. and A.R.M. Nowell, 1984. Boundary skin friction and
sediment transport about an animal-tube mimic. Sediment., 31:
851-862.
Edel, R.K., M. Cagan, J. H. Main, P.W. Sorensen, 1981.
Correlations between cetacean sightings and selected
environmental variables. In A characterization of marine
mammals and turtles in the mid- and North Atlantic areas of
the U.S. outer Continental Shelf. Ann. rept. 1979, CETAP
Program, Univ. of Rhode Island, prepared for Bureau of Land
Mgmt., U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C.
-------
Edwards, R (ed.), 1983. International Conf. of Justice case
concerning delimitation of marine boundary in the Gulf of
Maine area (Canada/USA), Vol.1, Dpp.l Counter-Memorial.
Marine Environment of the Gulf of Maine Area. Submitted USA,
28 June 1983.
Elder, D.L., S. W. Fowler, and G.G. Polikarpov. 1979.
Remobilization of sediment-associated PCBs by the worm Nereis
diversicolor. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 21:448-452.
EPA, 1976. Quality Criteria for Water U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Health assessment document
for inorganic arsenic. PB 84-190891 Research Triangle Park,
NC.
EPA, 1987. Update #2 to Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division.
May 1, 1987, including Water Quality Criteria Summary.
Estrella, B. T. Black Gill and Shell Disease in American Lobster
as Indicators of Pollution In Massachusetts Bay and Buzzards
Bay, Massachusetts. Publication^ 14049-19-125-5-85-C.R.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Evans, W.E. 1974. Radio-telemetric studies of two species of small
odontocete cetaceans. In W.E. Schevill (ed.). The Whale
Problem, A Status Report. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge,
Mass.
FAO. 1977. Report of the Advisory committee on Marine Resources
Research Working Party on Marine Mammals. FAO Fisheries Rept.
No. 194. FIR/R194 (En) Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Fisher, J. 1952. The Fulmar. Collins, St. James Place, London.
Fitch, J.E. and R.L. Brownell, 1971. Fish otoliths in cetacean
stomachs and their importance interpreting feeding habits.
J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 25:2561-2574.
-------
Flemer, D.A., et al. 1968. Biological effects of spoil disposal in
Chesapeake Bay. J. Sanit. Engin. Div. Roc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.
94: 683-706.
Fredette, T.J., Anderson, G., Payne, B.S. and J.D. Lunz 1986.
Biological Monitoring of Open-water Dredged Material Disposal
Sites. Proc. of Oceans 1986. Marine Technology Soc. pp.
764-769.
French, T. 1986. Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern
Vertebrate Species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div., Fish &
Wildlife, Non-game and Endangered Species Program. Boston,
MA 02202 (in press).
Fritts, T.H. and R.P. Reynolds, 1981. Pilot study of the marine
mammals, birds and turtles in DCS areas of the Gulf of Mexico.
U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Office of biological Serives,
Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS- 81/36.
Furness, R.W. 1979. Foods of Great Skuas Catharacta skua at North
Atlantic breeding localities. Ibis 121:86-92.
Gadbois, D.F. 1982. Hydrocarbon analysis of targeted fin and
shellfish species and sediments collected from northeastern
U.S. coastal waters. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, N.O.A.A., NMFS,
Northeast Fisheries Center Gloucester, MA 01930
Gambell, R. 1972. Sperm whales off Durban. Disc. Rept.
35:199-358.
Gaskin, D.E. 1968. The New Zealand Cetacea. Fish. Res. Bd.
Gaskin, D.E. 1976. The evolution, zoogeography, and ecology of
Cetacea. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 14:247-346.
Gaskin, D.E. 1977. Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena (L.) in the
western approaches to the Bay of Fundy 1969-75. Rep. Int.
Whal. Comm.
Gaskin, D.E. 1984. The horbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena (L.):
Regional populations, status, and information on direct and
indirect catches. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 34:569-586.
Gaskin, D.E., P.W. Arnold and B.A. Blair, 1974. Phocoena phocoena.
Mamm. Species 42:1-8.
Gaskin, D.E., G.J.D. Smith, and A.P. Watson, 1975. Preliminary
study of movements of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in
the Bay of Fundy using radiotelemetry. Can. J. Zool.
53:1466-1471.
-------
Gaskin, D.E., K.I. Stonefield, P. Suda, and R. Frank, 1979.
Changes in mercury levels in harbour porpoises from the Bay
of Fundy, Canada, and adjacent waters during 1969-1977. Arch.
Environ.. Contam. Toxicol. 8:733-762.
Gaskin, D.E.and A.P. Watson 1985. The harbor porpoise, Phocoena
phocoena. in Fish Harbor, New Brunswick, Canada: occupancy,
distribution, and movements. Fish. Bull. 83:427-441.
Gentile, J.H., K.J. Scott, S.M. Lussier, and M.S. Redmond. 1985.
Application for laboratory population responses for evaluating
the effect of dredged material. Tech. Rep. D-85-8, prepared
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI,
for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Gentile, J.H., K.J. Scott, S.M. Lussier, and M.S. Redmond, 1987.
The assessment of Black Rock Harbor dredged material impacts
on laboratory population responses. Tech. Rep. D-87-3,
prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Narragansett, RI, for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Gilbert, T.R. 1975. Studies of the Massachusetts Bay Massachusetts
Bay. Prepared for Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of
Water Pollution Control. New England Aquarium, Boston, MA.
197 pps.
Giudici, M., L. Migliore, S. Guarino, and C. Gambardella. 1987.
Acute a.nd long-term toxicity of cadmium to Idothea baltica
(Crustacea, Isopoda). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18(8):454-458.
Godin, A.J. 1977. Wild mammals of New England. Johns Hopkins
Univ. Press, Baltimore, Md. 304 pp.
Goerke, H., G. Eder, K. Weber and W. Ernst, 1979. Patterns of
organochlorine residues in animals of different trophic levels
from the Weser Estuary. Mar. Poll. Bull. 10:127-133.
Gordon-Clark, J. 1976. Objectives for the management and
conservation of marine mamals. FAO/ACCMR/MM/SC/123, Report
to Mammals in the seas Conference, Begen, Norway.
Gordon, R.B., 1974. Dispersion of Dredge Spoil Dumped in Near-
shore Waters. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science, 2:349-358.
Gould, P.J., C. Harrison, and D. Foresell, 1978. Distribution and
abundance of marine birds - south and east Kodiak waters. In
Environ. Assess, of the Alaskan Continental Shelf. Ann. Rept.
1978, Vol. II. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, and U.S. Dept. of
Interior.
-------
Graham, J.J., S.B. Chenoweth, and C.W. Davis. Abundance,
distribution, movements and length of larval herring along
the western coast of the Gulf of Maine. Fish. Bull. 70:
299-305.
Grant, W.D., L.F. Boyer and L.P. Sanford, 1982. The effects of
bioturbation on the initiation of motion of intertidal sands.
J. of Mar. Res. 40: 659-677.
Grant, W.D. and Madsen, 0.5. 1986. The Continental Shelf Bottom
Boundary dyer. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, M. Van Dyke
(Ed), Vol 18, p.265-305.
Grassle, J.F., R. Elmgren, and J.P. Grassle. 1981. Response of
benthic communities in MERL experimental ecosystems to low
level chronic additions of NO. 2 fuel oil. Mar. Environ. Res.
4:279-297.
Grosslein, M.D. 1969. Groundfish survey programs of BCF Woods
Hole. Comm. Fish. Rev. 31:22-35.
Grosslein, M.D. and T.R. Azarovitz. 1982. Fish Distribution. New
York Bight Atlas Monograph 15. New York State Seagrant Inst.
Albany, N.Y.
Grosslein, M.D., B.E. Brown, and R.C. Hennemuth, 1978. Research,
assessment and management of a marine ecosystem in the
Northwest Atlantic - a case study. Presented at Second
Intern, ecol. congr. Satellite Progr. in stat. Ecol. Univ.
of Parma, Inst. of ecol., 70 pp.
Grosslein, M.D., R.W. Langton, and M.P. Sissenwine, 1980. Recent
fluctuations in pelagic fish stocks of the northwest Atlantic,
Georges Bank region, in relation to species interactions,
Rapp. P. - v. Reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer., 177:374-404.
Gunter, G. 1954. Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico. In P.S. Galtsoff
(ed.) Gulf of Mexico; its origin, waters, and marine life.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull. 89:543-551.
Halter, M.T. and H.E. Johnson. 1977. A model system to study the
desorption and biological availability of PCBs in hydrosoils.
Pages 178-195 IN F.L. Mayer and J. L. Hamelink (eds). Aquatic
toxicology and hazard evaluation. ASTM STP 634.
Hain, J.H., G.R. Carter, S.D. Kraus, C.A. Mayo, H.E. Winn, 1982.
Feeding behavior of the Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae,
in the western North Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 80:259-268.
-------
Hain, J.H., R.K. Edel, H.E. Hays, S.K. Katona, and J.D. Roanowicz,
1981. General distribution of cetaceans in the continental
shelf waters of the northeastern United States. In A
characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the Mid- and
North Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continental shelf.
Ann. Rapt. 1979, CETAP Program, Univ. of Rhode Island,
prepared for Bureau of Land Mgmt. U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Hardy, J.T., The sea surface Microlayer: Biology, chemistry and
Anthropogenic enrichment, prog. Oceanog. Vol II, P307-328,
1982.
Hargis, J.H. , Jr., M.H. Roberts, Jr., and D.E. Zwerner. 1984.
Effects of contaminated sediments and sediment-exposed
effluent water on an estuarine fish: acute toxicity. Mar.
Environ. Res. 14:337-354.
Harris, D. L., 1972. Wave estimates for coastal regions in shelf
sediment transport: Process and Pattern. D.J.P. Swift, D.B.
Duane, O.H. Pilkey (Eds.). Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc.,
Stroudsberg, PA. pp. 99-125.
Hay, K. 1982. Aerial line-transect estimates of abundance of
humpback, fin, and long-finned pilot whales in the
Newfoundland-Labrador area. Rep. Int. Whales in the
Newfoundland-Labrador area. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. :475-485.
Hay, K.A. 1985a. Status of the Humpback Whale, Meqaptera
novaengliae. in Canada. Can. Field Nat. 99:425-432.
Hay, K.A. 1985b. Status of the Right Whale, Eubalaena qlacialis
in Canada. Can. Field Nat. 99:433-437
Hayes, M.O., O.K. Hubbard and D.M. Fitzgerald, 1973. Investigation
of erosion problems at Revere, Winthrop and Nantasket Beaches.
Massachusetts Metropolitan District Commission, Commonwealth
of Massachusetts Contract #2229.
Hays, H.E., H.E. Winn, and R. Petricig, 1985. Anomalous feeding
behavior of a Humpback Whale. J. Mamm. 66:819-821.
Heinemann, D. 1981. A rangefinder for pelagic bird censusing. J.
Wildl. Mgt. 45:489-493.
Hjulstrom, F. 1935. Studies of the morpological activity of rivers
as illustrated by the River Fyris: Upsala Univ. Geol. Inst.
Bull. V 25:221-527.
Hoese, H.D. 1971. Dolphin feeding out of water in a salt marsh.
J. Mamm. 52:222-223.
Holder, J.B. 1883. The Atlantic Right Whale. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat.
Hist. 1:97-137.
-------
Hong, J. and D.J. Reish. 1987. Acute toxicity of cadmium to eight
species of marine amphipod and isopod crustaceans from
Southern California. Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 39:884-
888.
Horwood, J.W. 1976. On the joint exploitation of drill and whales.
FAO/ACCMR/MM/SC/116. Report to Mammals in the Seas
Conference, Bergen, Norway.
Hoss, D.E., L.C. Coston, and W.E. Scharf. 1974. Effects of sea
water extracts of sediments from Charleston Harbor, South
Carolina, on larval estuarine fishes. Est. Coast. Mar. Sci.
2:323-328.
Howe, A.B., T.P. Currier, S.L. Sass, and B.C. Kelly. 1984.
Coastwide Fishery Resource Assessment: Massachusetts. Mass.
Div. Marine Fish. Pub. no. 13639-130-70-6-84-CR.
Howe, A.B., T.P. Currier, S.L. Sass, and B.C. Kelly. 1986.
Coastwide Fishery Resource Assessment: Massachusetts. Mass.
Div. Marine Fish. Pub. no. 14335-58-115-2-86-CR.
Howe, A.B. and F.J. Germane, Jr. 1982. Fisheries and Environmental
Baselines Relative to Dredge Spoil Disposal, Cape Cod Bay,
1981. Mass. Div. Mar. Fish. Rep.
Hunt, G.L., G.A. Sanger, and B. Burgeson, 1981. Trophic relations
of seabirds on the eastern Bering Sea, pp. 629-647. In D.W.
Hood (ed.) The Bering Sea Shelf. Inst. of Mar. Sci., U.
Alaska, Fairbanks.
Huston, M. 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity
American Naturalist. 113:81-99.
Johnson, B.H., 1974. Application of the instantaneous dump
dredged material disposal model to the disposal of Stamford
and New Haven Harbor material from a scow in Long Island
Sound. Tech. Manu., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WES.
Johnson, A.C., P.F. Larsen, D.F. Gadbois and A.W. Humason, 1985.
The distribution of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarons, in the
surficial sediments of Penabscot Bay (Maine, U.S.A.) in
relation to possible sources and to other sites worldwide.
Mar. Env. Res. 15: 1-16.
Johnson, B.H., 1978. Application of the instantaneous dump dredged
material disposal model to the disposal of Stamford and New
Haven Harbour material from a scow in Long Island Sound.
Tech. Manuscript. U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station.
Jonsson, I.G. "Wave Boundary layers and Friction Factors",
Proceedings 10th International Coastal Engineering Conference,
ASCE, Vol 1, p. 127-148.
-------
Johnston, D.W., and Wildish, D.J. 1981. Avoidance of dredge spoil
by herring (Clupea harengus harengus). Bull. Envir. Cont.
Tox. 26: 307-314.
Jonsgard, A. 1966. The distribution of Balaenopteridae in the
North Atlantic Ocean. Pp. 114-123 In Norris, K.S. (ed.)
Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. Univ. Calif. Press,
Berkeley.
Jonsgard, A. 1982. The food of Minke Whales (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata) in northern North Atlantic waters. Rep. Int.
Whal. Comm. 32:259-269.
Jonsgard, A. and K. darling, 1977. On the biology of the Eastern
North Atlantic Sei Whale, Balaenoptera borealis Lesson. In
Report of the Special Scientfic Committee on Sei and Bryde's
Whales, Rept. Int. Whal. Comm., Special Issue 1:124-129.
Cambridge.
JRB, 1984. An Assessment of the Potential Impacts on Zooplankton
and Fish of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal at the Norfolk
Disposal Site. Tech. Rep. prep, for EPA (Region III).
JRB. 1984. May 1983 Benthic Site Assessment Survey for Dredge
Material Disposal in Cape Cod Bay. Report to EPA Criteria
and Standards Division. 63 pp.
Jumars, P.A. and A.R.M. Nowell, 1984. Fluid and sediment dynamic
effects on marine benthic community structure. Amer. Zool.
24:45-5!?.
Kapel, F.O. 1975. Preliminary notes on the occurrence and
exploitation of smaller cetacea in Greenland. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Canada 32:1079-1082.
Kapel, F.O. 1977. Catch of beluga, narwhals and harbor porpoises
in Greenland, 1954-75, by year, month and region. Rept. Int.
Whal. Comm. 27:507-520.
Kapel, F.O. 1979. Exploitation of large whales in West Greenland
in the twentieth century. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 29:197-214.
Kapel, F.O. and F. Larsen, 1982. Whale sightings form a Norwegian
smalltype whaling vessel off West Greenland June-August 1980.
Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 32:521-530.
Katona, S. 1976. Whales in the Gulf of Maine: 1975. Publ.
privately. 39 pp.
Katona, S.K., J.A. Beard and K.C. Balcomb, 1982. The Atlantic
humpback fluke catalogue. Whale Watcher 16:3-8.
-------
Katona, S.K., J.A. Beard and K.C. Balcomb, III. 1984. The humpback
whale fluke catalogue. Final rept. to NMFS contract No.
NA-81-FA-C-00027.
Katona, S., D. Richardson, and R. Hazard, 1975. A Field Guide to
the Whales and Seals of the Gulf of Maine. Maine Coast
Printers. 97 pp.
Katona, S., W. Steiner, and H.E. Winn, 1977. Marine Mammals. Pp
1-167, In Center for Natural Areas, A summary and analysis of
environmental information on the Continental Shelf from the
Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras, 1977, Vol. 1, Book 2. Final
Rept., Contr. No. AA550-CT6-45, Bureau of Land Mgmt., U.S.
Dept. of Interior.
Katona, S.K., P. Harcourt, J.S. Perkins, and S.D. Kraus, 1980.
Humpback Whales: A catalog of individuals identified by fluke
photographs. College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, Maine.
Katona, S.K. and S. Kraus. 1979. Photographic identification of
individual humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) evaluation
and analysis of the technique. Final Report to U.S. Marine
Mammal Commission in fulfillment of Contract MM7AC015. 29 pp.
Katona, S.K. and C.A. Mayo. 1986. Humpback Whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae). In T. French (ed.). Endangered, threatened
and special concern vertebrate species in Massachusetts.
Mass. Div., Fish & Wildlife, Non-game and Endangered Species
Program. Boston, MA 02202 (in press).
Katona, S.K., V. Rough and D.T. Richardson, 1983. A Field guide
to the whales, porpoises and seals of the Gulf of Maine and
eastern Canada — Cape Cod to Newfoundland. Scribner's Sons,
New York. 255 pp.
Katona, S.K., S.A. Testaverde. and B. Barr, 1978. Observations on
a white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus. probably killed
in gill nets in the Gulf of Maine. Fish. Bull. 76:475-476.
Katona, S.K., H.P. Whitehead. 1981. Identifying Humpback Whales
using their natural markings. Polar Record 20:439-444.
Kay, S.H. 1984. Potential for Biomagnification of Contaminants
Within Marine and Freshwater Food Webs.Tech. Rep. D-84-7. U.S.
Army Waterways Exper. Stat. Vicksburg, Miss.
Kehoe, D.M. 1983. Effects of Grays Harbor estuary sediment on the
osmoregulatory ability of coho smolts (Oncorhvnchus Kisutch).
Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 30:522-529.
Kellogg, R. 1929. What is known of the migrations of some
whalebone whales. Smith. Inst. Ann. Report, 1928. Publ.
2981, pp. 467-494.
-------
Kenney, R.D, 1985. Where the whales and dolphins gather.
Maritimes, Feb. 1985, pp. 12-14.
Kenney, R.D. 1986. Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis). In T.
French (ed.). Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern
Vertebrate species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div., Fish &
Wildlife, Non-game and Endangered Species Program. Boston,
MA 02202 (in press).
Kenney, R.D., D.R. Goodale, G.P. Scott, and H.E. Winn, 1981.
Spatial and temporal distribution of Humpback Whales in the
CETAP study area. In A characterization of marine mammals and
turtles in the Mid and North Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer
continental shelf. Ann. Rept. 1979, CETAP Program, Univ. of
Rhode Island. Prepared for Bureau of Land Mgt., U.S. Dept.
of Interior, Washington, B.C.
Kenney, R.D., M.A. Hyman, and H.E. Winn, 1985. Calculation of
standing stocks and energetic requirements of the cetaceans
of the Northeast United States outer continental shelf. NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NEC- 41. 99 pp.
Kenney, R.P. and G.P. Scott, 1981. Chapter III. Calibration of
the Beechcraft AT=11 forward observation bubble for population
estimation purposes. In A characterization of marine mammals
and turtles in the Mid and North-Atlantic areas of the U.S.
outer continental shelf. Ann. Rept. 1979, for CETAP, Univ. of
Rhode lisland. BLM Ref. No. AA551-CT8-48. Wash. D.C.
Kluroov, S.K. 1962. The Right Whales (Balaenidae) of the Pacific
Ocean. Trudy Inst. Okeanol. 58:202-297.
Krasnow, L. 1978. Feeding energetics of the sooty shearwater
(Puffinus qriseus) in Monterey Bay. 3rd Ann. Symp. Field
Studies in Calif., Calif. State Univ., Sacramento. Abstr.
Kraus, S.D. 1985. A review of the status right whales (Eubalaena
glacialis) in the western North Atlantic with a summary of
research and management needs. Final report, Contract No.
MM2910905. U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C.
Kraus, S.D. 1986. Black Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). In T.
French (ed.). Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern
Vertebrate Species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div., Fish &
Wildlife, Non-game and Endangered Species Program. Boston,
MA 02202 (in press).
Kraus, S.D., and J.H. Prescott, 1981. Distribution, abundance and
notes of the large cetaceans of the bay of Fundy, summer and
fall 1980. Final Rept. to NMFS/NEFC, Contract No.
NA-80-FA-2-00048.
-------
Kraus, S.D. and J.H. Prescott. 1982. The North Atlantic Right
Whale (Eubalaena qlacialis) in the Bay of Fundy, 1981, with
notes on distribution, abundance, biology and behavior. Final
Report to NMFS/NEFC Contract No. NA-81-FA-C-00030. 105 pp.
Kraus, S.D., J.H. Prescott, P.V. Turnbull, and R.R Reeves, 1982.
Preliminary notes on the occurrence of the North Atlantic
Right Whale, Eubalaena glacialis, in the Bay of Fundy. Rept.
Int. Whale. Comm. 32:407-411.
Kraus, S.D. and J.H. Prescott, 1983. A summary of 1982 research
on the North Atlantic Right Whale Eubalaena qlacialis with
notes on seasonal distribution and abundance, and significant
resightings of individuals. Annual Report to NMFS in
fulfillment of Contract No. NA-81-FA-C-00030 and to the World
Wildlife Fund-U.S. 39 pp.
Kraus, S.D., J.H. Prescott, and G.S. Stone, 1983. Harbor Porpoise,
Phocoena phocoena. in the U.S. coastal waters of the Gulf of
Maine: A survey to determine seasonal distribution and
abundance. Unpubl. Rept., New England Aquarium, Boston, MA.
15 pp.
Kraus, S.D., J.H. Prescott and G.S. Stone, 1984. Right Whales
(Eubalaena qlacialis) in the western North Atlantic: A
summary of research conducted from 1980 to 1984. Report to
NMFS/NEFC, Contract No. NA-81-FA-C-88830, Woods Hole, Ma
02543.
Krebs, J.R. and N.B. Davies, eds, 1978. Behavioral ecology: an
evolutionary approach. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
Lake, J.,G. Hoffman, and S. Schimmel. 1985 Bioaccummulation of
contaminants from Black Rock Harbor dredged material by
mussels and polychaetes. Technical. Report. D-85-2, prepared
by the U.S.Enviromental Protection Agency, Enviromental
Research Laboratory, Narragansett, RI for the Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Landolt, M.L. and R.M. Kocan. 1984 Lethal and Sublethal effects of
Marine extracts on fish cells and chromosomes. Helgolander
Meeresunters 37:479-491.
Langston, W.J. and M. Zhou, 1987. Cadmium accumulation
distribution and elimination in the bivalve Macoma balthica;
neither metalothionein nor metallothionein-like proteins are
involved. Mar. Env. Res.
Larsen, P.F., D.F. Gadbois and A.C. Johnson, 1986. Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Gulf of Maine Sediments:
Distributions and Mode of Transport. Mar. Env. Res. 18:
231-244.
-------
Larsen, P. F., V. Zdanowicz and A.C. Johnson, 1983. Trace metal
distributions in surficial sediments of Penobscot Bay, Maine.
Bull. Env. Contain. Toxicol. 31:566-573.
Lavigne, D.M. 1980. Present status of northwest Atlantic Harp
Seals, Pagophilus groenlandicus. Unpubl. ms., N.E. Endangered
species Workshop. 8-11 May 1980, Provincetown, MA.
Lazell, J.D. 1976. This Broken Archipelage. Quadrangle Press
(Harper and Row), N.Y 260 pp.
Lazell, J.D. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for
marine turtles. Copeia 1980:290-295.
Leatherwood, S. 1975. Some observations of feeding behavior of
Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the northern Gulf
of Mexico and (Tursiops cf. T. gilli) of southern California,
Baja, California, and Nayarit, Mexico. Mar. Fish, Rev.
37:10-16.
Leatherwood, S., O.K. Caldwell, and H.E. Winn, 1976. Whales,
dolphims, and porpoises of the western North Atlantic. A
guide to their identification. U.S. Dept. Commerce., NOAA
Tech. Rept. NMFS circ. 396. 176 pp.
Leatherwood, S., I.T. Show, R.R. Reeves, and M.B. Wright, 1982.
Proposed modification of transect models to estimate
population size from aircraft with obstructed downward
visibility. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 32:577-580.
Lien, J. and P. McLeod, 1980. Humpback collisions with fishing
gear in Newfoundland: arbitration and education in a
whale-fisherman dispute. Paper submitted to the N.E.
Endangered Species Workshop, Provincetown, MA, 7-11 May, 1980.
Lien, J. and B. Merdsoy, 1979. The Humpback is not over the hump.
Nat. Hist. 88:46-49.
Lipton, B. 1975. Whaling days in New Jersey. Newark Mus. Quart.
26:1-72.
Lockwood, M., M.C. Gruntal, and W.R. Curtis. 1982 Side-Scan Sonar
Survey of the Massachusetts Bay Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Site. In: Marine Pollution, Papers, Oceans '82,
Rockvil.Le, MD.
Lockyer, C. 1981. Growth and energy budgets of large baleen whales
from the Southern Hemisphere. Pp. 379-487 in FAO Advisory
committee on Marine Resources Research, Working Party on
Marine Mammals. Mammals in the sea, Volume III, general
papers on large cetaceans. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, Rome.
-------
Long, E.R. and P.M. Chapman. 1985. A sediment quality triad:
measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal
community composition in Puget Sound. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
16(10):405-415.
Longwell, A.C. and J.B. Hughes. 1980. Cytologic, cytogenetic, and
developmental state of Atlantic mackerel eggs from sea surface
waters of the New York Bight, and prospects for biological
effects monitoring with ichthyoplankton. Rapp. Reun. Cons.
Explor. Mer. 179: 275-291.
Lunz, J.D. and D.R. Kendall. 1982. Benthic resources asssessment
technique, a method for quantifying the effects of benthic
community changes on fish resources. In Marine Pollution
Papers Oceans' 82. NOAA Office of Marine Pollution Assessment.
pp. 1021-1027.
Lux, F.E. and G.F. Kelly. 1978. Fisheries Resources of the Cape
Cod and Massachusetts Bay Region. Nat. Mar. Fish. Ser.
Northeast Fish. Center. Woodshole, MA.
Lux, F.E. and G.F. Kelly. 1982. Abundance of Groundfish and
Invertebrates in Otter Trawl Surveys of Offshore Waters of
Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays in 1975-1977.
MacKintosh, N.A. 1965. The stocks of whales. Fishing News
(Books), London. 232 pp.
Madsen, 0.5. and Grant, W.D. 1976. Quantitative Description of
Sediment Transport by Waves. Proceedings 15th International
Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, Vol 2, p.1093-1112.
Malins, D.C., M.M. Krahn, D.W. Brown, L.D. Rhodes, M.S. Myers, B.B.
McCain, and S. Chan. 1985. Toxic chemicals in marine sediment
and biota from Mukilteo, Washington: relationships with
hepatic neoplasms and other hepatic lesions in English sole
(Parophrys vetuTus) . J. Nat. Cancer Instit. 74:487-494.
Malins, D.C., B.B. Mcaln, D.W. Brown, S. Chan M.S. Myers, J.T.
Landahl, P.G. Prohaska, A.J. Friedman, L.D.Rhodes, D.G.
Burrows, W.D. Gronlund, and H.O. Hodgins. 1984. Chemical
pollutants in sediments and diseases of bottom-dwelling fish
in Puget Sound, Washington. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18:705-713.
Malins, D.C. B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, M.S. Myers, M.M. Krahn, and
S. Chan. 1987. Toxic Chemicals, including aromatic and
chlorinated hydrocarbons and their derivatives, and liver
lesions in white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) from the
vicinity of Los Angeles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21:765-770.
-------
Malins, D.C.,, B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, U. Varanasi, M.M. Krahn,
M.S. Myers, and S. Chan. 1987. Sediment-associated
conaminants and liver diseases in bottom-dwelling fish.
Pages 67-74 IN R. Thomas, R. Evans, A. Hamilton, M. Munawar,
T. Reynoldson, and H. Sadar (eds). Ecological effects of in
situ sediment contaminants.
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, J.T. Landahl, M.S. Myers, M.M. Krahn,
D.W. Brown, S-L Chan, and W.T. Roubal. 1988. Neoplastic and
other diseases in fish in relation to toxic chemicals: an
overview. Aquat. Tox. 11:43-67.
Marcuzzi, G., and G. Pilleri. 1971. On the zoogeography of
cetacea. In Giogrio Pilleri (ed.) Investigations on Cetacea,
Vol. 111:101-170.
Maria, I.S., M. Gonzalez, W. lara and A. Ober 1986. Arsenic levels
in Chilean marine species. Bull. Envir. Contam. Toxicol.
37:593-598.
Marshall, H.G. and M.S. Conn. 1983. Distribution and composition
of phytoplankton in northeastern coastal waters of the United
States. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 17: 119-131.
Marshall, H.G. and M.S. Cohn 1984. Phytoplankton distribution along
the eastern coast of the U.S.A. in relation to abundance,
composition, cell volume, seasonal, and regional assemblages.
J. Plankton Res. 6:169-193.
Marshall, H.G., 1984a. Phytoplankton Distribution Along the Eastern
Coast of the USA Part V. Seasonal Density and cell volume
Patterns for the Northeastern Continental Shelf. J. Plankton
Res. 6 (1): 169-193.
Marshall, H.G., 1984b. Phytoplankton of the Northeastern
Continental Shelf of the United States in Relation to
Abundance, Composition, Cell Volume, Seasonal, and Regional
Assemblages. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer, 183:41-
50.
Marshall, H.G., 1978. Phytoplankton Distribution along the Eastern
Coast of the USA. Part II. Seasonal Assemblages North of Cape
Hatterus, North Carolina. Marine Biology 45:203-208.
Martin, C. eind C.S. Yentsch. 1973. Monitoring the "Massachusetts
Bay" Dumping Area in Massachusetts Bay for Effects of Dredge
Spoil Disposal on phytoplankton growth. Cape Ann Society for
Marine Sciences. Gloucester, MA
Mass. D.W.P.C., 1978. Regulations for water quality certification
for dredging, dredged material disposal and filling in waters
of the Commonwealth. Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering - Division of Water
Pollution Control. 314 CMR 9.00.
-------
Mattews, L.H. 1937. Notes on the southern Right Whale, Eubalaena
australis "Discovery" report 17:171-181.
Mattila, D. , P.J. Clapham, C.A. Mayo, S.K. Katona and G. Stone,
1985. Humpback whale studies on Silver Bank. Final Report.
NMFS Contract No. 41 USC 525 (c)(3).
May, R.M., J.R. Beddington, C.W. Clark, S.J. Holt, and R.M. Laws,
1979. Management of multispecies fisheries. Science (Wash.
D.C.) 405:267-276.
Mayo, C.A. 1982. Observations of cetaceans: Cape Cod Bay and
Southern Stellwagen Bank Massachusetts 1975-1979. NTIS Report
No. PB82-186263. 68 pp.
Mayo, C., C. Carlson, P. Clapham, and D. Mattila, 1985a. Humpback
Whales of the southern Gulf of Maine. Center for Coastal
Studies, Provincetown, MA. Shank Painter Printing Co.,
Provincetown, MA. 62. pp.
Mayo, C.A., C.A. Carlson, and M.K. Gilmore, 1985b. Food and
feeding of Right Whales on Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts.
Presented at the Sixth Biennial Conference on the Biology of
Marine Mammals, Vancouver, B.C., Nov. 22-26, 1985.
MBO, 1987. Characterization of whale use of the Massachusetts Bay
and Cape Arundel, Maine areas. Prepared by Manomet Bird
Observatory in association with Sanford Ecological services
under contract to NED via DACW-33-85-0001.
McCall, P.L. 1977. Community pattern and adaptive strategies of
the infaunal benthos of Long Island Sound. Journal of Marine
Research. 35:221-266.
McFarlane, R.W. 1963. Disorientation of loggerhead hatchlings by
artifical road lighting. Copeia 1963L 153.
McElroy, A.E. in vivo Metabolism of Benz[e]Anthracene by the
polychaete Nereis virens. Mar. Env. Res. 17, P133-136, 1985.
McGreer, E.R. 1979. Sublethal effects of heavy metal contaminated
sediments on the bivalve Ma coin a balthica (L.) . Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 10:259-262.
McLeese, D.W. and C.D. Metcalfe. 1980. Toxicities of eight
organochlorine compounds in sediment and seawater to Crangon
septemspinosa. Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxical. 25:921-928.
McLeese, D.W., C.D. Melcalfe, and D.S. Pezzack. 1980. Uptake of
PCBs from sediment by Nereis virens and Crangon septemspinosa.
Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 9:507-518.
-------
McLeese, D.W, , L.E. Burridge, and J. VanDinter. 1982.
Toxicitj.es of five organochlorine compounds in water and
sediment to Nereis vjrens. Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol.
28:216-;>20.
Mead, J.G. 1975. Distribution of cetaceans along the Atlantic and
Gulf costs of the United States. Unpubl. ms. submitted to
Marine Mammal Comm. MMC MM4AC007.
Mead, J.G. 1977. Records of Sei and Bryde's Whales from the
Atlantic coast of the United States, the Gulf of Mexico, and
the Caribbean. In Report of the Special Scientific Committee
on Sei and Bryde's whales. Rept. Int. Whal. Comm., Special
Issue 1:: 113-116, Cambridge.
Mead, J.G. In press. Twentieth century records of Right Whales
(Eubalaena qlacialus) in the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean.
Rept. Int. Whal. Comm., Spec. Iss. 10.
Mearns, A.J. , R.C. Swartz, J.M. Cummins, P. A. Dinnel, P.Plesha,
and P.M. Chapman. 1986. Interlaboratory comparison od a
sediment toxicity test using the marine amphipod, Epoxynius
abronius. Mar. Environ. Res. 19: 13-37.
Mercer, M.C. 1967. Wintering of Pilot Whales, Globicephala
melaena., in Newfoundland inshore waters. J. Fish. Res. Rd.
Canada ;>4 : 2481-2484 .
Mercer, M.C. 1973. Observations on distribution and intraspecific
"variation in pigmentation patterns of Odontocete cetacea in
the western North Atlantic. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.
Mercer, M.C. 1975. Modified Leslie-DeLury population models of
the Long Finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala melaena) and annual
production of the Short-Finned Squid (Illex illecebrosus)
based upon their interaction at Newfoundland. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Canada 32:1145-1154.
Mercer, S.N. 1985. Observations of cetaceans on Jeffrey's Ledge
and in Ipswich Bay in spring, summer and autumn 1985 including
references to previous seasons. Unpubl. rept.
Mermoz, J.F. 1980. Preliminary report on the southern Right Whale
in the southwestern Atlantic. Rept. Int. Whal. Comm.
30:183-186.
Messieh, S.N., Wildish, D.J., and Peterson R.H. 1981. Possible
Impact from Dredging and Spoil Disposal on the Miramichi Bay
Herring Fishery. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sei. No. 1008
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1984. Applications for a waiver of
secondary treatment for the Nut Island and Deer Island
Treatment Plants. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Vol. 1.
-------
Meyer, T.L., R.A. Cooper, and R.W. Langton 1979. Relative
abundance, behavior and food habits of the American sandlance,
Ammodvtes americanus from the Gulf of Maine. Fish. Bull.
Michaels, W.L. and R.E. Bowman. 1983. Food of Seventeen Species of
Northwest Atlantic Fish: Part II, Examination by year and
listing of prey species. Woods Hole Lab. Ref. Doc. No. 82-17.
NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center. Woods Hole, MA. 77:243-253.
Miller, D.S., P.M. Payne, and K.D. Powers 1980. Marine Observer
Manual, App. B - A marine observer training program. Nat.
Mar. Fish. Service, Northeast Fish. Center Contr.
NA-80-FA-D-0004. 147 pp.
Minerals Management Service (MMS) 1983. Proposed April 1984 North
Atlantic outer continental shelf oil and gas lease offering.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Washington, D.C. 620 pages, 9
Appendicies, 5 maps.
Mitchell, E. 1972. Assessments of northwest Atlantic Fin Whale
stocks. Report of the International Commission on Whaling
22:111-118.
Mitchell, D.G., J.D. Morgan, G.B. Vigers, and P.M. Chapman.
1985. Acute toxicity of mine tailings to four marine species.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 16:450-455.
Mitchell, E. 1973a. The Status of the World's Whales. Reprinted
from Nature Canada 2:9-27, October/December 1973. Canadian
Nature Federation, Ottawa, Canada.
Mitchell, E. 1973b. Draft report on humback whales taken under
special scientific permit be Eastern Canadian land stations
1969-1971. Rept. Int. Whal. Comm. 23:138-154.
Mitchell, E. 1974a. Present status of northwest Atlantic fin and
other whale stocks. In W.E. Schevill (ed.) The whale Problem,
A Status Report:108-169. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.
419 pp.
Mitchell, E. 1974b. Trophic relationships and competition for food
in the northwest Atlantic. P. 123-132, In Proc. Canad. Soc.
Zool. Ann. Meeting, 2-5 June 1974.
Mitchell, E. 1974c. Preliminary Report on Newfoundland fishery
for Minke Whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Rept. Int.
Whal. Comm. 25:218-225.
Mitchell, E. 1975a. Preliminary Report on Nova Scotia fishery for
Sei Whales (Balaenoptera borealis). Rept. Int. Whal. Comm.
25:218-225.
-------
Mitchell, E. 1975b. Preliminary Report on Nova Scotia fishery for
Sei Whales (Phvseter catadon). Rept. Int. Whal. Comm.
25:226-235.
Mitchell, E. 1975c. Porpoise, dolphin and small whale fisheries
of the world. Status and problems. Int. Union Cons. Nat.
Nat. Resource Monogr. No. 3, 129 pp.
Mitchell, E. and D.G. Chapman, 1977. Preliminary Assessment of
stocks of Northwest Atlantic Sei Whales (Balaenoptera
boealis). In Report of the Special Meeting of the Scientific
Committee on Sei and Bryde's Whales. Rept. Int. Whal. Comm.
Special Issue 1:117-120, Cambridge.
Mitchell, E. and R.R. Reeves 1983. Catch history, abundance and
preset status of northwest Atlantic humpback whales. Rept.
Int. Whal. Comm. (Special Issue 5):153-212.
Mitchell, E. and V.M. Kozicki, 1984. Reproductive condition of
male Sperm Whales, Physeter macrocephalus. taken off Nova
Scotia. Reports of the International Whaling Commission,
Special Issue 6:243-252.
Mohlenberg, F. and T. Kiorboe. 1983. Burrowing and avoidance
behaviour in marine organisms exposed to pesticide
contaminated sediment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 14(2):57-60.
Moir, R. and M. Roberts, 1979. A summary and analysis of cultural
resource information on the continental shelf from the Bay of
Fundy to Cape Hatte, Vol. I Physical Environment. Institute
for Conservation Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard
University Report 88. (Done for the Bureau of Land Management
- Contract No. AA551-CT8-18)
Moore, J.C. 1953. Distribution of marine mammals to Florida
waters. Am. Midi. Nat. 49:117-158.
Moore, J.C., and E. Clark 1963. Discovery of right whales in the
Gulf of Mexico. Science 141:269.
Morse, W.W., M.P. Fahay, and W.G. Smith. 1987. MARMAP Surveys of
the Continental Shelf from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to
Cape Sable, Nova Scotia (1977-1984). atlas No. 2. Annual
Distribution Patterns of Fish Larvae. NOAA Tech. Memor.
NMFS-F/NEC-47.
Morton, R.W. 1983. Precision bathymetric study of dredged material
capping experiment in Long Island Sound. In Wastes in the
Ocean. D.R. Kester, B.H. Ketchum, I.W. Duedall and P.K. Park
Eds. Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. pp 99-121.
-------
Morton, R.W. 1984. Dredged material disposal operations at the
Boston Foul Ground, June 1982-Feb 1983. DAMOS Contribution
#41. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division.
28p.
Morton, R.W. 1985. Disposal Area Monitoring System: Summary of
program results, 1981-1984. Vol. I: Overview of the DAMOS
program. DAMOS Contribution #46. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New England Division. 63p.
Morton, R.W. 1986. Response to comments generated as a result of
the DAMOS Symposium (January, 1985). DAMOS Contribution #56.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division.
Mullane, S.J. and A. Rivers, 1982. Mt. Desert Rock, Maine - Annual
Report. Allied Whale, College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor,
Maine. 27 pp.
Murray, A.J. and M.G. Norton. 1982. The field assessment of
effects of dumping wastes at sea: 10 analysis of chemical
residues in fish and shellfish from selected coastal regions
around England and Wales, Fish Res. Tech. Rep. MAFF Direct.
Fish. Res., Lowestoft (69) 42 pp.
Muschenheim, O.K., J. Grant and E.L. Mills, 1986. Flumes for
benthic ecologists: theory, construction and practice. In
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., Vol. 28: 185-196
MWRA. 1987. Primary Productivity Prpgram. Appendix Z from Vol. V.
Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan. Boston Harbor Wastewater
Conveyance System Boston, MA.
MWRA, 1987. Draft Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan Volume V.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority November 17, 1987.
MWRA (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority), 1988 Secondary
Treatment Facilities Plan.
National Climatic Data Center, 1986. Local climatological data:
Portland, ME, 1985 annual summary with comparative data. U.S.
Dept. commerce, Asheville, NC 28801. 7 pp.
National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, 1980a. Selected vertebrate
endangered species of the seacoast of the United States:
Green Sea Turtle. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv., Biol. Services
Program. 6 pp.
National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, 1980b. Selected vertebrate
endangered species of the seacoast of the United States:
Kemp's (Atlantic) ridley Sea Turtle. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.,
Biol. Services Program. 6 pp.
-------
National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, 1980c. Selected vertebrate
endangered species of the seacost of the United States:
Leatherback Sea Turtle. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv., Biol.
Services Program.
Naval Underwater Systems Center (NUSC), 1979. DAMOS (Disposal Area
Monitoring System) Annual Data Report - 1978, Supplement D.
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. Newport, RI.
Neave, D.J., and B.S. Wright, 1968. Seasonal migrations of the
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and other cetacea in the
Bay of Fundy. J. Mamm. 49:259-264.
Nelson, W.G., D. Black, and D. Phelps. 1985. Utility of the
scope for growth index to assess the physiological impact of
Black Rock Harbor suspended sediment on the blue mussel,
Mytilus edulis: a laboratory evaluation. Tech. Rep. D-85-
6, prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Narragansett, RI, for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988( Draft).
Site Evaluation Studies of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
(FADS or MBDS) for Ocean Disposal of Dredge Material.
Walthaiti, Massachusetts.
Nettleship, D.N. 1972. Breeding success of the common puffin
(Fratercula arctica 1.) on different habitats at Great Island,
Newfoundland. Ecol. Monogr. 42:239-268.
Neumann, C.J., et al. 1978. Tropical cyclones of the North
Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1977. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA,
National Weather Service.
Nimmo, D.R., P.O. Wilson, R.R. Blackman, and A.J. Wilson, Jr.
1971. Polychlorinated biphenyl absorbed from sediments by
fiddler crabs and pink shrimp. Nature. 231:50-52.
Nishiwake, M. 1972. General Biology. In S.H. Ridgeway (ed.)
Mammals; of the sea. C.C. Thomas Publ., Springfield, III.
PP. 3-:>14.
Nishiwaki, M. 1975. Ecological aspects of smaller cetaceans, with
emphasis on the striped dolphin. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada
32:1069-1972.
NMFS, 1985. Interagency coordination producing computer generated
raw data from various North East Monitoring Program Stations
NMFS - Woods Hole, Mass.
NMFS. 1985. NMFS-NEFC cruises. Mimeo. (Jan.).
NMFS. 1982. NMFS-NEFC survey cruises. Mimeo (Jan.).
-------
NMFS/NEFC. Woods Hole Lab. Ref. No. 81-14.
NOAA. 1987. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United
States for 1986. Tech. Memor. NMFS-F/NEC-43.
Normandeau. 1985. Seabrook Environmental Studies, 1984. A
characterization of Baseline Conditions in the
Hampton-Seabrook Area, 1975-1984. Tech. Rep. XVI-II prep, for
New Hampshire Yankee Division of Public Services Co. of N.H.
Seabrook, N.H.
Novell, A.R., P.A. Jumars and R.F. Self. 1981. A Markov model of
flow sediment-organism interactions: fluid mechanical and
biological processes affecting the transition probabilities,
in Proceedings International Geol. Cong. Conf., Nittrouer,
Paris, France.
Oakden, J.M., J.S. Oliver, and A.R. Flegal. I984a. Behavioral
responses of a photocephalid amphipod to organic enrichment
and trace metals in sediment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
14:253-257.
Oakden, J.M., J.S. Oliver, and A.R. Flegal. 1984b. EDTA
chelation and zinc antagonism with cadmium in sediment:
effects on the behavior and mortality of two infaunal
species. Mar. Biol. 84:125-130.
O'Conner, J.M. 1984. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Transport in Coastal
Marine Food Webs. EPA Env. Res. Lab. Gulf Breeze, Fla. EPA -
600/53-84-083.
O'Connor, J.M. and J.C. Pizza. 1984. Eco-kinetic model for the
accumulation of PCB in marine fishes. In Management of Bottom
Sediments Containing Toxic Substances. Proc. 8th U.S./Japan
Experts Meeting. T.R. Patin (ed.). U.S. Army CE. pp. 285-303.
O'Connors, H.B.Jr., C.D. Powers, C.F. Wurster, K.D. Wyman, G.M.
NauRitter, and R.G. Rowland. 1982. Fates and biological
efffects on plankton of particle-sorbed PCB's in coastal
waters. In Ecological stress and New York Bight. Science and
Management. G.F. Myer (ed.). Est. Res. Fed. South Carolina.
pp. 423-449.
Okubo, A., 1971. Oceanic Diffusion Diagrams. Deep Sea Research,
18:789-802.
Olla,B.L., A.J. Bejda, and W.H. Pearson. 1983. Effects of
oiled sediment on the burrowing behavior of the hard clam,
Mercenaria mercenaria. Mar. Environ. Res. 9: 183-193.
Omura, H. 1958. North Pacific Right Whale. Sci. septs, Whales
Res. Inst. 13:1-52.
-------
Overholtz, W.J. and J.R. Nicolas, 1979. Apparent feeding by the
fin whale, balaenoptera physalus and humpback whale, Megaptera
novaeangliae on the American sandlance, Ammodystes americanus,
in the Northwest Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 77:285-287.
Oviatt, C., J. Frithsen, J. Gearing, and P. Gearing. 1982. Low
chronic additions of No. 2 fuel oil: chemical behavior,
biological impact and recovery in a simulated estuarine
environment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 9:121-136.
Oviatt, C.A., J.G. Quinn, J.T. Maughan, J.T. Ellis, B.K. Sullivan,
J.N. Gearing, P.J. Gearing, C.D. Hunt, P.A. Sampou, and J.S.
Latimer. 1987. Fate and effects of sewage sludge in the
coastal marine environment: a mesocosm experiment. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 41:187-203.
Padan, J.W., 1977. New England Offshore Mining Environmental Study
(Project NOMES). NOAA Special Report. Pacific Marine
Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, WA.
Palmer, R.S. (ed.), 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Vol.
I. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Conn.
Parker, B.B., and B.R. Pearce, 1973. The response of Massachusetts
Bay to wind stress. MITSG Rep. No. 75-2, Cambridge, MA.
Parker, I.Jr., 1974 Phytoplankton Primary Productivity in
Massachusetts Bay, Ph.D, Thesis University of New Hampshire.
Patton, J.S. and J.A. Couch. 1984. Can tissue anomalies that occur
in marine fish implicate specific pollutant chemicals. In
Concepts in Marine Pollution Measurements. H.H. white (ed.).
Univ. Maryland. College Park. pp. 511-538.
Paul, J.R. 1968. Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus, in the Gulf of
Mexico. J. Mamro. 49:746-748.
Payne, K. and R. Payne, 1985. Large scale changes over 19 years
in songs of humpback whales in Bermuda. Z. Tierpsychol.
68:89-114.
Payne, K., P. Tyack, and R. Payne, 1983. Progressive changes in
the songs of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeanqliae). A
detailed analysis to two seasons in Hawaii. Pp. 9-57 In R.
Payne (ed.) Communication and Behavior of Whales. Westview
Press, Inc. Boulder, CO.
Payne, P.M.,, J.R. Nicolas, L. O'Brien, and K.D. Powers, 1986.
Distribuion of the humpback whale (Meqapter novaeanqliae) on
Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine in relation to densities
of the sand eel (Ammodytes americanus). Fish. Bull: in
press.
-------
Payne, P. M., K.D. Powers, and J.E. Bird, 1983. Opportunistic
feeding on whale fat by Wilson's Storm-Petrels Oceanites
oceancius in the western North Atlantic. Wils. Bull.
95:478-479.
Payne, P.M. and J.P. Ross, 1986. Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta
caretta). In T. French (ed.). Endangered, threatened and
special concern vertebrate species in Massachusetts. Mass.
div. of Fisheries and Wildlife, Nongame and Endangered Species
Program, Boston, MA 02202 (in press).
Payne, P.M. and D.C. Schneider, 1984. Yearly changes in abundance
of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, at a winter haul-out site in
Massachusetts. Fish. Bull. 82:440-442.
Payne, P.M., L.A. Selzer, and A.T. Knowlton, 1984. Distribution
and density of cetaceans, marine turtles and seabirds in the
shelf waters of the northeastern United States. June 1980 -
Dec. 1983, from shipboard observations. NMFS/NEFC Contr. No.
NA-81-FA-C-00023. 246 pp.
Payne, P.M., L.A. Selzer, P.W. Whan, and A.A. Whitman, 1985. The
distribution, abundance, and selected prey of the harbor seal
in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Lab. Ref. Doc. No. 85:15,
NMFS/NEFC, Woods Hole, MA 02543. 32 pp.
Payne, R. 1976. At home with right whales. Nat. Geog.
149:322-339.
Payne, R., 0. Brazier, E.M. Dorsey, J.S. Perkins, V.J. Rowntree,
and A. Titus, 1983. External features in southern right
whales (Eubalaena australis) and their use in identifying
individuals. Pp 371-445 In: R. Payne (ed.) Communiation and
Behabior of Whales. AAAS selected Symposium No. 76. Westview
Pres, Boulder, Co.
Pearson, W.H., D.L. Woodruff, P.C. Sugarman, and B.L. Olla.
1981. Effects of oiled sediment on predation on the
littleneck clam, Protothaca staminea. by the dungeness crab,
Cancer maqister. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 13:445-454.
Pearson, W.H., D.L. Woodruff, and P.C. Sugarman. 1984. The
burrowing behavior of sand lance, Amodvtes hexapterus effects
of oil-contaminated sediment. Mar. Environ. Res. II: 17-32.
Peddicord, R.K. 1980. Direct effects of suspended sediments on
aguatic organisms. Pages 501-536 IN R.B. Baker (ed.).
Contaminants and sediments, Volume 1: fate and transport
case studies, modeling, toxicity.
Peddicord, R.K.and V.A. McFarland. 1978. Effects of Suspended
Dredged Material on Aquatic Animals. Tech. Rep. D-78-29. U.S.
Army Waterways Exp. Stat. Vicksburg. Miss.
-------
Pequegnat, W.E. 1978. An Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Dredged Material Disposal in the Open Ocean. Tech. Rep.
D-78-2. U.S. Army Waterways Exp. Stat. Vicksburg. Miss.
Perez K.T., Z.w. Davey, N.F. Lackie, G.E. Morrison, P.G. Murphy,
A.E. Soper, and D.L. Winslow. 1983. Environmental assessment
of a phthalate ester, di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate MEPH, derived
from a marine microcosm. Pages 180-191 IN W.E. Bishop, R.D.
Cardwell, and B.B. Heidolph (eds). Aguatic toxicology and
hazard assessment: 6th symposium. ASTM STP 802. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Perkins, J., and H. Whitehead, 1977. Observations on three species
of baleen whales off northern Newfoundland and adjacent
waters. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 34:1436-1440.
Perkins, J.S., K.C. Balcomb, III, G. Nichols, Jr., A.T. Hall, M.
Smultea, and N. Thumser, 1985. Status of the west Greenland
Humpback whale feeding aggregation, 1981-83. Rep. Int. Whal.
Commn. 35:379-383.
Perkins, J.S.., and P.C. Beamish, 1979. Net entanglements of baleen
whales in the inshore fishery of Newfoundland. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Canada 36:521-528.
Perkins, J.S., and P.J. Bryant, G. Nichols, and D.R. Patten, 1982.
Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeanqliae) off the west coast
of Greenland. Can. J. Zool. 60:2921-2930.
Perrin, W.F., R.R. Warner, C.H. Fiscus, and D.B. Holts, 1973.
Stomach contents of Porpoises, Stenella spp. and yellowfin"
tuna Thunnus albacares in mixed species aggregations. Fish.
Bull. 71:1077-1092.
Phelps, H.L., J.T. Hardy, W.H. Pearson, and C.W. Apts. 1983.
Clam burrowing behaviour: inhibition by copper-enriched
sediment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 14(12):452-455.
Pitcher, K.W. 1980a. Food of the harbor seal: Phoca vitulina
richardsi in the Gulf of Alaska. Fish. Bull. 78:544-549.
Pitcher, K.W. 1980b. Stomach contents and feces as indicators of
harbor seal, Phoca vitukina. foods in the Gulf of Alaska.
Fishery Bulletin 78:797-798.
Powers, K.D. 1982a. Ecological coherence of Georges Bank to
populations of marine birds. Report to NMFS/NEFC,
unpublished, 26 pp.
Powers K.D. 1982b. A comparison of two methods of counting birds
at sea. J. Field Ornith. 53:209-222.
-------
Powers K.D. 1983. Pelagic distributions of marine birds off the
northeastern United States. NOAA Tech. Memorandum
NMFS-F/NEC-27. Woods Hole, MA. 199 pp.
Powers, K.D., and E.H. Backus, 1981. The relationships of marine
birds of oceanic fronts off the northeastern United States.
D.O.E. Techn. Prog. Kept. (DOE Contract No.
DE-AC02-78EV04706). Nov. 1981.
Powers, K.D., and E.H. Backus. In press. Estimates of consumption
by seabirds on Georges Bank. In R.H. Backus (ed.) Georges
Bank and its surroundings. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 02139.
Powers, K.D., and R.G. Brown. In press. Bird life on Georges Bank
to populations of cetaceans. Report to NMFS/NEFC,
unpublished, 20 pp.
Powers, K.D. and P.M. Payne, 1983. Distribution of marine mammals,
birds and turtles near the Deepwater Dumpsite 106 (DWD-106)
and the Philadelphia Dumpsite (PDS). In J.B. Pearce et al.
(eds.) Northeast Monitoring Program, 106-Mile Site
Characterization Update, NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-26, Chap.
11.
Powers, K.D., P.M. Payne, and S.J. Fitch, 1982. Distribution of
Cetaceans, Seabirds and Turtles, Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia,
June 1980-December 1981. Final Report to NMFS/NEFC Contract
No. NA-81-FA-C-00023. 163 pp.
Powers, K.D., P.M. Payne, and D.S. Miller, 1980. A marine observer
training program. Final Rept. to NMFS/NEFC, Contract No.
NA-80-FA-D-0004, Woods Hole, MA. 73 pp.
Prescott, J.H., and P.M. Fiorelli, 1980. Review of the harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the U.S. Northwest Atlantic.
Final Rept. to Marine Mamm. Commission Contract No. MM8AC016,
NTIS PB80-176928. 55 pp.
Prescott, J.H., S.D. Kraus, P. Fiorelli, D.E. Gaskin, G.J.D. Smith,
and M. Brander, 1981. Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
distribution, abundance, survey methodology and preliminary
notes on habitual use and threats. Final Rept. to National
Marine Fish. Service (NEFC), Contract No. NA-80-FA-D-00009.
Prescott, R. 1986. Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepisochelys kempi).
In T. French (ed.). Endangered, threatened and special
concern vertebrate species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div. of
Fisheries and Wildlife, Nongame and Endangered Species
Program, Boston, MA. 02202 (in press).
Proni, J.K. 1976. Acoustic tracking of ocean-dumped sewage
sludge. Science 193:1005-1007.
-------
Pruell, R.J., R.A. McKinney, W.S. Boothman, D.J. Cobb, J.A.
Livolsi, R.D. Bowen, and F.A. Osterman. 1989. Contaminant
Concentrations in Sediments from the Fonl Area Disposal Site
in Massiachusetts Bay. USEPA.
Pruell, R.J. and J.G. Quiun, 1985. Geochemistry of organic
contaminant, in Narragansett Bay Sediments. Est. Cstl. Shlf.
Sei. 21: 295-312.
Rae, B.B 1965. The food of the common porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena). J. Zool. Lond. 146:114-122.
Rand, G.M. a:nd S.R. Petrocelli. 1985. Fundamentals of Aquatic
Toxicology. Hemispshere Publ. Co. Wash.
Raytheon, 1974. Massport Marine Deepwater Terminal Study: Site
and Terminal Selection. Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, R.I.
Prepared for the Massacahusetts Port Authority.
Reed, M., K. Jayko, T. Isaji, and J. Rosen. 1984. Ocean risk
assessment model system (ORAMS) : development and preliminary
applications. A report for EPA, Contract No. 68-016621.
Applied Science Associates, Narragansett, RI.
Reese, J. R. and S. A. Chesser, 1985. Implementation of Corps/EPA
Ocean Disposal Site Designation Gudiance at Yaquina Bay,
Oregon. Environmental Effects of Dredging, Information
Exchange Bulleting. October 1985. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Reeves. R.R. 1975. The right whale. Conservationist 30:32-33,
45.
Reeves, R.R. and R.L. Brownell, 1982. Baleen Whales Eubalaena
gacialis and allies. Pp 415-444 In J.A. Chapman and G.A.
Feldhamer (eds.) Wild Mammals of North America. Biology,
Management and Economics. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,
Baltimore. 1147 pp.
Reeves, R.R.,, S. Kraus, and P. Turnbull, 1983. Right whale refuge?
Nat. His. 92:40-45.
Reeves, R.R., J.G. Mead, and S. Katona, 1978. The right whale,
Eubalaena glacialis in the western North Atlantic. Rep. Int.
Whal. Comm. 28:303-312.
Reynoldson, T.B. 1987. Interactions between sediment
contaminants and benthic organisms. Pages 53-66 IN R.
Thomas, R. Evans, A. Hamilton, M. Munawar, T. Reynoldson,
and H. Sadar (eds). Ecological effects of in situ sediment
contaminants.
-------
Rhoads, D.C., J.Y. Yingst and W. Ullman, 1978. Seafloor stability
in central Long Island Sound: Pt. 1: Temporal changes in
erodibility of fine-grained sediment, in Estuarine
Interactions, M.L. Wiley, ed., Academic Press, 221-244.
Rhoads, D.C. and L.F. Boyer, 1982. The effects of marine benthos
on physical properties of sediments: a successional
perspective. In Animal-Sediment Relations, P.L. McCall and
M.J. Tevesz (Eds.). Plenum Press, New York, NY. pp. 3-15.
Richardson, D., S.K. Katona, and K. Darling, 1974. Marine Mammals
pp. 9-37 of Chapter 14 In TGIGOM (The research institute of
the Gulf of Maine). A socio-economic and environmental
inventory of the North Atlantic region, Sandy Hook to Bay of
Fundy. V.I.(4) Bureau of Land Mgt. Marine Minerals Div.
Contract #08550-CT3-8.
Riser, N.W. and C.M. Jankowski, 1974. Physical, chemical,
biological and oceanographic factors relating to disposal of
dredged material in Massachusetts Bay - Phase I. Northeastern
University, Marine Science Institute, Nahant, MA.
Riznyk, R.Z., J.T. Hardy, W. Pearson, and L. Jabs. 1987. Short-term
effects of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons on sea-surface
microlayer phytoneuston. Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 38:
1037-1043.
Roesijadi, G., J.W. Anderson, and J.W. Blaylock. 1978. Uptake
of hydrocarbons from marine sediments contaminated with
Prudhoe Bay crude oil: influence of feeding type of test
species and availability of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 35: 608-614.
Rogerson, P.F., S.C. Schimmel, and G. Hoffman. 1985. Chemical
and biological characterization of Black Rock Harbor dredged
material. Tech. Rep. D-85-9, prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI, for the
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
Rosenthal, H. and D.F. Alderdice. 1976. Sublethal effects of
environmental stressors, natural and pollutional on marine
fish eggs and larvae. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 2047-2065.
Ross, J.P. 1986. Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys cariacea). In
T. French (ed.). Endangered, threatened and special concern
vertebrate species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div. of Fisheries
and Wildlife, Nongame and Endangered Species Program, Boston,
MA. 02202 (in press).
Rowlett, R.A. 1980. Observations of marine birds and mammals in
the northern Chesapeake Bight. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol.
Serv. Progr. FWS/OBS-80/04.
-------
Rubinstein, N.I., E. Lores and N. Gregory. 1983. Accumulation of
PCBs, mercury and cadmium by Nereis virens, Mercenaria
mercenaria and Palaemopotes pugio from contaminated harbor
sediments. Technical Report D-83-4. Prepared by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, Fla. for the
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Rubinstein, N.I., W.T. Gilliam, and H.R. Gregory. 1984. Dietary
accumulation of PCBs from a contaminated sediment source by
a demersal fish (Leiostomus xanthurus). Aguatic Toxicol.
5:331-342.
Saemundsson, B. 1939.
Copenhagen.
Zoology of Iceland.
Muntsgaard.
S.A.I.C., 1987. FADS Site Designation Study Data Report. Volumes
I to III. Science Applications International Corporation.
Contract DACW33-86-D-0004 to New England Division, Corps of
Engineers.
Sailia, S.B., S.D. Pratt, T.T. Polgar. 1972. Dredge Spoil Disposal
in Rhode Island Sound. Mar. Tech. Rep. No. 2. U. Kingston,
Rhode Island.
Scammon, C.M. 1874. The marine mammals of the North-western coast
of North America. Dover Publ., New York, NY.
Schevill, C.M. 1956. Lagenorhynchus acutus off Cape Cod.
Mammal. 27:128-129.
J.
Schevill, W.E., and R.H. Backus, 1960.
Megaptera. J. of Mamm. 41:279-281.
Daily patrol of a
Schevill, W.E., K.E. Moore, and W.E. Watkins. 1981. Right Whale,
Eubalena glacialis. sightings in Cape Cod waters. Woods Hole
Ocean. Inst. Tech. Rept. WHOI-81-50, Woods Hole, MA. 16 pp.
Schimidly, D.J. 1981. Marine mammals of the southeastern United
States coast and the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Fish and Wildl.
Service, Biol. Serv. Progr. FWS/OBS-80/41.
Schlee, J., D.W. Folger, and C.J. O'Hara, 1973. Bottom sediments
on the Continental Shelf off the Northeastern United States
- Cape Cod to Cape Ann, Massachusetts. U.S. Geological
Survey. Misc. geological Investigations Map 1-746. U.S.G.S.
Washington, DC.
Schoener, T.W. 1971. Theory of feeding strategies.
Ecol. Syst. 2:369-404.
Annual Rev.
-------
Schubel, J.R. and J.C.S. Wang. 1973. The Effects of Suspended
Sediment on the Hatching Success of Perca flavescens (Yellow
Perch), Morone americana (White Perch), Monroe saxatilis
(Striped Bass), and Alosa pseudoharengus (Alewife) Eggs.
Chesp. Bay Inst. Spec. Rep. 30. Ref. 73-3.
Schurman, V.R. 1983. Report on Nantucket grey seals, winter and
spring 1983. NMFS/NEFC Contract No. NA-83-FB-A-00075.
Schurman, V.R. 1986. Gray Seal (Halichoerus grypus). In T. French
(ed.) Endangered, threatened and special concern vertebrate
species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div. of Fisheries and
Wildlife, Nongame and Endangerer Species Program, Boston MA.
02202 (in press).
Schwartz, J.P. 1987. PCB concentrations in marine fish and
shellfish from Boston and Salem Harbors, and coastal
Massachusetts. Mass. Div. Mar. Fish. Cat Cove Marine
Laboratory. Publication #14,997-36-110-8-87-CR.
Science Applications, Inc. (SAI), 1985 Summary of Program Results
1981-1984 DAMOS. Newport, RI.
Scott, G.P. and J.R. Gilbert, 1982. Problems and Progress in the
U.S. BLM-sponsored CETAP surveys. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm.
32:587-600.
Scott, G.P., R.D. Kenney, J.G. Gilbert, and R.K. Edel, 1981.
Estimates of cetacean and turtle abundance in the CETAP study
area with an analysis of factors affecting them. In A
characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the Mid-
and North Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continental Shelf.
Ann. Rept. 1979, CETAP Program, Univ. of Rhode Island,
prepared for Bureau of Land Mgmt., U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Scott, G.P., R.D. Kenney, T.J. Thompson, and H.E. Winn, 1983.
Functional roles and ecological impacts of the cetacean
community in the waters of the northeastern U.S. continental
shelf. Int. Cons. Explor. Sea., C.M. 1983/N:12.
Scott, G.P., and H.E. Winn, 1980. Comparative evaluation of aerial
and shipboard sampling techniques for estimating the abundance
of Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeanqliae). Marine Mammal
Comm. Contr. No. MM 7AC029.
Seber, G.A.F. 1973. The estimation of animal abundance. Hafner
Publ. Co., Inc. New York. 506 pp.
Sergeant, D.E. 1953. Whaling in Newfoundland and Labrador waters.
Nor Hvalfangst-Ticlencle, Aarg. 42:687-695. (439-447 in some
vols.).
-------
Sergeant, D.E. 1958. Dolphins in Newfoundland waters. Can. Field
Nat. 72:156-159.
Sergeant, D.E. 1961. Whales and Dolphins of the Canadian East
Coast. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada., Circular No. 7. 17 pp.
Sergeant, D.E. 1962. The biology of the pilot or pothead whale
(Globicephala melaena (Trail)) in Newfoundland waters. Bull.
Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 132. 84pp.
Sergeant, D.E. 1963. Minke Whales, Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Lacepede, of the western North Atlantic. J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Can. 20:1489-1504.
Sergeant, D.E. 1966. Populations of large whale species in the
Western North Atlantic with special references to the Fin
Whale. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., circ. No. 9.
Sergeant, D.E. 1968. Sightings of marine mammals. Int., Comm.
North. Atl. Fish. Spec. Publ. No. 7:241-244.
Sergeant, D.E. 1975. An additional food supply for Humpback
(Meqaptera novaeangliae) and Minke Whales (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata). Int. Council. Expor. Sea. Mar. Mamm. Comm.
CM 1975/No. 13:1-7.
Sergeant, D.E. 1977. Stocks of Fin Whales Balaenoptera phvsalus
L. in the North Atlantic Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm.
27:460-473.
Sergeant, D.E., and H.D. Fisher, 1957. The Smaller Cetacea of
Eastern Canadian Waters; J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 114:83-115.
Sergeant, D.E., A.W. Mansfield, and B. Beck, 1970. Inshore records
of Cetacea for eastern Canada, 1949-1968. J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Can. 27:1903-1915.
Sergeant, D.E., D.J. St. Aubin, and J.R. Geraci, 1980. Life
History and northwest Atlantic status of the Atlantic
White-Sided Dolphin, Laaenorhvnchus acutus. Cetology 37:1-12.
Setlow, L.W. 1973. Geological Investigation of the Project NOMES
Dredging site. Publication No. 6937. Massachusetts
Department of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Boston, MA.
Sherk, J.A., J.M. O'Connor, and D.A. Neumann. 1975. Effects of
suspended sediments on estuarine environments. In Estuarine
Research. L.E. Cronin (ed.). pp. 541-558.
Sherman, K., M. Grosslein, D. Mountain, D. Busch, J. O'Reilly, and
R. Theroux. 1988. The continental shelf ecosystem off the
Northeast Coast of the United States. In Ecosystems of the
World Elsevier. Amsterdam.
-------
Sherman, K, M. Grosslein, D. Mountain, D. Busch, J. O'Reilly,and
R. Thenouy 1988. The continental shelf ecosystem off the
northeast coast of the United States. In (H. Poatma and JJ
Zielstra PP 279.337 eds). Ecosystems of the World no. 27
Contenental Shelf. Elsevier.
Sherman, K.C., C. Jones, L. Sullivan, W. Smith, P. Berrein, and L.
Ejustment, 1981. Congruent shifts in sand eel abundance in
western and eastern north Atlantic exosystems. Nature
291:486-489.
Sherman, K., Worschung auf die Geschiebebewegung, Mitteilungen der
Preussischen Versuchsanstalt fur Wasserbau und Schiffbau,
Berlin, Germany.
Shields, A. 1936. Adwendung der Ahnlichkeitsmechanik und
Turbulenzforschung auf die Geschiebebewegung, Mitteilungen der
Preussischen Versuchsanstalt fur Wasserbaund. Schiffbau,
Berlin, Germany.
Shoop, C.R. 1980. Sea turtles in the northeast. Maritmes, Nov.
1980 p. 9-11.
Shoop, C.R., T.L. Doty, and N.E. Bray, 1981. Sea turtles in the
region between Cape Hatteras and Nova Scotia in 1979. In A
characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the Mid-
and North Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer contiental shelf.
CETAP Program, Univ. of Rhode Island, prepared for Bureau of
Land Mgmt., U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C.
Shoop, C.R., and C.A. Ruckdeschel, 1986. Atlantic Hawksbill Turtle
(Eretmocely imbricata imbricata). In T. French (ed.).
Endangered, threatened and special concern vertebrate species
in Massachusetts. Mass. Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Nongame and Endangered Species Program, Boston, MA. 02202 (in
press).
Shoop, C.R., and C.A. Ruckdeschel, 1986. Atlantic Green Turtle
(Chelonia mvdas mydas). In T. French (ed.). Endangered,
threatened and special concern vertebrate species in
Massachusetts. Mass. Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife, Nongame
and Endangered Species Program, Boston, MA. 02202 (in press).
Sinderman, C.J. 1979. Pollution associated diseases and
abnormalities of fish and shellfish. Fish. Bull. 76: 719-749.
Sissenwine, M.P., B.E. Brown, J.E. Palmer, and R.J. Essig, 1982.
Emprical examination of population interactions for the
fishery resources off the Northeastern USA. In M.C. Mercer
(ed.) Multispecies approaches to fisheries Managment advice.
Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59;82-94.
-------
Sissenwine, M.P., W.J. Overholtz, and S.H. Clark. 1983. In search
of density dependence. Pp. 119-138 In B.R. Melteff (ed.)
Proceedings of the workshop on Marine Mammal Fishery -
Interactions of the east Bering Sea. Univ. of Alaska Sea
Grant, Fairbanks, AK. 300 pp.
Smigielski, A.S., T.A. Halavik, L.J. Buckley, S.M. Drew, G.C.
Laurence. 1984. Spawning, embryo development and growth of
the American sand lance Ammodytes americanus in the
laboratory. Mar. Ecol, Prog. Ser. 14: 287-292.
Smith, F.G. Walton, 1974. Handbook of Marine Science. Volume I.
CRC Press.
Smith, G.J.D., and D.E. Gaskin, 1974. The diet of harbor porpoises
(Phocoena phocoena [L.]) in coastal waters of eastern Canada,
with special reference to the Bay of Fundy. Can. J. Zool.
52:777-782.
Smith, J., J.Y. Hauser and J. Bagg, 1985. Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in sediments of the Great Barrier Reef region,
Australia. Mar. Poll. Bull. 16: 110-114.
Smith, W.D., L. Sullivan, and P. Berrien, 1978. Fluctuations in
production of sand lance larvae in coastal waters off the
northeastern United States, 1974 to 1977. ICES C.M.
1978/L:30, unpubl. Doc., 8 pp.
Smith, W.O., Jr. 1982. The relative importance of chlorophyll,
dissolved and particulate material and seawater to the
vertical extinction of light. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 15:
459-465.
Sonstegard, R.A. and J.F. Leatherland. 1984 . Comparative
epidemiology: the uses of fishes in assesssing carcinogenic
contaminants. pp 224-231 In: (V.W. Cainns et al. eds).
Advances in Environmental Science and Technology. Contaminant
effects on fisheries. Wiley.
•
Sowl, L.W. and J.C. Bartonek, 1974. Seabirds - Alaska's most
neglected resource. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf.
39:117-126.
Stegman, J.J. Ploynuclear aromatic Hydrocarbons and their
Metabolism in the Marine Enviroment, In: Polycylic
Hydrocarbons and Cancer Vol. 3, H.V. Gelboin and P.O.PT's EDS.
Academic Press, N.Y. ppl-60.
Stern, E.M. and W.B. Stickle. 1978. Effects of Turbidity and
Suspended Material in Aquatic Environments. Tech. Rep.
D-78-21. U.S. Army Waterways Exp. Stat. Vicksburg. Miss.
Stick, D. 1958. The outer banks of North Carolina 1584-1958. U.
No. Caro. Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
-------
Stoddard, A., R. Wells, and K. Devonald, 1985. Development and
application of a deepwater ocean waste disposal model for
dredged material: Yabucoa Harbor, Puerto Rico. MTS Jour.
19:26-39.
Stone, G., S. Katona, and J. Beard, 1983. Whales in the Gulf of
Maine 1978-1981. Report of the Gulf of Maine Whale Sighting
Network.
Sub-Sea Surveyors, Inc. 1973. Report of underwater television
survey of Massachusetts Bay "Massachusetts Bay - Explosives"
for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, MA. Kittery, ME.
Sulivan, B.K. and D. Hancock. 1977. Zooplankton and dredging:
research perspectives from a critical review. Water Res. Bull.
13: 461-467.
Sutcliffe, W.H., and P.F. Brodie, 1977. Whale distributions on
Nova Scotia Waters Fisheries and Marine Service Technical
Report No. 722. Fisheries and Mariene Service, Bedford
Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. 83 pp.
Sutcliffe, W.H. Jr., R.H. Loucks, and K.F. Drinkwater, 1976.
Coastal circulation and physical oceanography of the Scotian
Shelf and the Gulf of Maine. J. of the Fish. Res. Board of
Canada. 33:98-115.
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, and F.A. Cole. 1979. A bioassay for
the toxicity of sediment to marine macrobenthos. J. Water
Pollut. Control Fed. 51:944-950.
Swartz, R.C., D.W. Schults, G.R. Ditsworth, W.A. DeBen, and F.A.
cole. 1981. Sediment toxicity, contamination, and benthic
community structure near ocean disposal sites. Abstract.
Estuaries 4:258.
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, K.A. Sercu, and J.O. Lamberson. 1982.
Sediment toxicity and the distribution of amphipods in
Commencement Bay, Washington, USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
13(10) :359-364.
Swartz, R.C., D.W. Schults, G.R. Ditsworth, W.A. DeBen, and F.A.
Cole. 1985. Sediment toxicity, contamination, and
macrobenthic communities near a large sewage outfall. Pages
152-175 IN T.P. Boyle (ed). Validation and predictability of
laboratory methods for assessing the fate and effects of
contaminants in aquatic ecosystems. ASTM STP 865.
Swartz, R.C., G.R. Ditsworth, D.W. Schults, and J.O. Lamberson.
1985a. Sediment toxicity to a marine infaunal amphipod:
cadmium and its interaction with sewage sludge. Ma Environ.
Res. 18:133-153.
-------
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, J.K. Phillips, J.O. Lamberson, and F.A.
Cole. 1985b. Photocephalid amphipod bioassay for marine
sediment toxicity. Pages 384-407 IN R.D. Cardwell, R.
Purdy, and R.C. Bahner (eds). Aguatic toxicology and hazard
assessment: seventh symposium. ASTM STP 854.
Swartz, R.C., F.A. Cole, D.W. Schultz, and W.A. DeBen. 1986.
Ecological changes in the Southern California bight near a
large sewage outfall: benthic conditions in 1980 and 1983.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 31:1-13.
Sweeney, R.A. 1978. Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations Ashtabula
River Disposal Site, Ohio. Evaluative Summary. Tech. Rep.
D-77-42. U.S. Army Waterways Exp. Stat. Vicksburg. Miss.
Swenson, W.A. and M.A. Matson. 1976. Influence of turbidity on
survival, growth, and distribution of larval lake herring
(Coregonus artedii). Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 4: 541-545.
Symada, T.J. 1983. The phytoplanklton of estuaries. In Estuaries
of the World 26. Estuaries and Enclosed Seas. B.H. Ketchum
(ed.). Elsevier. pp. 65-102.
Tagatz, M.E., G.R. Plaia, and C.H. Deans. 1986. Toxicity of
dibutyl phthalate contaminated sediment to laboratory and
field colonized estuarine benthic communities. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 37:141-150.
Tavolaro, J.F., 1984. A Sediment Budget Study of Clamshell
Dredging and Ocean Disposal Activities in the New York Bight.
Geol Water Sci, 6(3):133-140.
Tavolaro, J.F. 1982. Sediment budget study for clamshell dredging
and disposal activities. Tech. Manuscript. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, New York District.
Testaverde, S.A., and J.G. Mead, 1980. Southern distribution of
the Atlantic whitesided dolphin, Lagenorgynchus acutus. in
the western North Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 78:167-169.
Thurston, R.U., R.C. Russo, C.M. Fetterolf, Jr., T.A. Edsall and
Y. M. Barber, Jr. (Eds.) 1979. A review of the EPA Red Book:
Quality criteria for water. Water Quality Section, American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 313 p.
Tietjen, J.H. and J.J. Lee. 1984. The use of free-living
nematodes as a bioassay for estuarine sediments. Mar.
Environ. Res. 11:233-251.
Townsend, C.H. 1935. The distribution of certain whales as shown
by logbook records of American whaleships. Zoologica 19:3-17.
TRIGOM. 1974. A Socio-Economic and Environmental Inventory of the
North Atlantic Region (Vol 1, Book 3). South Portland, Maine.
-------
TRIGOM (The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine), 1974. A
Socio-Economic and Environmental Inventory of the North
Atlantic Region, Including the Outer Continental Shelf and
Adjacent Waters from Sandy Hook, New Jersey, to Bay of Fundy.
Vol. 1, Book 1. Submitted to the bureau of Land Management,
Marine Minerals Division, Contract No. 08550-CT3-8.
True, F.W. 1904. The Whalebone Whales of the western North
Atlantic compared with those occurring in European waters.
Smithson. Contrib. Knwl. 33:1-332.
Truitt, C.L. 1986. Fate of Dredged Material During Open-water
Disposal. Envir. Effects Dredg. Tech. Notes. EEDP-01-2. U.S.
Army Waterways Exp. Stat. Vicksburg. Miss.
Tsai,C., J. Welch, K. Chang, J. Shaeffer, and L.E. Cronin.
1979. Bioassay of Baltimore Harbor sediments. Estuaries.
2: 141-153.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988, Site Evaluation Studies of
the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site for Ocean Disposal of
Dredged Material, Report by Environmental Resources Section,
Impact Analysis Branch, New England Division.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Environmental Data Service,
National Climatic Center, 1979. Climate of Massachusetts.
Climatography of the United States, Asheville, NC.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Survey, 1980.
Outer Continental Shelf Resource Management Map, Boston, NOS
NK 19-4 (OCS), Rockville, MD.
U.S. EPA, 1988. Boston Harbor Wastewater Conveyance System Draft
Supplemental Enviromental Impact Statement.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. Office of
Water Enforcement and Permits, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988. A Histopathological
and Chemical Assessment of Winter Flounder,Lobster and
Soft-Shelled Clam Indigenous to Quincy Bay, Boston Harbor and
an IN SITU Evaluation of Oysters Including Sediment (Surface
and Cores) chemistry. Environmental Research Laboratory,
Narragansett, Rhode Island.
Van Bree, P.J., and H. Nigssen, 1964. On three specimens of
Lagenorhynchus albirostris gray, 1846 (Mammalia, Cetacea).
Beaufortia 11:85-93.
Vanoni, V.A. (Ed), 1975. Sedimentation Engineering, ASCE, N.Y.
-------
Viarengo, A. 1985. Biochemical effects of trace metals. Mar. Poll.
Bull. 16:153-158
Wakeman, T., R. Peddicord, and J. Sustar. 1975. Effects of
suspended solids associated with dredging operations on
estuarine organisms. IEEE Ocean '75. pp. 431-436.
Warwick, R.M., T.H. Pearson, and Ruswahyuni. 1987. Detection of
pollution effects on marine macrobenthos: further
evaluation of the species abundance/biomass method. Mar.
Biol. 95:193-200.
Watkins, W.A., K.E. Moore, J. Sigurjonsson, D. Wartzok, and G.N.
di Sciara, 1981. Finback whale, Balaenoptera physalus tracked
by radio from Icelandic to Greenlandic waters.
ICES-CM-1981/N:16.
Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Schevill, 1976. Right whale feeding and
baleen rattle. J. Mamm. 57:58-66.
Watkins, W.A. and W.E. Schevill, 1979. Aerial observation of
feeding behavior in four baleen whales: Eubalaena glaciais,
Balaenoptera borealis, Magaptera novaeangliae, and
Balaenoptera physalus. J. Mamm. 60:155-63.
Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Schevill, 1982. Observations of right
whales, Eubalaena glacialis, in Cape Cod waters. Fishery
Bulletin 80:875-880.
Watson, L. 1981. Sea guide to whales of the world. E.P. Dutton,
New York. 302 pp.
Wedemeyer, G.A., D.J. McLeay, and C.P. Goodyear. 1984. Assessing
the tolerance of fish and fish populations to environmental
stress: the problems and methods of monitoring. In Contaminant
Effects on Fisheries. V.W. Cairns et al. (eds.). Advances in
Environ. Sci. Tech. Wiley, pp. 163-195.
Weinrich, M.T. 1982. Biology of the humpback whale (Meqaptera
novaeangliae): Northern Stellwagen Bank, Summer, 1981.
Cetacean Research Unit Special Report No. 1.
Weinrich, M.T. 1985. Long term association patterns of humpback
whales in the southern Gulf of Maine. Pp. 18-27 In Humpback
whales of the southern Gulf of Maine: recent findings on
habitat use, social behavior and feeding patterns. Get. Res.
Unit, Glouc. Fish. Mus., Gloucester, MA.
-------
Weinrich, M.T., C.R. Belt, H.J. Iken, and M.R. Schilling. 1985.
Individual variation in feeding patterns of humpback whales
(Megatera novaeanqliae) in New England. Pp. 28-41 In Humpback
whales of the southern Gulf of Maine: recent findings on
habitat use, social behavior and feeding patterns. Get. Res.
Unit, Glouc. Fish. Mus., Gloucester, MA.
Weiss, H.B. 1974. Whaling in New Jersey. N.J. Agricul. Soc.,
Trenton, NJ.
Whitehead, H. 1982. Populations of humpback whales in the
northwest Atlantic. Rept. Int. Whal. Comm. 32:345-353.
Whitehead, H., K. Chu, J. Perkins, P. Bryant, and G. Nichols, Jr.
1983. Population size, stock identity and distribution of the
humpback whales off West Greenland - summer 1981. Rep. Int.
Whal. Comm. 33:497-502.
Whitehead, H. , and C. Glass. 1985a. The significance of the
southeast Shoal of the Grand Bank to humpback whales and other
cetacean species. Can. J. Zool. 63:2617-2625.
Whitehead, H., and C. Glass. 1985b. Orcas (killer whales) attack
humpback whales. J. Mamm. 66:183-185.
Whitehead, H. , P. Harcourt, K. Ingham, and H. Clark. 1980. The
migration of humpback whales, past the Bay de Verde Peninsula,
Newfoundland, during June and July, 1978. Can. J. Zool.
58:687-692.
Whitehead, H., and M.J. Moore. 1982. Distribution and movements
of West Indian humpback whales in winter. Can. J. Zool.
60:2203-2211.
Whitehead, H., R. Silver, and P. Harcourt. 1982. The migration of
humpback whales along the northeast coast of Newfoundland.
Can. J. Zool. 60:2173-2179.
Wildish, D.J. and J. Power. 1985. Avoidance of suspended sediments
by smelt as determined by a new "single fish" behavioral
bioassay. Bull. Environ. Contain. Tox. 34: 770-774.
Willett, C.F. 1972. Final Report of Massachusetts Coastal Mineral
Inventory Survey. Massachusetts Department of Natural
Resources, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA.
Willford, W.A., M.J. Mac, and R.J. Hesselberg. 1987. Assessing
the bioaccumulation of contaminants from sediments by fish
and other aguatic organisms. Pages 107-111 IN R. Thomas, R.
Evans, A. Hamilton, M. Munawar, T. Reynoldson, and H. Sadar
(eds). Ecological effects of in situ sediment contaminants.
-------
Williams, L.G., P.M. Chapman, and T.C. Ginn. 1986. A
comparative evaluation of marine sediment toxicity using
bacterial luminescence, oyster embryo and amphipod sediment
bioassays. Mar. Environ. Res. 19:225-249.
Windom, M.L., K.T. Tenore, and D.L. Rice, 1982. Metal
Accumulation by the polychaete Capitella capitata; Influences
of Metal Content and Nutritional Quality of Detritus.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 39:191-
196.
Windsor, J.G. Jr. and R.A. Kites, 1979. Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in Gulf of Maine sediments and Nova Scotia soils.
Geo. ef. Cosno. Acta. 43: 27-33.
Winn, H.E., R.K. Edel, and A.G. Taruski. 1975. Population
estimates of the humpback whale (Magaptea novaeangliae) in
the West Indies by visual and acoustic techniques. J. Fish.
Res. Rd. Can. 32:499-506.
Winn, H.E., D.R. Goodale, M.A.M. Hyman, R.D. Kenney, C.A. Price,
and G. P. Scott. 1981. Right whale sightings and the right
whale minimum count. In A characterization of marine mammals
and turtles in the Mid- and North-Atlantic areas of the U.S.
outer Continental Shelf. Ann. Rept. 1979, CETAP Program, Univ.
of Rhode Island, prepared for Bureau of Lnd Mgmt., U.S. Dept.
of Interior, Washington D.C.
Winn, H.E., P.W. Sorenson, and C.A. Price. 1984. The
distributional biology of the right whale, Eubalaena
galacialis, from Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia. Draft Final
Rept., Contract No. 14-12-0001-30091. Min. Mgmt. Serv., U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Wolf, D.A. et al. 1982. Effects of toxic substances on communities
and ecosystems. In Ecologicasl Stress and the New York Bight.
Science and Management. G.F. Myer (ed.). Est. res. Fed. South.
Carolina, pp. 68-86.
Wolfe, D.A., D.F. Boesch, A. Calabrese, J.J. Lee, C.D. Litchfield,
R.J. Livingston, A.D. Michael, J.M. O'Connor, M. Pilson, and
L.V. Sick, 1982. Effects of Toxic Substances on Communities
and Ecosystems, In: Mayer, C.F. (ed.), Ecological Stress and
the New York Bight: Science and Management. Estuarine
Research Federation, Columbia, South Carolina. Pp. 67-86.
Wright, T.D. 1978. Aquatic Dredged Material Disposal Impacts. Tech.
Rep. DS-78-1. U.S. Army Waterways Exp. Stat. Vicksburg, Miss.
-------
Yevich, P.P. et al. 1986. Histopathological effects of Black Rock
Harbor dredged material onmarine organisms: alaboratory
investigation. Tech. Rep. D-86-1, prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI, for the
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Yingst, J.Y. and D.C. Rhoads. 1978. Seafloor stability in central
Long Island Sound. Pt. II. Biological interactions and their
potential importance for seafloor credibility, in Estuarine
Interactions, M.L. Wiley, ed., Academic Press, N.Y., 603 pp.
Ziskowski, J.J., L. Despres-Patanjo, R.A. Murchelano, A.B. Howe,
D. Ralph, and S. Atran. 1987. Disease of commercially valuable
fish stocks in the northwest Atlantic. Mar. Pol. Bull. 18:
496-504.
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
ABN Acid-base Neutral
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BRAT Benthic Resources Analysis
C Carbon
*C Degrees Celsius
CE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CPR Code of Federal Regulations
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CTD Conductivity, Temperature, & Density apparatus
CZM Coastal Zone Management
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DA District Administrator (CE)
DAISY Disposal Area In-Situ System
DAMOS Disposal Area Monitoring System
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DMRP Dredged Material Research Program
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DOC U.S. Department of Commerce
DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon
DOE U.S. Department of Interior
E East
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FADS Foul Area Disposal Site (same as MBDS)
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FR Federal Register
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
FWPCAA Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
g gram
hr hour
IEC Interstate Electronics Corporation
kg kilogram
kHz kiloHertz
km kilometer
kn knot
LDC London Dumping Convention
LPC limiting permissible concentration
m meter
MBDS Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
m2 square meter
mg milligram
MLT mean low tide
MLW mean low water
mm millimeter
MMS Minerals Management Service
mph miles per hour
MPRSA Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
N north
ng nanogram
-------
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
nmi nautical mile
NMF8 National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOO Naval Oceanographic Office
NTU Nephelometric turbidity units
NUSC Naval Underwater Systems Center
OC8 Outer Continental Shelf
ODMOS Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
OMEP Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (EPA)
ODR Ocean Dumping Regulations (EPA)
PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
£ Phi, a unit of particle size (-Iog2 of size in nun)
PL Public Law
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ppt parts per thousand
o/oo parts per thousand
% percent
RA Regional Administrator (EPA)
REMOT8O Remote Ecological Monitoring of the Sea Floor
a second
8 South
8AIC Science Applications International Corporation
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
TOO total organic carbon
TRIGOM The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine
T88 Total Suspended Solids
H micron
pq microgram
pig-at microgram-atom
/imole micromole
U8C United States Code
U8CG U.S. Coast Guard
USFW8 U.S. Fish and Wildife Service
W West
WES COE Waterways Experiment Station
wt weight
yd yard
yd cubic yard
yr year
ZEP Zone of Economic Feasibility
Z8P Zone of Siting Feasibility
-------
GLOSSARY
ABUNDANCE
ADSORB
ALKALINITY
AMBIENT
AMPHIPODA
ANTHROPOGENIC
APPROPRIATE
SENSITIVE
BENTH1C MARINE
ORGANISMS
APPROPRIATE
SENSITIVE
MARINE
ORGANISMS
The number of individuals of a species
inhabiting a given area. Normally, the
community of several species will be present.
Measuring the abundance of each species is one
way of estimating the comparitive importance
of each species
To adhere in an extremely thin layer of
molecules to the surface of a solid or
liquid
The number of milliequivalents of hydrogen
ions neutralized by one liter of seawater at
20°C. Alkalinity of water is often taken as
an indicator of its carbonate, bicarbonate,
and hydroxide content
Pertaining to the undisturbed or unaffected
conditions of an environment
An order of crustaceans with laterally
compressed bodies, and are generally similar
in appearance to shrimp. The order consists
of hyperiideans, which inhabit open ocean
areas; gammarideans, which are primarily
bottom dwellers; and caprellideans, common
fouling organisms
Relating to the effects or impacts of man
on nature. Construction wastes, garbage,
and sewage sludge are examples of
anthropogenic materials
Pertaining to bioassays required for ocean
dumping permits, "at least one species each
representing filter-feeding, deposit feeding,
and burrowing species chosen from among the
most sensitive species accepted by EPA as
being reliable test organisms to determine
the anticipated impact on the site" (40 CFR
§227.27)
Pertaining to bioassays required for ocean
dumping permits, "at least one species each
representative of phytoplankton or zooplank-
ton, crustacean or mollusk, and fish species
chosen from among the most sensitive species
documented in the scientific literature or
accepted by EPA as being reliable test
organisms to determine the anticipated impact
on the site" (40 CFR §227.27)
-------
ASSEMBLAGE
BACKGROUND LEVEL
BASELINE
BASELINE
CONDITIONS
BASELINE SURVEYS
BASELINE DATA
BENTHOS
BIOACCUMULATION
BIOA8SAY
BIOMA88
BIOTA
BIOTIC GROUPS
BLOOM
A group of organisms sharing a common habitat
The naturally occurring concentration of a
substance within an environment that has not been
affected by unnatural additions of that
substance
Line defining the landward limit of the
territorial sea usually located at mean low water
except when cutting across the mouths of bays or
estuaries and is illustrated on nautical
navigation maps
The characteristics of an environment before
the onset of an action that can alter that
environment; any data serving as a basis for
measurment of other data
Surveys and data collected prior to the
initiation of actions that may alter an exis-
ting environment
All marine organisms (plant or animal) living
on or in the botton of the sea
The uptake of substances (e.g. heavy materials)
leading to elevated concentrations of those
substances within plant or animal tissue
A method of measuring the toxicity of a sub-
stance by determining the effect of a range of
eoncentrations on growth or survival of suita-
ble plants, animals or microorganisms. Results
are often expressed as the concentration that
is lethal to 50% of the test organisms (LC50)
or causes a defined effect in 50% of the test
organisms (EC50)
The weight of living organisms inhabiting a
given area or volume at a given time
Plants and animals inhabiting a given region
Assemblages of organisms which are ecologi-
cally, structurally, or taxonomically similar
A relatively high concentration of phytoplank-
ton resulting from rapid proliferation under
favorable growing conditions of nutrients and
light
-------
BODC
BOREAL
CEPHALOPODS
CHAETO6NATHA
CHLORINITY
CHLOROPHYLL a
CHLORPHYLLS
COELENTERATA
COLIFORMS
CONTINENTAL RISE
Biochemical Oxygen Demand or Biological Oxygen
Demand: the amount of dissolved oxygen re-
quired by aerobic micro-organism to degrade
organic matter in a sample of water held in the
dark at 20"C for 5 days; used to assess the po-
tential rate of oxygen utilization in aquatic
ecosystems
Pertaining to the northern geographic regions
Exclusively marine animals constituting the
most highly evolved class of the phylum
Mollusca (e.g., squid, octopus, and Nautilus)
A phylum of small planktonic, transparent,
wormlike invertebrates known as arrow-worms,
often used as water-mass tracers
The quantity of chlorine equivalent to the
quantity of halogens contained in 1 kg of
sea water, may be used to determine seawater
salinity and density
A specific chlorophyll pigment characteristic of
higher plants and alga, frequently used as a
measure of phytoplankton biomass
A group of oil-soluble pigments that function
as chemical receptors of light energy;
essential for photsynthesis
A large diverse phylum of primarily marine ani-
mals, possessing two cell layers and an incom-
plete digestive system, usually with tentacles.
This group includes jellyfish, corals and ane-
monics
Bacteria residing in the colons of mammals;
generally used as indicators of fecal pollu-
tion
A gentle slope with a generally smooth surface
between the Continental Slope and the deep
ocean floor
CONTINENTAL SHELF That part of the Continental Margin adjacent to
a continent extending from the low water line
to where the Continental Slope begins
CONTINENTAL SLOPE That part of the Continental Margin consisting
of the declivity from the edge of the Continen-
tal Shelf down to the Continental Rise
-------
CONTOUR LINE
A line on a chart connecting points of equal
elevation above or below a reference plane,
usually mean sea level
CONTROLLING DEPTH The least depth in the approach or channel to
an area that determines the maximum draft of
vessels that can obtain passage
COPEPODS
CRUSTACEA
CURRENT DROGUE
CURRENT METER
DECAPODA
DEMERSAL
DENSITY
DIATOMS
DIFFUSION
DINOFLAGELLATE8
DISCHARGE PLUME
A large diverse group of small planktonic
crustaceans representing an important link in
oceanic food chains
A class of anthropods with jointed appendages
and segmented exoskeletons of chitin. This
class includes barnacles, crabs, shrimps and
lobsters
A buoy with a weighted current cross, under-
water sail or parachute that moves with cur-
rents; used to measure current velocity and
direction
An instrument for measuring the speed, and
often direction, of a current
The largest order of crustaceans; members have
five sets of locomotor appendages, each joined
to a segment of the thorax; includes crabs,
lobsters, and shrimps
Living at or near the bottom of the sea
The mass per unit volume of a substance,
usually expressed in grams per cubic centi-
meter
Microscopic phytoplankton with a cell wass of
overlapping silica plates
Transfer of material (e.g., salt) or a property
(e.g., temperature) under the influence of a
concentration gradient; the net movement is
from an area of higher concentration to an area
of lower concentration
A large, diverse group of flagellated phyto-
plankton with or without a rigid outer shell.
Some members of this group are responsible for
toxic red tides, and some feed on particulate
organic matter
A region of water that can be distinguished
from the surrounding water due to a discharge
of waste
-------
DISPERSION
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
DIVERSITY
(species)
DOMINANT SPECIES
DREDGED MATERIAL
EBB CURRENT
EBB TIDE
ECHINODERMS
ECONOMIC
RESOURCE ZONE
ECOSYSTEM
EDDY
The dissemination of discharged matter over
large areas by natural processes (e.g.,
currents)
The quantity of oxygen (expressed in mg/liter,
ml/liter or parts per million) dissolved in a
unit volume of water
A statistical measurement which generally
combines a measure of the total number of
species in a given environment with the number
of individuals of each species. Species diver-
sity is high when there are many species with a
similar number of individuals; low when there
are fewer species and when one or two species
dominate
A species or group of species which, because of
their abundance, size, or control, strongly
affect a community
Bottom sediments or materials that have been
dredged or excavated from the navigable waters
of the United States, and their disposal into
ocean waters is regulated by the COE using
the criteria of applicable sections of 40 CFR
§§227 and 228. Dredged material consists
primarily of natural sediments or materials
which may be contaminated by municipal or
industrial wastes or by runoff from terrestrial
sources such as agricultural lands
The tidal current moving away from land or down
a tidal stream
Exclusively marine animals that have radial
symmetry and internal skeletons of calcareous
plates; includes starfishes, sea urchins, sea
cucumbers and sand dollars
The oceanic area within 200 nmi from shore;
coastal states possess exclusive rights to liv-
ing and non-marine living resources in this
zone
The organisms in a community together with
their physical and chemical environments
A circular movement of water within a larger
water mass, usually formed where currents pass
obstructions, either between two adjacent
currents flowing counter to each other, or
along the edge of a permanent current
-------
ENDEMIC
ENTRAIN
EPIFAUKA
EPIPELAGIC
ESTUARY
FAUNA
FINFISH
FLOCCULATION
FLOOD TIDE
FLOOD CURRENT
FLORA
GASTROPODS
GYRE
HALOCLINE
HERBIVORES
HOPPER DREDGE
HYDROGRAPHY
Restricted or peculiar to a locality or region;
found at a locality
To draw in and transport by the flow of a
fluid
Animals that live on bottom sediments or hard
surfaces
Of, or pertaining to, the upper parts of the
ocean that receive enough light to allow photo-
synthesis; extends to depths of about 200 m in
clear water
A semienclosed coastal body of water that has a
free connection to the sea within which the
mixing of saline and fresh water occurs
The animal life of any location, region, or
period
Term used to distinguish fish with fins from
shellfish
The process of aggregation of a number of small
particles suspended in water into large masses
The current moving toward land, or up a tidal
stream
The plant life of any location, region or
period
Molluscs that possess a distinct head, a broad,
flat foot, and usually a spiral shell (e.g.,
snails)
A large, circular pattern of water movement,
often tens or more miles in diameter
A level in the water column where a salinity
gradient is stronger than in the waters above
or below that level
Animals that feed chiefly on plants
A self-propelled vessel with capabilities to
dredge, store, transport, and dispose of
dredged materials
That part of science that deals with the
measurement of the physical features of
waters and their marginal land areas
-------
ICHTHYOPLANKTON
That portion of the planktonic mass composed of
fish eggs and weakly motile fish larvae
INDICATOR SPECIES An organism so strictly associated with par-
ticular environmental conditions that its pre-
sence is indicative of the existence of such
conditions
INDIGENOUS
INFAUNA
INITIAL MIXING
IN SITU
INTERIM DISPOSAL
SITES
INVERTEBRATES
ISOBATH
ISOTHERMAL
LARVA
LIMITING
NUTRIENT
LITTORAL
LONGSHORE
CURRENT
LORAN-C
Having originated in or living naturally in a
particular region or environment; native
Animals that live in bottom sediment
Dispersion of liquid, suspended particulate,
and solid phases of a waste material that
occurs within four hours of dumping
[Latin] in the original or natural setting (in
the environment)
Ocean disposal sites tentatively approved for
use by the EPA
Animals lacking a backbone
A line on a chart connecting points of equal
depth
Of the same temperature
An immature form of an orgnism that undergoes
one or more changes in form and size before
assuming characteristic features of an adult
A resource that limits the growth of a
population or determines the carrying capacity
of the environment by its scarcity
Of or pertaining to the seashore, especially
the regions between tide lines
A current tha flows parallel to a coastline
Long Range Aid to Navigation, type C; low-
frequency radio navigation system with a range
of approximately 1,500 miles
MAIN SHIP CHANNEL The designated shipping corridor leading into a
harbor
MAINTENANCE
DREDGING
Periodic dredging of a waterway necessary to
maintain depth for ship passage
-------
ME80PELAGIC
MICRONUTRIENTB
MIXED LAYER
MLT
MLW
MOLLD8CA
MONITORING
NEKTON
NEMATODA
NERITIC
NEU8TON
NUISANCE SPECIES
NUTRIENT-LIGHT
REGIME
Pertaining to depths of 200 to 1,000 m below
the ocean surface
Substances required in small amounts for normal
growth and development of an organism
The upper layer of the ocean which is normally
well mixed by wind and wave activity; the
deepest extent of the mixed layer is usually a
halocline or thermocline
Mean Low Tide; the average height of all low
tides measured over an 18.6 year period at a
specific site
Mean Low Water; the average height of all low
waters at a specific place
A phylum of unsegmented animals that usually
have a calcareous shell; includes snails,
mussels, and squid
As used herin, observation of environmental
effects of disposal operations through bio-
logical and chemical data collection and
analysis
Free swimming aquatic animals that move inde-
pendently of water currents
A phylum of free-living and parasitic unseg-
mented worms; found in a wide variety of hab-
itats
Pertaining to the region of shallow water ad-
joining the seacoast, and extending from the
low-tide mark to a depth of about 200 m.
Organisms that are associated with the upper
5 to 20 cm of water; mainly composed of cope-
pods and ichthyoplankton
Organisms of no commercial value, which,
because of predation or competition, may be
harmful to commercially important organisms;
pathogens; pollution tolerant organisms pre-
sent in large numbers that are not normally
considered dominant in the area
The overall combination of nutrient and light
in the environment as they related to photo-
synthesis.
-------
OMNIVOROUS
ORGANOHALOGEN
PESTICIDE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
OXIDE
PARAMETER
PATHOGEN
PCB
PELAGIC
PERTURBATION
PH
PHOTIC ZONE
PHYTOPLANKTON
PLANKTON
PLUME
Pertaining to animals that feed on plant,
animal or other organic matter
Pesticide whose chemical constitution includes
the elements carbon, hydrogen, and a halogen
(bromine, chlorine, fluorine, or iodine)
One of the salts of orthophosphoric acid;
essential nutrient for plant growth
an
Chemical compound in which oxygen is combined
with another element
Values or physical properties that describe
the characteristics or behavior of a set of
variables
An entity producing or capable of producing
disease
Polychlorinated biphenyls; a group of chlor-
inated organic compounds that persist in the
environment and accumulate in biota
Pertaining to surface water of the open ocean
beyond the Continental Shelf
A disturbance of a natural or regular system;
any departure from the usual state of a system
The acidity or alkalinity of a solution;
defined as the negative logarithm to the base
10 of the hydrogen ion concentration (in gram-
atoms per liter); usually ranges from 0 to 14
(lower than 7 is acid, higher than 7 is basic)
The surface layer of a body of water that re-
ceives sufficient sunlight for photosynthesis
Minute passively floating plant life in a body
of water; the base of the food chain in the
sea
The passively floating or weakly swimming,
usually minute animal and plant life in a
body of water
A region of water that can be distinguished
from surrounding water because of its charac-
teristics; usually turbid
-------
POLYCHAETA
PRECIPITATE
PRIMARY
PRODUCTIVITY
PROTOZOANS
QUALITATIVE
QUANTITATIVE
RECRUITMENT
RELEASE ZONE
RUNOFF
SALINITY
SEA STATE
8HELFWATER
SHELLFISH
SHIPRIDER
SHOAL
The largest class of the phylum Annelida (seg-
mented worms); benthic marine worms distin-
guished, by paired, lateral appendages provided
with bristles (setae) on most segments
A dissolved substance that becomes solid
through chemical or physical change and sepa-
rates from a solution or suspension
The amount of organic matter synthesized by
organisms (primarily plants) from inorgnic
substances per unit time and volume of water
Microscopic, single-celled animals
Pertaining to the non-numerical assessment of
a parameter
Pertaining to the numerical assessment of a
parameter
Addition to a population of organisms by re-
production or immigration of new individuals
An area defined by the locus of points 100 m
from a vessel engaged in dumping activities
That portion of precipitation upon land which
ultimately reaches streams, rivers, lakes or
oceans
The amount of salts dissolved in water;
expressed in parts per thousand (o/oo, or ppt)
The description of wind-generated waves on ths
surface of the sea; ranges from 1 (smooth) to
9 (mountainous)
Water that occurs at, or can be traced to the
Continental Shelf; identified by character-
istic temperatures and salinities
An invertebrate having a rigid outer covering,
such as a shell or exoskeleton; includes
some mollusces and arthropods; term is the
counterpart of finfish
A shipboard observer who ensures that a waste-
laden vessel is dumping in accordance with
permit specifications
To become shallow by accumulating sediments
causing elevation of the bottom of a body of
water constituting a navigational hazard
-------
SHORT DUMPING
SLOPE WATER
SPECIES
STANDARD
ELUTRIATE
ANALYSIS
STANDING STOCK
SUBSTRATE
SURVEILLANCE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TERRITORIAL SEAS
THERMOCLINE
TRACE METAL
TRAN8MITTANCE
TREND ASSESSMENT
SURVEYS
The discharge of waste from a vessel anywhere
outside designated disposal sites
Water that occurs at, or can be traced to, the
Continental Slope; identified by character-
istic temperatures and salinities
A group of morphologically similar organisms
capable of interbreeding and producing fertile
offspring
A test used to determine the types and amounts
of constituents that can be extracted from a
known volume of sediment by mixing with a known
volume of water
The biomass of abundance of living organisms
per unit volume of water or area of sea-bottom
The solid material upon which an organism lives
or to which it is attached (e.g., rocks, sand)
Systematic observation of an area by visual,
electronic, photographic, or other means for
the purpose of ensuring compliance with appli-
cable laws, regulations and permits
Finely divided particles of a solid temporarily
suspended in a liquid (e.g., soil particles in
water)
The area of the sea between the baseline and
three (3) miles seaward of the baseline
A temperature gradient in a layer of a body of
water, that is appreciably greater than the
gradients above or below it; a layer in which
such a gradient occurs
An element found in the environment in
extremely small quantities; usually
bioaccumulative or toxic
A measure of water clarity, measured by an
instrument that transmits a known quantity of
light to a collector. The percentage of the
beam's energy that reaches the collector is the
water's transmittance
Surveys conducted over long periods of time to
detect shifts in environmental conditions
within a region
-------
TROPHIC LEVELS One of three (or more) levels in a food chain;
e.g.; producers, consumers, decomposers
TURBIDITY Cloudy or hazy appearance in a naturally clear
liquid caused by a suspension of collodial
liquid droplets, fine solids, or small organ-
isms
VECTOR A straight or curved line representing both
direction and magnitude
WATER MASS A body of water, identified by its tempera-
ture-salinity values, or chemical composition
ZOOPLAKKTON Weakly swimming animals whose distribution in
the ocean is ultimately determined by current
movements
ZONE OF The area within an economically and operationally
SITING feasible radius from the point of dredging. It
FEASIBILITY encompasses the area where potential ocean sites
for dredged material disposal will be designated
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
GUIDANCE FOR PERFORMING TESTS
ON DREDGED MATERIAL TO BE DISPOSED OF
IN OPEN WATERS
Prepared by:
U.S. EPA
Region I
Boston, MA
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
Waltham,MA
in cooperation with the
National Marine Fisheries Service
and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Effective date: May 15, 1989
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 3
II. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 4
III. SELECTION OF SAMPLING SITES 7
IV. SAMPLING SITE FOR REFERENCE SEDIMENT 8
V. SAMPLING SITE FOR CONTROL SEDIMENT 8
VI. PHYSICAL TESTING 9
VII. BULK SEDIMENT ANALYSIS 10
VIII. TIERED EVALUATION TESTING REQUIREMENTS 10
1. Liquid Phase Assay 16
2. Suspended Particulate Assay 16
3. Whole Sediment Assay 16
4. Bioaccumulation Analysis 19
IX. ELUTRIATE TESTING 24
X. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM 24
1. Field Collections 24
2. Sediments/Tissue Analyses 25
3. Bioassay/Bioaccumulation Testing 26
4. Internal Laboratory Quality Assurance 27
5. Laboratory Inspections 27
XI. REFERENCES 29
APPENDIX I 31
APPENDIX II 32
-------
I. Introduction
The enclosed material presents the sediment testing guidelines
for permit applicants who wish to dispose of dredged material
in open waters. It includes all disposal activities subject
to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers New England Division (COE, NED) under Section 103
of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
(P.L.92-532) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-
217). It also includes other administrative requirements for
processing an application for Department of the Army approval.
These guidelines have been prepared by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region I and the COE/NED in
cooperation with National Marine Fisheries Service and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Use of this protocol assumes
that the permit applicant has already demonstrated the need
for open water disposal and that all practicable alternatives
to ocean disposal (40 CFR §227.15) or 404 disposal (40 CFR
§230.10 (a)) have been explored and found unavailable or
unfeasible according to the guidelines.
In accordance with Section 227.27(b) of EPA's Ocean Dumping
Regulations and Criteria (Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 7,
Tuesday, 11 January 1977) an Implementation Manual entitled
Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged
Material into Ocean Waters (EPA/COE 1978) was developed
jointly by the COE and EPA to define procedures for evaluating
potential environmental impacts associated with ocean disposal
of dredged material. The Implementation Manual presents
national guidance concerning technical procedures and "is
intended to encourage continuity and cooperation between COE
Districts and EPA Regions in evaluative programs for Section
103 permit activities". Though the Implementation Manual
presents detailed procedures for conducting tests required by
EPA's Ocean Dumping Criteria, additional guidance is necessary
to adapt the procedures to Regional situations. For instance,
Regional guidance is needed to inform applicants of specific
procedural items such as selection of bioassay organisms,
chemical constituents required to be analyzed in
bioaccumulation tests, etc. In addition, this manual
summarizes the tests to be performed and the types of data to
be submitted to the COE/NED so as to avoid any unnecessary
confusion and possible delays in the permit review process
through the submission of improper data. The COE will then
forward the data to EPA and the other appropriate Federal
resource agencies.
New and more advanced testing procedures are continually being
developed and refined by the research and development
laboratories of the EPA and the COE. In addition, ongoing
monitoring of the designated disposal sites in New England
under the COE "Disposal Area Monitoring System" (DAMOS) will
provide effects-based feedback to the regulatory process that
will enable the regulators to make more refined,
environmentally sensitive and efficient decisions concerning
the open water disposal of dredged materials. As a result,
-------
this document will be revised annually to incorporate any
modifications of the testing requirements.
Questions regarding any aspect of the testing requirements
should be directed to:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
Regulatory Branch
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
(617) 647-8298
II. Administrative Requirements
When applying for Department of the Army approval to dispose
of dredged material into open waters, all dredging permit
applications for disposal in open water must contain the
following information:
a. Current information regarding the need for dredging,
including volume and area to be dredged, extent of
shoaling, interruption or changes in standard operations
resulting from shoaling, any available documentation
showing problems resulting from the shoaling, and any
other pertinent information.
b. The applicant is encouraged and required to explore
beneficial use of dredged material or alternative disposal
options before considering open water dumping.
Documentation of this review of available alternatives to
open water disposal and justification for rejection must
be provided.
c. If the request is being made under an existing Department
of the Army maintenance dredging permit, include the
permit number and a short description of the last
maintenance dredging performed. Include any past test
data for the project area, including any test data from
dredging projects adjacent or contiguous to the proposed
work.
d. Dimensions of the disposal vessel (length, width and
volume of hopper) and the type of disposal vessel (split
hull or pocket) and duration of disposal operation the
applicant plans to use, if available.
e. Type of dredging equipment to be used (clamshell or
hydraulic).
f. Two copies of an 8-1/2" X 11" map showing the area to be
dredged, the specific location of the proposed sediment
sampling sites, a detailed bathymetric description of the
area (soundings) and a drawing showing a cross-section of
proposed dredging area. Areas of wetlands, submerged
-------
vegetation, such as eelgrass, intertidal flats, and
shellfish beds within and in proximity (within 1/2 mile
radius) to the proposed dredge area must be identified on
the plan.
g. Identify any known possible sources of contamination to
the proposed dredged area. This should include a letter
from the harbormaster or U.S. Coast Guard indicating the
presence of outfalls, spills, surface runoff and any other
discharges.
Five (5) copies of items a through g must be submitted to the COE
(Copies will be forwarded to EPA and other appropriate Federal
Resource agencies). The applicant must contact COE/NED personnel
to discuss the adequacy of the proposed sampling design prior to
the field collections. COE/NED reserves the right to modify the
sampling design, as well as the series of tests required.
Prior to commencement of sampling, the applicant should submit
to the COE/NED the names of the analytical contractors and
subcontractors who will be conducting the biological and chemical
analyses and the dates, place and time the sampling is to be
performed. A Corps inspector or representative may wish to be
present during sampling to insure that all quality
assurance/quality control measures are followed.
For more details, consult pamphlet EP1145-2-1 (COE 1985), USACOE
Permit Program, A Guide for Applicants. This pamphlet is
available at the following address:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
III. Selection of Sampling Sites
Selecting the proper number and location of sampling sites
within the area to be dredged is a crucial step in the
testing procedures. The following factors must be
considered when choosing a sampling scheme.
The areal extent and heterogeneity of the material to be dredged
must be considered. It is important that the sampling sites
adequately characterize the physical (i.e., grain size, % water)
and chemical differences in the area to be dredged on both the
horizontal and vertical planes. If the material varies greatly
with depth, or if "new work" dredging is being undertaken, the
applicant may be required to include additional core samples to
determine vertical differences in physical characteristics and
chemical concentrations. Vertical and horizontal sampling
designs must meet COE requirements. Under certain circumstances
compositing of physically and chemically similar sediments can
be done to reduce the total number of samples. Such a sampling
scheme would have to be justified by the applicant and approved
-------
by the COE in consultation with the other Federal agencies prior
to any compositing.
The applicant must consider the existence of point source
discharges in the area to be dredged, or other causes for
concern, such as historical occurrence of spills (oil, toxic or
bioaccumulative chemicals), landfills and EPA Superfund Sites
within the same drainage area and outfalls which may affect the
area to be dredged (including sewage, storm water, industrial,
municipal, commercial or residential discharges into the
waterway). The intent of the Ocean Dumping Criteria is to
identify and limit the disposal of dredged material which pose
unacceptable adverse effects on the marine environment. The
applicant is obligated to develop a sampling scheme which
adequately reflects those ends. The COE/NED will review the
sampling scheme prior to implementation for adequacy to insure
that these requirements have been met.
The applicant must supply an 8V x 11" project map and if
possible, a NOAA chart of the proposed area to be dredged. The
maps must indicate the location of core sampling sites and the
length of core samples taken. As stated above, these maps must
be submitted to COE for approval prior to the proposed sample
collections. The date, place and time of sampling also must be
provided to the COE prior to the collection.
When sediment testing has been completed, the applicant must
submit five copies of the testing report to COE/NED. This
report must include raw data for all tests as required by this
manual, a map of the area to be dredged showing the specific
locations of sediment and water sampling sites, the sediment
sampling log and the name of the laboratory(s) which performed
the tests. If upland disposal is being considered, appropriate
elutriate and leachate tests may be required.
All testing and quality control procedures must be described,
and analytical methods must be specified.
IV. Sampling Bite for Reference sediment
If bioassays are required, reference sediment must be obtained
from the natural marine environment at a location near the
disposal site. The reference sediment must be of similar
physical characteristics to the sediment of the disposal site but
is from an area not influenced by the disposal of dredged
material at the dumpsite. The purpose of the reference sediment
is to simulate conditions at the dumpsite as if previous disposal
of dredged material had not occurred. Reference sediment test
results are compared to those of the proposed material to be
dredged.
-------
Location of Reference Sites:
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site 42" 24.7'N 70°32.08IW
Cape Arundel Disposal Site 43° 17.9'N 70"26.02'W
Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site 41° 8.1'N 72050.06'W
New London Disposal Site 41° 16.2'N 72°03.08'W
Portland Disposal Site 43° 38.6'N 69°59.01'W
Rockland Disposal Site 49° 7.1'N 68°58.07'W
V. Sampling site for Control Sediment
Control sediment for the solid phase bioassay is used to
determine the health of the organisms relative to the testing
conditions. When the average control mortality exceeds 10%, all
solid phase bioassay testing must be repeated.
Control sediment can be collected from any uncontaminated
intertidal estuarine area and may consist of fine grained or
coarse (sand) material. The sediment should be checked annually
for chemical constituents listed in Table I A to insure its
uncontaminated nature. These data must be furnished to COE/NED
with the report.
VI. Physical Testing
The physical testing required for the evaluation of dredged
material for ocean disposal is limited to grain size, total
organic carbon analysis and water content determinations. Core
samples must be collected to adequately represent the vertical
and horizontal characteristics of the material to be dredged and
must be of sufficient volume for conducting all required
analyses. Unless valid justification for another sampling method
is demonstrated, all core samples must include sediment to the
depth of the proposed dredging and if an alternative method is
contemplated, the New England Division should be contacted prior
to field sampling in order to avoid the possibility of
unacceptable test results.
Core sediment samples must be visually inspected for the
existence of strata. A grain size analysis (Folk, 1974; Guy
1969) must be conducted for each distinct layer observed in the
material to be dredged. In the event no stratification is
observed, grain size analyses must be conducted on material from
each sample. Data must include the percentage of gravel, sand,
and silt/clay according to the following criteria:
Gravel: greater than or equal to 2.0 mm
Sand: less than 2.0 mm but greater than 0.0625 mm
Silt/clay: less than 0.0625 mm
Grain size analysis must also be performed on a separate
composite of the reference sediment used in the solid phase
testing.
-------
According to EPA's Ocean Dumping Criteria (Sec. 227.13(b)), the
material to be dredged may be excluded from further testing if
one or more of the following conditions prevail:
Dredged material is composed predominately of sand, gravel, rock
or any other naturally occurring bottom material with particle
sizes larger than silt, and the material is found in areas of
high current or wave energy such as streams with large bed loads
or coastal areas with shifting bars and channels; or dredged
material is to be utilized for beach nourishment or restoration
and is composed predominately of sand, gravel or shell with
particle sizes compatible with material on the receiving beaches;
or the material proposed for dumping is substantially the same
as the substrate at the proposed disposal site; and the proposed
dredging site is far removed from existing and historical sources
of pollution, thereby providing reasonable assurance that such
material has not been contaminated by pollution.
If the applicant wishes to utilize one of the above exclusions,
compliance with the exclusion criteria must be demonstrated by
grain size data and other pertinent historical or site specific
information.
VII. Bulk Sediment Analysis
Bulk sediment analyses roust be performed on sediment samples
collected at-the sites where grain size analyses are performed.
The constituents to be tested, analytical methods and required
detection limits are listed in Tables I A and I B. All
procedures, unless authorized in writing by the COE must conform
with the appropriate methods established in the EPA document
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste" SW-846, Third Edition
(EPA 1986). A minimum of 1000 grams must be collected for each
sample. Sediment samples may be stored for up to 8 weeks at
4°C under dark conditions.
The acceptable analytical methods and required detection limits
are listed in Tables I A and I B. Appropriate sample preparation
and cleanup procedures are referenced in the analytical methods.
All data should be expressed in ppm or ppb based on dry weight
of sample. Bulk chemical analyses roust be performed and
reported on all test and reference sediments used in the
bioassav/bioaccumulation tests described below.
VIII. Tiered Evaluation Testing Requirements
Dredged material which does not meet the exclusions of Sec.
227.13(b) (for Section 103 ocean disposal) or is suspected to be
contaminated must undergo bioassay testing in accordance with
Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material
into Ocean Waters (EPA/COE 1978).
-------
TABLE I A. Chemical constituents, EPA analytical methods and detection
limits routinely used for chemical examination of proposed dredged
material
Chemical Constituent
METALS
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Mercury
Zinc
Analytical
Method
7060, 7061
7130, 7131
7190, 7191
7210
7420, 7421
7520
7471
7950
Detection
Limit (ppm)
0,
0,
1,
1,
1,
1.0
0.02
1.0
ORGANICS
PCBs(total) 8080
Pesticides 8080a
Aldrin
Chlordane
pp-DDT, DDE, ODD
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I, II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
o, /3, 6, and Y Hexachlorocyclohexane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
0.01
0.02a
PAHs
Benz o(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
8100, 8250, 8270a 0.02a
TOC
%Water
Grain Size
9060
Wet Seive
0.1°
1.0b
# 4,10,40,200
8 Includes all compounds listed.
b units in %
-------
Table I B. Additional chemical constituents", EPA analytical methods
and detection limits used for the chemical examination of proposed
dredged material
Chemical Constituent
METALS
Antimony
Beryllium
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Analytical
Method
7040, 7041
7090, 7091
7740, 7741
7760
7840
Detection Limit(ppm)
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
MISCELLANEOUS
Cyanide
Phenolics
Isophorone
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
2,3,7,8-TCDF (Dibenzofuran)
BASE/NEUTRALS
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
"• "Biphenyl '
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
2-6-Dimethylnaphthalene
Fluorene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
1-Methylphenanthrene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
9010, 9012
9065, 9066
8090
8280
8280
8100, 8250, 8270C
8010,
8010,
8010,
8010,
8120,
8120,
8120,
8120,
8120,
8020,
8020,
8020,
8120,
8250,
8250,
8250,
8250,
8250,
8250,8270
8250,8270
8250,8270
8250,8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
2.0
1.0
0.02
0.002
0.002
0.02'
0.02e
0.04
0.04
10
-------
TABLE I B. (Continued)
Analytical
Method
8060°
Chemial Constituent
Phthalates
benzylbutylphthalate
bis(2-ethyIhexy1)phthalate
diethylphthalate
dimethylphthalate
di-n-butylphthalate
di-n-octylphthalate
Halogenated Ethers 8110
bis(2-chlorethy)ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
bis(2-chlorethoxy)methane
4-Bromophenylphenylether
4-Chlorophenylphenylether
Detection
Limit
0.01D
0.02'
Organonitrogen Compounds
Benzidine
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodipropylamine
ACID EXTRACTABLES
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
4,6-Dimethylphenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
VOLATILES
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
0.02C
8250,
8250,
8090,
8090,
8090,
8090,
8070,
8070,
8070,
8040b
8270
8270
8250,
8250,
8250,
8250,
8250,
8250,
8250,
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8010,8240,8260°
8030,8240,8260
8030,8240,8260
8020,8240,8260
0.02C
0.1
0.1
0.08
0.01C
0.1
0.1
0.1
11
-------
TABLE I B. (Continued)
Chemical Constituent
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1.1-Dichloroethylene
1.2-Dichloropropane
1.3-Dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1, 2-trans-Dichloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Analytical
Method
8010,8246,8260
Detection
Limit(ppm)
0.01
0.1
8020,8240,8260
8 Chemical constituents on this optional list would be stipulated by the
Corps of Engineers in cooperation with other Federal resource agencies
b Includes all compounds listed
c Includes all compounds listed unless otherwise noted
12
-------
PROJECT PROPOSED
ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS
Dispose within
Appropriate Env.
Laws & Regs.
—yes—
Non-Open water
Disposal Option
Available or
Feasible?
i
no
TIER I
DATA REVIEW
TIER II
CHEMICAL EVALUATION
(Bulk Chemistry)
TIER III
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
(Bioassay/
Bioaccumulation)
-no-
Is there reason to believe the
sediment is contaminated or
doesn't satisfy Exclusion Criteria?
-yes-
yes
-no-
Is there a potential for
Toxicity/Bioaccumulation of
Sediment Contaminants?
-yes-
yes
(option)-
Do tests show
Potential Impacts
to Marine Ecosystem?
-yes-
no
Is Capping
Viable?
-nc
yes
Unconfined
Open Water
Open Water Disposal
with Capping
No Open Water
Disposal
Figure 1 Generic Flow Diagram for the Tiered Testing and Decision Protocol
for the Open Water Disposal of Dredged Material.
13
-------
A general explanation of the tiered approach is shown on Figure 1 and
described below.
Tier I - Review of Existing Data
The Tier I level is a determination of whether certain types
and concentrations of contaminants are likely to be present
in the sediments. This determination is made by historical
review of all available information including, but not
limited to, the following: Section 404 and 402 discharge
permits; pollution spills; storm drains; unpermitted
discharges; non-point sources including landfills and EPA
Superfund sites within the same drainage basin; marine
traffic, agriculture, industrial and commercial land use;
upstream riverine pollution sources; and governmental
private or academic environmental study in the area. If it
can be determined by COE/NED that the dredged material meets
the exclusion of Section 227.13, further testing will not
be required. If not, Tier II is initiated.
Tier II - Chemical Evaluation of the Dredged Material
When Tier I investigations indicate potentially contaminated
sediments, a bulk sediment and particle size analysis will
be required. In general, grain size and the chemical
constituents listed in Table I A will be required for most
samples. Additional chemicals analytes listed in Table I B
may be required on a case-by-case basis as determined by the
Tier I analysis or consultation with the appropriate Federal
resource agencies. Based upon these data, the COE will
determine the need for Tier III testing.
Tier III - Biological Evaluation of the Dredged Material
The final tier consists of bioassay and bioaccumulation
testing. All results of the bioassay/bioaccumulation testing
must be submitted to the COE: Changes in sediment
characteristics, as a result of discharges, shoaling or
chemical spills that may have occurred in the interim
between sediment collection and the submission of testing
results, must be reported. Bioassay testing of the liquid
phase is not required; however, the suspended particulate
phase and elutriate testing may be required under certain
circumstances. Whole sediment bioassays will be conducted
(including controls and replicates) to determine the effect
of the dredge material on appropriate marine species. It is
the responsibility of the applicant to contact the COE/NED
prior to commencement of testing to determine the series of
tests required for each individual project.
14
-------
1. Liquid Phase Assay
This testing procedure is no longer required on a routine
basis unless specified by the COE.
2. Suspended Particulate Assay
A single suspended particulate phase sample refers to one
homogenized suspension which undergoes assays with two
different species, Mysidopsis bahia and Menidia menidia
(Table II). All procedures, unless authorized in writing,
must conform to the guidelines established in the publication
Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged
Material Into Ocean Waters (EPA/COE 1978). During the
suspended phase assays, assessments of sublethal effects must
also be made and reported. Bioassays must be performed as
follows:
Using a minimum of 20 specimens per replicate assay:
Individual assays performed in triplicate on 100%
control water and 100% suspended particulate.
• Individual assays performed in triplicate on 50% suspended
particulate phase, the balance consisting of control water.
• Individual assays performed in triplicate on 10% suspended
particulate phase, the balance consisting of control water.
Duration of assays should be a minimum of 96 hours with
assessment of mortality and sublethal effects to be made and
reported at 0 hours, 4, 8, 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours. Sublethal
effects are defined as any obvious physical or behavioral
abnormalities. These observations must be reported.
The above discussion outlines the minimum number of
concentrations at which assays must be performed. If highly
toxic conditions exist, such that at the 10% concentration,
there is greater than 50% mortality, further dilution must be
made in order to attain a greater than 50% survival, to
develop an LC50 by interpolation. These dilutions, if
necessary, must also be done in triplicate.
3. Whole Sediment Assay
A whole sediment sample refers to one homogenized
sediment-slurry which under goes assays using the species
listed in Table II.
15
-------
TABLE II. Representative test species used for
bioassay/bioaccumulation testing1
SUSPENDED PARTICUIATE WHOLE SEDIMENT2 BIOACCUMULATION3
Mysidopsis bahia Ampelisca abdita Nereis virens
Menidia menidia Nereis virens Palaemonetes pugio*
Palaemonetes pugio4 Macoma balthica
Macoma balthica Yoldia limulata
Yoldia limulata Mercenaria mercenaria5
Mercenaria mercenaria
1 All species chosen must be approved by the Corps of Engineers
prior to testing
2 Whole sediment bioassays must include three (3) species:
a crustacean (preferably Ampelisca), the polychaete Nereis.
and a bivalve (preferably Macoma or Yoldia)
3 Bioaccumulation testing must use survivors of the bioassay (except
Ampelisca), including the polychaete Nereis, a bivalve (preferably
Macoma or Yoldia), and Palaemonetes if it is used in the whole
sediment bioassay
4 This species may be used only if Ampelisca is unavailable
5 This species may be used only if Macoma or Yoldia are unavailable
16
-------
All procedures, unless authorized in writing, are to conform to the
guidelines established in the publication Ecological Evaluation of
Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material Into Ocean Waters (EPA/COE
1978) .
The sediments must be homogenized by mild agitation. The bioassay
tests may be performed on particular sampling sites or on a
composite of specified sampling sites within the proposed area to
be dredged. The COE in cooperation with the Federal Agencies, will
specify the appropriate sampling scheme on a case-by-case basis.
The sediments used for bioassays (both proposed dredged and
reference materials) must be analyzed for the parameters listed in
Table I A. The results of these analyses must be reported to the
COE before starting the bioassay.
Water used for whole sediment bioassays must be of acceptable
quality or if artificial seawater is used, it should be prepared
as described in Standard Methods (APHA/AWWA/WPCF 1985). The
salinity must be 30±2 ppt, the pH 8.0±0.2, the water temperature
20±2°C and the D.O. greater than 4 mg/1 at all times. A minimum
settling time of two hours must be allowed before seawater flow is
initiated, additionally a two hour flushing time must be allowed
before introduction of organisms.
The EPA Region I, and COE/NED, have designated the species
contained in Table II as "appropriate sensitive marine organisms"
to be tested in the bioassays, in accordance with 40 CFR §227.
The flow-through system must provide 6 changes of water per 24
hours. The flow injection must be directed downward at 2" below
the surface in order to achieve good mixing without disturbing the
layer of sediment at the bottom. Five replicates for test and
reference and three replicates for the control treatment must be
run in separate aquaria; however, species may be combined in
aquaria if organisms show compatibility in the natural environment.
Measures should be taken to insure separation of predatory animals.
Laboratories must ensure that an adequate amount of animal tissue
is available to conduct all required subsequent bioaccumulation
analyses. For each species a minimum of twenty organisms for acute
testing must be used to insure 30 grams of tissue (or enough tissue
to achieve the appropriate detection limits in Table III) for
bioaccumulation analysis. For each species to be tested (except
Ampelisca), a subsample of 30 grams of tissue (or enough tissue to
achieve the appropriate detection levels) should be analyzed for
the specified constituents in Table III to determine baseline
concentations in the organisms. Aquaria must be a minimum of 10
gallons in size.
The amphipod toxicity test will be run separately in 1 liter glass
jars following the methodology of Swartz et al. (1985). That
reference should be consulted for details on procedure, apparatus,
17
-------
animal handling and quality assurance.
All aquaria must contain the following layers of sediment for whole
sediment testing:
Test treatment tanks - 5 cm (depth) of dredged material
Reference treatment tanks - 5 cm of reference sediment
Control treatment tanks - 5 cm of control sediment.
Whole sediment assays using organisms in Table II must be
sub-sampled accordingly, using a minimum of 20 organisms per
replicate.
Three replicate assays must be performed using the specified
control sediment.
Five replicate assays must be performed using the specified
reference sediment.
Five replicate assays must be performed using a homogenized solid
phase sample.
The whole sediment assays must continue uninterrupted for 10 days,
during which time daily records must be kept of salinity,
temperature, DO, obvious mortalities and any sublethal effects.
Formation of tubes or burrows and any physical or behavioral
abnormalities must also be recorded. These daily records
must be reported by the testing laboratory and submitted by the
applicant. Organisms should not be fed during the test period.
All organisms surviving the solid phase must be placed in sediment
free water for 24 hours to purge their digestive tracts of
sediment. All surviving organisms must be analyzed.
4. Bioaccumulation Analysis
The tissue of all organisms (except Ampelisca) surviving the 10 day
whole sediment bioassay test must be analyzed for those chemical
constituents found at high levels in the bulk sediment analysis.
Those constituents requiring analysis would be provided by the COE
on a case-by-case basis. A list of potential pollutants along with
the required analytical methods and detection limits are provided
in Table III. other constituents may be required for analyses
whenever the COE in cooperation with the Federal resource agencies
have reason to believe that they may be warranted. These most
likely constituents would include a suite of metals, PCBs,
pesticides and PAHs such as those listed in Table IA.
The procedures for the analyses will generally follow the methods
described in EPA/COE (1978), Appendix G, with the following
supplemental modifications.
18
-------
Table III. Chemical constituents8, EPA analytical methods and
detection limits used for chemical examination of tissue.
Chemical Constituent
% Lipids
% Water
METALSC
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Analytical
Method
7040,
7060,
7090,
7130,
7190,
7210
7420,
7471
7520
7740,
7760
7840
7950
7041
7061
7091
7131
7191
7421
7741
Detection Limit
(ppm)
O.lb
O.lb
0.01
0.01
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.2
0.01
0.2
0.01
0.02
1.0
0.1
ORGANICS
PCBS 8080
Pesticides 8080C
Aldrin
Chlordane
p,p-DDT, DDE, DDD
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I, II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
a, /3, S, and Y Hexachlorocychohexane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
MISCELLANEOUS
Cyanide
Phenolics
Isophorone
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
2,3,7,8-TCDF (Dibenzofuran)
9010, 9012
9065, 9066
8090
8280
8280
0.02
0.002-0.03e
2.0
1.0
0.02
0.002
0.002
19
-------
TABLE III. (continued)
Chemical Constituent
BASE/NEUTRALS6
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Biphenyl
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
2-6-Dimethylnaphthalene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
1-Methylphenanthrene
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,-Trichlorobenzene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Phthalates
benzylbutylphthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
diethylphthalate
dimethylphthaiate
di-n-butylphthalate
di-n-octylphthalate
Halogenated Ethers
bis(2-chlorethy)ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
bis(2-chlorethoxy)methane
4-BromophenyIphenylether
4-Chlorophenylphenylether
Analytical
Method
Detection
Limit
8100, 8250, 8270e 0.01-0.02'
0.01
8010,8020,8250,8270
8010,8020,8250,8270
8010,8020,8250,8270
8010,8120,8250,8270
8120,8250,8270
8120,8250,8270
8120,8250,8270
8120,8250,8270
8120,8250,8270
8060e
0.04
0.04
0.01C
8110e
0.02C
20
-------
TABLE III. (Continued)
Chemical Constituent
Organonitrogen Compound
Benzidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodipropylamine
ACID EXTRACTABLESd
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
4,6-Dimethylphenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-metylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
VOLATILES9
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1, 2-trans-Dichloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Analytical
Method
8250,
8250,
8090,
8090,
8090,
8090,
8070,
8070,
8070,
8040e
8270
8270
8250,
8250,
8250,
8250,
8250,
8250,
8250,
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8010,8240,8260T
8030,8240,8260
8030,8240,8260
8020,8240,8260
8010,8240,8260
8020,8240,8260
Detection
Limit
0.02e
0.021
0.1
0.1
0.08
0.01
0.1
0.1
f
0.1
0.1
21
-------
TABLE III. (Continued)
Chemical Constituent
Analytical
Method
Detection
LmJ
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
8010, 8240, 82601
o.or
8 Chemical constituents required for testing would be stipulated
by the Corps of Engineers in cooperation with other Federal
resource agencies
b Units in %
c Follow Extraction/Cleanup Procedures described in Tetra Tech
(1986b)
d Follow Extraction/Cleanup Procedures described in Battelle
(1985)
c Includes all compounds listed
f Includes all compounds listed except otherwise noted
9 Follow Extraction/Cleanup Procedures described in Tetra Tech
(1986b)
22
-------
Upon completion of the whole sediment testing, the screening
organisms are placed in sediment free water for 24 hours to purge
their digestive tracts of sediment. About 30 grams of tissue of
each species are pooled, homogenized, digested or extracted for the
analyte of concern. For semi-volatile organics, the sample
preparation methods found in Battelle (1985) should be used. Tetra
Tech (1986b) should be consulted for sample preparation methods for
metals and volatile organics. The analytical methods of choice and
required detection limits are provided in Table III for each
analyte. A separate analysis must be conducted for each chemical
constituent, for each individual replicate, and for each of the
animal species in both test and reference treatments. Percent
moisture and percent lipids must be reported for each species and
treatment. Pretesting of the constituents of concern in the animal
tissue must be performed and reported as discussed in the previous
section.
IX. Elutriate Testing
If dredged material does not meet the exclusions of Section
227.13(b), and if suspended particulate phase testing is required,
elutriate testing must be performed on three separate sediment
samples from the area to be dredged. All procedures, unless
authorized in writing, must conform to the modified procedures
described in the publications Palermo (1986) and as amended by
Palermo and Thackston (1988). The constituents to be tested are
summarized in Table I A and I B. The procedures specified in 40
CFR §136 should be used.
Table I A represents the minimum number of contaminants to be
tested in the chemical analysis of the elutriate. If there is
knowledge of nearby sources of contamination which may be affecting
the sediments to be dredged, the COE may require the testing of
additional chemical contaminants. All data must be reported.
X. Quality Assurance Program
To insure that data submitted are reliable and accurate, the EPA
Region I and the COE/NED have developed the following field and
laboratory quality assurance/quality control measures.
All laboratories providing analytical services to permit applicants
must perform testing in accordance with the specifications
described below.
1. Field Collections
a. All sediment sampling plans and compositing strategies
must be preapproved by the COE.
b. All sampling must be taken by core (polycarbonate or
butyrate tubes, gravity cores, borings) or grab samplers
depending on the depth of the proposed dredging and the
nature of the material. The COE must approve the sampling
23
-------
apparatus. A minimum of 1000 grams of sediment must be
collected for bulk analysis. Field notes should be made
on color, horizons, visual grain size, general
cohesiveness and odors of the sediments. Care should be
taken to avoid contamination from sampling gear, grease,
ship winches or cables, airborne dust, ship engine
exhaust, cross contamination and improper subsampling
procedures.
c. The applicant must notify the COE of the date, place and
time of the field collections prior to the sampling date
to afford a COE inspector or representative the
opportunity to observe the collections.
d. Sampling records must be maintained to document the field
collection and chain of custody to the time of analysis.
These records should include Field log books, sample
labels, records of containers, time and conditions of
storage. All sample containers and storage conditions
will comply with the specifications in Chapter 2 of the
EPA SW-846 Testing Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes
(EPA 1986). Records will be kept a minimum of 5 years.
2. Sediment/Tissue Analyses
a. Sample Preparation: Singular or composite sediment samples
should be homogenized and digested and/or extracted
according to the procedures recommended in SW-846 (EPA-
1986) appropriate for sediments. The methodologies for
metals, volatiles and semi-volatiles may vary with the
chemical constituent of interest. The appropriate cleanup
procedures as described in the analytical methods should
be used to remove interfering substances which can raise
detection limits. If the required detection limits cannot
be obtained, an explanation must accompany the data
explaining in detail the reasons for not obtaining the
dectection limits. Sediment samples may be stored for up
to 8 weeks at 4° C under dark conditions. The applicant
is also referred to Tetra Tech (1986a) for specific
guidance on sample preparation for marine and estuarine
sediments.
The sample preparation methods for animal tissue described
in Battelle (1985) are highly recommended for semi-
volatile organic chemical constituents, whereas the method
detailed in Tetra Tech (1986b) should be followed for
metals and volatiles. As mentioned above, a minimum of
30 grams of tissue is required (or enough to obtain
acceptable detection limits).
b. Analytical Procedures: As mentioned above, the analytical
methods described in the EPA "Testing for Evaluating Solid
Waste" (EPA 1986) should be used following the appropriate
sample preparation. The methods listed in Tables IA, IB
and III and the required detection limits should be
followed for each chemical constituent. The analytical
24
-------
quality control measures described in each of these
methods should be followed. Sample quality control
guidance is provided in Chapter One of EPA (1986) where
applicable. In particular, each run should include:
(i) blank sample to evaluate potential contamination
of the extract;
(ii) spiked samples to determine % recovery;
(iii) calibration checks at the beginning and end of each
run to monitor instrument drift (additional checks
may be required by the analytical method);
(iv) sample replication to assess precision (in the case
of animal tissues for the bioaccumulation testing,
3 sub-samples of the homogenate from one of the five
replicates in the test treatments for each of the
3 species must also be analyzed for the chemical
constituents of concern); and
(v) analyses of sediment and/or tissue standard such as
those available from the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (Formerly the National
Bureau of Standards) or the National Research
Council of Canada. Information on acquiring these
materials is provided in Appendix I of this
document. This provide a check on extracation
efficiencies and general analytical accuracy.
All data required in i through iv should be reported on
the appropriate Forms provided in Chapter One of SW 846
(EPA 1986) .
The laboratory may also be required to analyze a "blind"
sample on an annual basis to assess the lab's general
performance. Failure to adequately perform these analyses
or the above stated quality control measures will lead to
rejection of the data by the COE.
3. Bioassay/Bioaccumulation Testing
All bioassay/bioaccumulation testing procedures must
follow the methods outlined in EPA/COE (1978) with the
modifications described in Sections D and E. All
bioassays must be performed at 20" C (±2") in either
natural seawater or a synthetic seawater adjusted to 30
ppt salinity. If a synthetic seawater is used, the
mixture roust be allowed to age sufficiently prior to use.
If natural seawater is used, the influent water must be
checked at the start and finish of each test for all
compounds that will be analyzed as part of the
bioaccumulation testing.
Reference and control sediments must be collected from the
locality specified in Section A. Bulk testing must be
25
-------
performed for each new batch of sediment.
Control bioassays must maintain an average of 90% survival
rate among the replicates for each species tested.
Failure to maintain the survival rates will invalidate the
testing procedures and require retesting of the control,
reference, and test samples. Standard toxicant tests
must be performed on species used in the suspended
particulate phases when this test is required. The
procedures required for this test are described in
Appendix II.
4. Internal Laboratory Quality Assurance
Before performing the tests, the laboratory must submit
their current Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) for review
by the regional COE/NED office. Once the QAM manual is
accepted annually, only documentation of that approval
is necessary. The manual should include the following:
(a) A list of all analytical equipment (make, model and
year) and devices used in the biological and
chemical work, laboratory calibration methods,
precision and accuracy standards, number of times
standards are checked, maintenance schedules, record
keeping methods, personnel responsibilities, and
source of test animals.
(b) Labeling system employed to ensure proper tracking
of samples from collection through analysis to
within the chain of custody procedure documented in
the final report.
5. Laboratory Inspections
The laboratory facilities are subject to periodic
inspection by COE/NED and EPA personnel. Original copies
of data, records, and quality control concerning sediment
testing for a client for a Department of the Army permit
must be maintained for a period of at least five (5) years
and must be available during laboratory inspections.
The COE/NED may require analysis of quality control
samples by any laboratory for the purpose of determining
compliance with its analytical requirements. Such
samples shall be performed at least once per calendar year
or as requested by the COE. The laboratory shall provide
the COE/NED with the analytical results from such quality
control samples upon request.
The COE/NED will periodically inspect laboratories for the
purpose of evaluating their capabilities in performing
the requirements specified in the Guidance Manual.
26
-------
REFERENCES
APHA/AWWA/WPCF. 1985. Standard Methods for Examination of Water
and Wastewater. 16th Ed. American Public Health Assoc.,
Washington, D.C. 1268 pp.
Battelle. 1985. Method for Semivolatile Organic Priority
Pollutants in Fish, Final Report. EPA Contract No. 68-03-1760
EPA, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/Corps of Engineers (COE).
1978. Ecological evaluation of proposed discharge of dredged
material into ocean waters, April 1978. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. SW-846 Test methods
for evaluating solid waste. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
Folk, R. 1974. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill
Publishing Co., Austin, TX.
Guy, H.P. 1969. Laboratory Theory & Methods for Sediment Analysis.
Book 5; U.S. Geological Survey, 55 pp.
Palermo, M.R. 1986. Development of a Modified Elutriate Test for
Estimating the Quality of Effluent for Confined Dredged
Material Disposal Areas. Technical Report D-86-4. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
Palermo, M.R. and E.L. Thackston. 1988. Refinement of Column
Settling Test Procedures for Estimating the Quality of
Effluent from Confined Dredged Material Disposal Areas.
Technical Report D-88-9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, J.K.P. Jones, J.O. Lamberson and F.A.
Cole. 1985. Phoxocephelid Amphipod Bioassay for Marine
Sediment Toxicity. In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard
Assessment; Seventh Symposium, ASTM STP 854, R.D. Cardwell,
R. Purdy & R.C. Bahner (eds.). American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA pp. 284-307.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1986 a. Analytical Methods for U.S. EPA Priority
Pollutants and 301(h) Pesticides in Estuarine and Marine
Sediments. Final Report. EPA Contract No. 69-01-6938.
Office of Marine & Estuarine Protection, EPA, Washington, D.C.
27
-------
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1986 b. Bioaccumulation Monitoring Guidance:
4. Analytical Methods for U.S. EPA Priority Pollutants and
301(h) Pesticides from Estuarine and Marine Organisms. EPA
Contract No. 68-01-6938. Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection, EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 1985. USACOE Permit Program,
A Guide for Applicants. Pamphlet EP1145-2-1. May, 1985.
COE/NED, Waltham, MA.
28
-------
Appendix I
Acceptable Standard Reference Materials Available in 1989
Matrix
Sample Name & No.
Analysis Originator
Coastal Marine Sediment
Estuarine Sediment
Harbor Sediment
Estuarine Sediment
Coastal Marine Sediment
Harbor Marine Sediment(2)
Fresh Water Sediments
BCSS-1
MESS-1
PACS-1
SRM 1646
CS-1
HS-l,HS-2
PCB in Sediments
SRM 1939,SRM 1940
Sediments
(Avail.mid 89)
Marine Sediments SRM 1941
(Avail.mid 89)
Harbor Marine Sediments(4) HS-3,HS-4,HS-5,HS-
Estuarine Sediment
Estuarine Sediments
Lobster Tomalley
Dogfish Muscle
Dogfish Liver
Fish
Tissue
(Avail. 1990)
SES-1
SRM 1647,SRM 1597
TORT-1
DORM-1
DORM-1
Pesticides in Fish
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
Organics
6 PAH
PAH
PAH
Metals
Metals
Metals
Pesticides
Metals/
Organics
NRCC1
NRCC1
NRCC1
NIST2
NRCC1
NRCC1
US EPA3
NIST2
NRCC1
NRCC1
NIST2
NRCC1
NRCC1
NRCC1
USEPAJ
NIST2
Send requests and price list to the following addresses:
National Research Council of Canada
Marine Analytical Chemistry Standards Program
Division of Chemistry
Montreal Road
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1AOR9
Telephone (613) 933-2359
National Institute of Standards & Technology
(NBS Standard Reference Material Catalog)
Office of Standard Reference Materials
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Telephone (301) 975-6776
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Quality Assurance & Research Division
Rm. 525 EMSL-Cincinatti
Cincinatti, Ohio 45268
Telephone (513) 569-7325
Available free on limited basis(2 per quarter year)
Each has enough sediment/tissue for 2 runs
29
-------
Appendix II
STANDARD TOXICANT TEST
All species used by the testing laboratory in the suspended
particulate phase bioassays must undergo 96 hour acute toxicity
tests using the standard toxicant Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS)
within 30 days of the date of the completion of the sample
bioassay.
Laboratory grade SLS must be prepared immediately before use. Do
not store stock solution of SLS.
Natural seawater may not be used as dilution water for Standard
Toxicant Tests. Synthetic seawater must be prepared as previously
described.
In general, the bioassay procedures described in the Ecological
Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredging Material into Ocean
Waters. 2nd printing. April 1, 1978 (EPA/COE 1978), and Standard
Methods, 16th Edition (APHA/AWWA/WPCF 1985), must be followed.
Tests must be performed in duplicate using 10 organisms per
replicate.
The following geometric series of toxicant concentrations must be
used.
Menidia menidia 5.0 ppm, 2.5 ppm, 1.3 ppm, 0.6 ppm,
Mvsidopsis bahia 10.0 ppm, 5.0 ppm, 2.5 ppm, 1.3 ppm,
If the highest concentration indicated above does not result in 50%
mortality after 96 hours, progressively higher concentrations must
be used until this mortality rate is obtained.
Control mortality must not exceed 10% or the the results are deemed
unacceptable and the test must be repeated.
A summary of the standard toxicant test must be included in each
Laboratory Report submitted to the COE/NED and must include the
following information (one sheet per organism).
a. Test organism species, source of specimens
b. Test start date, test finish date
c. Brand name of artificial seawater mix and length of time
water was aged prior to use
d. Toxicant brand name and grade
e. The number of live organisms at
0, 4, 8, 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours
f. Salinity temperature, pH and DO values
at 0, 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours
g. Method of calculating LC5p
h. LC50 values with 95% Confidence Intervals
30
------- |