SYNTHESIS REPORT
TAMPA HARBOR DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITE MONITORING STUDY
18 SEPTEMBER 1987
PREPARED FOR:
Battelle Ocean Sciences
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, Massachusetts 02332
UNDER CONTRACT TO:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria and Standards Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
PREPARED BY:
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.
759 Parkway Street
Jupiter, Florida 33477
Telephone: (305) 746-7946
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 PROGRAM DESIGN AND SCHEDULE 3
2.0 METHODS 11
2.1 FIELD METHODS 11
2.1.1 Station Markers 11
2.1.2 Current Meters 11
2.1.3 Surficial Sediments 13
2.1.4 Sediment Traps 13
2.1.5 Infauna 14
2.1.6 Epibiota 14
2.2 LABORATORY METHODS 15
2.2.1 Station Marker Photographs 15
2.2.2 Current Meter Data... 15
2.2.3 Surficial Sediment Samples 17
2.2.4 Sediment Trap Samples 19
2.2.5 Infaunal Samples 19
2.2.6 Epibiotic Photographs 20
2.3 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 21
2.3.1 General Considerations 21
2.3.2 Current Meter Data 22
2.3.3 Sediment Height Data 23
2.3.4 Surficial Sediment Data 23
2.3.5 Sediment Trap Data 24
2.3.6 Infaunal Data 26
2.3.7 Epibiotic Data. 28
3.0 RESULTS 31
3.1 DIVER OBSERVATIONS 31
3.1.1 Monitoring Station Descriptions 31
3.1.2 Observations in the Disposal Area 31
3.2 CURRENTS 40
3.3 SEDIMENT HEIGHT 45
3.4 SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS 48
3.4.1 General Observations 48
3.4.2 ANOVA and Multiple Comparisons Results 55
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
PAGE
3.4.3 Further Exploration of Phosphate and Strontium Data.... 57
3.5 SEDIMENT TRAPS 64
3.5.1 General Observations 64
3.5.2 ANOVA and Multiple Comparisons Results 66
3.5.3 Correlations 71
3.5.4 Further Exploration of Phosphate and Strontium Data.... 73
3.6 INFAUNA 77
3.6.1 General Observations 77
3.6.2 ANOVA and Multiple Comparisons Results 83
3.6.3 Correlations 90
3.6.4 Classification and Discriminant Analysis 90
3.7 EPIBIOTA 103
3.7.1 Diver Observations 103
3.7.2 Transect Photography 111
3.7.3 Monitoring of Selected Corals and Sponges 117
4.0 DISCUSSION 121
4.1 DISPOSAL AND DISPERSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL 121
4.2 PRESENCE OF DREDGED MATERIAL IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENT TRAPS.. 123
4.3 EFFECTS ON INFAUNA 127
4.4 EFFECTS ON EPIBIOTA 130
4.5 METHODOLOGY EVALUATION 133
5.0 SUMMARY 137
6.0 REFERENCES CITED 141
APPENDICES
A INFORMATION CONCERNING THE MONITORING STATION POSITIONING
ERROR A—1
B DIVER OBSERVATIONS B-1
C DATA FROM ANALYSES OF SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS, SEDIMENT TRAP
SAMPLES, AND DREDGED MATERIAL C-1
D DATA FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF TRANSECT PHOTOGRAPHS
FROM HARD-BOTTOM STATIONS D-1
E INFAUNAL DATA E-1
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE
1.1 LORAN-C COORDINATES, WATER DEPTHS, AND SAMPLING SCHEDULES FOR
THE MONITORING STATIONS AT SITE 4 AND THE CONTROL SITE 10
3.1 COMPOSITE MONITORING STATION DESCRIPTIONS FROM SURVEYS III
THROUGH VII 32
3.2 FISHES OBSERVED BY DIVERS ON THE DISPOSAL MOUND DURING
SURVEY VII 41
3.3 CURRENT VELOCITY DATA FOR SITE 4 44
3.4 COMPOSITION OF SEDIMENT FROM THE DISPOSAL BARGE AND THE
DISPOSAL AREA 50
3.5 AN OVA RESULTS FOR SURFICIAL SEDIMENT DATA 56
3.6 ANCVA RESULTS FOR SEDIMENT TRAP DATA 67
3.7 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN DEPOSITION RATES AND
COMPOSITION VARIABLES FOR SEDIMENT TRAP DATA FROM SITE 4
STATIONS 72
3.8 THE 10 MOST ABUNDANT INFAUNAL SPECIES ON EACH SURVEY 82
3.9 ANOVA RESULTS FOR INFAUNAL ABUNDANCE DATA 85
3.10 COMPARISON OF INFAUNAL ABUNDANCE RESULTS WITH INDICATIONS OF
DREDGED MATERIAL IN SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS 87
3.11 ANCVA RESULTS FOR INFAUNAL BIOMASS DATA 88
3.12 COMPARISON OF INFAUNAL BIOMASS RESULTS WITH INDICATIONS OF
DREDGED MATERIAL IN SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS 89
3.13 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INFAUNAL PARAMETERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
VARIABLES 91
3.14 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES AND THE BEST
DISCRIMINATOR OF INFAUNAL STATION GROUPINGS FOR EACH SURVEY. . 97
3.15 ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR INFAUNAL STATION
GROUPINGS FROM CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS 98
3.16 SPECIES GROUPINGS FROM INVERSE CLASSIFICATION ANALYSES OF
INFAUNAL ABUNDANCE DATA, ALL STATIONS AND SURVEYS..... 102
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE
3.17 EPIBIOTA OBSERVED BY DIVERS AT HARD-BOTTOM STATIONS DURING
SURVEYS III THROUGH VII 104
3.18 FISHES OBSERVED BY DIVERS AT HARD-BOTTOM STATIONS DURING
SURVEYS III THROUGH VII . 106
3.19 MAJOR COVER CONTRIBUTORS AT THE HARD-BOTTOM PHOTOGRAPHIC
STATIONS 114
3.20 GROUPS OF TAXA FROM INVERSE CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS OF
PHOTOGRAPHIC DATA FROM HARD-BOTTOM STATIONS 116
3.21 OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS OF SELECTED CORAL AND SPONGE
SPECIES 118
v
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE
1.1 LOCATIONS OF SITE 4 AND THE CONTROL SITE 2
1.2 MONITORING STATION LOCATIONS TO BE ESTABLISHED AT SITE 4 AND
THE CONTROL SITE AS SPECIFIED IN THE EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT FOR
SURVEY I 4
1.3 TIME LINE FOR THE SITE 4 MONITORING PROGRAM 6
1.4 POSITIONING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MONITORED "SITE 4" AND FEDERAL
REGISTER DESIGNATED "SITE 4" 7
1.5 LOCATIONS OF SITE 4 STATIONS ESTABLISHED DURING SURVEY III IN
RELATION TO THOSE MONITORED DURING SURVEYS I AND II 8
2 .1 STATION MARKER ARRAY 12
2.2 LOCATIONS OF HARD-BOTTOM MONITORING STATIONS AT SITE 4 AND THE
CONTROL SITE, SURVEYS III THROUGH VII 16
3.1 LOCATIONS OF STATIONS WHERE DREDGED MATERIAL WAS SEEN DURING
SURVEYS 11-VI1 39
3.2 CURRENT ROSES FOR EACH DEPLOYMENT INTERVAL AT SITE 4 43
3.3 PROGRESSIVE VECTOR DIAGRAM FOR STATION 5, 14 MARCH TO 23 MAY
1985 46
3.4 CHANGES IN HEIGHT OF SEDIMENT ABOVE THE BASE OF THE STATION
MARKER AT SITE 4 AND CONTROL SITE STATIONS 47
3.5 RANGES OF MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF SEDIMENT PARAMETERS AT SITE 4
AND CONTROL SITE STATIONS 49
3.6 TEMPORAL VARIATION IN SURFICIAL SEDIMENT COMPOSITION
PARAMETERS AT SELECTED SITE 4 AND CONTROL SITE STATIONS 52
3.7 SITE 4 STATIONS DIFFERING FROM ALL CONTROL SITE STATIONS WITH
RESPECT TO PHOSPHATE AND/OR STRONTIUM IN SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS,
SURVEY II 58
3.8 SITE 4 STATIONS DIFFERING FROM ALL CONTROL SITE STATIONS WITH
RESPECT TO PHOSPHATE AND/OR STRONTIUM IN SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS,
SURVEYS III THROUGH VII 59
3.9 STRONTIUM/PHOSPHATE PLOTS FOR SURFICIAL SEDIMENT DATA 60
3.10 RANGES OF SEDIMENT TRAP DATA FROM SITE 4 AND CONTROL SITE
STATIONS 65
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE
3.11 SITE 4 STATIONS DIFFERING FROM ALL CONTROL SITE STATIONS WITH
RESPECT TO PHOSPHATE AND STRONTIUM CONTENT OF TRAPPED MATERIAL
AND/OR DEPOSITION RATE OF PHOSPHATE, SURVEYS II AND III 69
3.12 SITE 4 STATIONS DIFFERING FROM ALL CONTROL SITE STATIONS WITH
RESPECT TO PHOSPHATE AND STRONTIUM CONTENT OF TRAPPED MATERIAL
AND/OR DEPOSITION RATE OF PHOSPHATE, SURVEYS IV-VII 70
3.13 STRONTIUM/PHOSPHATE PLOTS FOR MATERIAL COLLECTED IN SEDIMENT
TRAPS 74
3.14 COMPARISON OF RANGE OF MEAN PHOSPHATE AND STRONTIUM
CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS AND TRAPPED MATERIAL
FROM THE CONTROL SITE 76
3.15 RANGES OF MEAN ABUNDANCE OF INFAUNA AT SITE 4 AND THE CONTROL
SITE 78
3.16 RANGES OF GEOMETRIC MEAN BIOMASS VALUES FOR INFAUNA AT SITE 4
AND THE CONTROL SITE 79
3.17 RANGES OF INFAUNAL COMMUNITY PARAMETERS AT SITE 4 AND THE
CONTROL SITE 80
3.18 TEMPORAL CHANGES IN MEAN ABUNDANCE, BIOMASS, DIVERSITY, AND
NUMBER OF TAXA AT SELECTED SITE 4 AND CONTROL SITE STATIONS... 84
3.19 DENDROGRAMS FROM NORMAL CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS OF INFAUNAL
DATA, SURVEYS I, II, AND V 03
3.20 DENDROGRAMS FROM NORMAL CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS OF INFAUNAL
DATA, SURVEYS III, IV, AND VII 94
3.21 DENDROGRAM FROM NORMAL CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS OF INFAUNAL
DATA, ALL STATIONS AND SURVEYS 100
3.22 CHANGES IN MEAN COVERAGE OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT
HARD-BOTTOM STATIONS 112
3.23 DENDROGRAMS FROM NORMAL CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS OF
PHOTOGRAPHIC DATA FROM HARD-BOTTOM STATIONS 115
vii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Site 4 is an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site located
approximately 33 km (18 nmi) west-southwest of the entrance to Tampa Bay,
Florida (Figure 1.1). Between May 1984 and November 1985, the site
received 2.63 million m^ (3.44 million yd^) of dredged material from
a harbor-deepening project in Tampa Bay (L. Saunders, U.S. Army Corps of .
Engineers [COE], personal communication, 1987). The fate and effects of
dredged material disposed at Site 4 were monitored through a study funded
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. This
report summarizes the methodology and results of the Site 4 monitoring
program through July 1986, eight months after disposal operations ended.
1.1 BACKGROUND
Site 4 is located in a water depth of 20 to 25 m (66 to 82 ft) on
the west Florida continent ail shelf, a broad carbonate plateau overlain by
a veneer of predominantly carbonate sand and shell. Where the sand layer
is generally thin near shore, hard bottom is often exposed in the form of
low-relief outcrops, ledges, or patch reefs, some of these being remnants
of ancient shoreline features (Smith, 1976). More extensive areas of
irregular hard bottom are covered by a thin, mobile, sand layer. Sessile
epifauna such as corals and sponges are associated with both emergent and
sand-covered hard bottom. Benthic macroalgae are also widely distributed
in both hard-bottom and soft-bottom areas on the inner shelf.
The dredged material disposed at Site 4 is not considered
dangerous to marine life with respect to concentrations of nutrients,
organic compounds, or trace metals (EPA, 1983). The main concern in
disposing the material on the seafloor was the potential for habitat
alteration. In particular, the possibility that sessile epibiota would
be buried and/or smothered was considered significant. The potential for
effects of dredged material upon sessile epibiota growing on hard bottom
was a major impetus for the initiation of the monitoring program. Site 4
was chosen for disposal of dredged material because the incidence of hard
bottom was known to be lower there than at other potential sites
investigated (EPA, 1983). Monitoring of both hard-bottom epibiota and
soft-bottom infauna was included in the program design.
Site 4 is located near a major boundary between continental shelf
and estuarine sediments (Gould and Stewart, 1955; Doyle and Sparks,
1980). The situation offers many possibilities for tracing the presence
1
-------
* 15
03° 00
• O
SSSKtarpon springs
yt5^
15 •
*0 2 4 6 0 10 NAUTICAL MILES
0 5 10 IS 20 KILOMETERS
\
(
.*77
fiX
t- ^
>•1^
k
V TAMPA
t^Ufclpf.P'iJV
28°00'-
ST. ft
V-PETERSBURG*^
%s
fl,'
«j>;v
MULLET KEY
EGMONT KCVI
-V
SITE 4 Q \
CONTROL h
SITE
STUDY
AREA
ANNA MARIA KEY
v* •»
fr SARASOTA
I
50-
FIGURE 1.1. LOCATIONS OF SITE 4 AND THE CONTROL SITE.
CM
2
-------
of Tampa Bay dredged material disposed at Site 4, several of which were
investigated when the monitoring program was being designed. Sediment
samples from both shelf and estuarine areas were analyzed in 1983 for
grain size composition and a suite of elements and compounds. The
results indicated that concentrations of strontium and phosphate in the
fine fraction held the best potential for discriminating between
continental shelf and estuarine sediments (Continental Shelf Associates,
Inc., 1984). Accordingly, the monitoring program designed by EPA
specified that strontium and phosphate concentrations be measured in
surface sediments and in material collected in sediment traps in order to
evaluate the dispersion of dredged material within Site 4.
1.2 PROGRAM DESIGN AND SCHEDULE
The dispersion and biological impacts of dredged material disposed
at Site 4 were monitored by sampling stations established at the
periphery' of Site 4, around the rectangular disposal area within the
site, and at a reference area (Control Site) located 9.3 km (5 nmi) to
the southeast (Figure 1.2). Monitoring of stations within and at the
boundary of Site 4 was intended to provide early warning of potential
impacts extending outside of the site--the primary concern of both EPA
and COE. The objectives of the monitoring program were as follows:
1) To determine whether the dredged material spread beyond the
disposal area within the boundaries of Site 4.
2) To determine whether the presence of dredged material produced
adverse biological impacts upon benthic macrobiota.
The Site 4 monitoring program included the following elements:
1) Measurement of sediment accumulation by reference to fixed,
graduated marker stakes placed on the seafloor at each
station.
2) Continuous recording of near-bottom current speed and direction
(April 1984 through May 1985) at two locations in Site 4 and
one in the Control Site.
3) Collection of sediment samples at each station, to be analyzed
for grain size, total organic carbon, and phosphate and
strontium (tracers of the dredged material).
3
-------
£•
3.7 km (2.0 nmi)
F#
D#
• A
• C
SITE 4
• 8
,9.3 km (5.0 nml)
CONTROL
SITE
1.9 km (1.0 nmi)
L EGEND
: MONITORING STATION
(£:&:£: = DISPOSAL AREA
FIGURE 1.2. MONITORING STATION LOCATION8 TO BE E8TABLI8HED AT SITE 4 AND THE CONTROL
SITE A8 SPECIFIED IN THE EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT FOR SURVEY I.
en
4
-------
4) Deployment of sediment traps at each station, and analysis of
trapped sediments for total weight, grain size, phosphate, and
strontium.
5) Collection and analysis of infaunal samples at each station.
6) Repetitive quadrat photography of sessile epibiota at hard-
bottom stations.
7) Recording of diver visual observations at each station and in
the disposal area.
Figure 1.3 illustrates the chronology of the monitoring study.
Survey I was conducted during 24-28 April 1984, approximately one month
prior to the beginning of disposal operations. Subsequent surveys were
conducted at three- to four-month intervals until July 1985 (Survey V).
Disposal operations ceased in November 1985, and two surveys have been
conducted since then—Survey VI in January 1986 and Survey VII in July
1986. Survey VI was unlike the other surveys in that its only purpose
was to service acoustic pingers and sediment traps and replace equipment
lost due to Hurricane "Elena," which passed north of Site 4 during late
August-early September 1985.
During Survey I, 17 monitoring stations were established: six
around the disposal area, eight at the perimeter of Site 4, and three at
the Control Site (Figure 1.2). After Survey II, station locations at
Site 4 were determined to be incorrect with respect to the location of
the disposal area. The error occurred because incorrect Loran-C
coordinates were used to establish the boundaries of Site 4 during
Survey I (see Appendix A for further information). Figure 1.4 shows the
locations of stations monitored during Surveys I and II in relation to
the correct Site 4 boundaries. During Survey III, the Site 4 stations
were moved to their correct locations, with two exceptions: (1) "old"
Station 5, which was near the correct location of "new" Station D, was
renumbered rather than moved; and (2) "old" Station 3, one of three
Site 4 hard-bottom stations, was retained because of concern about
impacts of dredged material upon sessile epifauna. Figure 1.5 shows the
positions of stations monitored since Survey III in relation to those
monitored during Surveys I and II.
The locations of Control Site stations were not affected by the
positioning error and did not have to be changed. Nevertheless,
Station C-3 was moved during Survey III. When Control Site stations were
established during Survey I, divers could not find a hard-bottom area in
5
-------
DISPOSAL BEGINS
(MAY 1984)
DISPOSAL ENDS
(NOV 1986)
SURVEY NO. I
Jt
Ij'f'm'a M'j'j A'js'o' N D| J ' F ' M A ' M* J* J ' A
ur
i
JL
3zr
JL
m
s'o'n'dIj'f'm" a" m' j'j'a's'o'n'd
1986
HURRICANE 'ELENA'
PA88E8 NORTH
OF 8ITE 4
1984
STATION P08ITI0NINQ
ERROR DISCOVERED
(FIELD CHECK)
1986
8TATION8
RELOCATED
FIQURE 1.3. TIME LINE FOR THE SITE 4 MONITORING PROGRAM.
-------
I, 135 m
(3, 725 ft )
7 27° 32' S0"N
ORIGINALLY MONITORED SITE 4
27° 32*27" N
*
*
5
,9»
<
U.
-
s
O O s
•
o
«
)6
I
1
oE
1
1
p
n
i
IPiipiiiirtd' oc
q5 27® 30'30" H —O4
FEDERAL REGISTER "SITE 4"
27° 30*27"N
1
*
*«r>
O |
o
IZ
?
i3T
41 LONG.
LEGEND
O-monitoring STATIONS ESTABLISHED AND
SAMPLED DURING SURVEYS I AND II
l-yly-j"DISPOSAL AREA
FIGURE 1.4. POSITIONING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MONITORED 'SITE 4' AND FEDERAL
REGISTER DESIGNATED 'SITE 4.'
7
-------
AREA MONITORED DURING SURVEYS I AND U
i?
fO aQ
F# OE
5
o-
Z(
Oc
SITE 4
_ 4
OB
LEGEND
O - MONITORING STATION SAMPLED DURING
SURVEYS I AND H ONLY
• - NEW MONITORING STATION ESTABLISHED
DURING SURVEY HT
C = MONITORING STATION SAMPLED ON ALL
SURVEYS
- DISPOSAL AREA
FIGURE 1.6. LOCATIONS OF 8ITE 4 8TATION8 E8TABLI8HED DURING SURVEY m IN RELATION TO /js
THOSE MONITORED DURING SURVEYS I AND H.
8
-------
the Control Site to serve as a point of reference for hard-bottom
stations being monitored within Site 4. During Survey III, a towed,
underwater television system was used to search the Control Site for
areas of dense sessile epifauna. A suitable area was found, and
Station C-3 was reestablished there. Sampling was discontinued at the
"old" Station C-3 beginning with Survey III; however, sediment sampling
was resumed at this station during Survey V to aid in the interpretation
of the sediment data set.
Hereafter, stations established during Survey I and abandoned
during Survey III are referred to with the prefix OLD- (e.g., OLD-1,
OLD-B, OLD-C-3, etc.). Station numbers lacking the prefix refer to
stations that are currently being monitored--all Site 4 stations
established during Survey III, the additional Control Site station
established during Survey III, and the two Control Site stations that
were established during Survey I.
Monitoring station locations, water depths, and sampling schedules
are summarized in Table 1.1. Additional sampling was conducted but is
not included in the table. Specifically, during Survey III, samples were
collected from a disposal barge in Tampa to provide data concerning
composition of dredged material. During Surveys IV, V, and VII,
sediments were sampled at the eastern and western ends of the disposal
area to obtain sediments containing dredged material. Divers recorded
visual observations at the disposal area sites during the Surveys IV, V,
and VII, and at the center of the disposal area during Survey VII.
9
-------
TABLE 1.1. LORAN-C COORDINATES, WATER DEPTHS, AND SAMPLING SCHEDULES
FOR THE MONITORING STATIONS AT SITE 4 AND THE CONTROL SITE.
Sampled on
Survey*
Loran-C
Water Depth*
Station
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Coordinates
(m)
(ft)
Site 4:
OLD-1
&
X
14146.6
44742.3
19.5
64
OLD-2
o
o
X
14143.8
44735.5
19.2
63
OLD-3
•
•
•
•
•
X
•
14141.2
44729.0
22.2
73
OLD-4
o
o
X
14138.4
44738.0
22.9
75
0LD-5§
#
o
o
X
o
14135.9
44747.0
22.6
74
OLD—6
o
o
X
14138.5
44753.5
23.2
76
OLD-7
o
o
X
14141.2
44760.1
21.9
72
OLD-8
o
o
X
14143.9
44751.0
21.9
72
OLD-A
o
o
X
14142.0
44744.2
20.4
67
OLD-B
o
o
X
14142.3
44736.4
21.3
70
OLD-C
•
•
X
14139.9
44738.4
22.2
73
OLD-D
o
o
X
14139.4
44741.6
20.7
68
OLD-E
o
•
X
14138.9
44749.6
24.1
79
OLD-F
o
o
X
14141.5
44747.3
20.7
68
1
*
*
*
X
•
14143.8
44744.8
22.9
75
2
o
o
o
X
o
14141.3
44738.6
21.9
72
3
o
o
o
X
o
14138.6
44731.7
22.2
73
4
o
o
o
X
o
14135.8
44741.1
23.5
77
5
&
*
*
X
o
14133.2
44749.5
24.7
81
6
o
o
o
X
o
14135.4
44756.5
25.6
84
7
o
o
o
X
o
14138.4
44763.1
24.4
80
8
o
o
o
X
o
14141.2
44753.7
23.5
77
A
o
o
o
X
o
14140.0
44747.2
22.6
74
B
o
o
o
X
o
14140.1
44739.8
22.6
74
C
o
o
o
X
o
14137.4
44741.1
23.2
76
D§
o
o
o
o
o
X
o
14135.9
44747.0
22.6
74
E
o
o
o
X
o
14136.1
44752.9
24.7
81
F
•
•
•
X
•
14138.8
44750.0
24.4
80
Control i
Site:
C-1
#
*
*
$
X
o
14130.1
44700.2
22.6
74
C-2
o
o
o
o
o
X
o
14129.8
44691.8
22.6
74
C-3
•
•
•
X
•
14129.4
44698.3
22.2
73
OLD-C-3
o
o
X
+
+
14127.3
44700.6
21.9
72
*Symbols are used to indicate different sampling conducted, as follows:
o = Sediments and infauna collected, sediment traps deployed and/or
retrieved, station marker photographed, diver observations
recorded.
• = Hard-bottom station. Same sampling as above plus quantitative
photography of sessile epibiota.
= Recording current meter deployed, serviced, or retrieved. Other
sampling same as above (see open or closed circle),
x = Sediment trap samples retrieved; no other sampling conducted.
+ = Sediment sampling only.
^Depths are averaged over surveys.
^Stations OLD-5 and D are the same.
10
-------
2.0 METHODS
2.1 FIELD METHODS
During each survey, divers collected data and samples at each
Site 4 and Control Site station. The divers also recorded visual
observations of features such as water depth; visibility; vertical relief
of the seafloor; height, length, and orientation of sand waves; and
general characteristics of the habitat and conspicuous epibiota. The
divers took photographs to document their observations.
2.1.1 Station Markers
A steel tripod marker with em acoustic pinger was deployed at each
station during Survey I? the markers were moved to their present
locations during Survey III. Arrays lost between surveys were replaced
as needed.
Aside from helping divers to locate the stations, the arrays were
intended to provide a reference point for sediment height measurements.
Each station marker array included a central, vertical shaft painted in
alternating colors at 0.3-m (1—ft) intervals (Figure 2.1). Each array
was photographed after initial deployment and on each subsequent survey
to allow visual estimation of net sediment accumulation. By Survey VII,
growth of fouling organisms on the vertical shaft had obscured the color
pattern, making visual estimation unreliable. On this survey, divers
measured sediment height from the base of the shaft with a calibrated
rod.
2.1.2 Current Meters
An ENDECO Type 105 recording current meter was deployed at
Stations C-1, OLD-1, and OLD-5 during Survey I. Each meter was attached
to a tautline array at a height of 1 m (3 ft) above the bottom and set to
record at 1-h intervals. The meters were serviced and redeployed during
Survey II. Meters at Stations OLD-1 and OLD-5 were moved to Stations 1
and 5 during Survey III. During Survey IV, the meters were serviced and
redeployed, and during Survey V the meters were retrieved.
At the beginning of the fourth recording interval (Survey IV to
Survey V), the current meters were erroneously set to record at 0.5-h
intervals instead of 1-h intervals. Consequently, data are available
11
-------
HEIGHT OF STATION MARKER ARRAY
= 6 ft (2m)
-PINGER
CENTRAL SHAFT—
PAINTED IN ALTERNATING
COLORS AT I-ft INTERVALS
SEDIMENT TRAP
FIGURE 2.1. STATION MARKER ARRAY.
12
-------
only for about the first 65 d of the approximately 120 d between surveys.
Also, no data are available from Station 1 during this interval because
the current meter malfunctioned. Continuous current meter readings were
obtained from two of the meters for a period greater than one year.
2.1.3 Surficial Sediments
Three replicate sediment samples were collected at each Site 4 and
Control Site station on each survey. During Surveys IV, V, and VII,
samples were also collected at the eastern and western ends of the
disposal area and (during the latter two surveys) at the previously
abandoned Station OLD-C-3. In addition, three sediment samples were
collected from a disposal barge in Tampa during Survey III. The samples
from the barge and disposal area were obtained to provide information on
the composition of sediment known to contain dredged material. The
samples from Station OLD-C-3 were obtained to aid in statistical
interpretation.
Sediment samples were obtained by sliding a plastic container
along the sediment surface and scooping out the top 2-cm layer until a
volume containing approximately 1 kg of sediment had been collected. The
samples were collected near the station markers. After collections at
each station were completed, the samples were brought aboard ship,
transferred to clean containers, labeled, inventoried, and frozen.
2.1.4 Sediment Traps
There were two sediment traps on each station marker array
(Figure 2.1). Each trap was a polyvinyl chloride tube with a height of
30 cm (12 in.) and a mouth opening of 2.5 cm (1 in.) (aspect ratio of
12:1). The tube was attached to the top of a one-liter, screw-top
plastic jar, and the mouth of each trap was about 1 m (3 ft) above the
base of the array.
Arrays containing sediment traps were deployed originally at the
stations established during Survey I, then moved to their present
locations during Survey III. During each survey after the first, divers
removed the sample jar from each sediment trap tube, capped the sample,
and attached an empty jar to the tube. The samples were returned to the
ship, where the trapped material was transferred to another labeled
container, inventoried, and frozen.
13
-------
2.1.5 Infauna
Ten infaunal samples were collected at each station during each
survey. The corers used to collect the samples are 0.0156 m2 (12.5 cm
x 12.5 cm) in surface area and 23 cm in depth. A 0.5-mm mesh stainless
steel screen covers the top of each corer to prevent loss of
macroinfauna. Divers collected samples within 5 to 15 m (16 to 49 ft) of
the station marker arrays, depending upon location of sediment thick
enough to allow adequate core penetration. Divers pushed each corer into
the sediment to a depth of 15 to 23 cm, then removed the corer by
excavating the sediment away from one side, pushing one hand beneath the
penetrating end to cover it, and lifting the corer out. Each corer with
its sample was placed in a fine-mesh cotton bag, which was then tied
shut. Two corers were placed in each of five nylon bags, which were
clipped together and carried to the surface.
On board ship, the samples were immersed in a narcotizing solution
of 10% magnesium chloride for approximately 20 min. Then each sample was
transferred from the cotton bag into a box sieve (0.5-mm mesh size),
which was gently dipped and panned in a barrel of seawater to wash out
the fine sediments. The sample retained on the sieve was rinsed into a
one-liter, plastic sample jar with internal and external labels. Each
sample was fixed with a buffered 10% formalin-seawater solution to which
Rose Bengal had been added for staining. Sample jars were sealed,
inventoried, and stored aboard the vessel. Immediately after the samples
arrived at the laboratory after completion of the survey, the formalin-
seawater solution was drained off and the samples were rinsed and
preserved in 70% ethanol.
2.1.6 Epibiota
One objective of the monitoring program was to determine whether
dredged material from the disposal area was adversely affecting epibiota
at hard-bottom areas within Site 4. To this end, photographic stations
were established at Site 4 and the Control Site. During Survey I,
photographic stations were established at Stations OLD-3 and OLD-C.
During Survey II, an additional photographic station was established at
Station OLD-E after more exposed epibiota was noticed there (most
epibiota apparently was covered by a thin veneer of sand during
Survey I). Because of the station-positioning error that was discovered
after Survey II, Stations OLD-C and OLD-E were abandoned during
Survey III. However, Station OLD-3 was retained.
14
-------
During Survey III, new photographic stations were established at
Stations 1, F, and C-3. Prior to Survey III, no hard-bottom area had
been found in the Control Site. A suitable location was found during
Survey III by towing an underwater television camera system through the
area. Station OLD-C-3 was abandoned and Station C-3 was then established
at this new location. Figure 2.2 shows the location of hard-bottom
stations sampled during Surveys III, IV, V, and VII.
Photographs of the seafloor and epibiota were taken along five 5-m
(16-ft) transects radiating from the station marker at each hard-bottom
station. During Surveys I and II, divers established the transects by
extending a measuring tape from the central station marker to a concrete
block located at the end of each transect. The divers then took
photographs at 1-m (3-ft) intervals along each transect. When Survey II
photographs were analyzed, it became apparent that the station marker had
moved slightly between surveys, so that the Survey II photographs could
not be matched with their Survey I counterparts. During Survey III, the
technique was changed to prevent recurrence of this problem. Divers
drove sharpened, galvanized steel eyebolts into the rock substrate next
to each station marker and at the end of each transect. On subsequent
surveys, the divers extended a measuring tape between the eyebolts and
used a Nikonos camera with a 28-mm lens and a stainless steel camera
framer equipped with two 150-W strobes to photograph the entire length of
each transect (i.e., successive photographs along each transect were
contiguous). A marker board showing the month, year, station, transect,
and photograph number was placed within the field of view of the camera
to identify each photograph.
2.2 LABORATORY METHODS
2.2.1 Station Marker Photographs
Slides of the station marker arrays were viewed to determine the
height of sediment in relation to the base of the array. Slides from
each survey (except Survey VII, when sediment height was measured in the
field) were projected onto the screen of a Dukane 17A25 microreader. The
distance between the sediment surface and a fixed reference point on the
array was measured to the nearest half-inch, and sediment height above
the base of the array was calculated.
2.2.2 Current Meter Data
Film cartridges from the current meters were developed and
translated by the COE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. The
15
-------
3.7 km (2.0 nml)
SITE 4
©
• OLD-3
19.3 km (5.0 nmi)
CONTROL
SITE
OLD — C-3 O
OC-2
1.9 km (1.0 nmi)
LfJLLND
• 3 HARD-BOTTOM MONITORING STATION
O * OTHER MONITORING STATION
: DISPOSAL AREA
FIGURE 2.2. L0CATI0N8 OF HARD-BOTTOM MONITORING 8TATION8 AT 8ITE 4 AND THE CONTROL ,4.
8ITE, 8URVEY8 HI THROUGH HI.
CM
16
-------
following data products were generated: rose plots, stick plots,
progressive vector diagrams (Survey V only), time series plots of current
speed and direction, and printouts of the 1-h averaged current vectors.
2.2.3 Surficial Sediment Samples
Sediment samples were shipped frozen to Dr. B. J. Presley, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX. When the samples arrived at the
laboratory, they were allowed to thaw and settle for three days. The
supernatant was then aspirated, leaving about 1 kg of sediment per
sample. The sediment was homogenized by mixing with a plastic spatula
and vigorously shaking the jars. An aliquot of about 500 g was withdrawn
from each sample, placed in a plastic bag, and stored in a refrigerator
for possible later use.
A 15-g aliquot of homogenized sediment from each saaqple jar was
placed on a 63-um mesh sieve and washed with a fine stream of distilled
water. The sediment and water passing through the sieve were collected
in a one-liter jar. The coarse material retained on the sieve was washed
into a glass beaker, placed in an oven at 100°C, and dried to a constant
weight. After the sauries were weighed, the coarse fraction was
discarded.
The <63-um material was allowed to settle for three days. Then
the supernatant containing the sea salt from the original 15-g sample was
aspirated and discarded. The essentially salt-free fine material was
washed into a weighed glass beaker, and the beaker and sediment were oven
dried at 100°C to a constant weight. The weight of the fine material
(typically 0.3 to 0.5 g) was determined to the nearest 0.1 mg.
Strontium, phosphate, and organic carbon were determined on aliquots of
this oven-dried, salt-free fine material.
A larger (5 to 10 g) aliquot of fine material was collected from
representative samples—that is, samples with 1% to 2% fines, 4% to 5%
fines, or more than 5% fines. This was accomplished by making a slurry
of sediment and distilled water in the original sample jars and slowly
pouring this through the 63-um sieve. The procedure was repeated several
times for «ach sample and followed by thorough washing of the sieve with
distilled water to bring the final volume to one liter. Samples were
allowed to settle in the one-liter jars for three days; then most of the
water with its dissolved salt was aspirated. The essentially salt-free
sediment was resuspended in distilled water, transferred to one-liter
17
-------
graduated cylinders, and allowed to stand overnight. There was no
evidence of flocculation in the samples. The sediment was again
resuspended, and a 50-ml aliquot was transferred to a weighed beaker.
After 2 h, another 50-ml aliquot was removed. Weighing of these two
aliquots (the first containing both silt and clay, the second containing
only clay) gave the clay:silt ratio in the saitqples.
The procedure for determining sand:silttclay ratios described
above differs from procedures described in standard sedimentology texts.
The modifications (weighing the entire silt + clay fraction and not using
a dispersant) were made necessary by the coarse-grained nature of the
samples (mostly >95% coarse material) and by the amount of material that,
being just less than 63 um in size, was difficult to wash through the
sieve. Attempts to use a conventional procedure resulted in poor
reproducibility due to the very small proportions of silt and clay. The
modified procedure gave reproducible results, as evidenced by the
agreement among the triplicate samples from each station and by a number
of duplicates that were also analyzed.
Aliquots of the dry, salt-free, fine material were digested for
analysis of strontium and phosphate. Each 0.1-g aliquot '»as weighed into
a heavy-walled Teflon beaker with lid and refluxed in a mixture of
nitric, perchloric, and hydrofluoric acids for several hours. The beaker
was opened and the acid mixture evaporated to dryness. The residue was
redissolved in 1 M nitric acid, resulting in a clear solution. No
phosphate or strontium was lost in this procedure, and the total amount
in the sample was brought into solution. The digests were brought to a
known volume, from which dilutions were made as needed for strontium and
phosphate analyses.
Strontium was determined by flame atomic absorption analysis
following manufacturer (Perkin-Elmer Corp.) recommendations. Sample
digests were diluted with lanthanum solution to correct for matrix
effects. Standards from two different commercial sources agreed, and a
standard seawater sample gave the expected strontium concentration.
Selected samples were spiked with strontium as a check on interference.
At least 5,000 ppm lanthanum was needed to protect the samples from
interference. All data in this report are for interference-free
conditions. The precision of the strontium analysis, based on analysis
of 10 sets of duplicates, is estimated to be 10% (coefficient of
variation).
18
-------
Phosphate was determined on the acid digests by the molybdenum
blue colorimetric method (Strickland and Parsons, 1972), which was
modified to allow use of small sample volumes. Because the method is
very sensitive, the samples could be diluted sufficiently to avoid
interference problems. Standards from three different sources agreed.
The precision, based on 10 sets of duplicates, is estimated to be 10%
(coefficient of variation).
Total organic carbon was determined on an aliquot of the salt-free
fine material by a high-temperature combustion technique. A subsample
was weighed into a glass ampule and acidified with hydrochloric acid to
remove all carbonate carbon. The sample was then dried at 100°C, and
copper oxide was added to convert any CO formed during combustion to
C02> The ampule was then flushed with oxygen, sealed, and heated to
500°C for 4 h to oxidize all organic carbon to C02. The ampule tip was
broken and the gas was flushed into a commercial CO2 analyzer (01
Corporation, College Station, TX), which uses an infrared analyzer to
measure C02« All samples were analyzed in duplicate, with an average
coefficient of variation of 6% for the duplicates.
2.2.4 Sediment Trap Samples
Sediment trap sang>les were shipped frozen to Dr. B. J. Presley,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. When the sediment trap
samples arrived at the laboratory, they were allowed to thaw and settle
for three days. The clear supernatant was aspirated and the samples were
transferred to preweighed centrifuge tubes, diluted with distilled water,
and centrifuged to obtain a clear supernatant. The water was aspirated
and the samples were freeze-dried to a constant weight in the centrifuge
tubes. Strontium and phosphate were determined in the fine (<63 um)
fraction of the samples by the procedures described in Section 2.2.3.
Percentages of silt and clay were not determined, but the percentage of
fine (<63 um) material was recorded for each sample (except for those
collected during the first trapping interval).
2.2.5 Infaunal Samples
All infaunal sai^ples from Surveys I, III, IV, and VII were
forwarded to Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc. (Mobile, AL) for
processing. Of the Survey II and V samples, only those from four
stations that were sampled on all regular surveys (Stations C-1, C-2,
OLD-3, and D [=0LD-5]) also were sent for processing.
19
-------
In the laboratory/ each sample was washed through a 0.5-mm mesh
sieve, placed in a white enamel pan, and sorted into the following
groups: Annelida, Arthropoda, Mollusca, Echinodermata, and Miscellaneous.
A semi-micro balance was used to determine wet biomass of these groups to
the nearest 0.1 mg.
All taxa were identified to species level if possible, with the
exception of oligochaetes, nematodes, ostracods, copepods, and other
raeiofaunal or planktonic groups, which were identified to major taxon.
Damaged or juvenile specimens were identified to the lowest practical
identification level (LPIL). A voucher collection of species not
previously reported from the site was prepared.
2.2.6 Epibiotic Photographs
Transect photographs were analyzed by two methods. The first is a
random.sampling technique designed to estimate percent cover of each
distinguishable type of substratum and epibiota. The second is a
planimetric method developed to monitor the presence/absence and changes
in size of selected corals and sponges.
Random Sampling Method. Percent cover estimates for each type of
biota and substratum were obtained by superimposing a random array of 200
points on each slide as it was projected onto the screen of a Dukane
17A25 microreader. This approach is based on the method developed by
Bohnsack (1976, 1979). The area of seafloor viewed by the microreader is
0.165 m2 (1.78 ft2), or slightly less than half of the total area
encompassed by each photograph (0.38 m2) (4.09 ft2); the image was
centered on the viewing screen. The number (and by calculation,
percentage) of points overlying each type of epibiota or substrate was
counted and recorded for each slide; points falling on a line between two
types were consistently assigned to whichever was to the top or right
side of the point. Points falling on the meter tape or the quadrat
identification card were excluded from calculations.
Planimetric Method. Uniquely recognizable hard corals and sponges
were selected in the Survey III photographs. The corals and sponges were
numbered by station, transect, and photograph position along the
transect. The presence or absence and sizes of these colonies were
determined in photographs from subsequent surveys. Size was measured by
projecting the photograph on the screen of a Vanguard Motion Analyzer
(Model M-731 SP), superimposing a grid pattern on the image, and counting
20
-------
the number of grid cells overlying the particular coral or sponge.
Photographs of each colony from successive surveys were viewed in
sequence and notations were made concerning sediment cover, presence of
obscuring algae, changes in polyp size, and any other changes.
2.3 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
2.3.1 General Considerations
The monitoring study had two objectives with respect to each
Site 4 station: to determine whether dredged material was present, and to
determine whether dredged material affected benthic organisms.
Three data sets provided information concerning the presence of
dredged material at each station: (1) diver observations, (2) surficial
sediment data, and (3) sediment trap data. Diver observations were
useful because some dredged material deposits (e.g., clay lumps and
boulders) could easily be distinguished from the surrounding seafloor
sediment.- Surficial sediment and sediment trap data were useful because
dredged material from Tampa Harbor differs in chemical composition from
sediments of Site 4 and the Control Site. Of the three data types, only
the latter two were used to test statistical hypotheses, as described in
Sections 2.3.4 and 2.3.5.
Two data sets provided information concerning biological effects
of dredged material: (1) infaunal samples {all stations), and
(2) photographs of epibiota (hard-bottom stations only). Neither data
set was analyzed statistically for previous reports. However, infaunal
data are amenable to statistical hypothesis testing, as described in
Section 2.3.6. The photographic data are not suitable for statistical
analysis for reasons elaborated in Section 2.3.7.
Two other data sets were not used to infer the presence or
biological effects of dredged material: (1) current meter data, and
(2) sediment height measurements (from analysis of station marker
photographs). These data were used to aid in the interpretation of the
other data sets.
Ideally, a monitoring study should involve collection of data from
an area of potential impact and a reference (control) area, both before
and during the course of the monitored activity (disposal of dredged
material, in this case) (Green, 1979). The values of a parameter at a
21
-------
Site 4 station and Control Site stations should be the same initially and
remain so over time—or differ initially and vary in parallel fashion
over time—in the absence of an impact. An impact would be discerned by
analyzing the data for departure from this model.
The design of the present study differs from that of the ideal
model presented above. Because of the station-positioning error
discovered after Survey II, most pre-disposal data for Site 4 are from
different locations than those sampled during and after disposal. In
order to interpret differences between Site 4 and Control Site stations
within Surveys III, IV, V, and VII, one must know the relationship
between values at Site 4 stations and Control Site stations prior to
disposal operations, or assume spatial homogeneity in the parameter(s) of
interest prior to disposal operations. The latter alternative is the
only choice for most Site 4 stations. Fortunately, the assumption of
spatial homogeneity prior to disposal operations can be tested using
Survey I data for two of. the three data sets that can be analyzed
statistically: sediment data and infaunal data. The third data set
subjected to statistical analysis, sediment trap data, cannot be
similarly tested, because there was no pre-disposal trapping interval.
For this reason, limited inferences can be drawn from the sediment trap
data.
The following sections describe, for each data set, its purpose in
the monitoring study, the statistical approach used to analyze it (if
appropriate), and the effects (if any) of the station-positioning error
on interpretation.
2.3.2 Current Meter Data
Current meter data can be used to evaluate the probable
direction(s) of transport of dredged material disposed at Site 4. In
addition, the likelihood of bed load transport of bottom sediments by
unidirectional currents can be estimated. In this study, only summary
statistics were generated from the data for this purpose (Section 2.2.2).
No hypothesis testing or modeling of resuspension and transport of
dredged material from the disposal area was conducted.
Current meter data are available for the period April 1984 through
May 1985. The usefulness of the data was not affected by the
station-positioning error because the data from the two current meters
located in Site 4 and the third located in the Control Site are assumed
22
-------
to be representative of current strength and direction of movement
regardless of the precise location of the meter(s).
2.3.3 Sediment Height Data
The sediment height measurements provide a general indication of
changes in sediment thickness between surveys at the monitored stations.
If there were a large buildup of unconsolidated dredged material, the
data would reflect it. The data cannot be used for statistical
hypothesis testing because there was only one measurement per survey at
each station and there were no pre-disposal data.
2.3.4 Surficial Sediment Data
The surficial sediment data consist of dry weight percentages of
sand, silt, and clay in whole sediment; and dry weight percentages of
phosphate, strontium, and total organic carbon in the sediment fine
fraction. These data can be used to detect the presence of dredged
material in surficial sediments because the composition of Tampa Harbor
sediments differs from that of ambient continental shelf sediments in
Site 4 and the Control Site. Specifically, the fine fraction of the
dredged material exhibits lower strontium and total organic carbon and
higher phosphate concentrations than the fine fraction of ambient
sediments from Site 4 and the Control Site (Continental Shelf Associates,
Inc., 1984; see also Section 3.4). In addition, the dredged material
generally contains higher percentages of silt and clay than the ambient
shelf sediments. Therefore, the presence of dredged material in
surficial sediments can be inferred by statistically analyzing the data
to determine whether sediment composition at a particular station differs
in the expected direction from that of shelf sediments that do not
contain any dredged material.
Two criteria must be met if the sediment data are to be
interpreted properly. Pirst, prior to disposal operations (Survey I),
there must be spatial homogeneity in a given sediment parameter, or at
least no indication of a systematic difference between Site 4 and the
Control Site. Otherwise, the sedimentary regimes at the two locations
may be too different for one to serve as a point of reference for the
other. This is especially important in the present situation because the
relocation of most monitoring stations on Survey III rules out the
possibility of taking into account an initial difference in concentration
between each Site 4 station and each Control Site station. Second,
23
-------
Multiple Range Test conducted for each survey allowed ready comparison of
values among Site 4 stations.
2.3.5 Sediment Trap Data
Sediment trap data consist of total dry weight trapped, percentage
of the material <63 um in size, and concentrations of phosphate and
strontium in the fine fraction. Deposition rates of total dry material,
fines, and fine-fraction phosphate were calculated using the deployment
interval for each trap array. The latter was calculated as follows:
Deposition Rate = (TDR) x (%fines/100) x (P04)
(fine phosphate)
where TDR = total deposition rate and PO4 = concentration of phosphate
in the fine fraction.
There are no pre-impact sediment trap data because the first
samples were recovered during Survey II, after disposal operations had
begun. Therefore, statistical analyses were restricted to spatial
comparisons among Site 4 and Control Site stations. Consequently, any
inferences concerning the presence of dredged material in sediment trap
samples are not as conclusive as for the surficial sediment data set, for
which pre-disposal data are available. In addition, there are only two
replicates per station/ resulting in a lower statistical power to detect
differences than for the surficial sediment data (three replicates).
As noted above, the composition of Tampa Harbor dredged material
is known to differ in several respects from that of ambient shelf
sediments. Therefore, the data were analyzed to determine whether the
deposition rate or composition of the trapped material from a particular
station deviated in the expected direction from that of material trapped
at the Control Site stations. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA
(a» 0 .05) with individual stations as treatments. The null hypothesis
was that there was no variation among stations with respect to the
parameters tested. Significant ANOVAs were investigated using Duncan's
Multiple Range Test with a per-comparison protection level of 0.05. .
The sediment trap data set was explored further through
correlation analysis. Correlation coefficients (Pearson product-moment)
were calculated among variables in the sediment trap data set and between
variables in the surficial sediment and sediment trap data sets.
24
-------
values of the sediment parameter must not show inconsistent differences
in temporal pattern among Control Site stations. Otherwise, fluctuations
in values of the same parameter at a Site 4 station would be difficult to
attribute to dredged material influence rather than natural variation.
The first criterion was addressed by conducting an analysis of
variance (ANOVA) for each sediment parameter measured during Survey I.
Significant ANOVAs were investigated using Duncan's Multiple Range Test
to determine whether any Site 4 station differed significantly from all
Control Site stations prior to the beginning of disposal operations. The
second criterion was addressed by plotting data from Control Site
Stations C-1, C-2, and OLD-C-3 against time.
Following these initial analyses, separate ANOVAs were conducted
for data from each of Surveys II through VII. The null hypothesis in
each case was that there were no spatial differences in concentration of
the sediment parameters. Significant ANOVAs (CL = 0.05) were investigated
using Duncan's Multiple Range Test (per-comparison protection level =
0.05).
In general, the statistical results were interpreted as follows.
A statistically significant difference between a Site 4 station and a
Control Site station was interpreted as resulting from the presence of
dredged material if (1) no Site 4 stations differed significantly from
all Control Site stations on Survey I, and (2) values of the same
parameter varied similarly over time among the Control Site stations. If
one or more Site 4 stations differed significantly from all Control Site
stations during Survey I, or if extreme differences in temporal pattern
among Control Site stations were noted, it was concluded that significant
differences from the Control Site stations were not necessarily due to
the presence of dredged material.
Also of interest in the interpretation of sediment data is the
spatial pattern of sediment parameters within Site 4. For example, a
comparison of strontium values between a particular Site 4 station and
the Control Site stations may indicate that dredged material probably is
present at the Site 4 station. This inference would be strengthened by
the finding that stations located on the inner ring near the disposal
area generally had lower strontium concentrations than those on the outer
ring. Conversely, the inference would not be as strong if only one
outer-ring station exhibited the low strontium value. The Duncan's
25
-------
2.3.6 Infaunal Data
The infaunal data set consists of biomass of major phyletic groups
and counts of the various taxa present. The total number of taxa was
tabulated for each station. Three community parameters were calculated
from the abundance data from each station. Diversity (Shannon-Weaver H')
was calculated as
H* = -2 Pi In (pj_)
where p^ is the abundance of species (j.) as a proportion of the
total. Equitability (Pielou's J') was calculated as
J' = H1/In(S)
where S is the total number of taxa present. The third index, Margalef's
D (a measure, of species richness), was calculated as
D = (S—1)/ln(N)
where N is the total number of individuals.
Both exploratory analyses and statistical hypothesis testing were
conducted with the infaunal data set. The hypothesis testing approach
was similar to that used for surficial sediment data, except that there
were no _a priori assumptions about the effects of dredged material (e.g.,
it was not known whether the presence of dredged material would increase
or decrease abundance). Separate ANOVAs were conducted for each survey
for biomass (annelid, arthropod, echinoderm, mollusc, and total) and
abundance (same groups except echinoderms, which were not numerically
abundant). Data were log-transformed for the analyses. Significant
ANOVAs were investigated using Duncan's Multiple Range Test with a
per-comparison protection level of 0.05. Testing was limited to these
composite parameters because statistical power to detect changes in
abundance of individual species is typically very low with only 10
replicates (Bernstein et al., 1984).
ANOVA and multiple comparisons results were interpreted in a
manner similar to that used for interpretation of sediment data.
Parameters that exhibited significant spatial variability prior to
disposal operations (Survey I) or widely different degrees of temporal
variability among Control Site stations were judged to be not useful for
26
-------
discerning biological impacts of dredged material. Parameters that
showed little spatial variability during the pre-disposal survey were
evaluated as potential indicators of dredged material effects; stations
differing from all Control Site stations with respect to those parameters
on subsequent surveys were noted as possibly having been influenced by
dredged material.
A difference in interpretation between the infaunal and surficial
sediment data sets was that a statistical difference between a Site 4
station and Control Site stations with respect to infauna was considered
necessary, but not sufficient, to indicate an influence of dredged
material. There were two reasons for the altered approach. First,
infaunal data were expected a_ priori to be more temporally variable than
sediment composition data; that is, even if a parameter were spatially
homogenous prior to disposed operations, it might not remain so even in
the absence of dredged material. Second, sensitive tracers of the
dredged material in surficial sediments were available (strontium and
phosphate), and it was assumed that effects on infauna would be
accompanied by indications of the presence of dredged material in the
form of altered concentrations of the tracers.
Further interpretation of the statistically tested data sets was
conducted as follows. Lists of stations where the presence of dredged
material was indicated by strontium and/or phosphate data were compared
with lists of stations differing from Control Site stations with respect
to infaunal parameters. Abundance, biomass, and community structure data
were also examined for evidence of spatial patterns in relation to the
disposal area. In addition, correlation coefficients were calculated
between infaunal summary statistics (mean abundance, biomass, diversity,
and evenness) and concentrations of dredged material tracers (strontium
and phosphate) in each survey data set.
Exploratory analyses (classification and discriminant analysis)
were also conducted to evaluate spatial and temporal variability in
community composition and to assess the influence of various
environmental factors. Normal and inverse classification analysis was
conducted using log-transformed infaunal abundances, with the Bray-Curtis
coefficient as the similarity measure. One normal and one inverse
analysis was conducted for each survey. For the inverse (species)
classification, flexible sorting with /9 = -0.25 was used because the
large number of entities requires a moderately intense clustering
algorithm. For normal classification (stations), both flexible
27
-------
and group average sorting were tried. The data base for each survey was
truncated in two ways prior to analysis. First, all organisms not
identified to species level were deleted from the data base. Second,
species accounting for <0.1% of total abundance (or represented by fewer
than 10 individuals) were deleted. The latter truncation was necessary
to reduce the total number of species to <255, the maximum allowed by the
computer program used (Ecological Analysis Package, Procedure DENDRO).
The outputs were station and species dendrograms and a species occurrence
matrix.
Classification analysis (as described above) was also used to
examine temporal variation in species composition. Data from all surveys
were included, with each station/survey combination considered an entity
to be clustered. Abundances were log-transformed. The data set for
this analysis was truncated as described above.
Station groups selected from each normal classification analysis
were used in a discriminant analysis. The purpose was to construct
a linear combination of environmental variables to discriminate among the
station groups on each survey. The environmental variables included were
water depth; percentages of sand, silt, and clay; and sediment strontium,
phosphate, and total organic carbon concentrations. For the "all
surveys" analysis, the effect of season was represented by the
declination of the sun calculated for each, survey date. Correlations
between the original environmental variables and the discriminant
function were calculated to evaluate the importance of each variable in
determining the station groupings.
2.3.7 Epibiotic Data
Photographic data from the hard-bottom stations can be used to
document several important features: (1) the composition and general
condition of sessile epibiota; (2) temporal changes in biota and sediment
cover; and (3) the presence of visible accumulations of dredged material
on and near epibiota. However, for various reasons discussed below, the
data should not be used to test hypotheses about biological effects of
dredged material disposal.
When hard-bottom stations initially were established at Site 4,
divers could not find a comparable area within the Control Site. During
Survey III, a suitable Control Site station (C-3) was located by
28
-------
surveying the area with a towed, underwater television system. Because
the Control Site hard-bottom station was not established until
Survey III, it cannot be known how hard-bottom areas in the Control Site
and at Site 4 may have differed prior to dredged material disposal.
Dredged material was visible at the two "new" Site 4 hard-bottom stations
(F and 1) when they were established during Survey III. Lack of
pre-disposal data for Control Site and Site 4 hard-bottom stations limits
data interpretation.
A second problem is the use of different transect photographic
methods during Surveys I and II vs. Surveys III, IV, and V (see
Section 2.1.6). Station OLD-3 was sampled during all surveys, but the
transects photographed on the later surveys were not the ones
photographed initially. Thus, the only complete data set is not
internally consistent.
A third problem arises from the maimer in which the photography
was conducted. Photographs were taken along transects radiating from a
central station marker; establishment of randomly placed photographic
quadrats (each separately staked) was judged to be prohibitively
expensive. Because initial quadrat positions were not determined
randomly, the photographs cannot be considered independent replicates for
the purpose of statistical analysis.
Because of these problems, analysis of the photographic data is
limited to comparison of summary statistics among stations and surveys
and to exploratory analyses that do not involve hypothesis testing. Mean
cover percentages were tabulated for individual taxa and composite groups
(algae, sponges, corals, etc.) in each survey data set. For the
Survey III through VII data set ("new" stations), a truncated data base
was constructed consisting of taxa identified to species as well as
mutually exclusive higher level groupings (e.g., a genus not represented
by any species-level identifications; or coralline algae, since none were
identified to genus or species). Normal and inverse classification
analysis was conducted on the truncated data base, with the Bray-Curtis
coefficient as the similarity measure; flexible sorting (j3 = -0.25) was
used for the inverse analysis, and both flexible and group average
sorting were used for the normal analysis. Prior to the analysis, each
cover percentage was divided by the total biotic cover for that station
to remove the influence of widely differing total cover percentages. The
percentages were arcsin-transformed (Sokal and Rohlf, 1969).
29
-------
30
-------
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 DIVER OBSERVATIONS
3.1.1 Monitoring Station Descriptions
Descriptive observations of each monitoring station occupied
during Surveys III through VII are summarized in Table 3.1. Observations
recorded during individual surveys, including the first two, are given in
Appendix B. Narrative descriptions of the hard-bottom stations are
presented in Section 3.7 (Epibiota).
Divers saw dredged material on the seafloor at one or more
stations during each survey after disposal began. In most cases, the
material consisted of scattered clay lumps up to 30 cm (12 in.) in
diameter (Photograph 1). However, piles of large clay boulders were
observed during Survey II at Station OLD-D, which due to the positioning
error was located at the eastern edge of the disposal area (Figure 1.4).
Dredged material was seen most consistently at Stations E and F
(Surveys III through VII) and Station B (Surveys III through V). During
Survey VII, a patchy layer of fine sediments was observed at Station F,
where an eyebolt marking the end of a photographic transect was buried to
a depth of 15 cm (6 in.). Although the silty sediment was assumed to be
predominantly dredged material, chemical analyses do not support this
interpretation (see Section 3.4 and 4.2).
Locations where scattered lumps of dredged material were seen on
one or more surveys are shown in Figure 3.1. The locations generally
conform to lines extending toward Tampa Bay from the east and west ends
of the disposal area. During disposal operations, the hopper barges
routinely left the barge doors open following disposal, to allow material
clinging to the hopper walls and doors to wash off. The material seen on
the seafloor may have been dredged material lumps that adhered to the
doors or walls of the hopper barge during disposal and subsequently were
washed from the barge as it was leaving the disposal area.
3.1.2 Observations in the Disposal Area
During Surveys IV and V, divers visited locations near the east
and west ends of the disposal area to collect sediment samples, record
visual observations, and take photographs. During Survey VII, divers
recorded observations and took photographs at the center of the disposal
area, as well as near the east and west ends. All of the locations
visited were on the disposal mound, as evidenced by the 2 to 12 m (8 to
31
-------
TABLE 3.
1. COMPOSITE
MONITORING STATION
DESCRIPTIONS
FROM SURVEYS III
THROUGH VII.
Water
Substratum
Vertical
Other Observations
Station
Depth
Description
Relief
and Notes
Site 4:
1
22.9 m
Hard bottom area
0
to 15 cm
Sessile epifauna on
(75 ft)
surrounded by
(0
to 6 in.);
area of exposed rock,
medium-to-coarse
holes up to
diameter about 15 m;
sand bottom
46
cm (18 in.
) small clay lumps seen
deep
on Surveys III and
IV.
2
21.9 m
Fine-to-medium
N/A
Scattered seagrass
(72 ft)
sand bottom
present. Small clay
lumps seen,
Survey III.
3
22.2 m
Medium-to-coarse
N/A
(73 ft)
sand bottom
4
23.5 m
Fine-to-very
N/A
Scattered algae
(77 ft)
coarse sand with
present.
shell rubble
5
24.7 m
Medium-to-coarse
0 to 20 cm
Sparse epibiota on
(81 ft)
sand bottom with
(0 to 8 in.
) rock outcrops.
small areas of
exposed rock
6
25.6 m
Medium-to-coarse
0 to 5 cm
Sparse epibiota on
(84 ft)
sand bottom with
(0 to 2 in.
) rock outcrops.
small areas of
exposed rock
7
24.4 m
Medium-to-coarse
0 to 20 cm
Sparse epibiota on
(80 ft)
sand bottom with
(0 to 8 in.
) rock outcrops.
small areas of
exposed rock
8
23.5 m
Medium-to-coarse
0 to 10 cm
Sparse epibiota on
(77 ft)
sand over
(0 to 4 in.
) rock outcrops.
partially exposed
hurd bottom
A
22.6 m
Fine-to-very fine
N/A
Scattered clay lumps
(74 ft)
sand bottom with
seen on Survey VII.
small amounts of
silt
32
-------
TABLE 3
.1. (CONTINUED).
Station
Water
Depth
Substratum
Description
Vertical
Relief
Other Observations
and Notes
Site 4
(continued):
B
22» 6 in
(74 ft)
Fine-to-medium
sand with thin
silt layer
N/A
Small clay lumps
noted on Surveys XII,
IV, and V.
C
23.2 m
(76 ft)
Medium-to-coarse
sand bottom with
shell rubble and
thin silt layer
N/A
D
22.6 in
(74 ft)
Mediura-to-coarse
dark sand with
shell rubble and
thin silt layer
N/A
Small clay lumps
noted on Survey V.
E
24.7 m
(81 ft)
Silt covered fine-
to-medium sand
bottom
N/A
Small clay lumps
noted on Surveys III
through VII; plume
from barge seen,
Survey III.
F
24.4 m
(80 ft)
Fine-to-coarse
sand over rock
outcrop ridges;
silt layer
0
(0
to
to
15 cm
6 in.)
Sparse epibiota on
rock outcrops; clay
lumps seen from
Survey III on; silt
layer seen,
Survey VII.
OLD-3
22.2 m
(73 ft)
Exposed rock
with patches of
fine to coarse
sand
0
(0
to
to
20 cm
8 in.)
Extensive sessile
epibiota.
Control
Site:
C-1
22.6 m
(74 ft)
Fine-to-medium
sand bottom with
small patches of
exposed rock
0
(0
to
to
5 cm
2 in.)
Sparse epibiota
on rock outcrops.
C-2
22.6 m
(74 ft)
Medium-to-coar s e
sand bottom with
small patches of
exposed rock
0
(0
to
to
25 cm
10 in.)
Sparse epibiota
on rock outcrops.
C-3
22.2 m
(73 ft)
Hard bottom with
very thin, patchy
0
(0
to
to
20 cm
3 in. )
Extensive sessile
epibiota.
sand veneer
33
-------
TABLE 3.1. (CONTINUED).
Water
Substratum
Vertical
Other Observations
Station
Depth
Description
Relief
and Notes
Disposal Area:*
East
13.7-19.5 m
Silty sand.
0 to 3.7 m
Very little silt and
End
(45-64 ft)
shell, and
(0 to 12 ft)
clay on mound during
rubble, with
(boulder
Survey VII—finer
scattered clay
piles)
sediments down slope;
boulders
variety of fishes and
invertebrates seen.
West
15.2-19.8 m
Silty sand,
0 to 3.7 m
Clay boulders filled
End
(50-65 ft)
shell, and
(0 to 12 ft)
with burrowing
rubble, with
(boulder
bivalves, Survey VII;
scattered clay
piles)
variety of fishes and
boulders
invertebrates seen.
Center
15.2-18.3 m
Silty sand,
0 to 1•2 m
Variety of fishes and
(50-60 ft)
shell, and
(4 ft)
invertebrates seen.
rubble, with
(boulder
scattered clay
piles)
boulders
•Locations at the east and west ends of the disposal area were visited daring
Surveys IV, V, and VII. Dive locations were not identical on the three
surveys. The location near the center of the disposal area was surveyed only
during Survey VII.
34
-------
35
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 1
Lumps of dredged material on the seafloor at
Station F, Survey III. Also shown are two
specimens of sand perch, Piplectrum formosum.
The red sponge Cliona sp. is present as fun
encrustation on the coral Siderastrea sp.
PHOTOGRAPH 3
A hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus (center, facing
camera) and three gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus
swim near dredged material boulders at the west
end of the disposal area, Survey VII. Also
visible is a small specimen of the long-spined sea
urchin, Diadema antillarum (lower right).
PHOTOGRAPH 2
A red grouper, Epinephelus morio, lurks
behind a boulder of dredged material at
the east end of the disposal area, Survey
VII. The boulders have holes created by a
boring bivalve, Jouannetia guillingi
(white shells on seafloor).
PHOTOGRAPH 4
A gag grouper, Mycteroperca microlepis
(center), and two gray snapper (upper left
and lower right) swim amidst dredged
material boulders at the western end of
the disposal area, Survey VI. The sponge,
Aplyslna sp., seen at the bottom of the
photograph is believed to have drifted to
its present location. (Dislodged sponges
are frequently seen on the seafloor of the
west Florida shelf).
-------
-------
^OLD-7 ^OLD-8 OLD^l^
| AREA MONITORED DURING SURVEYS X AND H |
O:
o
8
I
*
OLD-F OLD-A
OLD - 6
I • O A
F OLD-E
I
i OLD-C
a • o
r.wjVlVlV>*Vl.%w^^^ OLD-D 8
I
OLD-^
D
(OLD-5)
o
SITE 4
£L
A
OLD-2
O
OLD-B
OLD^-3^
3.7 km (2.0 nmi)
LEGEND
STATIONS WHERE DREDGED MATERIAL WAS SEEN
BY DIVERS ON ONE OR MORE SURVEYS
O = OTHER STATIONS
= DISPOSAL AREA
FIGURE 3.1. LOCATIONS OP 8TATION8 WHERE DREDGED MATERIAL WA8 8EEN DURING nk
surveys n-m
-------
39 ft) difference in water depth between the dive sites and the
surrounding stations (Table 3.1). However, there was little slope to the
seafloor within the radius surveyed by divers.
Photographs 2, 3, and 4 show views of the seafloor at the disposal
mound sites. The substratum consisted primarily of coarse sand, shell,
and rubble, with clay lumps and boulders up to several meters in diameter
strewn throughout the area. Irregular piles of dredged material up to
3.6 m (12 ft) in relief were present in some locations. During
Survey VII, a burrowing bivalve, Jouannetia quillingi, was abundant
within the disposal area; the burrowing activities of this bivalve may
break down the clay lumps and boulders it inhabits. Jouannetia quillingi
is a common inhabitant of submerged, waterlogged wood and soft rock
(Abbott, 1974).
During Surveys IV and V, divers noted that silty sediments were
intermixed with the sand and rubble substratum at the disposal mound
sites. However, during Survey VII, very little fine sediment was visible
on top of the mound. Where there was a noticeable depth gradient, as at
the east and west ends of the disposal area, fine sediments appeared to
have settled down slope. Winnowing of fine sediments by strong currents
passing over the mound was observed during Survey IV dives.
By Survey VII, the disposal mound had been colonized heavily by
algae and epifauna. Algae such as Co^'"" sp. and Gracllaria spp. were
seen attached to rock and clay boulders, along with hydroids, bryozoans,
and ascidians. The long-spined sea urchin, Diadema antillarum, was
abundant on the mound, as was the arrow crab, Stenorhynchus seticornis.
Numerous fishes, including various angelfishes, blennies, groupers,
butterflyfishes, jacks, snappers, and wrasses, were seen (Table 3.2).
Most of the fishes seen are associated preferentially with hard-bottom or
reef environments.
3.2 CURRENTS
Current meter data are summarized below. In the interest of
simplicity of presentation, data from only one of the current meters
deployed in Site 4 during each recording interval are shown. Data are
from Station OLD-5 for the first and second intervals and Station 5 for
the third and fourth intervals. Data sets from the other locations were
very similar. The voluminous raw data listings have been presented in
appendices of previous reports and are not included here.
40
-------
TABLE 3.2. FISHES OBSERVED BY DIVERS ON THE DISPOSAL MOUND DURING
SURVEY VII.
Species Common Name Classification*
Acanthurus sp.
juvenile surgeonfish
+
Apogon pseudomaculatus
twospot cardinalfish
+
Balistes capriscus
gray triggerfish
+
Calamus sp.
unid. porgy
+
Centropristis ocyurus
bank sea bass
-
Centropristis striata
black sea bass
-
Chaetodon ocellatus
spotfin butterflyfish
+
Coryphopterus sp.
unid. goby
+
Diplectrum formosum
sand perch
-
Epinephelus morio
red grouper
+
Equetus acuminatus
high-hat
+
Equetus lanceolatus
jackknife-fish
+
Equetus umbrosus
cubbyu
+
Haemulon aurolineatum
tomtate
+
Haemulon plumieri
white grunt
+
Halichoeres maculipinna
clown wrasse
+
Halichoeres pictus
rainbow wrasse
+
Halichoeres radiatus
puddingwife
+
Holacanthus bermudensis
blue angelfish
+
Hypleurochilus sp.
unid. blenny
-
Hyploplectrus unicolor
indigo hamlet
+
Ioqlossus calliuxrus
blue goby
-
Lachnolaimus maximus
hogfish
+
Laqodon rhomboides
pinfish
o
Lutjanus griseus
gray snapper
+
Hicroqobius carri
seminole goby
+
Monacanthus hispidus
planehead filefish
-
Mycteroperca microlepis
gag
+
Mycteroperca phenax
scamp
+
Opsanus beta
Gulf toadfish
-
Paralichthys sp.
unid. flounder
o
Pomacentrus partitus
bicolor damselfish
+
Pomacentrus variabilis
cocoa damselfish
+
Rhomboplites aurorubens
vermilion snapper
+
Rypticus maculatus
whitespotted soapfish
+
Seriola dumerili
greater amberjack
-
Seriola rivoliana
almaco jack
-
Serraniculus pumilio
pygmy sea bass
-
Serranus subliqarius
belted sandfish
-
Sparisoma sp.
juvenile parrotfish
+
Synodus sp.
unid. lizardfish
-
~Based upon system of Starck (1968):
(+) indicates primary reef fish (obligate hard-bottom dweller)
(-) indicates secondary reef fish (may also inhabit soft bottom)
(°) indicates soft-bottom dweller.
41
-------
Figure 3.2 shows rose plots of current speed and direction for
each deployment interval between April 1984 and July 1985, and Table 3.3
summarizes current velocity data.
The important features to be noted in rose plots are the
direction, length, and relative thickness of the lines. The longer the
line in a particular compass direction, the higher the frequency of
currents in that direction; the thicker the line, the higher the current
speed. The length of a segment of a particular thickness indicates the
frequency of currents flowing in that direction and at that speed. For
example, during April-August 1984 (upper left current rose in
Figure 3.2), currents directed between 60 and 90° occurred 19.9% of the
time: 10.1% at <10 cm/s, 9.6% at 10-20 cm/s, and 0.2% at 20-30 cm/s.
During April-August 1984, currents flowed primarily toward the
east, with 38% of the 1-h vectors between 60 and 120° (Figure 3.2).
Currents flowing toward the northwest also were common (13% between 300
and 330°). Maximum current speeds of 24 cm/s (0.47 kn) occurred on 10
and 17 May and were directed due east.
Currents flowed primarily toward the east «ind southeast during the
next recording interval, August-December 1984; 55% of the 1-h vectors
were between 60 and 180° (Figure 3.2). The northwesterly component was
not as common as during the previous interval, although vectors between
300 and 360° were measured 14% of the time. The strongest currents
flowed nearly due south during 22-24 November, with the maximum reaching
45 cm/s (0.87 kn). Current velocities in excess of 20 cm/s (0.39 kn)
directed toward the south and south-southeast were also noted during
brief periods at the end of September and the beginning of November.
During winter 1984-85 (December to March), the most common current
directions were toward the south and south-southeast, with 55% of the 1-h
vectors between 150 and 210° (Figure 3.2). East-flowing currents were
also common (18% between 60 and 120°). Currents exceeding 20 cm/s
(0.39 kn) flowed south on 4-5 January, 21 January, and 12 February, with
the maximum being 25 cm/s (0.49 kn).
Currents during the final recording interv?J . March to May 1985,
flowed primarily toward the east, southeast, and south, with 58% of the
1-h vectors between 60 and 180° (Figure 3.2). The strong easterly flow
observed during May of the previous year was not observed; the strongest
42
-------
270C-
APR-AUQ 1984
STATION OLD-6
o°
1»0°
DEC 1984-MAR 1986
STATION 5
ISO"
LEGEND
CURRENT SPEED (cm/a)
- 0-10
» 10-20
. 20-30
I I¦ >30
120° **0
27
-------
TABLE 3.3. CURRENT VELOCITY DATA FOR SITE 4.
Recording
Current Velocity
(cm/s)
Percent
of Total
Vectors
Interval
Min
Mean
Max
>10 cm/s
>20 cm/s
>30 cm/s
First
(Apr-Jul
1984)
0
6.6
24
21
<1
0
Second
(Jul-Dec
1984)
0
7.6
45
26
3
<1
Third
(Dec 1984
-Mar 1985)
0
5.5
25
11
1
0
Fourth
(Mar-Jul
1985)
0
5.5
20
8
0
0
All calculations are based on 1-h current vectors. Data for the first
two Intervals are from Station OLD-5, and data from the last two
intervals are from Station 5.
44
-------
currents were directed toward the southeast or south-southeast, and
velocities did not exceed 20 cm/s (0.39 kn).
The 13-month data set can be summarized as follows. Currents
flowed predominantly toward the east during spring and early summer 1984,
then shifted toward the southeast and south during fall, winter, and
spring of the following year. The strongest currents occurred during
late fall and winter and were directed due south. Most current
velocities were less than 10 cm/s (0.19 kn), and only rarely did they
exceed 20 cm/s (0.39 kn). The mean velocity during all quarters was
between 5 and 8 cm/s.
Figure 3.3 shows a progressive vector diagram for data from the
fourth recording interval (March to May 1985). The diagram is intended
to show the theoretical trajectory of a particle in suspension at Site 4
beginning with Day 1 of the interval. The simplifying assumption is made
that the particle remains in suspension and is always subject to the
current regime measured at the current meter; in reality, the particle
might settle to the seafloor or experience different conditions as it
moves away from the current meter. The total distance traveled and the
location of the end point of the trajectory should not be considered
realistic (in the present example, the trajectory would place the
particle somewhere in the Everglades). Rather, the direction of
transport is the most important feature to note. The diagram indicates
that transport would be primarily toward the southeast. Results for the
third recording interval indicate transport toward the east-southeast
(115°), and for the second interval, data indicate transport toward the
south-southeast (165°).
3.3 SEDIMENT HEIGHT
Figure 3.4 presents sediment height measurements for the stations
that were monitored from Surveys III through VII. Sediment height
measurements were also made at the "old" Site 4 stations between
Surveys I and III; data from the four stations (C-1, C-2, OLD-3, and D
[=OLD-5]) that were not abandoned on Survey III are included on the
figure.
Results presented in Figure 3.4 show the height of sediment in
relation to the base of the station marker. Values greater than zero
indicate accumulation of sediment and/or settling of the station marker.
45
-------
FIGURE 3.3. PR0QRE88IVE VECTOR DIAGRAM FOR STATION 6. 14 MARCH TO 23 MAY 1986.
CM
-------
a
ui
*
ac
<
3
z
o
K
<
t-
09
U.
O
u
«
<
o
ac
u.
o
UI
c
D
09
<
UI
2
E
o
09
09
UI
z
X
u
z
»-
»-
z
UI
3
5
UI
a9
t—i—i—i—i—r
i n in 12 "z 3zn
8URVEY
T—I—I—I—T
x nmi irnr
SURVEY
i i I—I—r
I nnrir yse
SURVEY
8URVEY
t—i—i—i—r
n nr nrisn
SURVEY
Tn~3Hz¥S
SURVEY
TTffii
SURVEY
fl nr Ariifi
SURVEY
I nnr5~FSc
SURVEY
T—I—I—I—I—r
i nnutim
8URVEY
i iii r
n m ik -snnr
8URVEY
i iritifciir
8URVEY
t—i—i—r
n nr nr y w
SURVEY
T—I—I—T
i n m by 3zn
8URVEY
i i I I i—r
i 3i hi ey sn
8URVEY
LEGEND
l—i—r
nr rzi'sn
SURVEY
T—I—I—I—i—r
I mi y-zn
SURVEY
t i i i r
nmiYin
8URVEY
~ '8TATION MARKER DEPLOYMENT
4:8EDIMENT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT
FIGURE 3.4. CHANQE8 IN HEIGHT OF 8EDIMENT ABOVE THE BA8E OF THE 8TATI0N MARKER AT SITE 4 AND
CONTROL SITE STATION8.
Jk
-------
Values less than zero are not possible because the station marker rests
on the seafloor.
Within Site 4, sediment height changed most noticeably at the
inner ring stations around the disposal area (e.g., Stations B, D, E, and
F) as well as at outer ring Station 4. However, changes of comparable
magnitude at two of three Control Site stations indicate that the results
observed at Site 4 are not necessarily related to disposal of dredged
material.
At the four hard-bottom stations (1, OLD-3, F, and C-3), the sand
veneer overlying hard bottom was thin and the marker probably rested on
hard bottom after some initial settling. At three of these stations (1,
OLD-3, and C-3), there was little change in sediment height over time.
This suggests that some of the changes at other stations may have been
due to settling of the station marker rather than sediment accumulation.
Alternatively, scour may have been greater in the hard-bottom areas,
preventing an accumulation of sand. The increase in sediment thickness
at hard-bottom Station F is believed to represent a real accumulation of
sand and silt; on Survey VII, an eyebolt previously driven into the hard
bottom along one of the photographic transects was found buried by about
15 cm (6 in.) of silty sediments. However/ the degree of accumulation
varied considerably within Station F; sediment height at the station
marker was 6 cm (2.5 in.), but low-relief sponge and hard coral specimens
whose locations were noted in photographs from previous surveys were not
buried on Survey VII (see Section 3.7).
3.4 SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS
3.4.1 General Observations
Raw data and means for sediment parameters measured on each survey
are presented in Appendix C. Figure 3.5 shows the range of values
observed for each parameter during each survey at Site 4 and the Control
Site, and Table 3.4 summarizes the composition of sediments obtained from
the disposal barge during Survey III and the disposal area during
Surveys IV, V, and VII.
Several features are evident in the range diagrams (Figure 3.5).
For most parameters, the range of values was less at the Control Site
than at Site 4, both before, during, and after disposal. This is due in
part to the lower number of stations sampled in the Control Site vs.
Site 4. Also, Control Site values for clay, fines, and total organic
48
-------
J XI
U1 >.
Q o
°rt * <
«o „5
05 b E
^5'u.
io# ?
Ill
% o
l-J >o
<* K
i £ »«
s£^
iSls
r z mi
Owz
o -
5^2
jrCl-
2<»S
i-oc >5
{ioiz
flZfn
2 z
40
30H
20-
10-
LEQEND
l"8ITE 4
|°CONTROL SITE
Hm!
a
D.
FIGURE 3.6. RANQE8 OF MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF SEDIMENT PARAMETERS AT
8ITE 4 AND CONTROL 8ITE 8TATION8.
CM
49
-------
TABLE 3.4. COMPOSITION OF SEDIMENT FROM THE DISPOSAL BARGE AND THE
DISPOSAL AREA.
Composition*
Total
Organic
Sample Clay Fines Carbon Phosphate Strontium
(%) (%) (%) (ppm) (ppm)
Disposal Barge
Samples:
DM—1 5.5 41.8 0.10 11,900 140
DM-2 3.5 6.9 0.70 22,200 550
DM—3 5.4 45.0 0.50 15,100 180
Disposal Area,
Survey IV:
East End 3.0 12.6 0.34 24,433 357
West End 3.5 18.4 0.45 21,000 460
Disposal Area,
Survey V:
East End 0.5 3.5 0.74 12,433 500
West End 0.5 15.5 0.44 10,467 460
Disposal Area,
Survey VII:
East End 0.2 1.8 0.56 8,160 203
West End 0.2 2.5 1.04 6,807 320
~Values for the disposal barge samples are results of analysis of
individual replicates (DM-1, DM-2, and DM-3). All other values are
means from analysis of three replicate samples (a, b, and c) obtained at
each sampling location. Clay and fines (silt + clay) are expressed as
percentages of (dry wt) of whole sediment. Total organic carbon is
expressed as percentage (dry wt) of the sediment fine fraction, and
phosphate and strontium are expressed as ppm (dry wt) of the sediment
fine fraction.
50
-------
carbon were quite variable during Survey II. This reflects unusually
high values for clay and fines and low values for total organic carbon at
Station OLD-C-3. Values for clay, fines, and total organic carbon at
Station OLD-C-3 during Survey II were within the range of values measured
in dredged material (Table 3.4). The station was not sampled on
Surveys III and IV, but values from Surveys V and VII were more in line
with those at the other Control Site stations.
Several parameters exhibit patterns that suggest the influence of
dredged material. Specifically, after disposal began, phosphate had a
greater range and higher maximum values at Site 4 than at the Control
Site. Similarly, strontium had a greater range and lower minimum values
at Site 4 during and after disposal. These are the results one would
predict if dredged material were present at one or more Site 4 stations
after disposal began. Percentages of clay and fines show some similarity
to the phosphate pattern, but the results are more complicated: the range
and maximum values were already greater at Site 4 than at the Control
Site prior to disposal, and Survey II Control Site values were much more
variable among stations than those at Site 4 (due to high values at
Station OLD-C-3). Similarly, some total organic carbon values were lower
at Site 4 than at the Control Site prior to disposal (Survey I), and
Survey II total organic carbon values at the Control Site were variable
among stations; otherwise, data from Surveys III through VII might be
interpreted as indicating the influence of dredged material.
Additional insight is gained by plotting time-course graphs for
each sediment parameter at three Control Site stations and the two Site 4
stations sampled on all surveys (Figure 3.6). In order for a difference
between Site 4 stations and Control Site stations to be interpreted as an
influence of dredged material (rather than normal variability), the
values at the Control Site stations must either remain constant or covary
closely over time. Phosphate concentrations meet this criterion best in
that Control Site stations showed similar patterns during the study;
consequently, the likely influence of dredged material at Station D is
obvious in the figure. Strontium appears to be somewhat less
satisfactory: although similar patterns were evident at the Control Site
stations—generally, there was a decrease in mean strontium content—the
concentrations at the Control Site stations diverged initially between
Surveys I and II. Nevertheless, the likely influence of dredged material
at Station D (at least on Survey V) is also readily discernible. In
contrast, values for total organic carbon, fines, and clay varied
considerably over time at one or more Control Site stations, making any
51
-------
SURVEY:
UJ
I-
Z
o
o ~
o ±
III
2
5
111
09
5-
4-
3-
f-
1-
sn
A.
' gjk-v
J'F'M'A'M'j'j'A'S'tfN'DlJ'F'M'A'M'j 'j'A'S'O'N'Dl J'F'M'A'M1 J'J'A'S1 O'N ' 0
1984
1086
DATE
1986
SURVEY-
l-
O
<
oe ^
u. -
ui *
5 £
Si2
III
s
5
ui
a»
40-
30-
20-
10-
j'f'm'a'mv
1984
m
U|8§ND
• * CONTROL 8ITE
STATION
°- 81TE 4 8TATION
D|j,FlM,A,M,J,JfA,S,0,Nl D
1986
FIQURE 3.6. TEMPORAL VARIATION IN 8URPICIAL SEDIMENT COMPOSITION
PARAMETERS AT SELECTED SITE 4 AND CONTROL SITE 8TATION8.
52
-------
2 O
£ <
iu~«-
O »UI
Z xZ
g$E
SURVEY
10,000-
^ Jill
% s
o ®
£ 2
5,000-
\»D(OLO-5)
3&-2-S
on'd| j 'f'm'a'm'j 1 j 'a's' o'n' d
I960
L,EQENP "j 'F'M'A'M' j'j'A1 S'o'n' D
• • CONTROL BITE 1884 1080 1886
STATION oate
o. SITE 4 8TATION
53
-------
1984 1986 1986
LEGEND
• -CONTROL 8ITE STATION
0-8ITE 4 STATION
FIGURE 3.6. (CONTINUED)
54
(M
-------
differences between Control Site and Site 4 stations difficult to
attribute to an influence of dredged material.
3.4.2 ANOVA and Multiple Comparisons Results
The general observations presented above can be evaluated
statistically to determine whether there was significant spatial
variability in each parameter, and which Site 4 stations may have
differed from all Control Site stations. Table 3.5 summarizes ANOVA and
multiple comparisons results for each parameter. Results can be
summarized as follows:
1) Prior to disposal operations (Survey I), significant spatial
variability was detected in all sediment parameters except
strontium concentration. However, there was little evidence for
systematic differences in sediment composition between Site 4 and
the Control Site. None of the Site 4 stations differed
significantly from all Control Site stations with respect to
phosphate, strontium, or total organic carbon, although one
station (OLD-7) differed significantly from all Control Site
stations with respect to clay and fines.
2) On all subsequent surveys, significant spatial variability was
noted in all five sediment parameters, and at least one Site 4
station differed from all Control Site stations with respect to
each parameter (exception: clay content, Survey IV—ANOVA
significant but no stations different from all controls).
3) Site 4 stations differing from all Control Site stations with
respect to one or more parameters on one or more surveys were
primarily those on the inner ring surrounding the disposal area
(Stations A through F).
The ANOVA results for Survey I and the time-course plots presented
previously indicate that statistically significant differences between
Site 4 stations and Control Site stations with respect to phosphate and
strontium can probably be attributed to the presence of dredged material.
Similar inferences cannot be drawn from differences with respect to clay,
fines, and total organic carbon because one Site 4 station differed from
all Control Site stations prior to disposal (for fines and clay) and
because on Survey II, one Control Site station exhibited values similar
to those measured in dredged material.
55
-------
TABLE 3.5. ANOVA RESULTS FOR SURFICIAL SEDIMENT DATA.
Parameter
II
Survey
III
IV
VII
Strontium
F-value 1.35
Degrees of Freedom 16,34
Stations < Controls none
. ***
33.22
16,34
OLD-D,OLD-E,
OLD-4
14.46""'
17,36
C,D,F,4
56.89
19,40
F
***
78.90
20,42
C»D,E,F,3
63.85
20,42
E
Phosphate
F-value 4.11
Degrees of Freedom 16,34
Stations > Controls none
***
40.36
16,34
OLD-D,OLD-E,
OLD-4,D
10.18
17,36
C,D,E,F,4
86.27
19,40
B,C,D,E,
F ,4
47.83
20,42
B,C,D,E,
F,3,4
22.80
20,42
C, E, F
***
Clay
F-value 43.02
Degrees of Freedom 16,34
Stations > Controls OLD-7
115.86
16,34
none
12.00
17,36
A,E,B
59.44
19,40
none
6.50
20,42
E
78.03
20,42
A,F
Fines
F-value 37.09
Degrees of Freedom 16,34
Stations > Controls OLD-7
Total Organic Carbon
F-value 3.11
Degrees of Freedom 16,17
Stations < Controls none
***
370.49
16,34
none
28.51
16,17
none
***
***
32.40
17,36
A,B,C,F,
2,4
7.25***
17,18
A,B,C,E,
5
32.64
19,40
A,C
34.83
19,20
A,B,E,
F,2
13.55
20,42
E
32.65
20,21
AfBfCfD^E|
F,4,5,6
129.36
20,42
A,E,F,2
16.38
20,21
A,F,5
* p< 0.0 5
** p<0.01
***p<0.001
-------
Figures 3.7 and 3.8 show the locations of Site 4 stations that
differed from all Control Site stations with respect to phosphate and/or
strontium on each survey. On Survey II, three stations (OLD-D, OLD-E,
and OLD-4) differed from all Control Site stations with respect to both
phosphate and strontium, and Station OLD-5 differed with respect to
phosphate only. On Survey III, Stations C, D, F, and 4 differed from all
Control Site stations with respect to phosphate and strontium, and
Station E differed with respect to phosphate. On Survey IV, only
Station F differed with respect to both strontium and phosphate, but
Stations B, C, D, E, and 4 differed in terms of phosphate. On Survey V,
five stations (C, D, E, F, and 3) differed with respect to phosphate and
strontium, with Stations B and 4 differing in phosphate only. Finally,
on Survey VII, only Station E differed in both phosphate and strontium,
whereas Stations C and F differed in phosphate only.
Although differences between Site 4 stations and Control Site
stations with respect to clay, fines, and total organic carbon do not
necessarily reflect an influence of dredged material (for reasons
discussed above), some of the differences appear to be in accord with
evidence of dredged material based on the phosphate and strontium data.
Most of the stations differing significantly from all Control Site
stations with respect to clay, fines, or total organic carbon were
located on the inner ring surrounding the disposal area (Stations A
through F), and in several instances these included stations where
strontium and/or phosphate data were indicative of some dredged material
(see Table 3.5). However, differences with respect to clay, fines, and
total organic carbon at Station A, fines and total organic carbon at
Station 2, and total organic carbon at Stations 5 and 6 did not
correspond to significant differences in strontium and phosphate at those
stations. On statistical grounds, it is not possible to state with
confidence that percentages of clay, fines, or total organic carbon at
any Site 4 station have been altered due to dredged material disposal.
3.4.3 Further Exploration of Phosphate and Strontium Data
Since strontium and phosphate are the most reliable indicators of
dredged material, it is instructive to plot the values of these
parameters for each survey (Figure 3.9). Included on each plot, are the
values obtained by analysis of dredged material from the disposal barge.
Similar results for composition of Tampa Bay sediments were obtained in
an earlier analysis (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1984). Also
57
-------
O— — — — — — — O- —
TOLO-7 OLD-8
OL
AREA MONITORED DURING SURVEYS I AND H
I
I
9old
I
I
I
I
I
A- ~
OLD-5
-6
o o
OLD-F OLD-A
C>
OLD-E
OLD-C
O
OLD-D
OLD-4
OLD - 2
O
OLD - B
O
OL
0-3j
SITE 4
3.7 km (2.0 nmi)
LEGEND
p|p= DISPOSAL AREA
SYMBOLS INDICATE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE FROM
ALL CONTROL SITE STATIONS WITH RESPECT TO:
#» PHOSPHATE AND STRONTIUM
~ = PHOSPHATE ONLY
o NEITHER PHOSPHATE NOR STRONTIUM
FIGURE 3.7. SITE 4 STATION8 DIFFERING FROM ALL CONTROL SITE 8TATION8 WITH RE8PECT TO
PH03PHATE AND/OR STRONTIUM IN 8URFICIAL SEDIMENTS. SURVEY TL
58
-------
3.7 km (2.0 nmi)
SITE 4
ffl
EB
«¦
ffl
OLD -3
-ffl
LEGEND
DI8PO8AL AREA
MONITORING STATION
(P08IT10N INDICATE8 SURVEY NUMBER)
SYMBOLS INDICATE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE FROM ALL
CONTROL 8ITE STATION8 WITH RESPECT TO..
¦ = PHOSPHATE AND STRONTIUM
IB- PHOSPHATE ONLY
~ = NEITHER PH08PHATE NOR STRONTIUM
FIGURE 3.8. SITE 4 STATION8 DIFFERING FROM ALL CONTROL SITE STATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
PH08PHATE AND/OR 8TRONTIUM IN SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS, SURVEY8 HI THROUGH 2D.
CM
59
-------
z
o
H
<
oc
Ul
o
z
o
o
2
2
H
Z
o
fiC
H
co
3,000
z
o
»-
o
<
a.
u.
ui
z
iZ
ui
3
O
III
a
2.000
1.S00 -
800-
~ 2.500-
»
k.
T3
E
a
a
2.000
2.900-
2.000-
1.900-
1.000-
SURVEY I
LEGEND
®- SITE 4 STATION DIFFERING
•
SIGNIFICANTLY FROU ALL
CONTROLS WITH RESPECT
- ^
TO PO4 ANO/OR S<
*
• ' OTHER SITE 4 STATION
¦ ¦ CONTROL SITE STATION
A • DISPOSAL AREA STATION
A • DREDGED MATERIAL
COLLECTED FROM BAROE
DURING SURVEY M
A
A
A
SURVEYX
¦i
61
©'
1 1 < 1 ¦
S.OOO 10.000 16.000 20.000 26.000
¦ ¦ ¦
SURVEYB
0010-9
Qour^Qoioo
Qoio-c
~ A
6.000 10.000 16.000 20.000 26.000
PHOSPHATE CONCENTRATION (ppm dry wt) IN SEDIMENT FINE FRACTION
FIGURE 3.9. STRONTIUM/PHOSPHATE PLOTS FOR SURFICIAL SEOIMENT DATA.
CM !
60
-------
shown in the Survey IV, V, and VII plots are data from samples collected
in the disposal area.
The strontium/phosphate plots clearly illustrate the influence of
dredged material in the fine fraction of sediments at some Site 4
stations* Prior to disposal operations (Survey I), sediments at Site 4
and Control Site stations were very similar with respect to strontium and
phosphate concentrations and very different from Tampa Bay sediments
(dredged material). While disposal was in progress (Surveys II through
V), sediments at several Site 4 stations—particularly those on the inner
ring surrounding the disposal area—moved in the direction of dredged
material composition. This phenomenon is most evident in the data from
Survey V, the last before the end of disposal operations. Post-disposal
data (Survey VII) show that most of the inner ring stations had
concentrations returning toward the composition of Control Site stations.
Samples collected from the disposal area during Surveys IV, V, and VII
also show the strontium/phosphate "signature" of Tampa Bay sediments,
confirming the utility of these two parameters for detecting the presence
of dredged material.
Statistical analyses discussed above were used to determine the
stations at which dredged material probably was present in surficial
sediments. In order to determine what "presence" of dredged material
means, further calculations are needed. Two relevant questions are
(1) what is the minimum detectable percentage of dredged material in
surficial sediments? and (2) what is the maximum percentage of dredged
material observed at Site 4 stations?
The table below presents estimates of the percentages of fine
(<63 um) dredged material that must be present in the fine fraction of
surficial sediments to produce various strontium concentrations. For
purposes of calculation, it was necessary to select representative values
for strontium concentrations in dredged material and uncontaminated shelf
sediments. Strontium concentrations in dredged material from the
disposal barge ranged from 140 to 550 ppm, and an average value of
300 ppm was assumed. Representative values for uncontaminated shelf
sediments can be derived from Control Site data. An average value of
2,100 ppm was assumed (representative of Survey III-VII data).
61
-------
Observed Strontium
Concentration
(ppm)
Percentage of
Dredged Material in
Sediment Fine Fraction
2,100
1,500
1,000
0
33
61
89
100
500
300
These estimates suggest that the fine fraction of sediments in the
disposal site (east and west ends) consists almost entirely of dredged
material (values ranged from 203 to 500 ppm). Site 4 stations differing
from all Control Site stations had strontium values ranging from 980 ppm
(Station F, Survey V) to 1,817 ppm (Station 4, Survey III), representing
calculated dredged material contributions of 62% to 16% of the fine
fraction.
Similar calculations can be performed using the phosphate data.
Phosphate concentrations in the dredged material ranged from 11,900 to
22,200 ppm; an average value of 16,000 ppm was used. Control Site values
averaged approximately 3,000 to 3,200 ppm on Surveys I, IV, V, and VII,
so a representative value of 3,100 ppm was chosen. The table below
presents estimates of the percent contribution of fine (<63 um) dredged
material needed to produce various concentrations of phosphate in the
fine fraction of surficial sediments.
Disposal site values from Survey IV ranged from 10,467 to 12,433 ppm,
indicating that most of the fine fraction was dredged material.
Similarly, during Survey V (the last before the end of disposal
operations), samples from the disposal area had phosphate concentrations
Observed Phosphate
Concentration
(ppm)
Percentage of
Dredged Material in
Sediment Fine Fraction
3,100
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
16,000
0
15
34
54
73
100
62
-------
in excess of 20,000 ppra, indicating that most or all of the fine fraction
was dredged material. Survey VII (post-disposal) values were
considerably lower (6,807 to 8,160 ppm), indicating that phosphate
concentrations were returning toward those typical of the Control Site.
The minimum phosphate concentration that was significantly higher
than all Control Site concentrations was 4,527 ppm (Station C,
Survey VII)j this represents a dredged material contribution of about 11%
of the fine fraction. The maximum phosphate value observed at a Site 4
station was 11,667 ppm (Station F, Survey V). This value corresponds to
a dredged material content of approximately 66% in the fine fraction—
very close to the value of 62% calculated on the basis of strontium
data.
The percentages cited above are for the fine fraction only. The
percentage of dredged material in whole sediment depends on the
percentage of fines in sediment and dredged material, and also on the
grain size composition (fines only, or both coarse and fine sediment) of
dredged material that reaches the station. For example, consider
Station F on Survey V, which exhibited the lowest strontium concentration
and the highest phosphate concentration outside of the disposal area on
any survey. The dredged material content of the fine fraction can be
estimated as 62% based on strontium and 66% based on phosphate, for an
average of 64%. The percentage of fine sediments at Station F on
Survey V was 4.2. Therefore, if only fine dredged material reached the
station, the material constituted about 4.2% times 64% .= 2.7% of total
sediment by weight. However, if whole dredged material (coarse and fine
fractions in the same proportions observed in dredged material samples)
were deposited at Station F, this value would have to be divided by the
proportion of fines present in the dredged material (average: 31%; range:
7 to 45%). The calculated contribution of dredged material would then be
about 8.7% (range: 6 to 39%).
A large percentage (19%) of fine sediments was observed at
Station F on Survey VII. The increase in silt and clay content from 4%
on Survey V to 19% on Survey VII was assumed to be dredged material
because of the station's proximity to the disposal area. However,
calculations similar to those presented above indicate a dredged material
content of about 15% in the fine fraction, as compared with 64% on
Survey V. With a fine fraction of 19%, the total contribution of fine
dredged material at this station would be 2.8%. The accumulation of fine
sediments at Control Site Station OLD-C-3 on Survey II (37% fines) shows
that changes such as those observed at Station F can occur in the absence
63
-------
of dredged material. Because no data are available for the coarse
fraction at Station F, it is not possible to determine whether the
overall contribution of dredged material has increased at this station
(see Section 4.2).
3.5 SEDIMENT TRAPS
Sediment trap samples were collected during six trapping intervals
referred to in the discussion below:
1) Survey I to Survey II (April to August 1984).
2) Survey II to Survey III (August to December 1984).
3) Survey III to Survey IV (December 1984 to March 1985).
4) Survey IV to Survey V (March to July 1985).
5) Survey V to Survey VI (July 1985 to January 1986).
6) Survey VI to Survey VII (January to July 1986).
During the first two intervals, the traps collected sediments at the
Control Site stations and the "old" Site 4 stations; during subsequent
surveys, the traps collected material at the Control Site stations and
"new" Site 4 stations. Data from all intervals except the fifth (from
which the samples were archived) are presented in Appendix C.
3.5.1 General Observations
Figure 3.10 shows the range of station means for each parameter at
Site 4 and the Control Site during each survey. The range for all
parameters was greater at Site 4 than at the Control Site. This may be
due in part to the larger number of stations sampled at Site 4, but could
also reflect the influence of dredged material; lack of pre-disposal data
makes this question unresolvable.
Deposition rate (shown on a logarithmic scale) ranged from 9 to
1,043 g dry wt/m^/d and was highest during winter (December 1984 to March
1985). Deposition rate was also high during the last trapping interval,
which encompassed winter, spring, and a few weeks of summer (January to
July 1986); most of the deposition probably occurred during winter. The
maximum deposition rates were higher at Site 4 them at the Control Site
during all time periods.
The percentage of trapped material <63 um in size ranged from 35
to 92; there were no apparent seasonal trends. The percentage of fine
64
-------
2"fi
55*
,s !
1,000-
100-
10-
APR
1084
AUO
1084
DEC
1084
MAR
1085
JUL
1885
JAN
1088
JUL
1088
0-
~- []¦
pj 1.1 KB
£c
H *
2 ?
s*
09 w
uiSC 15,000-
10,000-
sii
lOw 6,000-i
,Oc 2,280-
i5*
i.«ooi
§*E
• ga 750—f
LEGEND
0.
~'
(<- 1«t
T
I
n
TRAPPINO INTERVAL
2nd 3rd *|* 4tb
0
0
5th
m
m
SURVEY
r
I
T
sr
etn-H
YE
j= 8ITE 4
|= CONTROL 8ITE
65
-------
sediment was not measured in samples from the first trapping interval.
During the second and fourth trapping intervals, much lower minimum
values were observed at Site 4 than at the Control Site, and during all
intervals the maximum was greater at Site 4.
Phosphate concentration in trapped material ranged from 1,545 to
15,400 ppm and was lowest in samples collected during December 1984 to
March 1985 and January to July 1986. Maximum values were higher at
Site 4 than at the Control Site throughout the study, but the difference
was most pronounced during the first three intervals. Minimum values
were lower at Site 4 during four of the five intervals.
Strontium concentration in trapped sediments ranged from 965 to
2,630 ppm and was highest during winter 1984-85 and winter-spring 1986.
Minimum values were lower at Site 4 than at the Control Site during all
surveys, but the difference was most evident in data from the first,
second, and fourth trapping intervals. Maximum values were higher at
Site 4 during all time periods.
3.5.2 ANOVA and Multiple Comparisons Results
Table 3.6 summarizes ANOVA results for sediment trap parameters.
Significant spatial variability in deposition rate was detected during
all five trapping intervals, and significant variability in deposition
rate of fine sediment (<63 um) was detected on all four intervals for
which data are available. More Site 4 stations had higher values than
all Control Site stations during the third trapping interval than during
any other interval (seven stations for total deposition rate, eight for
deposition rate of fines). There was no consistent indication that
deposition rates were higher at the inner ring stations (A through F)
than at those located farther from the disposal area (Stations 1 through
8 and OLD-3). During the fourth trapping interval, the deposition rate
of fines tended to be higher at inner ring stations than at those on the
outer ring, but the highest rates were observed at a Control Site
station.
The percentage of fines in trapped material varied spatially on
the last three trapping intervals (no data are available from the first).
However, only during the third interval were any stations significantly
higher than all Control Site stations with respect to the fine fraction
(Table 3.6). There was no indication of a 3patial pattern in the
percentage of fines in relation to the location of the disposal area.
66
-------
TABLE 3.6. ANOVA RESULTS FOR SEDIMENT TRAP DATA.
Parameter
First
Second
Trapping Interval
Third
Fourth
Sixth
Deposition Rate (total)
F-value
Degrees of Freedom
Stations > Controls
Deposition Rate (fines)
F-value
Degrees of Freedom
Stations > Controls
Deposition Rate (phosphate)
F-value
Degrees of Freedom
Stations > Controls
. ***
13.14'
11,11
OLD-C/OLD-D
OLD-1,0LD-8
__t
2.15
11,12
none
3.07
11,12
OLD-7
1.14
11,12
none
33.02***
17,18
C,D,F,3,5,
6,7
20.79
17,18
C,D,F,3,4,
5,6,7
24.72***
17,18
C,3,4
23.44"
17,17
C,E
6.44
17,17
none
6.50'
17,17
none
10.48'
16,14
OLD-3
. . - * K
4.49
16,14
OLD-3,C
4.69
16,14
C
**
Percent Fines
F-value
Degrees of Freedom
Stations > Controls
1.19
11,12
none
12.20
17,18
A,2
18.26
17,17
none
11.68
16,14
none
Phosphate Content
F-value
Degrees of Freedom
Stations > Controls
2.39
11,11
none
1.11
11, 12
none
14.57
17,18
C
2.49"
17,17
none
6.18
16,14
C
Strontium Content
F-value
Degrees of Freedom
Stations < Controls
11.11
11,11
OLD-D,OLD-5
6.64
11,12
OLD-D
9.04
17,18
C
8.48
17,17
C , D, E, F,
4,7
1.09
16,14
none
p<0.05
* p<0.01
*p<0.001
+ Percentage of fines not measured in material trapped between Surveys I and II.
Deposition rate of fines and fine-fraction phosphate could not be calculated.
-------
The phosphate content of fine trapped material varied spatially
only during the last three trapping intervals, and only Station C
differed significantly from all Control Site stations (Table 3.6). The
deposition rate of fine phosphate also varied spatially during the last
three intervals (no data are available from the first), and Station C
differed significantly from all Control Site stations on the third and
sixth intervals. Stations 3 and 4 also differed from the controls during
the third interval with respect to deposition rate of fine phosphate.
The strontium content of fine trapped material varied spatially on
all but the last trapping interval (Table 3.6). Station OLD-D, which was
located at the edge of the disposal area, differed significantly from all
Control Site stations on both trapping intervals for which data are
available from this station. Station 0 (same as OLD-5) also differed
from the Control Site stations on the first and fourth trapping
intervals. The largest number of stations was affected during the fourth
interval, when four inner-ring stations (C, D, E, and F) and two on the
outer ring (4 and 7) had lower strontium concentrations than all Control
Site stations.
Figures 3.11 and 3.12 show the locations of stations that differed
from all Control Site stations with respect to strontium or phosphate
content of trapped material and/or phosphate deposition rate. These were
the parameters most likely to be affected by deposition of suspended
dredged material. During the first two trapping intervals, only
Stations OLD-D and OLD-5 (=D) differed significantly from the controls
with respect to any parameter (strontium content). During the remaining
intervals, Station C showed the strongest and most consistent indications
of a dredged material influence: significantly lower strontium content on
the third and fourth intervals, and significantly higher phosphate
content and phosphate deposition rate on the third and sixth trapping
intervals. Three other stations (D, E, and F) on the inner ring were
affected, but only during the fourth interval and only with respect to
strontium. Among the outer ring stations, Stations 3 and 4 had elevated
phosphate deposition rates during the third interval, and Stations 4 and
7 had low strontium content during the fourth interval.
There appears to be little relationship between the stations
having higher deposition rates than the Control Site stations and those
differing with respect to phosphate and/or strontium (Table 3.6). During
the first trapping interval, for example, four stations had higher total
deposition rates than the Control Site stations, but only one of these
68
-------
SITE 4
m CD CD
j OLD-7 OLD-8 OLD-1 |
AREA MONITORED DURING SURVEYS I ANO H I
+
EB EB
I
| | | OLD-6
OLD-F OLD-A
OLD-E
OLD-D OLD-C
I
j OLD-4
ID ED h
OLD-5
I
OLD-2 |—|-I
OLD-B
O LD-3|
Qj
3.7 km (2.0 nmi)
LEGEND
xW:W: - DISPOSAL AREA
r-c-, MONITORING STATION
InHn| ¦ (POSITION INDICATES SURVEY NUMBER)
SlYli&OLS INDICATE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE FROM
ALL CONTROL SITE STATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
¦ _ PHOSPHATE, STRONTIUM, AND DEPOSITION
RATE OF PHOSPHATE
(£" PHOSPHATE AND DEPOSITION RATE OF PHOSPHATE ONLY
ffl- STRONTIUM ONLY
(D - DEPOSITION RATE OF PHOSPHATE ONLY
Q- NONE OF ABOVE
NO DATA (ARRAY LOST)
FIGURE 3.11. SITE 4 STATIONS DIFFERING FROM ALL CONTROL SITE STATIONS WITH RE8PECT TO
PHOSPHATE AND 8TRONTIUM CONTENT OF TRAPPED MATERIAL AND/OR DEPOSITION
RATE OF PHOSPHATE, 8URVEYS 0 AND HI. "<
69
-------
3.7 Km (2.0 nmi)
~
n
~-
-crd-
-Q
SITE 4
M.
B
a
im
13
o
D-
ST
"CSl.
a
OLD—3
|E|g|gn
LEGEND
¦ DISPOSAL AREA
. MONITORING STATION
(POSITION INDICATES SURVEY NUMBER)
SYMBOLS INDICATE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE FROM
ALL CONTROL SITE STATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
|°
PH03PHATE. STRONTIUM. AND DEPOSITION
RATE OF PH08PHATE
PHOSPHATE AND DEPOSITION RATE OF PHOSPHATE ONLY
STRONTIUM ONLY
DEPOSITION RATE OF PHOSPHATE ONLY
NONE OF ABOVE
NO DATA (ARRAY LOST)
FIGURE 3.12. 8ITE 4 8TATION8 DIFFERING FROM ALL CONTROL SITE 8TATION8 WITH .
RE8PECT TO PHOSPHATE ANO STRONTIUM CONTENT OF TRAPPED MATERIAL i^
AND/OR DEPOSITION RATE OF PHOSPHATE, 8URVEY8 H THROUGH HL , <*
70
-------
(OLD-D) differed with respect to strontium. During the second interval,
Station OLD-D also had low strontium values, but total and fine
deposition rates, though high, were not significantly greater than at the
Control Site. On the third interval, of eight stations having higher
fine deposition rates than the Control Site, only one (C) differed with
respect to phosphate and strontium. During the fourth interval, two
stations with high total deposition rates had low strontium
concentrations, but four others (D, F, 4, and 7) with low strontium
concentrations did not exhibit high deposition rates. Finally, during
the sixth trapping interval, Station OLD-3 had high deposition rates, but
did not differ from the controls with respect to phosphate or strontium.
3.5.3 Correlations
To some extent, the lack of coincidence among results for
different parameters, as cited above, is a result of restricting
consideration to stations that differed statistically from all Control
Site stations. With only two replicates per station, it is difficult to
detect differences among stations (i.e., statistical power is low). A
more powerful approach is to calculate correlation coefficients among
parameters, using station means.
Dredged material has higher concentrations of phosphate and lower
concentrations of strontium than either surficial sediments or suspended
sediments collected at Site 4 and the Control Site. Therefore, if some
of the spatial differences between Site 4 stations and Control Site
stations with respect to deposition rate are due to dredged material, one
would eiqpect deposition rates to be negatively correlated with strontium
and positively correlated with phosphate content of the trapped material.
Most correlation coefficients calculated for each interval are of the
expected sign (i.e., negative for strontium and positive for phosphate),
but the only significant correlations are between phosphate and
deposition rate of fines, and between phosphate and total deposition
rate, both for the second trapping interval (Table 3.7). In general, the
correlations for deposition of fines are higher than those for deposition
of coarse sediments, indicating that dredged material is more likely to
influence fine deposition rates than coarse deposition rates. However,
the lack of strong relationships between total deposition rates and
concentrations of dredged material tracers indicates that most of the
variability in deposition among stations is not attributable to dredged
material.
71
-------
TABLE 3.7. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN DEPOSITION RATES AND
COMPOSITION VARIABLES FOR SEDIMENT TRAP DATA FROM SITE 4
STATIONS.
Deposition
Rate
n
Composition Variable
Fines
Phosphate
Strontium
FIRST INTERVAL:
Total
9
ND
-0.14
0.28
SECOND INTERVAL:
Total
10
-0.65*
0.68*
-0.53
Fine
10
-0.39
0.76*
-0.42
Coarse
10
-0.85**
0.53
-0.57
THIRD INTERVAL:
Total
15
-0.54*
0.37
-0.35
Fine
15
-0.23
0.50
-0.43
Coarse
15
-0.79***
0.16
-0.20
FOURTH INTERVAL:
Total
15
-0.96***
0.25
-0.41
Fine
15
-0.86***
0.38
-0.44
Coarse
15
-0.95***
0.19
-0.37
SIXTH INTERVAL:
Total
14
-0.37
0.23
0.08
Fine
14
0.19
0.34
-0.09
Coarse
14
-0.87***
0.01
0.24
Values are the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient/
calculated using station means for each parameter (n => number of
stations).
Significance levels:
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
***p<0.001.
72
-------
Much of the spatial variability in total deposition rates probably
is due to local variations in the resuspension and deposition of coarse
sediment (sand). Total deposition rate, coarse sediment deposition rate,
and (to a lesser extent) fine sediment deposition rate were negatively
correlated with the percentage of fine sediments in the traps
(Table 3.7). (The correlation coefficients would be the same in
magnitude but opposite in sign for percent sand, which is the complement
of percent fines). This suggests that, as overall deposition increases,
sand makes up an increasing proportion of the total trapped. A possible
explanation is that fine sediments are unlikely to settle under
hydrodynamic conditions (strong currents and wave action) needed to
resuspend sand and raise it 1 m (3 ft) above the seafloor.
During all trapping intervals except the fourth, phosphate and
strontium concentrations in trapped material were inversely correlated.
However, only the values from the first and third intervals are
statistically significant at p<0.05. One would expect phosphate and
strontium to be inversely correlated if dredged material were present in
some traps during each period, because dredged material is low in
strontium and high in phosphate.
3.5.4 Further Exploration of Phosphate and Strontium Data
Strontium/phosphate plots similar to those shown previously for
surficial sediment data are presented in Figure 3.13. Values for
composition of dredged material from the disposal barge are indicated on
each figure for reference. The results are not as clear as for the
surficial sediment data because there are no data from the period
preceding disposal; also, the variability among Control Site stations was
considerable during the fourth trapping interval. However, the likely
influence of dredged material at one or more stations on each interval is
evident.
During the third and sixth trapping intervals (winter 1984-1985
and winter-spring 1986), nearly all Site 4 and Control Site stations were
similar in phosphate and strontium content of trapped sediments (Figure
3.13). This result may reflect decreased deposition of dredged material,
and/or masking of the dredged material signal by increased deposition of
low-phosphate, high-strontium sediments, such as resuspended bottom
sediments from the area. High deposition rates measured during the two
intervals (Figure 3.10) support the latter explanation. The reduction in
variability among Control Site stations during these two intervals, also
73
-------
z
o
P
o
<
cc
u.
Ui
z
iZ
O
oc
2.500
fl»«T INTCNVAL
IIUDvir 01
®OL0-0
2.30C-
2.000-
1.500-
• CCOMO IHTCRVAL
1 SUAVIV IS)
@01.0-D
z
1 1 1 1 J
•
£ 2.500-
-
X
k_
¦o
V
E 2.000-
Q.
©c
-
* h
¦
a
o
¦
Z 1,500-
-
•
o
* •
• t
<
Qo
a ,00°-
©7
H
Z
UI
~
~
O 500 -
~
z
o
o
~ *
A A
2
1 1 " 1 1 1
6.000 10,000 19.000 20.000 29,000
Z3
1_
.¦II!
LEGEND
9- 8ITE 4 STATION DIFFERING FROM
ALL CONTROLS WITH RESPECT TO
PHOSPHATE AND/OR STRONTIUM
OTHER SITE 4 STATION
¦ " CONTROL SITE STATION
A = DREDGED MATERIAL COLLECTED
FROM BARGE DURING SURVEY HZ
PH08PHATE CONCENTRATION (ppm dry wt) IN FINE FRACTION
FIGURE 3.13. 8TRONTIUM/PHO8PHATE PLOTS FOR MATERIAL COLLECTED IN 8EDIMENT
TRAP8.
74
-------
supports the latter explanation, since the Control Site could not have
been influenced by dredged material.
The third and sixth trapping intervals were also unusual in that
strontium concentrations in trapped material were greater than or equal
to those in surficial sediments; during the other intervals, the opposite
was true (Figure 3.14). Similarly, during the third and sixth intervals,
phosphate concentrations in trapped material were less than or equal to
those in surficial sediments, whereas, during the other intervals, the
opposite was true. Apparently, most of the material trapped during
winter is bottom sediment resuspended locally. Material trapped during
other seasons may contain resuspended sediments from nearshore, since
these sediments would be higher in phosphate and lower in strontium than
local bottom sediments. Dredged material is not the source of
high-phosphate, low-strontium sediments, since Figure 3.14 is based on
Control Site data.
One would expect deposition of dredged material during a given
trapping interval to cause changes in phosphate and strontium
concentrations in surficial sediments. To test this hypothesis, the
correlation between phosphate (and strontium) concentrations in traps and
phosphate (and strontium) concentrations in surficial sediments was
calculated for each trapping interval. Also, the correlation between
deposition rates of fine-fraction phosphate and phosphate concentrations
in surficial sediments was calculated. The surficial sediment data were
taken from the survey that followed each trapping interval; however, no
calculations could be made for the second interval, because the traps
were placed at one set of stations (the old stations), whereas the
sediment samples were collected at another (the new stations). The
results were as follows: (1) strontium concentrations in trapped material
and surficial sediments were positively correlated (p<0.05) during the
first trapping interval (r = 0.75, n =* 12) and the fourth trapping
interval (r = 0.62, n = 18); (2) phosphate concentrations in trapped
material and surficial sediments were positively correlated (p<0.05)
during the third interval (r = 0.55, n = 18); and (3) phosphate
concentrations in surficial sediments were positively correlated (p<0.5)
with fine-fraction phosphate deposition rates during the third interval
(r =» 0.59, n = 18), and the fourth interval (r = 0.61, n = 18). Several
of the other correlation coefficients were positive, but not high enough
to be statistically significant. These results generally support the
idea that the phosphate and strontium in dredged material deposited at
the monitoring stations affected phosphate and strontium concentrations
in surficial sediments.
75.
-------
II
££
Sui
o?
o5
I;
£E
M a
0 a
3,000-
2,000-
± 2,000-
1,000-
1,000-
800-
| 1
m rz
r
SL
m
JL
sn
DATE
j'f'm'a^m' j'j'a 'sta'n^dIj'f'm^a'm'j'T'a's'o'n' djT'f'm'a'm'j 7'a's 'o'n1d
1884
1886
1886
OO 10,000-
M
HI HI
or
Xr
o*-
oz
5*
I*
ii
5000-
1
I
LEQEND
TRAPPED
MATERIAL
, 8URFICIAL
SEDIMENT
~"SURVEY
¦^TTTT*
nr nr
st
JL
HI
Mil
j'f'm' aVj'j 'a '3'o'n'd| j'f'm a'm1 j'j'a 's'o'n'dIj'f'm'a'm'j'j'a's 'o'n'd
1884 1886 1888
FIGURE 3.14. COMPARISON OF RANQE OF MEAN PH08PHATE At© 8TRONTIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN
SURFICIAL SEDIMENT AND TRAPPED MATERIAL FROM THE CONTROL SITE. ^^7
76
-------
3.6 INFAUNA
3.6.1 General Observations
Infaunal abundance, biomass, and community structure data for
individual stations and surveys are summarized in Appendix E.
Figures 3.15 and 3.16 show the range of biomass and abundance values
observed during each survey at Site 4 and the Control Site. Figure 3.17
shows the range of values for diversity (H'), equitability (J'),
Margalef's species richness index (0), and the number of taxa per
station. In examining all of the figures, it is important to keep in
mind that data from Surveys II and V represent only four stations (the
other samples were archived), whereas data from the other surveys
represent 17 or 18 stations.
Total mean abundance ranged from 2,176 to 17,472 individuals/m^.
There is some suggestion of seasonality in the range diagrams,
particularly for the Control Site, with abundances being higher in July
(Surveys V and VII) and August (Survey II) than during December
(Survey III) or March-April (Surveys I and IV) (Figure 3.15). Annelids
contributed an average of about 60% of total individuals during all
surveys, and consequently total and annelid abundances showed similar
patterns over time (Figure 3.15). Arthropods were the next most abundant
group (generally 15 to 30% of the total). During the first three
surveys, abundances of annelids and total infauna were much more
variable, and generally higher, at Site 4 than at the Control Site.
Arthropod abundances, though generally similar at Site 4 and the Control
Site on Survey I, were more variable and typically higher at Site 4 on
the next two surveys. Mollusc abundances were generally similar at the
two areas except during Surveys III and IV, when the values were much
more variable at Site 4 than at the Control Site; maximum values were
higher at Site 4 during both surveys.
Total biomass values (geometric means) ranged from 1.06 to 16.94 g
wet wt/m^. There is some suggestion of seasonality, particularly for
the Control Site stations, with biomass generally being highest in summer
(Surveys II, V, and VII) (Figure 3.16). Annelids were consistently major
biomass contributors. Arthropods and molluscs were secondary
contributors, and echinoderms also accounted for a significant portion of
the total in some samples. The range of biomass values for annelids,
arthropods, and molluscs was similar at Site 4 and the Control Site prior
to disposal operations (Survey I), although total biomass values tended
to be higher at Site 4. On subsequent surveys, the range and maximum
77
-------
Ill g
0-S
JZ*
<
-------
t a H
TOTAL
BIOMA88 10-
(0 wet wt/m2)
6 A
APR 1864 AUG 1084 DEC 1884 MAR 1886
I I I '
0
1886 AIL 1886
J '
~
4 -
3 -
ANNELID
BI0MA88
(S wet wt/m2)2 -
1 -
3 -
ARTHROPOD
BIOMA88 2
(g wet wt/m2)
1 -
7
6
MOLLUSC 6
BIOMA88
(g wet wt/m2)4
3
2
1 ¦
~ -
I
~
0
0
. n. n
r
ni
T
m
8URVEY
~ n
T
m
LEGEND
~ =SITE 4
¦ -CONTROL 8ITE
FIGURE 3.16. RANQE8 OF GEOMETRIC MEAN BIOMA88 VALUE8 FOR INFAUNA AT A
8ITE 4 AND THE CONTROL 8ITE. ^^7
79
-------
4.9
DIVERSITY
INDEX 4.0-
3.8-
APR
1904
L_
H
AUQ
1984
I
DEC
1984
T
MAR
1988
I
I
JUL
1988
I
~
JUL
1988
'
1
0.9-
EQUITABILITY
INDEX 0>8j
(J') ^
0.7-
¦
30-
3PECIE8
RICHNE88
INDEX 20-
(D)
10-
I
o
200-
TOTAL
NO. OF 180-
TAXA/ n
8TATI0N
100-
t
i
i
n
m
rz
8URVEY
i
I
in
LEGEND
¦ - 8ITE 4
£]- CONTROL SITE
FIQURE 3.17. RANGES OF INFAUNAL COMMUNITY PARAMETERS AT SITE 4 AND
THE CONTROL SITE.
CM
80
-------
values for each group typically were greater at Site 4 than at the
Control Site.
There is little pattern evident in the range of diversity and
equitability values (Figure 3.17). The ranges of both parameters were
greater at Site 4 than at the Control Site during Survey I, but there was
no consistent pattern of higher, lower/ or more variable values at Site 4
during subsequent surveys. Both the total number of taxa per station and
the values for the species richness index (D) were more variable at
Site 4 than at the Control Site during most surveys. Both parameters
show some seasonality, with higher values during summer surveys (II, V,
and VII).
The difference in ranges of values between Site 4 and the Control
Site is partly attributable to the difference in the number of stations
being sampled (14 or 15 at Site 4 vs. three at the Control Site).
However, some of the results may represent an influence of dredged
material disposal. This possibility is examined statistically in
Section 3.6.2.
The most abundant species on'each survey are listed in Table 3.8.
A ranked abundance table for the entire data set is presented in
Appendix E. Most of the most abundant species are polychaetous annelids,
and most of the polychaetes listed belong to families that can be
considered carnivores or omnivorous scavengers, such as Dorveillidae
(Protodorvillea kefersteini), Eunicidae (Eunice vittata), Goniadidae
(Goniadides carolinae), Nereidae (Ceratocephale oculata), and Syllidae
(Ehlersia cornuta, Exogone lourei, Parapionosyllis longicirrata, and
Pionosyllis gesae). Surface deposit feeders are represented by species
of Spionidae (Apoprionospio dayi, Paraprionospio pinnata, and Prionospio
cristata) and Magelonidae (Magelona pettiboneae and Magelona sp. C).
Abundant taxa other than polychaetes were primarily peracaridean
crustaceans--e.g., amphipods (Acuminodeutopus sp. A, Microdeutopus
myers i), cumaceans (Cyclaspis unicornis), mysids (Anchiallna typica,
Bowmaniella portorlcensis), and tanaids (Leptochelia sp. D). Species
among the most abundant on most or all surveys include Goniadides
carolinae, Paleanotus sp. A, and Protodorvillea kefersteini; however,
there were no consistent, strong dominant species. This result is
typical for a continental shelf environment. Dominance appeared to be
strongest on the summer surveys (II, V, and VII), with typical abundant
species being Eunice vittata (Surveys II and V) and Prionospio cristata
(Surveys V and VII).
81
-------
TABLE 3.8. THB 10 HOST ABUNDANT INFAUNAL SPECIES ON BACH SUKVBY.
Grand Mean
Abundance
Speclea (no./a2)
Grand Mean
Abundance
Speclea (no./®2)
8urvey I<
Araandla aaculata (P)+ 292
Plotwyllla qaaae (p) 194
Protodorvlllea Keferatelnl (P) 178
Aqlaophana verrllll (P) 104
Oweala ap. A (P) 86
Aapldoalphon albua (8) 66
Paleanotua ap* k (P) 65
Paraprlonoaplo plnnata (P) 64
Gonladldea carollnaa (P) 58
Anclatroayllia hartmanae (P) 49
Survey XXlt
Paratanaidae 9*nue X (T) 157
Protodorvlllea keferatelnl (P) 127
Pabrlclola trilobata (P) 126
Magelona ap* C (P) 124
Lunbrlnarla vfr.rrllll (P) 121
Exoqone lourel 1,354
Pabrlclola trilobata (P) 240
Leptochella ap* D IT) 204
Protodorvlllea keferatelnl (P) 203
Mlcrodautopua pyeral (A) 202
Anlothella ap. A 225
Paleanotua ap* A (P) 212
Laevlcardlua plctua (B) 168
Plalone ap* A (P) 146
Gor.ladldea carollnaa (P) 119
Ma jolona ap* C (P) 102
Anclatroayllia hartmanae (P) 92
Pabrlclola trilobata (P) 76
Plonoayllla geaae (P) 72
Ceratocephale oculata (P) 72
Survey VII»
Prlonoaplo crlatata (P) 908
Leptochella ap* D (T) 212
Gonladldea carollnaa (P) 159
Bowaaniella portoclcenala (M) 155
Axlothella ap. A (P) 119
Acuminodeutopua ap* A (A) 97
Mlcrodautopua myeral (A) 96
Magelona pettlboneae (P) 94
Apoprlonoaplo dayl (P) 92
Exogone lourel (P) 92
*Key i
A^aophipod H-myaid
B«blvalve P-polychaete
C«cunacean S>alpunculid
-------
Figure 3.18 shows time-course plots of abundance, biomass,
diversity, and species richness at Stations D, OLD-3, C-1, and C-2—the
only stations for which samples from all surveys were processed.
Abundance and biomass data from Stations D, C-1, and C-2 varied in
similar fashion over time, with peaks during summer (Survey II and V);
values for summer 1986 (Survey VII) were not as high as during the
preceding summer (Survey V). Abundance and biomass values at
Station OLD-3, though in the same general range as values from the other
stations, did not follow the same pattern. There were no consistent
trends in the diversity data, though Stations C-1 and OLD-3 varied almost
in parallel over time. Variations in the number of taxa per station
indicate a weak seasonality, probably tied to the seasonal variations in
total abundance.
3.6.2 ANOVA and Multiple Comparisons Results
ANOVAs were conducted to determine whether infaunal abundance and
biomass varied spatially. Significant ANOVAs were investigated by
multiple comparisons testing to determine which Site 4 stations, if any,
differed from all Control Site stations.
The objective of the ANOVA testing was to identify stations that
might have been affected by dredged material. The interpretation of the
results was a two-step process: first the infaunal data set was tested
for significant differences, then sediment data from the stations
exhibiting peculiar infaunal characteristics were evaluated to determine
whether dredged material was present in surficial sediments. Presence of
dredged material, as indicated by one or both of the tracers (phosphate
and strontium), was considered a prerequisite for inferring a biological
effect of dredged material.
Abundance. Prior to disposal (Survey I), there was significant
spatial variability in abundance of all groups tested (Table 3.9). None
of the Site 4 stations initially had significantly lower total, annelid,
or arthropod abundance than the Control Site stations. However, two or
more Site 4 stations had higher annelid or total abundance than all
Control Site stations. None of the Site 4 stations had significantly
higher mollusc abundance than all Control Site stations, but two Site 4
stations had lower mollusc abundance. Therefore, there were some
differences between Site 4 and Control Site infaunal populations prior to
disposal operations.
83
-------
-------
TABLE 3.9. ANOVA RESULTS FOR INFAUNAL ABUNDANCE DATA.
Survey
Parameter
I
II
III
IV
V
VII
Degrees of Freedom
16,153
3,36
17,162
17,162
3,36
17,162
Total Abundance:
F-value
20.06***
50.60***
21.52***
6.88***
14.39***
4.66***
Stations < Controls
none
OLD-3
none
none
OLD-3
5,6
Stations > Controls
OLD-B,OLD-4
OLD-5
1,3,4,5,7,8,
none
none
none
A,C,D,E,F
Annelid Abundance:
F-value
19.91***
45.01***
18.68***
13.78***
14.99***
4.96***
Stations < Controls
none
OLD-3
none
1
OLD-3
6
Stations > Controls
OLD-3,OLD-4,
OLD-5
1,3,4,5,7,8,
none
none
none
OLD-5,OLD-8,
C,D,E,F
OLD-B
Arthropod Abundance:
F-value
3.58***
37.66***
12.06***
6.37***
2.62
5.45***
Stations < Controls
none
OLD-3
none
none
none
5,A
Stations > Controls
none
OLD-5
3,4,8
none
none
none
B,D,E,F
Mollusc Abundance:
F-value
12.19***
0.59
9.84***
11.69***
12.02***
8.57***
Stations < Controls
OLD-D,OLD-F
none
none
5,C,F
none
none
Stations > Controls
none
none
1,8, A ,E
none
none
none
***p<0.001
-------
Several stations differed from the controls with regard to
abundance on subsequent surveys. The highest number of significant
differences was noted on Survey III, when 10 Site 4 stations had higher
annelid abundance and 11 stations had higher total abundance than the
controls. During the same survey, seven stations had higher arthropod
abundance and four had higher mollusc abundance than the controls* These
results demonstrate that there were differences between Site 4 and
Control Site infaunal populations during and after disposal operations,
but they do not indicate whether the differences are due to dredged
material.
Table 3.10 compares the results of statistical analyses of the
infaunal abundance data with indications of dredged material from the
surficial sediment data (phosphate and strontium). In order to be
included in the table, a station had to exhibit a significant difference
from all Control Site stations with respect to an infaunal parameter on
one or more of Surveys II through VII. Significant differences from the
Control Site stations on Surveys II through VII were ignored if the
station in question differed from the controls on Survey I (in the case
of Stations D and OLD-3, which were sampled on Survey I) or if amy
station differed from the controls on Survey I (in the case of all other
stations). The table shows that although some of the significant
differences with respect to infauna were accompanied by indications of
dredged material in surficial sediments, most were not. The implication
is that significant differences from the Control Site stations with
respect to infaunal abundance are not necessarily attributable to dredged
material.
Biomass. Results of the biomass ANOVAs are presented in
Table 3.11. Although the ANOVAs for total, annelid, and echinoderm
biomass were significant, none of the Site 4 stations differed from all
Control Site stations with respect to any of the parameters tested.
Most of the ANOVAs for the remaining surveys were significant
(Table 3.11). However, only on Surveys III, IV, and VII were one or more
stations found to differ significantly from the Control Site stations.
Host of the differences involved a higher biomass at the Site 4 stations.
Table 3.12 lists the results of phosphate and strontium analyses
for each station exhibiting a significant infaunal difference from the
Control Site on one or more of Surveys II through VII. Although some of
the differences were accompanied by indications of dredged material in
surficial sediments, most were not. The implication, as noted for the
86
-------
TABLE 3.10. COMPARISON OF INFAUNAL ABUNDANCE RESULTS WITH INDICATIONS OF DREDGED
MATERIAL IN SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS.
Station
Infaunal Abundance
Presence
of
Differing from
in Relation to
Dredged Material
Control Site
Control Site
Indicated by
Survey
Stations
Stations
Phosphate
Strontium
II
OLD-3
Lower
(annelid, arthropod,
total)
No
No
D
Higher
(annelid, arthropod,
total)
Yes
No
III
1
Higher
(mollusc)
No
No
3
Higher
(arthropod)
No
No
4
Higher
(arthropod)
Yes
Yes
8
Higher
(arthropod,
mollusc)
No
No
A
Higher
(mollusc)
No
No
B
Higher
(arthropod)
No
No
D
Higher
(arthropod,
total)
Yes
Yes
E
Hi gher
(arthropod,
mollusc)
Yes
No
F
Higher
(arthropod)
Yes
Yes
IV
1
Lower
(annelid)
No
No
V
OLD-3
Lower
(annelid, total)
No
No
VII
5
Lower
(arthropod,
total)
No
No
6
Lower
(annelid, total)
No
No
A
Lower
(arthropod)
No
No
See text for explanation of stations that were included in the table and differences that
were considered significant.
-------
TABLE 3.11. ANOVA RESULTS FOR INFAUNAL BIOMASS DATA.
Survey
Parameter I II III IV V VII
Degrees of Freedom
16,153
3,36
17,162
17,162
3,36
17,162
Total Biomass:
F-value
Stations < Controls
Stations > Controls
3.30***
none
none
6.03**
none
none
7.22***
none
5,8 ,E
2.42**
none
none
1.30
none
none
2.87***
none
E,OLD-3
Annelid Biomass:
F-value
Stations < Controls
Stations > Controls
4.94***
none
none
4.27*
none
none
6.84***
none
5,A,B,C
2.94***
none
none
2.39
none
none
3.42***
none
B,F
Arthropod Biomass:
F-value
Stations < Controls
Stations > Controls
0.61
none
none
10.86***
none
none
5.92***
none
8,E
2.50**
1
none
1.98
none
none
7.54***
4,5
1 # 6, D
Mollusc Biomass:
F-value
Stations < Controls
Stations > Controls
1.52
none
none
2.74
none
none
5.64***
7
8,A,E
1.60
none
none
8.64***
none
none
1.14
none
none
Echinoderm Biomass:
F-value
Stations < Controls
Stations > Controls
1.68***
none
none
2.86*
none
OLD-3
6.61***
none
8
3.62***
none
none
1.41
none
none
2.35**
none
none
Significance levels:
* p<0.05
** p<0.01
*** p<0.001
-------
TABLE 3.12. COMPARISON OF IN FA UN AL BIOMASS RESULTS WITH INDICATIONS OF DREDGED MATERIAL
IN SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS.
Survey
Station
Differing from
Control Site
Stations
Infaunal Biomass
in Relation to
Control Site
Stations
Presence of
Dredged Material
Indicated by
Phosphate Strontium
II
OLD-3
Higher (echinoderm)
No
No
III
5
Higher (annelid, total)
No
No
7
Lower (mollusc)
No
No
8
Higher (arthropod,
No
No
echinoderm, mollusc,
total)
A
Higher (annelid, mollusc)
No
No
B
Higher (annelid)
No
No
C
Higher (annelid)
Yes
Yes
E
Higher (arthropod,
Yes
No
mollusc, total)
IV
1
Lower (arthropod)
No
No
VII
1
Higher (arthropod)
No
No
6
Higher (arthropod)
No
No
B
Higher (annelid)
No
No
D
Higher (arthropod)
No
No
E
Higher (total)
Yes
Yes
F
Higher (annelid)
Yes
No
OLD-3
Higher (total)
No
No
See text for explanation of stations that were included in the table and differences that
were considered significant.
-------
abundance data, is that significant differences from the controls with
respect to infaunal biomass are not necessarily attributable to dredged
material.
3.6.3 Correlations
The possibility of relationships between infaunal abundance,
biomass, and community parameters was investigated further by calculating
correlation coefficients between these variables and the available
environmental factors: water depth; percentages of sand, silt, and clay
in surficial sediments; sediment phosphate and strontium concentrations
(indicators of dredged material); and sediment toted organic carbon
concentrations. Station means for each variable were used to calculate
the correlation coefficients. Results are presented in Table 3.13.
Only a few of the correlation coefficients were significant; there
were no consistently strong relationships. Among the dredged material
tracers, strontium was negatively correlated with both diversity and
equitability on Survey IV and negatively correlated with toted abundance
on Survey VII. Strontium concentrations are low in dredged material, so
these results would indicate higher abundance, diversity, and
equitability in sediments containing dredged material. However, in each
case, the highest value for the infaunal parameter was observed at a
control site station (Appendix E). Phosphate was positively correlated
with diversity on Survey III; since phosphate concentrations are higher
in dredged material than in ambient shelf sediments, these results would
indicate higher diversity in sediments influenced by dredged material.
3.6.4 Classification and Discriminant Analysis
similarity relationships among stations. One analysis was conducted for
each survey, in addition to an "all surveys" analysis intended to focus
on seasonality as well as spatial relationships. The data base for each
analysis was constructed as described in Section 2.3.6. The numbers of
species included in each analysis are listed below.
Classification analysis was conducted to investigate faunal
Survey
No. of Species
in Analysis
I
II
III
IV
V
VII
All
95
62
136
129
66
146
160
90
-------
TABLE 3.13. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INFAUNAL PARAMETERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES.
Infaunal Sediment Parameters Water
Parameter Sand Silt Clay TOC Strontium Phosphate Depth
Survey I (na17):
Total Abundance 0.10
Total Biomass -0.34
Diversity 0.12
Equitability -0.12
Survey III (n=18):
Total Abundance -0.07
Total Biomass -0.43
Diversity -0.11
Equitability -0.02
Survey IV (n=18):
Total Abundance -0.24
Total Biomass -0.27
Diversity 0.44
Equitability 0.51*
Survey VII (n=18):
Total Abundance 0.02
Total Biomass -0.08
Diversity 0.21
Equitability 0.08
-0.09 -0.11 0.09
0.35 0.30 -0.43
-0.11 -0.13 -0.05
0.12 0.09 -0.14
0.06 0.15 -0.23
0.42 0.47* -0.49*
0.11 0.05 -0.15
0.03 -0.08 0.07
0.22 0.42 0.24
0.27 0.24 0.02
-0.45 -0.32 0.37
-0.50* -0.46 0.18
-0.02 0.01 0.46
0.08 0.07 -0.21
-0.20 -0.25 -0.15
-0.08 -0.12 -0.23
-0.09 0.31 0.12
0.27 -0.06 0.06
-0.18 0.29 0.57*
-0.08 -0.01 0.27
-0.33 0.13 0.40
-0.31 0.21 0.36
-0.38 0.49* 0.29
-0.03 0.23 -0.17
0.19 -0.10 0.12
-0.08 0.14 0.45
-0.52* 0.32 -0.02
-0.58* 0.31 -0.07
-0.66** 0.43 -0.33
-0.21 0.32 0.15
0.05 0.07 -0.03
0.40 -0.24 0.04
Values are Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients calculated using station means for each parameter.
Significance levels:
* p<0.05
**p<0.01
-------
Both group average and flexible sorting were used for the normal
(station) classification analysis. The two approaches produced similar
results, and only the group-average dendrograms are presented below for
the individual survey analyses* The larger number of entities being
clustered in the "all surveys" analysis required the more intensive
flexible sorting methods Similarly, only flexible sorting was used for
the inverse (species) analysis because of the large number of entities
being clustered.
Individual Surveys. Results of the normal classification analysis
for Surveys I, II, and V are shown in Figure 3.19. Results for
Surveys III, IV, and VII are presented in Figure 3.20. All of the
dendrograms include symbols to designate the Control Site stations.
Dendrograms from Surveys II through VII also include symbols identifying
stations where sediment phosphate and/or strontium concentrations
indicated the presence of dredged material in the fine fraction. The
purpose is to allow any station groupings that might reflect a dredged
material influence to be recognized.
On Survey I, two major station groups were evident: one containing
Stations OLD-3, OLD-4,"OLD-5, OLD-8, OLD-B, and OLD-E, the other
containing all remaining stations (Figure 3.19). There were no strong
station groupings within the major clusters. All three of the Control
Site stations clustered with the larger of the Site 4 station groups.
Therefore, prior to disposed, operations, some Site 4 stations exhibited a
species conqposition considerably different from that of the Control Site
stations.
The Survey II and V dendrograms provide little insight because
data are available from only four stations (the other samples were
archived). On Survey II, the Control Site stations were more similar to
each other than to either of the two Site 4 stations. However, the
station where dredged material was present (D) was more similar to the
Control Site stations than to the other Site 4 station (OLD-3). In the
Survey V dendrogram, each Site 4 station was paired with a Control Site
station.
The Survey III, IV, and VII dendrograms all divide the Site 4
stations into two major groupings which, as will be shown below, probably
reflect underlying differences in water depth and/or grain size
variables. The first group included Stations 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, D, and OLD-3
on each survey, and the second group included Stations 1, 2, 4, A, and B
on each survey. Station C initially was in the latter group, but crossed
92
-------
DI88IMILARITY
i.o o.a o.e 0.4 0.2 0.0
I 1 I 1 I I
GROUP-AVERAGE SORTING
BRAY-CURTIS INDEX
LOO-TRANSFORMED
ABUNDANCE8
(All dendrograms)
SURVEY I
STATION
OLD-2
OLD-C
OLD-F
OLD-e
OLD-D
OLD-A
OLD-C-3*
OLD-7
C-1 ifc
OLD-1
Cr 2 *
OLD-6
OLD-E
OLD-3
OLD-4
OLD-8
OLD-B
DISSIMILARITY
1.0 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.0
I I I I I I
8URVEY II
1.0
L_
8URVEYY
LEGEND
8TATION
D (OLD-6)^
C-2 Jft
C-1 *
OLD-3
DI88IMILARITY
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
_J I I I I
8TATION
C-2*
D (OLD-6)^
OLD-3
C-1 *
^ = CONTROL SITE 8TATION
A - DREDGED MATERIAL
^ PRE8ENT (PHO8PHATE,
8TRONTIUM DATA)
FIGURE 3.18. DENDROGRAMS FROM NORMAL CLASSIFICATION ANALY8I8 OF INFAUNAL DATA. 8URVEY8 J. H. AND X.
Ui
-------
DI88IMILARITY
i-o o.s o.e 0.4 0.2
I I I , I L_
1£>
survey nr
0.0
_J
8TATION
6
8
E <
7
e
F'
3
D
OLD-3
C<
1
C-2 *
C-1 *
C-3 *
A
B
2
4
4
LD-
1
DISSIMILARITY'
1.0 0.8 0,6 0.4 0.2
I I I I I
8URVEY EZ
0.0
-I
8TATION
6
8
6
f4
c-a#
OLD-3
C<
8
D
1
C-1 *
4
E
A
C-3 *
2
bA
DI88IMILARITY
1.0 0.8 0.6 0,4 0.2 0.0
i I iii«
¦4
4
-1 :
1
1
8URVEY VTT
STATION
6
6
OLD-3
c4
6
7
C-2 *
3
0
E
4
C-1 *
C-3 *
1
A
2
B
I
1
GROUP-AVERAGE SORTING
BRAY-CURTI8 INDEX
LOQ-TRAN8FORMED ABUNDANCE8
(ALL DENDROGRAMS)
LEGEND
jf. ¦ CONTROL SITE STATION
Jt DREDGED MATERIAL PRESENT
(PH08PHATE, 8TRONTIUM DATA)
FIGURE 3.20. DENDROGRAMS FROM NORMAL CLASSIFICATION ANALY8I8 OF INFAUNAL DATA. 8URVEY8 HL. 17, AND HI.
CM
-------
over to the first group on Surveys IV and VII. Stations E and F were in
the first group on Survey III; however, Station E crossed over to the
second group on Survey IV, and Station F also crossed over on Survey VII.
The grouping of the individual Control Site stations also varied among
surveys, with Station C-2 initially clustering with the C-1 and C-3 but
crossing over to the other major group on Surveys IV and VII.
An effect of dredged material on species composition, if present,
ought to appear in the dendrograms in one of two ways. First, one might
expect to see stations where dredged material was present grouping
together because of convergent species composition. One would expect
this "dredged material" community to be dissimilar to the community seen
at the Control Site. Second, there could be a more subtle effect, in
which stations where dredged material was present changed in their
similarity relationships with the other Site 4 stations.
None of the station dendrograms provide any evidence for a
convergence of species composition at stations affected by dredged
material. On Surveys II and V, the station where dredged material was
present (D) was more similar to the Control Site stations than to the
other Site 4 station (OLD-3) (Figure 3.19). On Surveys III, IV, and VII,
stations affected by dredged material were present on both sides of the
major break in species composition, and several clustered more closely
with one or more Control Site stations than with some other Site 4
stations (Figure 3.20).
The second type of effect (a change in similarity relationships
among stations) is more difficult to evaluate. The obvious candidates
would be Stations C, E, and F. During Surveys III, IV, and VII, these
three stations on the inner ring near the disposal area had sediment
strontium and phosphate concentrations indicative of dredged material.
All three stations crossed over a major break in species composition
between Survey III and Survey VII (albeit, not in the same direction)
(Figure 3.20). In order to explore the problem further, the nature of
the station groupings must be examined.
A discriminant analysis was conducted for each survey, with the
two major station groups taken from each dendrogram. In di-scriminant
analysis, an artificial variable (discriminant function) is constructed
as a linear combination of existing variables (environmental factors, in
this case). The discriminant function is the variable that differs most
among station groups. The importance of the original environmental
95
-------
variables in separating the station groups can be evaluated by
calculating correlations between the discriminant scores and the values
of each original variable*
The environmental variables entered into the discriminant analyses
were water depth and three sedimentary parameters: percent sand, total
organic carbon concentration in the fine fraction, and strontium
concentration in the fine fraction. Silt and clay were too highly
correlated with sand to use in the analysis and were excluded; similarly,
phosphate was highly correlated with strontium on some surveys and had to
be excluded. However, once the discriminant function was calculated, the
influence of the excluded variables was evaluated by calculating
correlations between each variable and the discriminant function.
Results of the discriminant analyses are presented in Table 3.14.
Water depth was the variable most consistently well correlated with the
discriminant function, indicating that the clustering of infaunal
stations into two groups on each survey is due at least in part to
differences in water depth. The grain size variables (sand, silt, and
clay) were also influential, especially on Surveys III and VII. Total
organic carbon was highly correlated with the discriminant function on
Survey IV. As indicated by the results presented in Table 3.14, the
grain size variables, water depth, and total organic carbon were all
intercorrelated. The dredged material tracers, phosphate and strontium,
were never significantly correlated with the discriminant function.
The discriminant analyses identified water depth, grain size
variables, and possibly total organic carbon as the most likely
influences of species composition within surveys. Table 3.15 summarizes
the environmental characteristics of each station group for each survey
to illustrate the differences. Phosphate and strontium were excluded
from the table because the station groupings did not bear any relation to
these variables on any survey. Although most of the stations sampled on
Survey I were different from those sanqpled on Survey III and later,
similar groupings were evident in both data sets. On each survey,
Group A consisted of stations having slightly greater average water
depths, higher percentages of sand (lower percentages of silt and clay),
and higher percentages of total organic carbon in the fine fraction than
stations in Group B. There was overlap in all three variables among
station groups; that is, none of the variables completely explains the
station groupings.
96
-------
TABLE 3.14. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES AND THE BEST
DISCRIMINATOR OF INFAUNAL STATION GROUPINGS FOR EACH SURVEY.
Environmental
Parameter
Survey
I
III
IV
VII
Sand
-0.71**
-0.38
-0.45
-0.75***
Silt
0.71**
0.39
0.48*
0.75***
Clay
0.67**
0.30
0.10
0.75***
Total Organic Carbon
-0.22
-0.31
-0.71***
-0.24
Strontium
-0.36
0.05
1
o
•
o
0.37
Phosphate
0.47
0.39
0.34
-0.41
Water Depth
-0.76***
-0.85***
-0.63**
-0.44
Explanation: A discriminant function was calculated for each survey
(except II and V, when only four stations were sampled). Two station
groups were chosen from each normal classification analysis dendrogram.
The environmental variables selected for the discriminant analyses were
sand, strontium, total organic carbon, and water depth (silt, clay, and
phosphate were excluded due to high intercorrelation with other
parameters). Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were
calculated between discriminant scores and values of each environmental
variable (including those originally excluded).
Significance levels:
* p <0.05
** p <0.01
***p<0.001
97
-------
TABLE 3.15. ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR INF'lUNAL STATION GROUPINGS FROM CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS.
Survey
Group
Stations in
Group
Mean
Water
Depth
(m)
Range
Mean
Sand
(%)
Range
Total Organic
Carbon
(%)
Mean
Range
III
IV
VII
OLD-3,OLD-4,
OLD-5,OLD-8,
OLD-B,OLD-E
OLD-1,0LD-2,
OLD-6,OLD-7,
OLD-A,OLD-C,
OLD-D,OLD-F,
C-1,C-2,
OLD-C-3
3,5,6,7,8,
D,E,F,OLD-3
1,2,4,A,B,C,
C-1.C-2.C-3
3,5,6,7,8,C,
D,F,C-2,
OLD-3
1,2,4,A,B.E,
C-1,C-3
3,5,6,7,8,C,
D,C-2,OLD-3
1,2,4,A,B,E,
F,C- 1,C-3
22.5
21.3-24.1
23.8 22.2-25.6
22.7 21.9-23.5
23.6 22.2-25.6
22.9 21.9-24.7
23.5 22.2-25.6
23.0 21.9-24.7
98.8
97.2-99.6
97.4
95.7
96.8
95.0
99.2
95.9
98.9-99.6
3.39 2.65-3.90
21.4 19.2-23.2 96.0 88.0-99.4 3.14 1.38-5.11
92.2-99.6 2.02 1.08-2.95
85.6-99.6 1.81 1.12-2.50
89.9-99.6 1.88 1.42-2.17
86.0-98.8 1.61 1.06-2.20
2.52 1.70-3.66
81.0-99.4 2.37 1.50-3.08
-------
Two major suites of stations can be distinguished on the basis of
the previous analyses: one that will be referred to as "shallower,
siltier" and the other that will be referred to as "deeper, sandier."
The previously cited changes in species composition at Stations C, E, F,
and C-2 can be evaluated in this context.
Stations E and F began on Survey III in the "deeper, sandier"
group and moved eventually to the "shallow, siltier" group. Stations C
and C-3 made the opposite transition. Changes in water depth obviously
are not responsible for the observed findings, so grain size and total
organic carbon data were examined for temporal changes. At Station C,
silt and clay (fines) content of sediments increased from 5.3% on
Survey III to 10.1% on Survey IV, then dropped to 7.7% on Survey V and
1.0% on Survey VII. The reasons for the increase in silt and clay
content are not known; phosphate and strontium data do not indicate a
build-up of dredged material between Surveys III and IV. The decrease
between Surveys V and VII probably reflects the passage of a major storm/
Hurricane Elena, during the interval. The major shift in species
composition between Surveys III and IV at this station (Figure 3.20) does
not correspond to a decrease in silt and clay as expected. Similar
conclusions apply to Station C-2. At Station E, fines content actually
decreased between Surveys III and IV, when the infaunal community was
becoming more similar to that of the "shallower, siltier" stations. Only
at Station F did the change in species composition between Survey IV and
VII correspond to an increase in fines content of sediments (0.7% to
19%). In addition, none of the changes in species composition correspond
to a major change in total organic carbon content of the fine fraction.
It is not clear from the above discussion what caused the shift in
species composition at Stations C, E, F, and C-2. Although water depth
and grain size categories were shown to be likely underlying influences
on species composition, changes in these variables do not explain the
altered species composition. Other variables not measured during the
program could be affecting species composition. Because a change was
observed at both the Control Site and Site 4, the results cannot be
attributed specifically to dredged material disposal.
All Surveys. Results for the "all surveys" classification
analysis are shown in Figure 3.21. The dendrogram shows that seasonal
differences in species composition were greater than spatial differences.
The major branch in the dendrogram separates the three summer surveys
(II, V, and VII) from all others. The second-level branches in each
portion of the dendrogram correspond to the two groupings recognized in
99
-------
Dissimilarity
2.0 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.0
Group A Survey II: D, QLD-3
Survey V: D, OLD-3, C-2
Survey VII: 3, 5, 6, 7,
Group B Survey lis C-1, c-2
Group C Survey III: 3, 5, 7, 8,
D, B, F
Survey IV: 3, 5, 6, 1,
8# C/ Df F,
OLD-3, C-2
Group D Survey Is OLD-3, OLD-4,
OLD-5, OLD-8,
OLD—B, OLD-K
Groop B Survey III: 1, 4, C,
OLD—3, C-1,
C-2, C-3
Groop F Survey III: 2, A, B
Survey IV: 1, 2, 4, A,
B, E, C-1,
C-3
Groop G Survey Is OLD-1, OIX>-2,
8, C, D, K,
F, QLD-3,
C-2
FLEXIBLE SORTING (£ =0.25)
Survey Vs C-1
Survey VII: 1, 2, 4, A,
B, C-1, C-3
LOG-TRANSFORMED DATA
BRAY-CURTIS COEFFICIENT
(step-across aethod used to
recalculate dissimilarity
values)
OLD-6, OLD-7,
OLD-A, OIX>-C,
QLD-D, OLD-F,
C-1, C-2,
OLD-C-3
FIGURE 3.21. DENDROGRAM FROM NORMAL CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS OF
INFAUNAL DATA, ALL STATIONS AND SURVEYS.
CM
100
-------
the individual survey dendrograms (i.e., "shallower, siltier" vs.
"deeper, sandier"). The third-level branches separate Survey I stations
from Survey III and IV stations—possibly reflecting additional
seasonality, or the slight difference in water depth between the "old"
and "new" stations.
Discriminant analysis conducted using the "all surveys" data set
provided no additional insight into the station/season groupings. The
groups chosen for discriminant analysis are those shown on the dendrogram
in Figure 3.21. The best correlate of the discriminant function was the
declination of the sun (r = 0.99), an artificial variable chosen to
represent season. The inqportance of season is obvious in the "all
surveys" dendrogram (Figure 3.21).
Table 3.16 shows the species groups constructed by inverse
classification analysis; due to the large number of taxa involved, only
representatives of each group are listed. Six major groups were evident,
each having fairly well-defined station/season affinities. Most of the
species in Group A are polychaetes, including several syllids; these
species occurred during all seasons, but primarily at the "deeper,
sandier" stations. Group B, like Group A, consisted predominantly of
polychaetes associated with the "deeper, sandier" stations, but
occurrences were less common (or abundances lower) during the summer
surveys. Group C consisted of species that occurred at most or all
stations, but almost exclusively during the summer surveys. The group
was more mixed phylogenetically than the two preceding, with several
amphipods, cumaceans, decapods, and a tanaid included, in addition to
polychaetes. Group D included a large number of bivalves, in addition to
several amphipods, but few polychaetes; the taxa in this group were
associated primarily with the "shallower, siltier" stations during
seasons other than summer. Group E species--mostly polychaetes,
amphipods, and cumaceans—were ubiquitous, and did not show strong
affinities for any station group or season. Group F species were
associated with the "shallower, siltier" stations, but unlike those in
Group O, these species also were common during summer as well as other
seasons.
The species occurrence tables generated from each classification
analysis were examined for species that might be preferentially
associated with stations where dredged material was present in surficial
sediments. The rationale was that one or more species might be
indicators of dredged material, even though there was no evidence of an
101
-------
TABLE 3.16. SPECIES GROUPINGS FROM INVERSE CLASSIFICATION ANALYSES OF
INFAUNAL ABUNDANCE DATA, ALL STATIONS AND SURVEYS.
Groups of Species*
Group A (30 species)
Group D (25 species)
Ancistrosyllis hartmanae (P)
Crassinella lunulata (B)
Eurydice littoralis (I)
Exogone lourei (P)
Goniadides carolinae (P)
Paleanotus sp. A (P)
Parapionosyllia longicirrata (P)
Pettiboneae sp. A (P)
Pionosyllis gesae (P)
Protodorvlllea kefersteini (P)
Aricidea sp. E (P)
Caecum pulchellum (B)
Crenella divaricata (B)
Laevicardium pictum (B)
Lima pellucida (B)
Mitrella lunulata (G)
Monoculodes nyei (A)
Oxyurostylls sp. B (C)
Synelmis sp. B (P)
Tellina versicolor (B)
Group B (26 species)
Amphiodia pulchella (0)
Aspidosiphon gosnoldi (S)
Branchiostoma floridae (Ce)
Cyclaspis bacescui (C)
Ehlersia cornuta (P)
Exogone atlantica (P)
Exogone dispar (P)
Isolda pulchella (P)
Odontosyllis enopla (P)
Paraplonosyllis sp. A (P)
Group E (32 species)
Anchialina typica (M)
Armandia maculata (P)
Bowmaniella portoricensis (M)
Certocephale oculata (P)
Fabriclola trilobatum (P)
Lumbrineris verrilli (P)
Owenia sp. A (P)
Paraprlonospio plnnata (P)
Spiophanes bombyx (P)
Synchelidium americanum (A)
Group C (30 species)
Abra lloica (B)
Acuminodeutopus sp. A (A)
Cyclaspis sp. D (C)
Eunice vittata (P)
Laonlce cirrata (P)
Leptochelia sp. D (T)
Magelona pettiboneae (P)
Mlcrodeutopus myersi (A)
Prionospio cirrlfera (P)
Sicyonia typica (D)
Group F (17 species)
Aglaophamus verrilli (P)
Apoprionosplo dayi (P)
Aricidea philbinae (P)
Aricidea wassl (P)
Eudevenopus honduranus (A)
Goniada littorea (P)
Mysidopsis furca (M)
Spiophanes cf. misslonensis (P)
Strombiformls hemphilli (G)
Volvulella perslmilis (G)
*Key:
A = amphipod
B = bivalve
C = cumacean
D = decapod
Ce = cephalochordate
G = gastropod
I = isopod
M = mysid
O = ophiuroid
P = polychaete
S = sipunculid
T = tanaid
102
-------
overall effect on species composition. However, no potential indicator
species were identified.
3.7 EPIBIOTA
3.7.1 Diver Observations
Narrative descriptions of each hard-bottom station sampled during
Surveys III-VII are presented below. Lists of epibiota and fishes seen
by divers are provided in Tables 3.17 and 3.18, respectively. The tables
should not be regarded as exhaustive, as they are based on incidental
observation rather than systematic visual sampling.
Station 1. Station 1, located in a water depth of 22.9 m (75 ft),
consists of an area of low-relief outcroppings and thinly covered hard
bottom approximately 15 m (50 ft) in diameter, surrounded by open sandy
bottom. Vertical relief ranged up to 15 cm (6 in.) above the surrounding
seafloor, and solution holes up to 46 cm (18 in.) in depth were also
noted. Clay lumps from the disposal barge were observed at this station
during Surveys III and IV.
Numerous species of algae, sponges, hard corals, and fishes were
noted by divers at this station (Tables 3.17 and 3.18). Photograph 5
shows a view of the habitat and epibiota of Station 1.
Station F. Station F is located in a water depth of 24.4 m
(80 ft). The substratum consists of low-relief, partially buried rock
outcrop ridges surrounded by sand and silt. Vertical relief ranges from
0 to 15 cm (6 in.). Dredged material consisting of clay lumps and rock
was seen on Surveys III, IV, and V. During Survey VII, a thick layer of
silty sand had buried an eyebolt marking one of the photographic
transects to a depth of 15 cm (6 in.). Photograph 6 shows a view of the
silty seafloor at Station F.
Various species of algae, sponges, hard corals, molluscs,
bryozoans, ascidians, and fishes were seen associated with the hard
bottom at Station F (Tables 3.17 and 3.18). The assemblage was generally
depauperate in comparison with that seen at the other stations.
Station OLD-3. Water depth at Station OLD-3 was 22.2 m (73 ft).
Vertical relief of the hard-bottom substratum was up to 20 cm (8 in.).
103
-------
TABLE 3.17. EPIBIOTA OBSERVED BY DIVERS AT HARD-BOTTOM STATIONS DURING
SURVEYS III THROUGH VII.
Taxon
1
F
Station
OLD-3 C-3
ALGAE
Caulerpa sp.
X
Codium sp.
X
X
Gracilaria sp.
X
X
X
Halimeda sp.
X
X
X X
S arenas sum sp.
X X
Spyridia sp.
X
Udotea sp.
X
X
X X
Unid. coralline algae
X
X
SEAGRASS
Halophlla decipiens
X
SPONGES
Alolochroia crassa
X
X
Aplysina fistularis
X
X
X X
Axinella polycapella
X
X X
Axinella sp.
X
X
X X
Cinachyra sp.
X
X
X X
Cliona sp.
X
X
Epipolasis lithophaqa
X
X
Geodia gibberosa
X
X
Homaxinella wad-tonsmlthi
X
X
X
Ircinia sp.
X
X
Oxeostilon burtoni
X
Phakellia folium
X
Placosponqia melobesioides
X
X
X
Pseudaxinella sp.
X
X
Siphonodictyon sp.
X
Teichaxinella sp.
X
X
X
OCTOCORALS
Eunicea sp.
X
X
Muricea sp.
X
SCLERACTINIAN CORALS
Cladocora arbuscula
X
X
X X
IsophyIlia sp.
X
X
Manicina areolata
X
Meandrina sp.
X X
Phyllanqia americana
X
X X
Scolymia lacera
X
X
X X
Siderastrea radians
X
X
X X
Solenastrea hyades
X
X
X X
Stephanocoenia michelinii
X
X
X X
104
-------
TABLE 3.17. (CONTINUED).
Station
Taxon 1 F OLD-3 C-3
MOLLUSCS
Area zebra x x
Pterla colymbus x
Spondylus amerlcanus x
CRUSTACEANS
Stenorhynchus aeticornis x x
ECHINODERMS
Arbacia punctulata x x
Astropecten sp. x
Astrophyton muricatum x
Diadema antlllarum x x
Echlnaster sp. x
Encope sp. x
Isostlchopus badlonotus x x
Lytechlnus sp. x
BRYOZOANS
Celleporaria albirostris x x x
Celleporarla magniflca x
Celleporaria sp. x
Scrupocellarla sp. x
ASCIDIANS
Didemnum candldum x
Polycarpa circumarata x x
Styela sp. x
Unid. Didemnidae x
105
-------
TABLE 3.18. FISHES OBSERVED BY DIVERS AT HARD-BOTTOM STATIONS DURING
SURVEYS III THROUGH VII.
Common
Station
Species
Name
1
F
OLD-3 C-3
Balistes capriscus
gray triggerfish
X
Calamus sp.
unid. porgy
X
Caranx crysos
blue runner
X
Centropristis ocyurus
bank sea bass
X
X
X
Centropristis striata
black sea bass
X
Chaenopsis ocellata
bluethroat pikeblenny
X
Chaetodon ocellatus
spotfin butterflyfish
X X
Chaetodon sedentarius
reef butterflyfish
X
Coryphopterus sp.
unid. goby
X
Diplectrum formosum
sand perch
X
X
X X
Epinephelus morio
red grouper
X
X
Equetus acuminatus
high-hat
X
X
X
Equetus lanceolatus
jackknife-fish
X
X
X
Equetus umbrosus
cubbya
X
Euthynnus alletteratus
little tunny
X
Gobiosoma macrodon
tiger goby
X
X
X X
Gynmothorax niqromarqinatus
blackedge moray
X
Haemulon aurolineatum
tomtate
X
X
Haemulon plumieri
white grunt
X
X X
Halichoeres maculipinna
clown wrasse
X
Halichoeres sp.
unid. wrasse
X
X
Holacanthus bermudensis
blue angelfish
X
X
Ioglossus calliurus
blue goby
X X
Lachnolaimus maximus
hogfish
X
Lutjanus synagris
gray snapper
X
Microgobius carri
seminole goby
X
Mycteroperca microlepis
gag
X
Opsanus pardus
leopard toadfish
X
Pomacentrus leucostictus
beaugregory
X
Pomacentrus partitus
bicolor damselfish
X
Pomacentrus variabilis
cocoa damselfish
X
X
Prionotus sp.
unid. searobin
X
Rypticus maculatus
whitespotted soapfish
X
X X
Scomberomorus maculatus
Spanish mackerel
X
X
Serraniculus pumilio
pygmy sea bass
X
Serranus subliqarius
belted sandfish
X
X X
Sphoeroides spenqleri
bandtail puffer
X
X
Synodus intermedius
sand diver
X
X
106
-------
107
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 5
PHOTOGRAPH 6
An expanse of densely populated
seafloor at Station 1, Survey IV.
Two jackknife-fish (Equetus
lanceolatus) are visible behind
the heavily fouled buoy marking
the end of a photographic
transect. In the left foreground
are three white grunt (Haemulon
plumieri), and in the background
are several sand perch. A mound
coral, Solenastrea hyades, is
located behind the jackknife-fish
on the left.
Silty seafloor and associated
epibiota at Station F, Survey
VII. A sand perch swims near
the station marker. Note the
burial of one eyebolt and the
partial burial of the other
(conqpare with Photograph 1 —
position of station marker has
shifted slightly).
PHOTOGRAPH 7
A close-up view of the seafloor
along one of the photographic
transects at Station OLD-3,
Survey V. The dome-shaped coral on
the left is Siderastrea radians,
adjacent to the tube coral, Cladocora
arbuscula. Also visible are the green
algae Udotea sp. (adjacent to
Siderastrea) and Halimeda sp. (lower
right); a finger sponge, Axinella sp.
(top); and coralline algae (pink at
top and right).
PHOTOGRAPH 8
A sand perch swims near the red
finger sponge, Axinella sp. at
Station C-3, Survey III. Also
visible are colonies of tube
coral, Cladocora arbuscula
(center); green algae, Halimeda sp.
and Udotea sp.; and coralline algae
(pink).
108
-------
-------
Small pockets of fine-to-coarse sand occurred throughout the hard-bottom
area* Many species of epibiota and fishes were seen at Station OLD-3
(Tables 3.17 and 3.18). Photograph 7 shows a close-up view of the hard
bottom and associated epibiota at this station.
Station C-3. The habitat at Station C-3 consists of an area of
hard bottom elevated slightly above the surrounding terrain. A thin,
patchy veneer of coarse sand occurs throughout the hard-bottom area.
Vertical relief ranged up to 20 cm (8 in.) on exposed rock outcrops.
Water depth was 22.2 m (73 ft). Various species of plants (including the
seagrass Halophila decipiens), epifauna, and fishes were seen at this
station (Tables 3.17 and 3.18). Photograph 8 shows a view of the habitat
and epibiota of this station.
3.7.2 Transect Photography
Figure 3.22 summarizes percent cover data from Station OLO-3,
which has been monitored since Survey I, and the three hard-bottom
stations that have been monitored since Survey III. Also included are
Survey 1 and II data from Station QLD-C, which was abandoned on
Survey III. Results from Station OLD-E, photographed only on Survey II,
are omitted. Summary tabulations of the data from all stations and
surveys are presented in Appendix D.
Total biotic cover was less than 50% for all stations and sampling
periods, with the exception of Station OLD-C, Survey II (61.5%). Algae
were the main cover constituents at all stations, and variations in total
biotic cover primarily reflect variations in algal abundance and/or
changes in the amount of sand cover. Coral and sponge cover combined
generally averaged a few percent and varied little seasonally.
Approximately parallel variations in total and algal cover were
seen at Stations C-3, OLD-3, and F, although increases between Survey V
and Survey VII at Station F were less than those noted at the other two
stations. High total and algal cover values at Station 1 during Survey V
reflect the presence of a thin blue-green algal film at this station.
Survey I and II data from Stations OLD-3 and OLD-C also indicated roughly
parallel changes in algal and total biotic cover.
Dredged material lumps were noted only in photographs from
Station F (12.5% on Survey III, 1.0% on Survey IV) and Station 1 (0.3% on
Survey III, 0.2% on Survey IV) (Figure 3.22). A large accumulation of
111
-------
ALGAL
COVER
(%>
30-
2 0-
10-
CORAL
AND
SPONGE 5.01
COVER
(%> 2.5-
OOID-C
O-
o-
8——o-
- O* ¦ ¦ —
C - 3
-OOLD-3
SAND
COVER
(*)
60-
40-
20-
o"''
\
\
JS i
C-3
\
X"0 OLD-C
15-
INCIDENCE OF
OREDQED
LEGEND (ALL GRAPHS)
o> SITE 4 STATION
•= CONTROL SITE STATION
o ONLY NON-ZERO
VALUES ARE 8HOWN
-
MATERIAL 10"
LUMPS
(%)
5-
cv— y
-
1 i
I n
r- T i i
m H Y DL
SURVEY
FIGURE 3.22. CHANGES IN MEAN COVERAGE OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM
TYPES AT HARD-BOTTOM STATI.ON8.
(U
112
-------
silty sand was seen by divers at Station F on Survey VII; although the
fine sediment was initially assumed to be dredged material, chemical
analysis results do not support this interpretation (Section 3.4). The
fine sediments were not counted as dredged material in the quantitative
analysis of slides from this station.
Table 3.19 lists the top five cover constituents for each station
on each survey. Algae (e.g., Halimeda sp., Sargassum sp., and
unidentified red algae) and unidentified biota (probably including
bryozoans, coralline algae, and hydroids) were the main cover
contributors at all stations. Among the identifiable sessile epifauna,
the tube coral Cladocora arbuscula was the most common. Appendix D
includes complete ranked abundance listings for each station on each
survey.
Figure 3.23 summarizes the results of normal classification
analysis conducted with the Survey III through VII data base. Group
average and flexible sorting produced similar clustering patterns, with
Station 1 emerging as most dissimilar to the others and Stations F and
OLD-3 being the most similar to each other. As expected, group average
sorting, a weak clustering method, did not separate the groups as well as
the more intensely clustering flexible sorting method. Group average
sorting, which tends to preserve the original similarity relationships in
the data set (Boesch, 1977), produced only one instance of possible
misclassification, with Station OLD-3 data from Survey VII grouping more
closely with Station 1 data sets than with the other Station OLD-3 data.
In contrast, flexible sorting, which is more prone to misclassification,
grouped both Station OLD-3 and Station F with Station 1 in the Survey VII
data set. Both dendrograms indicate that species composition varied more
among stations than among seasons.
Groups of taxa from the inverse classification analysis are listed
in Table 3.20. A two-way table listing taxa and their station
occurrences is presented in Appendix D. In general, there was little
evidence for groups of species being associated with particular groups of
stations. Nodal constancy (Boesch, 1977) was low to moderate for all
species groups; that is, most species did not occur at most or all
stations in any particular group. Nodal fidelity was also low or
negative in all species groups, indicating most species did not occur
primarily in one station group rather than another. A few taxa occurred
at all stations during all four surveys: the sponges Axinella sp. and
Cinachyra sp., the scleractinian corals Cladocora arbuscula,
Slderastrea sp., and Stephanocoenia michelinii, the green alga
113
-------
TABLE 3.19. MAJOR COVER CONTRIBUTORS AT THE HARD-BOTTOM PHOTOGRAPHIC STATIONS.
Survey
Station
III
IV
V
VII
1
Unid. red algae (48.5)
Unid. biota (39.7)
Blue-green algal film (46.2)
Unid. red algae (56.5)
Unid. biota (20.9)
Unid. red algae (35.4)
Unid. biota (28.4)
Unid. biota (12.8)
Coralline algae (9.6)
Coralline algae (7.9)
Halimeda sp. (6.1)
Caulerpa sp. (7.0)
Eucheuma isiforme (3.1)
Cladocora arbuscula (2.7)
Coralline algae (4.7)
Halophila decipiens (5.7)
Halimeda Bp. (2.9)
Halimeda sp. (2.6)
Unid. red algae (4.6)
Polycarpa circumarata (5.3)
F
Unid. biota (36.9)
Unid. biota (28.4)
Unid. biota (37.4)
Unid. red algae (45.7)
Halimeda sp. (14.8)
Halimeda sp. (21.6)
Halimeda sp. (24.8)
Unid. biota (19.1)
Blue-green algal film (9.4)
Unid. Porifera (9.3)
Unid. Porifera (5.4)
Halimeda sp. (8.2)
Coralline algae (7.4)
Coralline algae (8.8)
Axinella sp. (4.4)
Coralline algae (5.2)
Axinella sp. (4.S)
Polycarpa circumarata (5.3)
Udotea sp. (4.4)
Unid. Porifera (3.2)
OLD-3
Coralline algae (28.6)
Unid. biota (36.2)
Halimeda sp. (18.2)
Unid. red algae (54.9)
Unid. biota (20.0)
Halimeda sp. (14.2)
Coralline algae (14.6)
Unid. biota (14.7)
Unid red algae (8.5)
Stephanocoenia michelinii (9.2)
Unid. biota (14.6)
Coralline algae (8.0)
Halimeda sp. (5.9)
Unid. Porifera (7.3)
Unid. red algae (13.0)
Halimeda sp. (5.1)
Cladocora sp. (5.0)
Coralline algae (5.7)
Blue-green algal film (7.1)
Cladocora arbuscula (2.8)
C-3
Halimeda sp. (23.6)
Halimeda sp. (28.1)
Halimeda sp. (44.5)
Unid. red algae (25.8)
Unid. biota (22.4)
Unid. biota (21.4)
Unid. biota (13.2)
Halimeda sp. (20.2)
Coralline algae (19.3)
Cladocora arbuscula (14.4)
Coralline algae (11.7)
Coralline algae (17.4)
Cladocora arbuscula (7.8)
Coralline algae (12.2)
Cladocora arbuscula (9.6)
Unid. biota (15.6)
Unid. red algae (7.3)
Sarqassum sp. (5.1)
Unid. green algae (6.3)
Cladocora arbuscula (8.3)
Values in parentheses are the percentages of total blotic cover attributable to the taxon listed.
-------
DISSIMILARITY
1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 o.bo
I i I I I I
FLEXIBLE 80RTINQ (fl-0.28)
ARC8IN-TRAN8FORMED DATA
BRAY-CURTIS INDEX
LEQEND
SURVEY-STATION
*-CONTROL SITE 8TATION
A . DREDGED MATERIAL PRE8ENT
" (PHOSPHATE. 8TRONTIUM DATA)
c
Vlh-1
Vll-F \
V-1
VII-OLD-3
IV-1
III-1
IV-F^
lll-F^
V-F ^
III-OLD-3
V-OLD-3
IV-OLD-3
Vll-C-S *
V-O-3 *
IV-C-3 j|c
lll-C-3 *
DISSIMILARITY
1.00 0.80 0.80 0.40 0.20
I 1 ] I L
GROUP AVERAGE SORTING
AR08IN-TRAN8FORMED DATA
BRAY-0URTI8 INDEX
0.00
8URVEY-8TATI ON
VII—1
V-1
IV-1
III—1
VII-OLD-3
Vll-F ^
I V-F ^
lll-F ^
V-F ^
III-OLD-3
V-OLD-3
I V-OLD-3
VII-C-3 $
V-C-3 *
IV-C-3 *
lll-C-3 *
FIGURE 3.23. DENDROGRAMS FROM NORMAL CLASSIFICATION ANALY8I8 OF PHOTOGRAPHIC DATA FROM HARD-BOTTOM STATIONS.
CM
-------
TABLE 3.20. GROUPS OF TAXA FROM INVERSE CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS OF
PHOTOGRAPHIC DATA FROM HARD-BOTTOM STATIONS.
Groups of Taxa*
Group A
Homaxinella sp. (S)
Valonia sp. (A)
Spondylus americanus (M)
Halophila decipiens (G)
Area zebra (M)
Schizoporella unicornis (B)
Siphondictyon sp. (S)
Acetabularia sp. (A)
Astraea sp. (M)
Group B
Polyandrocarpa sp. (U)
Dysidea sp. (S)
Muricea sp. (O)
Gracilaria sp. (A)
Timea sp. (S)
Axinella sp. (S)
Spirastrella sp. (S)
Amathia convoluta (B)
Siderastrea sp. (C)
Lytechinus variegatus (E)
Hippoporidra edax (B)
Leucetta sp. (S)
Celleporaria sp. (B)
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta (S)
Ulosa sp. (S)
Isophyllia sp. (C)
Peyssonnelia simulans (A)
Phakellia folium (S)
Dictyota sp. (A)
Echinaster sp. (E)
Diadema antillarum (E)
Cliona sp. (S)
Anthosigmella varians (S)
Telesto sp. (O)
Didemnum sp. (U)
Group C
Manicina areolata (C)
Tridemnum sp. (U)
Stenorhynchus seticornis (Cr)
Anemone sp.
Botryocladia occidentalis (A)
Hypselodoris edenticulata (M)
Udotea sp. (A)
Phyllangia americana (C)
Dictyopteris sp. (A)
Arbacia punctulata (E)
Polycarpa circumarata (U)
Placospongia melobesioides (S)
Solenastrea hyades (C)
Telchaxinella sp. (S)
Euryspongia rosea (S)
Geodia glbberosa (S)
Caulerpa sp. (A)
Group D
Stephanocoenia michelinii (C)
Campanularia marginata (H)
Pandaros acanthifolium (S)
Epipolasis lithophaga (S)
Codlum sp. (A)
Aplysina fistularis (S)
Eucheuma isiforme (A)
Clnachyra sp. (S)
Isostichopus badionotus (E)
Pteria colymbus (M)
Luidia alternata (E)
Sargassum sp. (A)
Coralline algae (A)
Halimeda sp. (A)
Cladocora arbuscula (C)
~Key:
A = alga E = echinoderm O = octocoral
B =¦ bryozoan G = seagrass S = sponge
C = scleractinian coral H = hydroid U = urochordate
Cr= crustacean M = mollusc (ascidian)
116
-------
Halimeda sp., and unidentified coralline algae. Other widely distributed
taxa included the green alga Udotea sp., the sponges Pseudaxlnella
lunaecharta and Spirastrella sp., the ahermatypic scleractinian coral
Phyllangla americana, and the ascidian Polycarpa circumarata.
3.7.3 Monitoring of Selected Corals and Sponges
Table 3.21 summarizes data from repetitive photographic
examination of selected hard corals and sponges. Nineteen colonies were
monitored: five of Siderastrea radians, four of Stephanocoenia
mlchellnli, three each of Cinachyra sp. and Pseudaxlnella lunaecharta,
two of Isophyllla sp., and one each of Geodia gibberosa and Manlclna
areolata. Because of the small number of specimens of each species, and
because none of the species was monitored at all four stations, it is not
possible to make systematic comparisons among stations.
All specimens initially viewed on Survey III were present
throughout the remainder of the study, although one specimen was
temporarily buried by sand on Survey IV at Station OLD-3. Instances of
sediment partially covering coral or sponge specimens were observed at
all stations. Heavy sedimentation on one or more specimens was
particularly evident during Survey IV at Stations F, OLD-3, and C-3. In
addition, three specimens appeared to be dead or dying on Survey VII.
Two of the dead or dying specimens were Isophyllla sp. at Station 1, and
the other was Cinachyra sp. at Station OLD-3.
117
-------
TABLE 3.21. OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS OF SELECTED CORAL AND SPONGE SPECIES.
Size (grid units)*
Station Transect Species* Survey Survey Survey Survey Comments
III IV V VII
1 Siderastrea radians (C)
14 10 Size increase on Survey V
due to erosion of
sediment from base of
coral.
3 Stephanocoenia michelinii (C)
4 Isophyllia sp. (C)
4 Pseudaxinella lunaecharta (S)
148 139 154
274 266 366
110 107
90
138 Outline changed on
every survey, indicating
growth or sediment
movement. Partially
covered by red algae on
Survey V.
337 Size increase may be due
to polyp expansion,
growth of calyx, or both.
Specimen appears to be
dead on Survey VII.
88 Closing of oscula may
account for part of size
decrease.
5 Isophyllia sp. (C)
5 Pseudaxinella lunaecharta (S)
390 392 378
84
84
89
391 Specimen appears to be
dead on Survey VII.
89 Partially covered by
algae on Survey V.
-------
TABLE 3.21. (CONTINUED).
Station Transect Species*
F 1 Cinachyra sp. (S)
Cinachyra sp. (S)
Stephanocoenia michelinii (C)
Siderastrea radians (C)
Cinachyra sp. (S)
3 Pseudaxine1la lunaecharta (S)
OLD-3
5
5
Siderastrea radians (C)
Siderastrea radians (C)
Size (grid units)*
Survey Survey Survey Survey
III IV V VII
Comments
402 343 326 350
179 167 141 143
179 122 113 145
14 7 10 13
241 177 182 187
125 113 133 133
34 — 29 36
60 34 58 60
Partially covered by
sediment on Survey III.
Osculum open on Survey V,
with some sediment on
ectosome.
Osculum closed on
Survey V.
Heavy sediment cover
noted on Survey IV. Sand
shifted to alter outline
on Survey VII.
Heavy sedimentation
evident on Survey IV.
Appears to be dying on
Survey VII—ectosome
crusty with accumulated
sediment.
Heavy sedimentation
evident on Survey IV;
water murky. Surface of
specimen clean on
Survey V.
Specimen buried on
Survey IV.
Heavy sedimentation
evident on Survey IV.
-------
TABLE 3.21. (CONTINUED).
Station Transect
Species4
Size (grid units)*
Survey Survey Survey Survey
III IV V VII
Comments
C-3
1 Stephanocoenia michelinii (C)
43
Geodia gibberosa (S)
Manicina areolata (C)
Stephanocoenia michelinii (C)
Siderastrea radians (C)
22
35
23
43
74
820 826 871 920
253 259 272 351
190 211 194 250
17
Decrease in area on
Survey IV appears due to
sedimentation. Reduced
sediment cover evident on
Survey VII.
This is a high-profile
sponge—vertical growth
not detected by this
procedure.
Increase on Survey VII
appears to be growth.
Size increase on
Survey VII appears due to
sediment movement.
Size decrease on Survey V
appears due to sediment
movement. Specimen
covered by red algae on
Survey VII.
*C - coral, S = sponge.
''"Each grid unit = 0.17 cm^.
-------
4.0 DISCUSSION
4.1 DISPOSAL AND DISPERSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL
The dispersal of dredged material disposed at Site 4 was not
studied directly as part of the monitoring program; there was no
predictive modeling of fate, no measurement of the disposal mound, and no
monitoring of barge dumps. However, presentation of some background
information concerning disposal operations and modes of dispersal of the
dredged material is a necessary prelude to discussions of surficial
sediment, sediment trap, and biological data.
The total volume disposed at Site 4 between May 1984 and November
1985 was 2.63 million w? (3.44 million yd^) (L. Saunders, COE,
personal conanunication). The disposal operations have "been described by
Williams (1983). An average barge load would be 2,750 a? (2,100 yd^).
Dumping operations typically involve opening doors on the bottom of the
barge to release the dredged material; although the total process takes
about 5 min, most of the load is released in the first minute. When the
barge turned back toward Tampa, the doors were left open for part of the
return trip, and lumps adhering to the walls or doors were then washed
into the sea. The lumps of dredged material seen at various stations
during the monitoring program probably consist of these remnants of
individual barge loads.
Once the dredged material was released from the barge, it could
have been dispersed beyond the disposal area in one of two ways. First,
sediment entrained in a plume during barge dumps could have traveled in
suspension with the prevailing currents, eventually settling to the
seafloor. Second, dredged material initially deposited on the seafloor
could have been transported away from the disposal area, as bed load or
suspended load, due to the influence of currents and surface waves.
Dredged material released from a barge descends rapidly toward the
seafloor. Because of the low moisture content of the Tampa Harbor
material, very little (about 2.5%) of the total was predicted to become
entrained with seawater to form a plume (Williams, 1983). Most of the
material entrained probably consisted of silt and clay; in any case, sand
particles suspended during a barge dump would settle rapidly, within
about 275 m (900 ft) of the disposal point under slightly higher than
average current conditions (10 cm/s or 0.2 kn) (Williams, 1983). The
inner ring monitoring stations around the disposal area are located about
450 m (1,475 ft) from the disposal area boundary. Hence, most of the
material that may have reached the monitoring stations via this mechanism
121
-------
would have been fine sediment. A plume of fine sediment from a barge
dump was observed by divers at inner-ring Station E during Survey III.
Once dredged material is deposited on the seafloor, the potential
for dispersal is governed by the prevailing current and wave regime.
Current velocities needed to initiate motion of sediment particles on the
seafloor have been estimated in numerous laboratory and field studies
(Sternberg# 1972; Miller et al., 1977). At Site 4, over 95% of the 1-h
current vectors measured at 1m (3 ft) above bottom during all seasons
were <20 cm/s (0.4 kn)--probably not great enough to erode or resuspend
deposited sand particles from a flat seafloor (Miller et al., 1977).
However, the influence of surface waves is also of importance, especially
in shallow water. Williams (1983) used both current and wave data to
calculate combined shear stresses at the seafloor to estimate the
potential for bed load transport of deposited dredged material. The
combined data sets indicated that the critical shear stress needed to
initiate particle motion would be exceeded about 12% of the time (44 days
per year) for silt-size particles (0.03 mm) and 7% of the time (25 days
per year) for 0.5-mm sand particles.
Modeling of dredged material dispersion conducted by Williams
(1983) does not take into account either the bed roughness created by
clay boulders scattered throughout the disposal area, or the presence of
the disposal mound as a topographic feature. Increased bed roughness
probably would increase erodibility of unconsolidated sediments
(Sternberg, 1972). The presence of the disposal mound, elevated several
meters above the surrounding seafloor, probably affects the local current
regime. Water flowing toward the mound must pass through a smaller
volume as the water depth decreases, resulting in increased current
velocities and increased shear across the surface of the mound. Also,
the modeling used long-term average wave data; the conditions during the
monitoring program might have differed from the average. In particular,
a large number of tropical storms passed through the Gulf of Mexico
during the 1985 hurricane season, with some passing close enough to
Site 4 to affect the wave regime there.
The direction of dispersal of dredged material, whether suspended
during barge dumps or eroded from the disposal mound, is dependent upon
the ambient current regime. Current meter data from March 1984 through
May 1983 show that although currents were omnidirectional, the highest
percentage of current vectors during each deployment interval was in the
southeastern quadrant (90 to 180°). The progressive vector calculations
122
-------
also indicate transport in this general direction. The strongest
currents occurred during late fall and winter 1984-1985 and flowed south.
The frequency distribution of current velocities and directions observed
during the monitoring program is similar to that reported by Williams
(1983) for an earlier two-month (March to May 1983) deployment at the
site.
The current meter data recorded during the monitoring program
reflect the influence of both tidal currents and general circulatory
currents. Tidal currents along the inner west Florida shelf are strongly
east-west in orientation (Ichiye et al., 1973; Danek and Lewbel, 1986).
Near-bottom circulatory currents in the vicinity of Site 4 were
previously reported to flow parallel to the isobaths, predominantly
toward the north during summer and south during winter (EPA, 1983). This
generalization is based upon two 5-wk current meter deployments at 26°N
latitude (off Naples, Florida) (Mooers and Price, 1975). A larger data
set from the same area has been reviewed by Danek and Lewbel (1986);
near-bottom currents flowed primarily toward the south or southeast
during all seasons. During the monitoring program, strong southerly
currents were noted during winter at Site 4. During summer (first
deployment interval), there was little evidence for a predominantly
northerly flow, although northwesterly currents were fairly common.
4.2 PRESENCE OF DREDGED MATERIAL IN SEDIMENTS AND SEDIMENT TRAPS
The influence of dredged material on the strontium and phosphate
content of surficial sediments was evident at several Site 4 stations,
particularly those on the inner ring near the disposed, area. Although
currents were most frequently directed toward the southeast (90 to 180°)
during the monitoring program, there is no indication that near-field
dispersal from the disposal area was limited to that direction. Of six
inner-ring stations, only Station A, located to the north of the east end
of the disposal area, never differed from all Control Site stations with
respect to phosphate or strontium. Concentrations of clay, fines, and
total organic carbon differed from those at the Control Site during one
or more surveys at this station, but the results cannot specifically be
linked to dredged material. The highest concentrations of phosphate and
the lowest concentrations of strontium were noted at Station F, located
north of the west end of the disposal area.
Only two outer ring stations, 3 and 4, ever differed from all
Control Site stations with respect to phosphate or strontium in surficial
123
-------
sediments. The results are consistent with data showing currents
directed most commonly toward the southeastern quadrant. Dredged
material was detected first to the south at Station 4 (Survey III)/
following a period of strong southerly currents in November 1984.
The greatest degree of spread of dredged material was noted on
Survey V, the last before disposal operations ceased. On this survey,
inner ring stations B, C, D, E, and F and two outer ring stations (3 and
4) had elevated phosphate concentrations; all of these stations except B
and 4 also had depressed strontium concentrations. One year later, on
Survey VII, the influence of dredged material was much less evident; only
one station (E) had low strontium values, and only three (C, E, and F)
had high phosphate values. Two factors that may have contributed to the
change between surveys are (1) the cessation of disposal operations,
which eliminated the inputs of suspended sediment from barge dumps, and
(2) the passage of Hurricane "Elena" near the area, which may have swept
away large quantities of fines from the disposal area and from
contaminated Site 4 stations- Winnowing of fine sediments from the
disposed, mound could eventually result in "armoring" of the bed, reducing
the potential for further dispersion of fine dredged material from the
mound (Williams, 1983).
Spatial variations in clay, fines, and total organic carbon were
noted in the surficial sediment data. However, due to the degree of
variability observed prior to disposal and the wide fluctuations that
occurred at one Control Site station, the spatial differences within
Site 4 cannot be attributed to dredged material. Even the large
percentage (19%) of fine sediments at Station F on Survey VII, though
initially believed to be dredged material in origin, cannot be
conclusively linked to dredged material. Phosphate and strontium
concentrations at this station during Survey VII are indicative of about
15% dredged material in the fine fraction—much lower than the 62 to 66%
calculated from Survey V data. The fine-fraction analyses do not allow a
conclusion to be drawn concerning the noticeable accumulation of sediment at
this station between Surveys V and VII. Chemical analyses of the coarse
fraction would be necessary for this purpose.
Evidence for the presence of dredged material in sediment traps
was weaker than the evidence for surficial sediments, due to the lower
statistical power afforded by two replicates rather than three and the
lack of data from a pre-disposal trapping interval. However, as in the
surficial sediment data set, the influence of dredged material was most
124
-------
evident at stations near the disposal area. During the first two
trapping intervals, the strongest evidence for dredged material was seen
at Station OLD-D, which was located at the eastern edge of the disposal
area; the trapped material was low in strontium content on both intervals
tested. Station QLD-5, later - renamed Station D, trapped low-strontium
sediments during the first and fourth intervals. Among the other
stations, the strongest evidence for dredged material influence was at
Station C, which had low strontium during the third and fourth intervals,
as well as high phosphate content and high phosphate deposition rates
during the third and sixth trapping intervals. The largest number of
stations affected was during the fourth interval (C, D, E, F, 4, and 7
had low strontium content), a finding that agrees with the surficial
sediment data indicating widespread dredged material on the next survey.
Although the sediment trap data suggest dredged material may have been
deposited at Station 7, there was never any corroboration of this finding
in the surficial sediment data set, nor any visual evidence of dredged
material at this station.
There was considerable spatial variation in deposition rate within
Site 4 and the Control Site, but the variation could not be specifically
attributed to dredged material. Total deposition rates observed during
the monitoring program, when scaled to a square meter of trapping area,
are comparable to those reported for nearshore stations on the southwest
Florida shelf by Danek and Lewbel (1986) (maximum of 848 g/m^/d in
their study vs. 1,043 g/m^/d during the monitoring program). In the
southwest Florida shelf study, most of the sand present in the traps was
deposited during brief but intense resuspension events; the highest
sedimentation rates were observed during periods of high winds caused by
the passage of cold air outbreaks (northers) and tropical storms (Danek
and Lewbel, 1986).
Phosphate and strontium were useful as dredged material tracers.
However, results were not identical for the two parameters. Significant
differences in strontium content of surficial sediments were always
accompanied by significant differences in phosphate, whereas the reverse
was not true. Phosphate was more spatially variable prior to disposal
(Survey I Sediment ANOVA was significant), and this may indicate that
phosphate is more likely to produce false positive indications of dredged
material. Another factor is the wide difference in concentrations of
phosphate in samples of dredged material—ranging from 11,900 to
22,200 ppm. In contrast, strontium values in the dredged material ranged
from 140 to 550 ppm.
125
-------
Although phosphate and strontium did not produce identical results
in the ANOVAs and multiple comparisons testing, the two agreed closely
when the dredged material content of the fine fraction at Station F was
calculated. The calculations showed that the fine fraction of sediments
at this station probably contained 62 to 66% dredged material on
Survey V. Sediments in the disposal area, as expected, were essentially
100% dredged material in composition. The minimal dredged material
content that was detected as different from the Control Site sediments
was 11% for phosphate and 16% for strontium. Most of the dredged
material reaching the monitoring stations probably is fine sediment
(<63 urn). If this is the case, the content of dredged material in whole
sediment at Station F on Survey V would be 2.7%.
Phosphate values measured during the Site 4 monitoring program are
in the same range as previously reported values (Continental Shelf
Associates, Inc., 1984), but strontium values are not. The previously
determined values for strontium ranged from 4,320 to 4,590 ppm for Site 4
and Control Site sediments collected during March 1983 (Continental Shelf
Associates, Inc., 1984). In comparison, the range of strontium values
for the pre-disposal Survey I in April 1984 was 2,473 to 2,763 ppm, and
concentrations at Control Site stations decreased consistently during the
monitoring program (Figure 3.6). The analytical methods were the same
(B. J. Presley, Texas A&M Univ., personal communication). Higher total
strontium values (3,250 to 4,620 ppm) for the fine fraction of west Florida
shelf sediments have also been reported by Metz (1982). A possible
explanation for the discrepancy is discussed below.
Site 4 is located in a transitional zone between predominantly
quartz sediments of the nearshore zone and predominantly carbonate
sediments of the continental shelf (Doyle and Sparks, 1980). Because
strontium and calcium have the same charge and similar ionic radii,
strontium easily substitutes for calcium in mineral lattices, and various
carbonate-producing marine organisms assimilate strontium into their
structure (Metz, 1982). Consequently, strontium and calcium carbonate
are highly correlated in their distribution patterns. The difference in
results reported by Metz (1982) and those determined during this
monitoring program are attributable to the difference in carbonate
content between the samples analyzed by Metz (80 to 95%) and those
analyzed from Site 4 (61 to 7 7% in samples collected during Survey III).
The difference between the previously reported strontium concentrations
(Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1984) for Site 4 and those
determined during this monitoring study may be due to mixing of
high-carbonate sediments at Site 4 with low-carbonate sediments from near
126
-------
shore. Gould and Stewart (1955) reported that strong tidal currents off
Tampa Bay are capable of transporting predominantly quartz sediments
offshore to a distance of 37 km (20 nmi). Site 4 is close enough to
Tampa Bay (33 km or 18 nmi) to be affected.
4.3 EFFECTS ON INFAUNA
Infaunal communities of the west Florida shelf have previously
been studied during two large-scale baseline environmental studies: the
MAFLA program (conducted under the auspices of the Bureau of Land
Management) and the Southwest Florida Shelf Ecosystems Study (conducted
by the Minerals Management Service). The MAFLA data are summarized in
reports by Blake (1979) (molluscs), Heard (1979) (crustaceans), and
Vittor (1979) (polychaetes). The Southwest Florida shelf study results
are summarized by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (1987). These
studies provide a basic framework for describing the infauna of the area,
but little in the way of site-specific information. Sampling in and near
Site 4 in connection with disposal site designation has been reviewed and
discussed by JRB Associates (1982). Integration of the present sampling
results with those of the previous studies is not addressed in this
report.
On a broad scale, the composition of infaunal communities of the
west Florida shelf varies primarily in relation to water depth, and
secondarily in relation to sediment composition (Blake, 1979; Vittor,
1979; Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1987). On geographic grounds,
the infaunal assemblage at Site 4 would be expected to resemble the MAFLA
assemblage referred to as "west Florida inner shelf" (Vittor, unpublished
MAFLA results). Characteristic species in this group include the
polychaetes Synelmis albini, Protodorvillea keferstelni, Parapionosyllis
longicirrata, Gonladides carolinae, Exogone dispar, Magelona pettiboneae,
and Eunice vlttata. All of these species with the exception of Synelmis
albini were common during the Site 4 monitoring program. Off southwest
Florida, S. albini is primarily a middle-to-outer shelf species
(Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1987). Common infauna in the 20 to
25 m (66 to 82 ft) depth range on the southwest Florida shelf include
many of the same species cited above, with the addition of Prionospio
cristata and Mediomastus californiensis (Continental Shelf Associates,
Inc., 1987).
On a more local scale, infaunal communities also vary in character
with depth and sediment grain size composition (JRB Associates, 1982).
127
-------
On the basis of sampling 20 stations at four existing or potential
dredged material disposal sites off Tampa, JRB Associates (1982)
identified six major habitat types, and correspondingly, six groups of
infaunal species. The habitat types defined on the basis of substratum
and water depth were as follows: (1) gravel--high proportion of sediments
>2 mm in diameter, primarily shell hash and rubble; (2) coarse sand with
some gravel; (3) medium and fine sand in shallow water (<20 m or 66 ft);
(4) medium and fine sand in deep water (>20 m); (5) fine sand; and
(6) fine sand and silt* Of five Site 4 stations sampled during the May
1982 survey, three were in Group (6), one was in Group (1), and one was
in Group (4). Abundant infauna associated with the fine sand and silt
stations (Group 6) were Aglaophamus verrllli, Prionospio cristata, and
Paraprionospio pinnata—all fairly widely distributed species that
typically reached maximum abundance in the finer sediments. The infaunal
community associated with the gravel stations (Group 1) consisted largely
of numerous syllids and representatives of other families of carnivores
and scavengers. Many of these species feed on hydroids, bryozoans, and
other sessile epifauna that grow on shell, rubble, and occasional
hard-bottom outcrops (Uebelacker and Johnson, 1984). The medium and fine
sand, deep water stations (Group 4) supported a wide diversity of
infauna, including those associated with both coarse and fine sediments.
The results of the earlier studies suggest that the composition of
infaunal communities within Site 4 would be expected to vary primarily in
relation to grain size variables and possibly water depth. The
classification and discriminant analyses conducted for the monitoring
program support this inference. Generally, two major types of stations
were recognized: those in slightly deeper water, characterized by
relatively high proportions of sand (which includes the >2 mm fraction
referred to above as gravel); and those in slightly shallower water, with
lower proportions of sand. Each station group had characteristic suites
of associated species. A more detailed analysis of the dependence of
species composition on sediment grain size would have been possible if
the sediment samples had been analyzed for various phi size fractions,
rather than just sand, silt, and clay.
The monitoring program results also show that species composition
varies seasonally, with a distinct community composition evident in the
summer (July, August) samples. Examples of summer species (those
occurring primarily in summer samples or most abundant during that
season) are Eunice vittata, Leptochelia sp. D, Maqelona pettiboneae,
Mlcrodeutopus myersi, and Prionospio cristata. Prionospio cristata, the
128
-------
most abundant species in the Survey V and VII samples, is prone to
similar, wide fluctuations in abundance at stations in the same depth
range off southwest Florida, with maximum populations developing during
summer (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1987).
There was no conclusive evidence for an effect of dredged material
on infauna at Site 4. Evidence for an effect was sought in abundance and
biomass data, community parameters, and species composition data. The
abundance and biomass data showed considerable spatial variability within
Site 4 and some significant differences between Site 4 and the Control
Site. However, the differences were not correlated with evidence for
presence of dredged material in surficial sediments. Two possible
explanations for the significant differences between Site 4 and Control
Site stations are (1) the greater number of stations sailed at Site 4
and (2) systematic differences between the two locations with respect to
infauna. The 17 or 18 stations sampled at Site 4 on each survey would be
expected to enconqpass a wider range of inter-station variability than the
three stations sampled at the Control Site. The possibility of a
systematic difference between the two areas is suggested by the results
from Survey III, when nearly all Site 4 stations had higher abundances
than the Control Site stations. Spatial differences in biomasswere more
difficult to detect than those related to abundance, because inter-
replicate variability in biomass was quite high, even with the
logarithmic transformation.
Evidence for effects of dredged material was also sought by
calculating correlations between infaunal summary statistics (mean
abundance, mean biomass, diversity, and equitability) and concentrations
of dredged material tracers. These analyses produced only a few
significant correlations and no consistent patterns relating the dredged
material tracers to the infaunal summary statistics. Strontium was
negatively correlated with diversity and equitability on Survey IV, which
would indicate higher diversity and equitability in areas influenced by
dredged material. However, the highest diversity and equitability values
were observed at a Control Site station, and the implied effect does not
agree with previously reported findings of reduced diversity in areas
where dredged material has been deposited (JRB Associates, 1982). There
was also a negative correlation between abundance and strontium on
Survey VII, which would suggest that abundances were higher where dredged
material was present. However, the highest abundance was noted at a
station with approximately average strontium concentration. Moreover,
the strontium values for Survey VII were indicative of much lower
129
-------
percentages of dredged material in surficial sediments at the inner-ring
stations than during the preceding survey, when no such correlation was
noted.
There was also no evidence of an effect of dredged material on
infaunal species composition. Within individual surveys, infaunal
community composition apparently varied in relation to water depth and
grain size variables, with two major station groupings corresponding to
generally deeper stations with sandier sediments and shallower stations
with higher percentages of silt and clay. As noted above, there was a
strong seasonality to the infaunal species composition. There was no
relationship between overall species composition and concentrations of
dredged material tracers. In addition, there was no indication that
particular species were associated preferentially with stations where
dredged material was present in surficial sediments.
The lack of effects on infauna probably is due to the low inputs
of dredged material reaching the monitoring stations. Although dredged
material was detected in surficial sediments and sediment traps at
several stations via phosphate and strontium analyses, there were no
changes in overall sediment composition (sand/silt/clay) that could be
attributed to dredged material. In addition, no gross build-up of
dredged material was observed at the monitoring stations. Previous
monitoring of ocean disposal sites on the west Florida shelf has revealed
effects on infauna, but generally where large quantities of dredged
material bury the infauna (JRB Associates, 1982). Sanples from such
areas typically are depauperate in both abundance and species richness.
Infaunal communities in the disposal area probably have been severely
affected by deposition of large quantities of sediment. However, effects
are not evident at the monitoring stations.
4.4 EFFECTS ON EPIBIOTA
Hard-bottom areas such as those sampled during this program are
widespread in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Sessile hard-bottom epifauna
typical of the inner shelf off west Florida include small scleractinian
corals such as Cladocora arbuscula, Isophyllia spp., Phyllangia
americana, Siderastrea spp., Solenaetrea hyades, and Stephanocoenia
michelinii? sponges such as Axinella spp., Cinachyra spp., Geodia
gibberosa, Ircinia spp., and Spheciospongia vesparium? and various
ascidians, bryozoans, and hydroids (Smith, 1976; Rice, 1984; Continental
Shelf Associates, Inc., 1987). Dense growths of gorgonians (e.g.,
130
-------
Eunicea, Muricea) bearing symbiotic zooxanthellae also occur in hard-
bottom areas, but primarily in water depths <20 m (66 ft) (Smith, 1976;
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1987). Site 4 is slightly deeper
than the seaward extent of the gorgonian-dominated assemblages.
Seagrasses also occur widely on the continental shelf off west
Florida. Although the major beds of Thalassla, Halodule, and Syringodium
occur near shore in water depths <10 m (33 ft), species of Halophila may
cover broad expanses at greater water depths (Continental Shelf
Associates, Inc. and Martel Laboratories, Inc., 1985). The lower depth
limit of Halophila decipiens is believed to be at or near 20 m (66 ft) in
the area. However, the seagrass was observed at several of the Site 4
monitoring stations, particularly during summer surveys (II, V, and VII).
Halophila was not a major cover constituent at the Site 4 stations.
The hard-bottom locations sampled at Site 4 are not large in area.
The limited incidence of hard bottom at this location was one reason for
its selection as a disposal site for dredged material (EPA, 1983). In
terms of percent coverage and composition of the epibiota, the hard-
bottom areas studied are comparable to the nearest hard-bottom station
sampled by Woodward-Clyde Consultants and Continental Shelf Associates,
Inc. (1985) during a multidisciplinary study of benthic habitats and
biota of the southwest Florida shelf (south of 27°N). Percent cover at
their Station 1, located in 24 m (79 ft) depth off Charlotte Harbor,
varied from 13 to 27%, with the maximum observed during spring and
summer. Nearly all of the cover was due to algae; included in the sparse
sessile epifauna were many of the same species of corals, sponges, and
others observed at Site 4. The coverage of sessile epifauna at the
Site 4 stations can be characterized as sparse in comparison with the
coverage at many of the other hard-bottom stations sampled by Woodward-
Clyde Consultants and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (1985).
The problems in interpreting the photographic data set have been
discussed in Section 2.3.7. The main problem is that three of the four
stations monitored were established on Survey III, so there are no
pre-disposal data. However, some conclusions can be drawn.
No dredged material was seen at Station OLD-3 during any survey.
Moreover, there was no indication from sediment trap or surficial
sediment data that dredged material was deposited there, even though the
station is located in the direction one would expect suspended sediments
to be transported. There was nothing in the data from this station
131
-------
located outside Site 4 to indicate any effect of dredged material on the
sessile epibiota.
At Station 1, located at the northeast corner of Site 4, a few
scattered lumps of dredged material believed to have fallen from disposal
barges were seen on Surveys III and IV. The lumps had disintegrated or
disappeared by Survey V, and there was no indication from surficial
sediment or sediment trap data of deposition of dredged material at this
station. As with Station OLD-3, there was nothing in the data to
indicate unusual changes or any effects attributable dredged material.
Of the hard-bottom stations sampled, Station F is closest to the
disposal area, and there was strong visual and geochemical evidence for
the presence of dredged material there. If dredged material were
affecting sessile epibiota, one would expect effects to be most evident
at this station. Percent cover of toted, biota, algae, and sponges and
corals were lower at Station F than at the other hard-bottom stations
throughout the interval from Survey III to Survey VII. However, since
the station was not sampled prior to disposal operations, it is not known
whether the low biotic cover is an effect of exposure to dredged
material. The relatively small increase in covt>r of algae and total
biota at Station F during the interval from Survey IV through Survey VII,
in comparison with the increases at Stations C-3 and OLD-3, suggests a
possible influence of dredged material.
Classification analysis conducted to examine inter-station and
inter-season differences in species composition of the epibiota
indicate that there is a high degree of similarity in species composition
among stations. There is no indication that Station F is especially
dissimilar to the others in species composition. It would be necessary
to examine the relationships among stations prior to disposal in order to
reach a definitive conclusion; however, the present results do not
provide any evidence suggesting that species composition has been
affected by eiqposure to dredged material.
Direct observation of selected sponge and coral specimens provides
little additional insight, partly due to the small number of specimens
available. Of three individuals monitored at Station F, all were present
from Survey III on, and none were completely buried, although heavy
sedimentation was evident on several surveys. It is not clear whether
the build-up of sediment at Station F between Surveys V and VII was due
132
-------
to dredged material. Data from other stations indicate that partial
burial and exposure of low-profile epibiota, such as small hard corals
and sponges, probably occurs intermittently under natural conditions.
Several of the coral and sponge species observed at Site 4 have
been shown to tolerate some degree of sedimentation and temporary burial.
Rice (1984) conducted laboratory experiments in which species of sponge
(Cinachyra sp.) and coral (Cladocora arbuscula, Isophyllla sp; Phyllangia
americana, Siderastrea radians, Solenastrea hyades, Stephanocoenia
mlchelinii, and others) were buried or exposed to sediment in suspension.
Most of the species were very tolerant to turbidity; exposure to high
suspended solids concentrations for 10 days did not affect survival or
(in three of four experiments) growth rate, although some sublethal
stress effects were evident. In the burial experiments, all of the
corals and the sponge tested displayed a high tolerance to complete
burial, with LT50 values (the time necessary to kill half the
specimens) ranging from 7 d to greater than 15 d (Rice, 1984).
Solenastrea hyades and Cinachyra sp. were most tolerant to burial, with
100% survival after 15 days (the longest time period tested). The
distribution of coral species in nature reflects in part their various
degrees of tolerance to sedimentation (Hubbard and Pocock, 1972). In
general, the species found on hard-bottom covered by a thin, mobile sand
veneer must be able to tolerate some sedimentation; species with limited
tolerances are restricted to relatively sediment-free habitats (Hubbard
and Pocock, 1972).
4.5 METHODOLOGY EVALUATION
In general, the monitoring program was designed and executed well.
Sufficient information was gathered to permit an assessment of the
dispersal and possible biological effects of dredged material.
The major flaw in the conduct of the monitoring program was the
failure to locate the Site 4 monitoring stations properly in relation to
the disposal area during Survey I. This type of error can be avoided in
the future by insuring that the dredging contractor and the personnel
conducting the monitoring program discuss navigation prior to the
initiation of monitoring. Constant vigilance on the part of all
concerned for potential navigational problems also would minimize the
possibility of similar happenings in the future.
133
-------
Other errors were made in relation to sampling at the Control
Site. First, a reference hard-bottom station should have been
established there during Survey I. Although the difficulty of finding a
suitable hard-bottom area there is understandable—the site was chosen to
be similar to Site 4, which has a low incidence of hard bottom--the
television system used during Survey III could have been used earlier to
locate a suitable area. Second, when the hard-bottom station was
established at Station C-3 during Survey III, sediment sampling should
not have been discontinued at OLD-C-3 (it was resumed there during
Survey V). It is important that sediment composition values for disposal
site stations be compared with data from the same Control Site stations
on each survey. Third, a larger number of Control Site stations would
have improved the interpretation—particularly of infaunal data, which
showed a high degree of station-to-station variability.
The tripods served well as station markers and sediment trap
holders. However, they were not very useful for measuring sediment
accumulation. It would be better to measure sediment thickness relative
to a fixed reference point or points. This could be accomplished by
measuring sediment thickness overlying hard bottom at several randomly
chosen points during each survey, or by driving calibrated rods into the
bedrock near the station marker. Neither approach would be practical
where the sand veneer is thick, but both should be possible at hard-
bottom stations.
Strontium and phosphate worked well as tracers, and they may be
useful in similar monitoring situations. The use of strontium would be
restricted to circumstances where low-carbonate bearing sediments are
being disposed onto a predominantly carbonate continental shelf, as off
Florida. Phosphate may be of wider utility where estuarine sediments are
being disposed on the continental shelf. The use of any tracer in a
monitoring program would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
The grain size data collected (percentages of sand, silt, and clay)
were useful for characterizing the sediment composition in general.
However, for purposes of infaunal data interpretation, a more detailed
breakdown of grain size classes into phi-intervals would be preferable.
The photographic monitoring of epibiota also encountered problems.
Initial techniques used to establish repeatable quadrat photographic
locations without staking individual quadrats were unsuccessful. The
method employed beginning with Survey III worked better. However,
134
-------
establishment of individually staked quadrats would be preferable,
because the quadrats could be placed randomly, allowing the individual
photographs to be considered independent replicates for statistical
analysis*
Monitoring of individual coral and sponge colonies was of limited
usefulness in the program, because too few individuals of each species
could be found to monitor. Also, the planimetric approach to measuring
growth is not appropriate for some organisms, particularly those
exhibiting vertical growth. Direct vertical relief measurements might be
appropriate for some specimens.
135
-------
136
-------
5.0 SUMMARY
Between May 1984 and November 1985, 2.63 million m-* (3.44 million
yd^) of dredged material from Tampa Harbor was disposed at Site 4,
located 33 km (18 nmi) offshore of the entrance to Tampa Bay, Florida. A
monitoring program was conducted in association with the disposal
operations. This report summarizes the methods and results of the Site 4
monitoring program through July 1986, eight months after disposal
operations ended.
The monitoring program involved several elements, including diver
observations, measurements of sediment accumulation, sampling of infauna
and surficial sediments, sediment trapping, continuous recording of
current velocities and directions, and photographic monitoring of sessile
epibiota at hard-bottom stations. Sampling began with a pre-disposal
survey in April 1984. Four during-disposal surveys were conducted at 3-
to 4-month intervals from August 1984 through July 1985. Sediment traps
were serviced during January 1986, and a full post-disposal survey was
conducted in July 1986.
Monitoring stations were established in am inner and an outer ring
around the disposal area, with the outer ring corresponding to the
boundary of Site 4. However, a navigational error during the pre-disposal
survey resulted in the mislocation of all Site 4 monitoring stations. The
error was discovered in September 1984 after the second survey, and most
stations were moved to their correct locations during the third survey
(December 1984). Two Site 4 stations were not moved.
Divers observed scattered lumps of dredged material on the
seafloor at one or more stations during each survey after disposal
operations began. The stations where dredged material was visible
generally conform to lines extending toward Tampa Bay from the east and
west ends of the disposed, area. The material seen on the seafloor is
believed to be sediment that adhered to the walls or doors of the hopper
barge during disposal and subsequently was washed from the open doors of
the barge while it was returning to Tampa.
Dredged material could have dispersed from the disposal area in
two ways. First, some material, mostly fine sediment, could have been
entrained with seawater during barge dumps to create a plume that would
travel with the prevailing currents. Second, dredged material deposited
on the seafloor could have been eroded and resuspended due to currents
and surface waves.
137
-------
Currents at Site 4 were predominantly toward the east, southeast,
and south, with most current velocities <10 cm/s (0.19 kn) during all
seasons. The strongest currents (0.45 cm/s or 0.87 kn) flowed south
during late fall and winter of 1984-1985. Progressive vector
calculations indicate that over the long term, suspended particles should
be transported toward the east, southeast, or south (90 to 180°).
Current velocities measured at Site 4 have little potential for
eroding or resuspending sediments from a flat seafloor. However,
sediments may be more readily moved in the disposal area, where the
seafloor is littered with clay boulders up to several meters in diameter;
the boulders increase bed roughness and may increase erodibility. In
addition, the disposal mound is a topographic feature that probably
affects the current velocities flowing over and around it. Surface
waves, particularly those generated during storms, are believed to have a
role in moving and resuspending sediments at the water depth of Site 4.
The influence of surface waves was not measured during the monitoring
study.
Analyses of phosphate and strontium in the fine fraction of
surficial sediments at Site 4 and the Control Site showed that these
parameters were very useful in delineating the presence of dredged
material. Previous analyses, as well as those conducted during the
monitoring program, showed that sediments from the continental shelf
(Site 4) and Tampa Bay (source of dredged material) have very different
concentrations of phosphate and strontium. Prior to disposal operations,
none of the Site 4 stations differed from all Control Site stations with
respect to phosphate or strontium, but one or more stations differed with
respect to these parameters on all subsequent surveys. Five of six
stations located on the inner ring around the disposal area were
affected. Two outer ring stations located to the south and southeast of
the disposal area were also affected during one or more surveys.
Differences between Site 4 and Control Site stations with respect
to three other sediment parameters—clay, fines, and total organic
carbon—were detected while disposal operations were in progress.
However, the differences could not be attributed conclusively to the
influence of dredged material. There were two reasons: (1) percentages
of clay and fines at one Site 4 station differed from those at all
Control Site stations prior to disposal operations, and (2) values for
clay, fines, and total organic carbon were extremely variable within the
Control Site during Survey II, with one station exhibiting values similar
to those seen in dredged material.
138
-------
Data from analysis of dredged material samples and uncontaminated
continental shelf sediments were used to estimate the percentage of
dredged material present in the fine fraction of sediments at Site 4.
Sediments collected in the disposal area were calculated to be
essentially all dredged material, as expected. The maximum content of
dredged material in the fine fraction at Station F, an inner-ring station
believed to be most heavily influenced by dredged material, was
calculated on the basis of phosphate data to be 62%. Calculations based
on strontium resulted in an estimate of 66%. If all of the dredged
material reaching Station F is fine (<63 um), the calculated content of
dredged material in whole sediment would be 2.7%.
Sediment trap data suggest that fine dredged material was
deposited at one or more stations during each survey. Most of the
stations affected were on the inner ring surrounding the disposal area.
Total deposition rates varied spatially, but the variations could not be
specifically linked to dredged material. Most of the variability in
deposition rates may be attributed to local-scale variations in
resuspension of coarse sediment (sand).
Infaunal sampling did not reveal any effects of dredged material
disposal at the Site 4 monitoring stations. Although significant
differences in abundance and biomass between Site 4 and Control Site
stations were noted on several surveys, abundances of some groups
differed between the two areas prior to disposal operations, making it
impossible to attribute later significant differences specifically to
dredged material. Moreover, most significant differences in abundance
and biomass were not accompanied by altered sediment concentrations of
the dredged material tracers, phosphate and strontium. There was no
consistent pattern of correlations between infaunal summary statistics
(abundance, biomass, diversity, and equitability) and concentrations of
phosphate and strontium.
The species composition of the infauna apparently is controlled by
sediment grain size composition, environmental variables correlated with
water depth, and seasonal factors. Strong seasonality in species
composition was evident; summer samples from 1984, 1985, and 1986 were
much more similar to each other than to those collected at the same
stations during other seasons. There was no indication that stations
where dredged material was present in surficial sediments developed an
unusual or distinctive infauna.
139
-------
Quantitative photographic data were collected at several hard-
bottom stations during the program. However, due to the navigational
error and station repositioning, only one hard-bottom station was
monitored throughout the program. No hard-bottom reference station was
established in the Control Site until the third survey. Consequently,
only limited inferences can be drawn concerning effects of dredged
material on hard-bottom epibiota.
With the exception of one station sampled during the second
survey, total biotic cover was always less than 50%. Most of the total
was attributable to algae, and seasonal fluctuations in biotic cover at
the hard-bottom stations reflected variations in algal abundance.
Combined sponge and coral cover averaged a few percent at all stations.
Biotic cover was lowest at Station F, which is believed to have been most
heavily influenced by deposition of dredged material from the disposal
area; however, there are no pre-disposal data to determine whether the
epibiota was sparse prior to disposal operations. Classification
analysis conducted with the photographic data indicated a high level of
similarity in species composition among stations. There was no
indication that species composition at Station F differed markedly from
that seen at the other hard-bottom stations. A layer of fine sediment
had accumulated at this station by Survey VII, but two sponges and one
coral specimen observed repeatedly at this station were visible on every
survey. Sessile epifauna such as corals and sponges present in the study
area are believed to tolerate a certain amount of sedimentation and
temporary burial as part of their natural environment.
Although hard-bottom epibiota at Station F may have been affected
by dredged material, there is no indication that epibiota at stations
located at the boundary of Site 4 (Station 1) or outside the southeastern
boundary (Station OLD-3) were affected by dredged material. Dredged
material was never seen or chemically detected at the latter station. A
few scattered lumps of dredged material were seen at Station 1 during two
surveys, but there was no evidence from sediment traps or surficial
sediment analyses that the biota were exposed to dredged material in the
water column or in the sediments.
Diver observations in the disposal area during July 1986 revealed
that the disposal mound had been colonized heavily by algae (Codium,
Gracilaria) and epifauna (hydroids, bryozoans, ascidians, sea urchins,
and arrow crabs). A diverse fish assemblage was associated with the
broken relief provided by boulders of dredged material on the seafloor.
A boring bivalve, Jouannetia guillingi, had colonized the clay boulders
and apparently was breaking them down.
140
-------
6.0 REFERENCES CITED
Abbott, R. T. 1974. American Seashells. The Marine Mollusca of the
Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of North America. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY. 663 pp.
Bernstein, B. B., R. W. Smith, and B. E. Thompson. 1984. Sampling
design and replication for benthic monitoring, p. 21-35. In:
W. Bascom (ed.), Southern California Coastal Water Research Project,
Biennial Report 1983-1984. Long Beach, CA. 332 pp.
Blake, N. J. 1979.- Infaunal macromolluscs of the eastern Gulf of
Mexico, Chapter 14. In: Dames & Moore (eds.), The Mississippi,
Alabama, Florida Outer Continental Shelf Baseline Environmental
Survey 1977/78. A report to the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. Contract
No. AA550-CT7-34.
Boesch, D. F. 1977. Application of numerical classification in
ecological investigations of water pollution. Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. EPA-600/3-77-033.
114 pp.
Bohnsack, J. A. 1976. An investigation of a photographic method for
sampling hard-bottom benthic communities. M.S. thesis, Univ. Miami.
188 pp.
Bohnsack, J. A. 1979. Photographic quantitative sampling of hard-bottom
communities. Bull. Mar. Sci. 29:242-252.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1984. Analysis of Tampa Bay and
dredged material disposal site sediment samples. A report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 17 pp.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1987. Southwest Florida Shelf
Regional Biological Communities Survey Year 3 Final Report. A
report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management
Service, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 14-12-0001-29036.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. and Martel Laboratories, Inc. 1985.
Florida Big Bend Seagrass Habitat Study. A report to the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New
Orleans, LA. Contract No. 14-12-0001-30188.
Danek, L. J. and G. S. Lewbel (eds.). 1986. Southwest Florida Shelf
Benthic Communities Study--Year 5 Annual Report. A final report by
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. and LGL Ecological
Research Associates, Inc. to the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Contract
No. 14-12-0001-30211.
141
-------
Doyle, L. J. and T. N. Sparks. 1980. Sediments of the Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida (MAFLA) continental shelf. J. Sed. Petrol.
50:905-916.
Gould, H. R. and R. H. Stewart. 1955. Continental terrace sediments in
the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, pp. 2-19. In: J. L. Hough and
H. W. Menard (eds.), Finding Ancient Shorelines. Soc. Econ.
Palaeon. Mineral. Spec. Publ. No- 3. 129 pp.
Green, R. H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for
Environmental Biologists. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
257 pp.
Heard, R. W. 1979. Macroinfaunal crustaceans, Chapter 16. In: Dames &
Moore (eds.), The Mississippi, Alabama, Florida Outer Continental
Shelf Baseline Environmental Survey 1977/78. A report to the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington,
D.C. Contract No. AA550-CT7-34.
Hubbard, J. A. E. B. and Y. B. Pocock. 1972. Sediment rejection by
recent scleractinian corals: a key to palaeo-environmental
reconstruction. Geol. Rundschau 61:598-626.
Ichiye, T., H. Kuo, and M. R. Carnes. 1973. Assessment of currents and
hydrography of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Contrib. No. 601, Dept.
of Oceanography, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX.
JRB Associates. 1982. Characterization of the benthic environment at four
existing and alternative Tampa Bay offshore dredged material disposal
sites. A report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washingto
D.C.
Metz, S. 1982. Provenance and partitioning of Fe, Mn, and Sr in west Flori
shelf sediments as a function of grain size and carbonate content. M.S
Thesis, Florida Inst. Tech., Melbourne, FL. 61 pp.
Miller, M. C., I. N. McCave, and P. D. Komar. 1977. Threshold of
sediment motion under unidirectional currents. Sedimentology
24:507-527.
Mooers, C. N. K. and J. F. Price. 1975. General shelf circulation,
pp. 41-49. In: Compilation and summation of historical and existing
physical oceanographic data from the eastern Gulf of Mexico in
support of the creation of a MAFLA sampling program. State Univ.
Florida System of Oceanography.
142
-------
Rice, S. A. 1984. Effects of suspended sediment and burial upon survival and
growth of eastern Gulf of Mexico corals. A report by Mote Marine
Laboratory to Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., under contract to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 59 pp.
Rice, S. A. and J. K. Culter. 1984. Analysis of sampling procedures for
benthic infaunal communities at an ocean dredged material disposal
site. A report by Mote Marine Laboratory to Camp Dresser & McKee
Inc., under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 33 pp.
Smith, G. B. 1976. Ecology and distribution of eastern Gulf of Mexico
reef fishes. Marine Research Laboratory, Florida Department of
Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, FL. Florida Mar. Res. Publ.
No. 9. 78 pp.
Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry. The Principles and
Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. W. H. Freeman, San
Francisco, CA. 776 pp.
Starck, W. A. II. 1968. A list of fishes at Alligator Reef, Florida
with comments on the nature of the Florida reef fish fauna.
Undersea Biol. 1:4-40.
Sternberg, R. W. 1972. Predicting initial motion and bedload transport
of sediment particles in the shallow marine environment, pp. 61-82.
In: D. J. P. Swift, D. B. Duane, and O. H. Pilkey (eds.), Shelf
Sediment Transport: Process and Pattern. Dowden, Hutchinson, and
Ross, Stroudsburg, PA.
Strickland, J. D. H. and T. R. Parsons. 1972. A Practical Handbook of
Seawater Analysis. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Bull. No. 167. 310 pp.
Uebelacker, J. M. and P. F. Johnson (eds.). 1984. Taxonomic guide to
the polychaetes of the northern Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS Region,
Metairie, LA. OCS Study No. MMS-84-0049.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for Taiqpa Harbor Florida Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site Designation. Washington, D.C.
Vittor, B. A. 1979. Macroinfaunal polychaetes. Chapter 15- In: Dames &
Moore (eds.), The Mississippi, Alabama, Florida Outer Continental
Shelf Baseline Environmental Survey 1977/78. A report to the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington,
D.C. Contract No. AA550-CT7-34.
Williams, D. T. 1983. Tampa Bay-Dredged Material Disposal Site
Analysis. Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Array Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Misc. Pap. No. HL-83-8. 46 pp.
143
-------
Woodward-Clyde Consultants and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1985.
Southwest Florida Shelf Ecosystems Study - Year 2. A final report
to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 14-12-0001-29144.
144
-------
APPENDIX A
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE MONITORING
STATION POSITIONING ERROR
A-l
-------
A-2
-------
, inc.
P.O. BOX 3609 • TEQUESTA. FLORIDA 334S8 • 30S/746-7946
"Applied Science and Technology"
15 November 1984
Dr. Jonathan E. Amson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection (WH-556)
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Dr. Amson:
In response to your request to attempt to determine the
probable cause(s) of positioning errors in the emplacement
of the monitoring stations, the events can best be
reconstructed using the available information that is
presently known to us:
(a) The problem was initially discovered during the
second quarterly monitoring cruise when dredged
material was seen on the bottom by divers at
Stations, A, 2, and D;
(b) A letter was sent to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) on 21 September 1984 detailing
potential problems (Attachment No. 1);
(c) The COE responded with a letter from Major
General John F. Wall on 24 September 1984
(Attachment No. 2);
(d) The first quarterly monitoring report details the
results of the sediment analyses from samples
taken during the second monitoring cruise (See
Attachment No. 3: Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4
copied from the first quarterly report):
(i) Dredged material was detected in sediment
traps at Stations D and 5;
(ii) Strontium and/or phosphate indications of
dredged material [the tracers that were
agreed upon by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE) were
found at Stations E, D, 4, and 5.
As best as can be established, a positioning problem has
resulted from the following events:
A-3
-------
Dr. Jonathan E. Anison
-2-
15 November 1984
In April 1984, Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA)
established 17 monitoring stations at the dredged material
disposal site designated by the CPA approximately 18 NM
west of Egmont Key at the entrance to Tampa Bay, Florida
and also known as "Site 4." The site is designated in the
Federal Register by latitude and longitude coordinates.
The scope of work for the monitoring plan called for CSA to
use Loran-C navigation to control all survey tasks.
The original field survey that selected the location of
Site 4 was conducted on board O.S.V. ANTELOPE in May 1982.
ANTELOPE also conducted an infaunal sampling program
at various stations around the perimeter of Site 4 in
February/March/April 1983. All of ANTELOPE'S survey work
at Site 4 had been conducted using Loran-C for position
control.
In selecting the exact Loran-C coordinates to be used for
the monitoring program stations, EPA and CSA
representatives agreed that it was important to position
the perimeter stations of Site 4 (Station Nos. 1 through 8)
as close as possible to the locations actually selected and
used by the ANTELOPE. CSA wished to avoid the inclusion of
any Loran-C signal propagation error into the station
locations. By using ANTELOPE'S original Loran-C
coordinates, the project team eliminated the error that
would have been incurred during the transformations either
from Loran-C data to latitude/longitude data or from
latitude/longitude back to Loran-C.
The Loran-C coordinates as recorded in ANTELOPE'S bridge
log during the February/March/April 1983 cruise were
selected by the EPA representative as the best source of
ANTELOPE Loran-C coordinates that described the Site 4
stations. The actual plot of these stations is shown in
Attachment No. 4: Figure 1.
The coordinates were listed in ANTELOPE'S bridge log as a
series of replicate sampling locations. Weather conditions
had caused the positioning of some stations' replicate sets
to be tighter than others, while some stations' sets were
considerably looser. The tightest pattern of fixes was
found in the log for the southwesternmost station. This
southwestern station was identified as EPA Station No. 20,
which later became CSA Station No. 5. All seven or eight
drops had the same Loran-C reading, +<0.1 microseconds
(+<50-100 ft).
A-4
-------
Dr. Jonathan E. Amson
-3-
15 NovemDer 1984
When the CSA/EPA survey team arrived at Site 4 during the
initial survey in April 1984, the plotter was initialized
on CSA Station No. 5. When the coordinates for the first
few stations were programed into the plotter, it became
apparent that the programed plot would not describe the
intended two-mile square site. It was assumed at the time
that these deviations were due to differences in ANTELOPE'S
individual replicate positions. The field team decided to
use what was believed to be the "best" set of coordinates
at the southwest corner as the reference point, and then
construct a two-mile square site from that set of
coordinates. The result of that construction is shown in
Attachment No. 4: Figure 2. A complete plotting comparison
of all eight pairs of ANTELOPE coordinates was not done at
the time.
The EPA and CSA representatives realized from the beginning
that there was a potential for positioning error between
the Loran-C coordinates and the Lambert X and Y coordinates
generated by the Trisponder system that is used by the
dredging contractor. In an effort to ensure that any
disposal operations would be conducted so as to avoid
dumping on top of or damaging any of our specific station
markers, CSA sent a letter to the dredging contractor on
18 Hay 1984 (Attachment No. 5) that listed all monitoring
stations and their Loran-C coordinates. These coordinates
were apparently never field checked by the dredging
contractor, since a field check would have exposed the
problem initially.
On 21 September 1984, CSA and COE personnel went to Site 4
to conduct a direct comparison of CSA and COE navigational
systems (Loran-C vs. Trisponder). The survey was conducted
on board a COE survey vessel equipped with a range-range
Trisponder positioning system and CSA's Loran-C receiver.
The results of this comparison indicate that the COE's
"Site 4" which was taken from the latitude and longitude
coordinates listed in the Federal Register, is
approximately 4,400 ft west-southwest (240* True) of the
monitored "Site 4" (See Attachment No. 4: Figures 3 and 4).
Approximately 700 ft of the 4,400 ft offset is due to
propagation error.
It is intended that all 14 Site 4 monitoring station
markers will be repositioned to the locations described in
the EPA/COE monitoring plan during the third monitoring
cruise, presently scheduled to begin 1 December 1984. we
also intend to leave the three original control monitoring
.A-5
-------
Dr. Jonathan E. Amson
-4-
15 november 1984
stations to obtain comparative data. It is regrettable
that such a situation has occurred, but it is advantageous
that the opportunity to correct a potentially disrupting
situation has occurred, early in this important monitoring
program.
Sincerely yours.
Frederick B. Ayer, II
Vice President, Operations Director
FBA/pb
Enclosures: Attachment Nos. 1 through S
A-6
-------
List of Attachments
Attachment No. 1:
Attachment No. 2:
Attachment No. 3:
Letter of 21 September 1984 from Jack t).
R^van to Major General John F. Wall
Letter of 24 September 1984 from Major
General John F. Wall to Jack E. Ravan
Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 Copied
from CSA's First Quarterly Report
Attachment No. 4:
Attachment No. 5:
Four Original Figures
Letter of 18 May 1984 from CSA to Great
Lakes Dredge and Dock Company
A-7
-------
Attachment No. 1
Letter of 21 September 1984 from
Jack E. Ravan to Major General John F. Wall
A-8
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
(ih-kf ~£l 8f )
OFFICE OF
WATER
Major General John P. Wall
Director of Civil Works
United States Army
Pulaski Building
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20314
Dear General Wall:
We have recently completed the second quarterly monitoring
survey at Site 4, the designated ocean dredged material disposal
site Cor Tampa Harbor, Florida. I am pleased to inform you that
the survey went quite well. Sediment and infauna samples were
collected by divers at both Site 4 and the control site, and the
required benthic photography at all stations was completed with-
out any problems. Some of the sediment traps were lost since
the first survey (apparently due to shrimping operations), how-
ever, all except two were replaced by our mutual contractor.
Continental Shelf Associates, of Tequesta, Florida. Further,
all of the current meter arrays were exchanged and serviced with
the very able assistance of Tom Denes, of the Corps' Waterways
Experiment Station, in Vicksburg, Mississippi.
However, there is one matter that raises concern. How many
other dumps may have occurred outside the specified area cannot
be determined, since the divers went only to the designated
stations to complete the necessary monitoring requirements. (A
diagram of the stations is enclosed to aid in your understanding.)
The Corps decided to limit the dumping activities to a smaller
area within Site 4 to minimize possible environmental effects
beyond the site. The divers on the second survey (including
Jonathan Amson of my staff), found large quantities of dredged
material within yards of Stations A, D, and F. This dredged
material was thus at least one-third of a mile outside of the
area specified for disposal operations.
It had been indicated to us that the Corps' dredging con-
tractor, Great Lakes Dredging Company, of New Orleans, Louisiana,
has a navigation system with a stated accuracy of plus or minus
three meters to any given geographical point. Although all of
the dumps discovered by the divers were clearly still within
Site 4, it appears that the dredging contractor needs to focus
his attention to the navigational positioning of dredged material
d isposal.
A-9
-------
-2-
It is possible that there is a slight difference in naviga-
tional systems between the dredged disposal contractor and the
monitoring contractor which may account for some of the discrep-
ancies. However, this difference would not appear to account
for the dumping discovered by the divers at Stations A, D, and
F. It might be desirable to perform a comparability test utiliz-
ing both systems simultaneously, to determine if any difference
exists at given geographical points between the two navigational
systems.
If your compatability test confirms our initial monitoring
finding, I would appreciate it if steps can be taken to assure
that all future disposal operations by Great Lakes Dredging
Company take place within the area specified by the Corps for
disposal operations. The accuracy of our monitoring efforts to
determine if the disposed dredged material is remaining within
Site 4 will be aided if all the disposal operations remain within
the Corps' intended area of disposal.
Sincerely,
Jack E. Ravan
Assistant Administrator
for Water
Enclosure
A-10
-------
Attachment No. 2
Letter of 24 September 1984 from
Major General John F. Hall to Jack E. R»van
A-ll
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
OFncc or thc CHicr or cngincca*
WASHINGTON. O.C. <011*-1000
SEP 2 4 1984
M^V TO
WRSC-D
Mr. Jack E. Ravan
Assistant Administrator for Water (WH-556)
U. S. Envlronaental Protection Agency
001 H Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Jack:
Thank you for your recent letter concerning the quarterly
envlronaental nonitorlng at the Site 4 designated ocean disposal site
for Tampa Bay Harbor, Florida. I am glad to learn your work Is
proceeding successfully and on schedule.
I also wish to thank you for alerting me to the potential problem
of dredged material disposal In close proximity to your monitoring
stations. I agree that comparability tests of the various navigation
systems is the first step toward resolving this matter. I have asked
the Jacksonville District Engineer, Colonel Charles T. Myers, to fully
investigate the situation and report back to me.
I shall be in touch with you as soon as we have the comparability
test results and have determined the necessary action to resolve the
problem.
Sinoaraly,
ce ni
U.S j'utuf
D'jcaot ot Gvil Wotlt
JUtay
A-12
-------
Attachment No. 3
Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4
CopLed from CSA's First Quarterly Report
A-13
-------
eo
legend
• STATIONS WHERE SOME
oncoos) MATERIAL WAS
SEEN OY OIVERS
O OTHER STATIONS
|:y:=:-::l DISPOSAL AREA
O a
FIGURE 4.1. LOCATIONS OF STATIONS WHERE DREDGED MATERIAL WAS SEEN ON SURVEV N.
A-14
-------
L E G E NO
• STATIONS HAVMO HIGHER FMC SEGMENT PHOSPHATE
CONTENT ON SURVEY ¦ THAN ANY CONTROL OR SURVEY I STATION
O OTHER STATIONS
DISPOSAL AREA
FIOUflE 4.2. LOCATIONS OF STATIONS WHERE PRESENCE Of OREOOCO MATERIAL WAS
MOICATEO BY ELEVATED PHOSPHATE LEVELS IN SEOIMENT FINE FRACTION.
A-15
-------
s
<5—
3
—<
L£ 0 E N O
• STATIONS HAVMG LOWER FINE SEDMENT STRONTIUM CONTENT
ON SURVEY I THAN ANY CONTROL OR SURVEY I STATION
O OTHER STATIONS
OtSPOSAL AREA
m
FIGURE 4J. LOCATIONS OF STATIONS WHERE PRESENCE OF OREOOEO MATERIAL WAS .
WOIC A TED 8V LOWERED stromtum LEVELS M SEDIMENT FME FRACTION.
A-16
-------
©
7
F*
6
e
8 1
* A
2
,5
o c
~
o
rm
LEGEMO
STATIONS WHERE SEOMENT TRAP SAMPLES HAD
LOWER STRONTIUM TNAN AT CONTROL STATIONS
STATIONS WHERE SEDIMENT TRAP ARRAY WAS LOST
OTHER STATIONS
DISPOSAL AREA
FK1URE 4.4.
LOCATIONS OF STATIONS WHERE SEDIMENT TRAPS COLLECTEO SOME OREDOED
MATERIAL (INOICATEO BY LOW STRONTUM CONTENT).
A-17
-------
Attachment No. 4
Four Original Figures
A-18
-------
-------
-------
o
V
•
m
•
*
it
*•
i
¦*
%
?
«
>
>
*
•
4
B
*
V
St
>9
«
*•
S
V
•
•s
*•
*
¦%
'o
'©
•*
'«
>
V
«
b
•
A
>3
«
to
: *
b
*~
•o
>
t
•
s
1*
r/\i
T
»r t«*.
j
_L
MM
¦
¦MM
MM
¦1
1
j
1
1
1
:
1
1
1
1
~j
1
u
i
I
¦
• r f
_J
1_
16' 10' —
l
1
!
<
i
J
1
10 tf _
i
FIGURE 3. LATITUDE , LONGITUDE PLOTS OF THE MONITORED 'SITE 4* AND THE FEDERAL REGISTER DESIGNATED 'SITE 4*.
-------
FKMJRE 4. P08ITK>NM0 DEFERENCE BETWEEN MONITORED marrE 4" AND federal recmster
OC8KW4ATED 'SITE 4*.
A-2 2
-------
Attachment No. 5
Letter of 18 May 1984 from
CSA to Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company
A-2 3
-------
, Inc.
P.O. BOX 3609 • rEQUESTA. FLORIDA 3J4S« • JOS/744-7946
"Applied Science and Technology"
18 May 1984
Mr. David Simonelli
Great Lakes Dredge
and Dock Company
Port Manatee
Route 1
Palmetto, Plorida 33S61
Dear Mr. Simonelli:
Please find enclosed the Loran-C coordinates Cor each of
the 17 monitoring stations we have established at the Tampa
Harbor, Plorida Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
(Site 4). Additionally, I have included estimates of the
Loran-C coordinates Cor the four corners of your
rectangular one-mile lonq dumpsite relative to our
monitoring stations. These numbers were obtained by
interpolating from our nearest monitoring stations. Also
included is a figure showing monitoring station positions
relative to the dumpsite. Our station markers consist of a
length of one-in diameter steel rod with a tripod base,
extending vertically six ft above the bottom.
I am sorry we did not get to attend the Pre-dredging
Conference earlier this week to discuss ground-truthing on
station positions. Hopefully these numbers will give you a
good idea of our station locations relative to your dumping
area.
If there are any questions or problems please do not
hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely yours.
Keith D. Spring
Senior Staff Scientist
KDS/pb
Enclosures
A-24
-------
LORAN-C COORDINATES FOR EACH MONITORING STATION
ESTABLISHED DURING SURVEY I.
Station Loran-C Coordinates
1
14146.6
44742.3
2
14143.8
44735.5
3
14141.2
44729.1
4
14138.4
44738.0
S
14135.9
44747.4
6
14138.S
44753.5
7
14141.2
44760.1
8
14143.9
44751 .0
A
14142.0
44744.2
B
14142.3
44736.4
C
14139.9
44738.4
D
14139.4
44741.6
E
14138.9
44749.6
F
14141.5
44747.3
C-t
14129.8
44699.8
C-2
14130.0
44691.6
C-3
14127.3
44700.6
ESTIMATED LORAN-C COORDINATES
OF CORNERS OF RECTANGULAR DUMPSITe
Corner
Loran-C Coordinates
NE
14142.1 44738.9
SE
14141.9 44738.4
SW
14139.5 44747.4
NW
14139.7 44747.9
A-25
-------
A-26
-------
APPENDIX B
DIVER OBSERVATIONS
B-l
-------
B-2
-------
TABLE B.I. MONITORING STATION DESCRIPTIONS FROM SURVEYS I AND II: STATION OLD-A.
Survey
Water
Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
Orientation)
Vertical
Relief of
Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
67 ft
(20.4 m)
Fine sand.
N/A
N/A
20 ft
(6 m)
NW
None.
II
67 ft
(20.4 m)
Fine sand/silt.
N/A
N/A
50 ft
(15 m)
Lumps of clay
3 to 18 in.
(8 to 46 cm) in
diameter observed
north of station.
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no sand waves, no hard bottom.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-D.
Survey
water
Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
Orientation)
Vertical
Relief of
Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
I
70 ft
(21.3 m)
Fine sand
alternating with
waves of coarse
dark sand-
H
L
0
: 5 in. (13 cm)
: 20 in. (SI cm)
: E-W
N/A
20 ft
(6 m)
N/A
None.
tu
I
II 70 ft Coarse dark sand H: 1 in. (3 cm) N/A 30 ft S None.
(21.3 m) and shell hash L: 12 in. (30 cm) (9 m)
with thin silt/ O: ENE-WSW
algal film layer.
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no hard bottom, no noticeable currents.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-C.
Survey
Water
Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
Orientation)
Vertical
Relief of
Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
73 ft
(22.2 m)
Fine sand over
hard bottom.
H: 5 in. (13 cm)
L: 20 in. (51 cm)
0: E-W
1-ft (0.3-m)
ledge SW of
station marker
20 ft
(6 m)
N/A
Live bottom
present—
established
photographic
transects.
II
73 ft
(22.2 m)
Rock bottom
with small
sandy areas.
N/A
2-4 in. (5-10 cm)
in live-bottom
area; 1 ft (0.3 m)
ledge SW of
station marker
50 ft
(15 m)
N/A
None.
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no sand waves, no noticeable currents.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-D.
Water
Survey Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
Orientation)
Vertical
Relief of
Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
68 ft
(20.7 m)
Fine sand.
N/A
N/A
15 ft
(5 m)
N/A
None.
CD
I
II 68 ft Fine sand/silt. N/A N/A 35 ft N/A Large pile of
(20.7 m) (11m) dredged material
located about
150-250 ft
(50-75 m) west of
station marker;
Piles of silt and
clay boulders up
to 6 ft (2 ra)
above bottom.
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no sand waves, no hard bottom.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-E.
Sand Waves Vertical Current Other
Water Substratum (Height, Length, Relief of Direction Observations
Survey Depth Description Orientation) Hard Bottom Visibility (Towards) and Notes
79 ft Fine sand over Very small, E-W <2 in. 15 ft N/A None.
(24.1 m) hard substrate. orientation (<5 cm) (5 m)
II
79 ft
(24.1 m)
Pine sand/silt.
N/A
<2 in.
(<5 era)
35 ft
(11 m)
N/A
Live bottom
present--
photographic
transects
established.
N/A ¦» not applicable—e.g., no sand waves, no noticeable currents.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-F.
Survey
Water
Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
Orientation)
Vertical
Relief of
Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
00
1
00
68 ft
(20.7 m)
Fine, flat sand
area with abrupt
demarcation—
changes to dark,
coarse sand and
shell in waves.
H: 5-7 in. (13-18 cm)
L: 25-30 in. (64-76 cm)
O: E-W
N/A
15 ft
(5 m)
N/A
None.
II 68 ft Fine, light-colored
(20.7 m) sand north and south
of station; coarse
sediment with shell
debris in depressions
between wide bands of
fine sand.
N/A
N/A
60 ft
(18 m)
Fine sand
appears to be
about 2ft
(0.2 m) higher
in elevation
than coarse
sand
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no sand waves, no hard bottom, no noticeable currents.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-1.
Survey
Water
Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
Orientation)
Vertical
Relief of
Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
64 ft
(19.5 m)
Coarse, dark
sand in waves,
grading to
exposed rock.
H: 5 in. (13 cm)
L: 20 in. (51 cm)
0: E-W
0-5 in
(0-13 cm)
10 ft
(3 in)
N/A
Current meter
deployed.
II
64 ft
(19.5 m)
Coarse sand/
fine shell
hash.
N/A
0-4 in.
(0-10 cm)
35 ft
(11 m)
N/A
Infaunal cores
could only be
inserted to
about 3 in.
(8 era) depth
before hitting
rock.
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no sand waves, no noticeable currents.
-------
CD
I
TABLE B.1. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-2.
Sand Haves Vertical Current Other
Water Substratum (Height, Length, Relief of Direction Observations
Survey Depth Description Orientation) Hard Bottom Visibility (Towards) and Notes
I 63 ft Pine sand. N/A N/A IS ft NW None.
(19.2 m) (5 o)
II 63 ft Pine sand. N/A N/A 40 ft S Clay lumps
(19.2 m) (12 m) 2-12 in.
(5-30 cm) in
diameter,
observed near
station¦
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no sand waves, no hard bottom.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-3.
Survey
Water
Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
Orientation)
Vertical
Relief of
Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
72 ft
(21.9 m)
Rock bottom and
small areas of
sand.
N/A
0-6 in.
(0-15 cm)
15 ft
(5 m)
SSE
Live bottom
present;
photographic
transects
established.
00
1
II 72 ft Rock bottom; most
(21.9 m) rock outcrops
elevated at least
2 in. (5 cm) above
surrounding sandy
depressions.
N/A
0-8 in.
(0-20 cm)
35 ft
(11 m)
None.
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no sand waves.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-4.
Survey
Water
Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height* Length,
Orientation)
Vertical
Relief of
Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
I
75 ft
(22.9 m)
Coarse dark
sand-
H: 5 in. (13 cm)
L: 20 in. (51 cm)
0: E-W
N/A
15 ft
(5 m)
N/A
None.
II
75 ft
(22.9 m)
Coarse dark
sand.
H: 2-3 in. (5-8 cm)
L: 12 in. (30 cm)
N/A
35 ft
(11 m)
N/A
None.
O: ESE-WNW
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no hard bottom, no noticeable currents.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-5.
Survey
Water
Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
Orientation)
Vertical
Relief of
Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
71 ft
(21.6 m)
Coarse sand.
H: 4-5 in. (10-13 cm)
L: 20 in. (51 cm)
O: E-W
N/A
10 ft
(3 m)
N/A
Current meter
deployed.
00
H*
W
II
71 ft
(21.6 m)
Coarse sand/
fine shell;
very thin layer
of silt or
flocculent
material.
N/A
N/A
50 ft
(15 ra)
SW
None.
N/a = not applicable—e.g., no sand waves, no hard bottom, no noticeable currents.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-6.
Sand Haves Vertical Current Other
Hater Substratum (Height, Length, Relief of Direction Observations
Survey Depth Description Orientation) Hard Bottom Visibility (Towards) and Notes
I
76 ft
(23.2 ra)
Fine sand.
N/A
N/A
10 ft
(3 m)
N/A
None.
II
76 ft
(23.2 m)
Fine sand with
thin, patchy
silt layer.
N/A
N/A
25 ft
(8 m)
S
None.
N/A = not applicable--e.g. , no sand waves, no hard bottom, no noticeable currents.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-7.
Survey
Water
Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
Orientation)
Vertical
Relief of
Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
72 ft
(21.9 m)
Fine sand.
N/A
N/A
15 ft
(5 m)
N/A
None.
00
I-1
un
II 72 ft Fine sand/silt. N/A N/A 40 ft S None.
(21.9 m> (12 m)
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no sand waves, no hard bottom, no noticeable currents.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-8.
Survey
Water
Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
Orientation)
Vertical
Relief of
Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
72 ft
(21.9 m)
Fine sand.
N/A
N/A
15 ft
(5 m)
N/A
None.
(3d
o\
II
72 ft
(21.9 m)
Coarse sand.
H: 1-2 in. (3-5 cm)
L: 18 in. (46 cm)
0: E-W
N/A
30 ft
(9 m)
"Detrital"
layer in
water column
extending
from surface
to 30-ft
(10-m) depth.
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no sand waves, no hard bottom, no noticeable currents.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION C-1.
Sand Waves Vertical Current Other
Water Substratum (Height/ Length, Relief of Direction Observations
Survey Depth Description Orientation) Hard Bottom Visibility (Towards) and Notes
70 ft Medium sand. Hi 2-3 in. (5-8 cm) N/A 15 ft N/A Current meter
(21.3 m) L: 24 in. (61 cm) (5 m) deployed.
O: E-W
CP
I-'
II
70 ft
(21.3 m)
Fine sand/
coarse sand.
N/A
N/A
40 ft
(12 m)
N/A
None.
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no sand waves, no hard bottom, no noticeable currents.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION C-2.
Survey
Hater
Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
Orientation)
Vertical
Relief of
Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
I
72 ft
(21.9 m)
Coarse sand.
H: 2-4 in. (5-10 cm)
L: 20 in. (51 cm)
0: E-W
N/A
6 ft
(2 m)
N/A
Current meter
deployed.
II
72 ft
(21.9 m)
Medium sand/
fine shell;
patchy silt
N/A
N/A
20 ft
(6 m)
N/A
None •
layer.
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no sand waves, no bard bottom, no noticeable currents.
-------
TABLE B.I. (CONTINUED): STATION OLD-C-3.
Survey
Hater
Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Haves
(Height, Length,
Orientation)
Vertical
Relief of
Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
72 ft
(21.9 m)
Medium sand.
N/A
N/A
10 ft
(3 m)
N/A
None.
II
72 ft
(21.9 m)
Fine sand with
thin layer of
silt and algal
film.
N/A
N/A
25 ft
(8 ra)
None.
N/A = not applicable—e.g., no sand waves, no hard bottom, no noticeable currents.
-------
TABLE B.2. MONITORING STATION DESCRIPTIONS FROM SURVEY III.
Sand Waves
Substratum (Height, Length,
Station Water Depth Description 6 Orientation)
Site 4:
1
78 ft
(23.8 m)
Medium sand
surrounding
hard-bottom
area. Thin
silt layer in
troughs of sand
ripples.
in.
in.
O: E/W
(3 cm)
(10 cm)
CD
I
fo
O
77 ft
(23.5 m)
Fine sand with
a thin silt
layer.
H;
L:
O:
0.5 in• (1 era)
2 in. (5 cm)
E/W
73 ft
(22.2 m)
Coarse/ dark
sand.
H;
1-2 in.
(3-5 cm)
4-6 in.
(10-15 cm)
O: N/S
L:
79 ft
(24.1 ra)
82 ft
(25.0 m)
Fine sand with
a thin silt
layer.
Medium sand
with a patchy,
thin silt
layer.
N/A
N/A
Current
Vertical Relief Direction
of Hard Bottom Visibility (Towards) Other Observations and Notes
0-3 in.
(0-B cm) in
live-bottom
area. Rock
holes 12 in.
(30 cm) deep.
15 ft
(5 ra>
N/A Live-bottom patch
approximately 50 ft (15 m)
in diameter. Scattered
dredged material in vicinity
(clay lumps and rock up to
6 in. (15 cm) diameter].
Established photographic
transects*
N/A
15 ft
(5 m)
Flat sand bottom with
scattered dredged material
(small clay lumps up to
6 inches (15 cm) in
diameter]•
N/A
20 ft
(6 m)
Flat, coarse-sand bottom.
N/A
25 ft
(8 m)
Flat, fine-sand bottom.
0-8 in.
(0-20 cm) on
scattered rock
outcrops
15 ft
(5 m)
N/A
Scattered hard-bottom
outcrops in area. >75% of
bottom was soft substrate.
-------
TABLE B.2. (CONTINUED).
Water Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
& Orientation)
Site 4 (continued):
83 ft
(25.3 m)
Medium sand
(black and
white color).
H: 4 in. (10 cm)
Lt 14 in. (36 cm)
0: E/W
79 ft
(24.1 m)
Sand veneer
over rock
substrate.
H: 4-6 in.
(10-15 cn)
L: 18 in. (46 cm)
0: E/W
CD
to
77 ft
(23.5 m)
Medium sand
over rock
substrate.
H: 2-4 in.
(5-10 cm)
L: 18 in. (46 cm)
0: E/W
0LD-3
72 ft
(21.9 m)
Hard bottom
with sand
patches*
N/A
74 ft
(22.6 m)
Very fine sand
with a thin
silt layer.
N/A
77 ft
(23.5 m)
Fine sand with
a silt layer.
Clay lumps from
dredge spoil
throughout the
area.
Scattered sand
waves.
H: 2 in. (5 era)
L: 8-12 in.
(20-30 cm)
0: E/W
Vertical Relief
of Hard Bottom Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other Observations and Notes
0-2 in. 30 ft N/A Scattered hard bottom exposed
(0-5 cm) (9 m) in sand wave troughs. Sparse
biotal cover on rock.
N/A 25 ft N/A Sand veneer over hard bottom
(8 m) with scattered epifauna.
Marginal live-bottom area.
N/A 25 ft N/A Thin sand layer over rock
(8 a) bottom; very sparse epifauna.
0-8 in. 25 ft N/A Live-bottom area. Outcrops
(0-20 cm) (8 m) elevated at least 2 in.
(5 cm) above surrounding
sand. Photographic transects
reestablished.
N/A 25 ft N/A Plat* fine-sand bottom.
(8 m)
N/A 25 ft S Dredge spoil occurred
(8 m) throughout the area [Clay
lumps 2-12 in. (5-30 cm) in
diameter].
-------
TABLE B.2. (CONTINUED).
Sand Waves
Substratum (Height, Length,
Station Water Depth Description & Orientation)
Site 4 (continued):
C 77 ft Coarse sand and N/A
(23.5 m) shell
fragments*
D 75 ft Medium-to- N/A
(¦ OLD 5) (22.9 a) coarse sand
(black and white
color) and fine
shell Thin silt
layer.
80 ft Medium sand N/A
(24.4 m) bottom overlying
rock.
79 ft Pine sand and N/A
(24.1 m) silt over hard
bottom. Dredge
spoil scattered
extensively
throughout
Vertical Relief
of Hard Bottom Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other Observations and Notes
N/A
15 ft
(5 a)
Plat, coarse-sand bottom.
N/A
30 ft
(9 m)
N/A
Plat sand bottom.
N/A
5 ft (2 m)
(plume
from barge
dump
passing
through
area)
N/A
Plat sand bottom. Dredge
spoil present (clay lumps
and rubble).
0-6 in.
(0-15 cm)
20 ft
(6 m)
N/A Extensive live-bottom area
with dredge spoil (clay
lumps, fine sand, and silt)
throughout entire area.
Epifauna protruding through
silt on outcrops.
Photographic transects
established.
-------
TABLE B.2. (CONTINUED).
Water Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
& Orientation)
Vortical Relief
of Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other Observations and Notes
Control Site:
CD
I
M
U>
73 ft
(22.2 a)
75 ft
(22.9 m)
Medium sand*
Medium sand;
fine silt/clay
in sand wave
troughs.
H: 1-3 in. (3-8 cm)
L: 12 in. (30 cm)
O: E/W
3-4 in.
(8-10 cm)
12-16 in.
(30-41 cm)
E/W
N/A
N/A
15 ft
(5 m)
15 ft
(5 ra)
N/A Medium sand-covered bottom
with very small outcrops
south of station marker
array. Scattered Solenstrea
heads protruding through
sand. Much algal cover.
N/A Medium-sand bottom.
71 ft
(21.6 m)
Hard bottom
with very thin,
patchy sand
veneer.
n/a
0-4 in.
(0-10 cm)
30 ft
(9 m)
Oistinct live-bottom area
slightly elevated above
surrounding sand bottom.
Extensive hard coral
coverage. Established
photographic transects.
N/A = Not Applicable.
-------
TABLE ft.3. MONITORING STATION DESCRIPTIONS PROM SURVEY IV.
Sand Waves Current
Substratum (Height, Length, Vertical Relief Direction
Station Water Depth Description 6 Orientation) of Hard Bottom Visibility (Towards) Other Observations and Notes
Site 4:
1
74 ft
(22*6 ra)
71 ft
(21.6 m)
74 ft
(22.6 m)
79 ft
(24.1 m)
81 ft
(24.7 a)
Medium sand
surrounding
hard*bottom
area.
Pine to medium
sand.
Medium to
coarse sand;
thin silt layer
in troughs of
sand waves.
Coarse sand;
rubble in
troughs of sand
waves*
Coarse sand
over hard
substrate.
0:
H:
L:
N/A
1-2 in.
(3-5 era)
12-24 in.
(30-61 cm)
E/W
6 in.
(IS cm)
18 in.
(46 cm)
O: E/W
H: 4-6 in.
(10-15 cm)
L: 24 in.
(61 era)
Ot E/W
H: 8-12 in.
(20-30 cm)
Lt 24 in.
(61 era)
0: E/W
0-6 in.
(0-15 cm) in
live-bottom
area. Rock
holes up to
18 inches
(46 cm) deep*
N/A
N/A
N/A
0-e in.
(0-20 cm)
30 ft
(9 m)
45 ft
(14 m)
25 ft
(8 m)
25 ft
(8 m)
35 ft
(11 m)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Live-bottom patch
approximately 50 ft (15 m)
in diameter* Numerous
species of hard corals and
sponges present.
Plat sand bottom.
Plat sand bottom.
Very coarse sand bottom.
Coarse sand bottom with
scattered rock outcrops.
-------
TABLE B.3. (CONTINUED).
Sand Waves
Substratum (Height, Length,
Station Water Depth Description & Orientation)
Site 4 (continued):
83 ft
(25.3 a)
Medium to
coarse sand;
rubble in
troughs of
sand waves;
scattered rock
outcrops.
H: 6 in.
(15 cm)
L: 24 in.
(61 cm)
O: E/W
79 ft
(24.1 m)
Medium to
coarse sand
along with
small
scattered rock
outcrops.
H: 2-3 in.
(5-8 cm)
L: IB in.
(46 cm)
0: E/W
78 ft
(23.8 m)
Medium to
coarse sand
over rock
substrate.
H: 2 in.
(5 cm)
L: 18 in.
(46 cm)
0: E/W
74 ft
(22.6 m)
Hard-bottom
with patches
'of fine to
medium sand.
H: 8 in.
(20 cm)
L: 12-24 in.
(30-61 cn)
O: E/W
74 ft
(22.6 m)
Pine sand.
N/A
74 ft
(22.6 m)
Fine sand with
a thin covering
of silt.
N/A
Current
Vertical Relief Direction
of Hard Bottom Visibility (Towards) Other Observations and Notes
0-2 in. 20 ft N/A Coarse sand bottom with
(0-5 cm) (6 m) scattered rock outcrops
covered by 0-8 in.
(0-20 era) of sediment.
0-8 in. 20 ft W Sand veneer over hard bottom
(0-20 cm) (6 m) with small, scattered rock
outcrops.
N/A 15 ft N/A Thin sand layer over rock
(5 ra) substrate. Very sparse
biota.
4-8 in. 20 ft SW Live-bottom area with
(10-20 cm) (6 m) outcrops up to 8 in.
(20 cm) above surrounding
sand.
N/A 50 ft NW Flat, fine sand bottom.
( 15 m)
N/A 40 ft N Fine sand bottom with
(12 m) bloturbation. Small clay
lumps scattered throughout
the area.
-------
TABLE B.3. (CONTINUED).
Sand Waves
Substratum (Height, Length,
Station Water Depth Description t Orientation)
Site 4 (continued):
C 77 ft Coarse sand with H: 6-12 in.
(23*5 m) silt in troughs (20-30 cm)
of sand waves. L: 18-24 in.
(46-61 cm)
O: E/W
D 75 ft Medium to H: 2 in*
(22.9 m) coarse sand (5 cm)
with silt and L: 6 in.
® small rubble in (20 cm)
ro sand wave O: NW/SE
troughs.
E 81 ft Fine sand bottom; N/A
(24.7 m) clay lumps
scattered
throughout the
area.
F 81 ft Coarse sand H: 8 in.
(24.7 m) layer over hard (20 cm)
bottom substrate; L: 24 in.
thin layer of (61 cm)
silt over sand. O: E/V
Vertical Relief
of Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other Observations and Notes
N/A 30 ft S Coarse sand bottom with sand
(9 m) waves throughout the area.
N/A 20 ft E Medium to coarse sand
(6 m) bottom. Approximately
5 in. (13 cm) of sediment
accumulated around legs of
tripod.
N/A 25 ft W
(8 cm)
Fine sand bottom with dredge
8poll present (clay lumps,
rubble, and silt).
0-6 in* 25 ft N/A Live-bottom area with dredge
(0-15 cm) (8 m) spoil present (clay, lumps,
fine sand, and silt).
-------
TABLE D.3. (CONTINUED).
Station
Water Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
fi Orientation)
Vertical Relief
of Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other Observations and Notes
Control Site:
C-1
75 ft
(22.9 m)
Medium sand
over hard
substrate.
N/A
N/A
60 ft
(18 m)
N/A
Sand layer 1-8 in.
(3-20 cm) thick over hard
substrate. Small outcrops
south of station marker.
C-2
74 ft
(22.6 m)
Medium sand
over hard
substrate.
H: 8-10 in.
(20-25 cm)
L: 18-36 in.
(46-91 cm)
0: E/W
0-3 in.
(0-8 cm)
40 ft
(12 m)
N/A
Sand layer 0-10 in.
(0-25 cm) thick over hard
substrate*
C-3
72 ft
(22.0 m)
Hard-bottom
area with thin,
patchy sand
veneer.
N/A
0-8 in.
(0-20 cm)
60 ft
(16 m)
N
Live-bottom area of fairly
low relief with numerous
hard corals. Area slightly
elevated above surrounding
sand bottom area.
Eastern
End of
Disposal
Area
45 ft
(13.7 m)
Silt layer#
2-3 in.
(5-8 cm) thick/
over sand and
rubble.
N/A
Clay or rock
boulders up to
7 ft (2.1 m)
in height.
20 ft
(6 m)
W
Spoil mound with silty-sand
layer covering coarser sand,
rubble, and rock* Rocks up
to 7 ft (2.1 m) diameter.
Western
End of
Disposal
Area
57 ft
(17.0 m)
Silty-sand over
rubble and small
rock.
N/A
N/A
20 ft
(6 m)
W
Spoil mound with silty-sand
over coarser sand and rock
rubble. Rocks up to 2 ft
(61 era) diameter.
N/A ¦ Not Applicable*
-------
TABLE B.4. MONITORING STATION DESCRIPTIONS PROM SURVEY V.
Sand Waves Current
Substratum (Height* Length, Vertical Relief Direction
Station Water Depth Description & Orientation) of Hard Bottom Visibility (Towards) Other Observations and Notes
Site 4:
1
74 ft
(22.6 n)
Exposed rock
bottom
surrounded by
and
interspersed
with areas of
coarse sand.
N/A
0-6 in.
(0-15 cm)
10 ft
(3.0 m)
N/A Live-bottom area with
various algae, sponges, and
hard corals present.
Blue-green bacterial film
throughout live-bottom area.
00
1
fsj
00
70 ft
(21.3 m)
72 ft
(21.9 a)
Fine sand.
Coarse sand.
N/A
H: 6 in. (15 cm)
Lx 18 in. (46 cm)
O: B/W
N/A
N/A
10 ft
(3.0 m)
<10 ft
(<3.0 m)
SE Seagrass (Halophila sp.)
present.
N/A None.
75 ft
(22.9 m)
Medium sand.
Shell and
coralline
rubble
associated with
sand waves.
Hs 3 in. (8 cm)
Lt 18 in. (46 cm)
Ot E/W
N/A
10 ft
(3.0 m}
N/A
Algae (Caulerpa sp.) present.
82 ft
(2S.0 m)
85 ft
(25.9 m)
Medium to coarse
sand. Scattered
rock outcrops
present.
Medium to coarse
sand.
H: 5 in. (13 cm)
L: 18-20 in.
(46-51 cm)
0: E/W
H: 3 in. (6 cm)
L: 20 in. (51 cm)
0: N/S
0-6 in.
(0-15 cm)
N/A
15 ft
(4-6 m)
10 ft
(3.0 m)
Various algae, sponges, hard
corals, and bryozoans
present.
Algae (Udotea sp., Cracilaria
sp.) and sponges (Cliona sp.)
present.
-------
TABLE B.4. (CONTINUED).
Sand Waves Current
Substratum (Height, Length, Vertical Relief Direction
Station Water Depth Description £ Orientation) of Hard Bottom Visibility (Towards) Other Observations and Notes
Site 4 (Continued):
82 ft
(2S.0 m)
Coarse sand
with some
exposed hard
bottom.
H: 12 in. (30 cm)
L: 18 in. (46 cm)
0: N/S
8-10 in.
(20-25 cm)
7-10 ft
(2. 1-3.0 m)
Various epibiota seen,
including algae, sponges,
hard corals, bryozoans,
and ascidians. Most epibiota
partially covered by
sediment.
76 ft
(23.2 m)
Coarse sand
with some
exposed hard
bottom.
H:
L:
0:
6 in.
18 in.
E/W
4 in.
(10 cm)
7 ft N/A
(2.1 m)
Epibiota seen include algae
(Udotea bp*)/ seagrass
(Halophlla sp.), sea urchins
(Clypeaster subdepressus),
and sea stars (Luidia sp.).
73 ft
(22.2 a)
Silt layer
over fine
sand.
N/A
N/A
10-12 ft
(3.0-3.7 m)
N-NW
None.
71-72 ft
(21.6-21.9 m)
Silt layer
over fine
sand.
N/A
N/A
15 ft
(4.6 m)
N/A Bioturbation evident.
Blue-green bacterial film
present. Patches of seagrass
(Halophlla sp.) covering
about 25% of bottom. Clay
lumps (probable dredged
material) seen.
75 ft
(22.9 ft)
Coarse sand
covered with
layer of finer
sediment. Shell
hash in sand
wave troughs.
H: 8 in. (20 cm)
L: 3 ft (0.9 m)
O: N/S
N/A
10 ft N/A
{3.0 m)
Algae (Udotea sp.
sp.) present.
Sargassum
-------
TABLE B.4. (CONTINUED).
Sand Waves Current
Substratum (Height, Length, Vertical Relief Direction
Station Water Depth Description 6 Orientation) of Hard Bottom Visibility (Towards) Other Observations and Notes
Site 4 (Continued):
DO
I
to
O
74 ft
(22.6 m)
82 ft
(25.0 m)
80 ft
(24.4 m)
Coarse sand with
silt and rubble
in sand wave
troughs.
Silt/clay.
Coarse sand
with fine
sediment layerj
exposed rock
bottom also
present.
Hi 6 in. (15 cm)
L: 18 in. (46 cm)
O: E/W
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0-6 in.
(0-15 cm)
15 ft
(4.6 m)
10 ft
O.O m)
10-15 ft
(3.0-4.6 m)
N/A Epifauna seen Included sea
stars (Luldla ep.,
Astropecten sp«). Clay lumps
(probable dredged material)
present.
E Silt-covered outcrop located
about 15 ft (4.6 m) south of
station marker. Clay lumps
(probable dredged material)
seen. Algae, sparse seagrass
(Halophlla sp.), and various
sponges seen.
E Live-bottom area. Attached
biota on rock included
various sponges, hard corals,
ascidians, and algae. Clay
lumps (probable dredged
material) seen.
OLD-3
74 ft
(22.6 m)
Medium-coa r se
sand with
scattered rock
outcrops.
N/A
0-6 in.
(0-15 cm)
10 ft
(3.0 m)
N/A Live-bottom area with various
algae, sponges, hard corals,
bryozoans, ascidians, and
echinoderms present.
Extensive mat of blue-green
bacteria.
-------
TABLE B.4. (CONTINUED).
Station
Water Depth
Substratum
Description
Sand Waves
(Height, Length,
& Orientation)
Vertical Relief
of Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other Observations and Notes
Control Site:
C-1
75 ft
(22.9 m)
Medium to fine
sand.
N/A
N/A
20-25 ft
(6.1-7.6 m)
Epibiota seen include algae
(Udotea sp.), seagrass
(Halophlla sp.)/ hard corals
(Slderastrea radians,
Solenastrea hyades, Cladocora
arbuscula) and sea stars
(Astropecten dupllcatus,
Luldia clathrata).
DO
1
CO
C-2
C-3
73 ft
(22.2 m)
76 ft
(23.2 m)
Coarse sand;
some exposed
hard bottom.
Coarse sand;
some exposed
hard bottom
elevated slightly
above surrounding
sand-bottom area.
H: 8 in. (20 cm)
L: 3 ft (8 ere)
0: N/S
N/A
10 in.
(25 cm)
8 in.
(20 cm)
10 ft
(3.0 m)
17 ft
(5.2 m)
N/A
N/A
Sparse attached epibiota
included' algae (Udotea sp.)
sponges (Homaxlnella sp.) and
bryozoans (Atnathla convoluta)
Live-bottom area
characterised by numerous
sponges, hard corals,
algae, bryozoans,
ascidians, echinoderms, and
bivalves.
N/A - not applicable.
-------
TABLE B.5. MONITORING STATION DESCRIPTIONS PROM SURVEY VII.
Sand Waves
Substratum (Height, Length,
Station Water Depth Description & Orientation)
Site 4:
1 74 ft Exposed rock N/A
(22.6 m) surrounded
by areas of
medium sand
2 72 ft Pine sand N/A
(21.9 m)
3 73 ft Coarse, dark N/A
(22.3 m) sand
00
1 4 74 ft Coarse sand and N/A
£ (22.6 n) shell rubble
5 BO ft Coarse sand with N/A
(24.4 m) areas of emergent
rock
84 ft Coarse sand N/A
(25.6 m) bottom with email
areas of emergent
rock
79 ft Medium sand over N/A
(24.1 m) hard substrate
Vertical Current Other
Relief of Direction Observations
Hard Bottom Visibility (Towards) and Notes
0-15 cm 20 ft N/A Live-bottom patch
(0-6 in.) (6.1 m) approximately 50 ft (15 m)
in diameter with various
species of algae, sponges,
hard corals, etc*
N/A 20 ft N Pine sand bottom.
(6.1 m)
N/A 15 ft N/A Flat, coarse sand bottom*
(4.6 m)
N/A 20 ft N/A Flat coarse sand bottom
(6.1 m) with shell rubble.
0-15 cm 30 ft N/A Scattered emergent rock
(0-6 in.) (9.1 m) outcrops covered with thin
layer of coarse sand.
Algae, sponges, and hard
corals present.
0-5 cm 25 ft N/A Coarse sand and shell rubble
(0-2 in.) (7.6 m) covered bottom with small
areas of emergent rock.
N/A 20 ft N/A Medium sand bottom over a
(6.1 m) thinly covered hard
substrate with attached
algae, small sponges, and
hard corals.
-------
TABLE B.5. (CONTINUED).
Sand Waves
Substratum (Height, Length,
Station Water Depth Description 6 Orientation)
Site 4 (continued):
8
OLD-3
77 ft
(23.5 m)
72 ft
(21.9 m)
Medium to-coarse
sand over hard
bottom
Hard bottom with
patches of sand
N/A
N/A
A 74 ft Fine sand N/A
(22.6 m)
® B 72 ft Fine-to-medium N/A
Ijj (21.9 m) sand
U>
C 75 ft Medium sand N/A
(22.9 m)
D 73 ft Medlum-to-coarse N/A
(-OLD-5) (22.2 m) sand
E 81 ft Fine sand-to-silt N/A
(24.7 m) bottom with clay
lumps up to to 30 cm
(12 in.) diameter
F 79 ft Low relief rock N/A
(24.1 m) bottom covered with
sandy-silt
Vertical Current Other
Relief of Direction Observations
Hard Bottom Visibility (Towards) And Notes
N/A 40 ft N/A A thin layer of sand covering
(12.2 m) hard bottom with scattered
algae and seagrass.
0-20 cm 15 ft N/A Rock bottom with depressions/
(0-8 in.) (4.6 m) attached algae, sponges, hard
corals* bryosoans, etc.
N/A 25 ft S Sand bottom with scattered
(7.6 m) algae and seagrass.
N/A 25 ft N/A Sand bottom with filamentous
(7.6 m) algae and seagrass.
N/A 15 ft N/A Sand bottom with filamentous
(4*6 m) algae.
N/A 20 ft N/A Sand bottom with filamentous
(6.1 m) algal cover.
N/A 25 ft N/A Sandy-silt covered bottom
(7.6 m) with scattered clay lumps
from barge. Red filamentous
algae covering bottom.
0-8 cm
(0-3 in.)
>40 ft
N/A
Rock bottom covered with fine
sand and silt. Appeared to
be from disposal mound.
-------
TABLE B.5. (CONTINUED).
Station
Water Depth
Sand Waves Vertical
Substratum (Height, Length, Relief of
Description fi Orientation) Hard Bottom
Visibility
Current
Direction
(Towards)
Other
Observations
and Notes
Control Site:
C-1
74 ft
(22.6 a)
Medium-to-fine
sand bottom
N/A
N/A
20 ft
(6.1 m)
Sand bottom with snail
scattered patches of
seagrass.
C-2
74 ft
(22.6 m)
Medium-to-coarse
sand bottom
N/A
N/A
15 ft
(4.6 m)
Medium-to-coarse sand bottom
with shell rubble and
scattered patches of
seagrass.
C-3
DO
I
U)
74 ft
(22.6 m)
Rock bottom
N/A
Disposal Area:
45-60 ft
(13.7-18.3 m)
Coarse shell and
rubble, large clay
boulders) silt and
clay toward slope
of mound
N/A
0-20 cm
(0-8 in.)
N/A
20 ft
(6.1 m)
30 ft
(9.1 m)
Live-bottom area with
attached algae, sponges, hard
corals, bryozoans, and
ascidians.
Large variety of fishes;
algae and various
invertebrates seen. Vertical
relief of clay boulders up to
2 ft (0.6 m).
West End
65 ft
(19.8 m)
Coarse sand with
scattered rocks
N/A
N/A
50 ft
(15.2 m)
N/A
Large variety of fishes;
algae and various
invertebrates seen. Clay
boulders up to 6 ft (2m)
high. Burrowing bivalves
breaking up clay boulders.
Center 50-60 ft Rock and clay N/A
(15.2-18.3 m) boulders on silt/clay
and shell hash
N/A
25 ft
(7.6 m)
N/A
Large variety of fishes
seen. Vertical relief of
clay boulders up to 4 ft
(1.2 m).
N/A = not applicable.
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA FROM ANALYSES OF SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS,
SEDIMENT TRAP SAMPLES, AND DREDGED MATERIAL
C-l
-------
C-2
-------
TABLE C.1. RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM SURVEY I.
Composition*
Station Replicate Sand Silt Clay TOC PO4 Sr
(%) (%) (%) (%) (ppm) (ppm)
Site 4:
OLD—1
a
98.9
0.9
0.2
4.68
3870
2470
b
98.6
1.1
0.3
4.53
3210
2680
c
98.5
1.2
0.3
—
3320
2610
OLD—2
a
95.9
3.3
0.8
3.20
2720
2700
b
94.6
4.5
0.9
2.90
3340
2600
c
95.6
3.6
0.8
—
2820
2640
OLD-3
a
99.4
0.5
0.1
4.64
3510
2570
b
99.5
0.4
0.1
2.83
3710
2610
c
99.4
0.5
0.1
—
3570
2510
OLD—4
a
98.6
1.1
0.3
2.40
2780
2630
b
99.5
0.4
0.1
3.03
3390
2580
c
97.6
2.0
0.4
—
2930
2490
OLD-5
a
99.6
0.4
0.0
4.37
3440
2600
b
99.7
0.3
0.0
3.03
3360
2500
c
99.5
0.4
0. 1
—
3010
2550
OLD-6
a
98.2
1.5
0.3
2.91
3320
2560
b
97.8
1.8
0.4
—
2920
2340
c
98.1
1.5
0.4
2.93
3420
2520
OLD-7
a
88.8
8.6
2.6
1.51
2280
2800
b
88.9
8.9
2.2
—
3300
2500
c
86.2
11.0
2.8
1.24
2100
2770
OLD-8
a
98.1
1.6
0.3
2.45
3170
2540
b
94.2
4.8
1.0
—
3200
2670
c
99.2
0.7
0.1
2.85
3580
2550
OLD-A
a
94.1
4.7
1.2
1.78
2410
2780
b
95.3
3.6
0.9
1.35
2320
2680
c
93.8
4.9
1.3
—
2140
2830
OLD-B
a
98.7
1.1
0.2
5.05
2950
2560
b
99.5
0.5
0.0
2.75
3430
2510
c
99.0
0.8
0.2
—
3790
2680
-------
TABLE C.1. (CONTINUED).
Composition*
Station Replicate Sand Silt Clay TOC PO4 Sr
(%) (%) (%) (%) (ppm) (ppm)
Site 4 (continued):
OLD-C
a
97.1
2.3
0.6
2.10
2350
2310
b
97.5
2.0
0.5
2.06
2730
2760
c
98.0
1.6
0.4
—
3140
2700
OLD-D
a
98.8
1.0
0.2
4.20
2580
2630
b
99.0
0.9
0.1
2.18
2820
2590
c
98.4
1.4
0.2
—
3020
2550
OLD-E
a
98.7
1.1
0.2
—
3250
2540
b
99.1
0.8
0.1
2.64
2880
2490
c
99.3
0.7
0.0
4.64
3360
2600
OLD-F
a
98.1
1.5
0.4
4.03
2910
2550
b
97.5
2.0
0.5
4.63
3070
2600
c
97.3
2.1
0.6
—
3050
2590
:ol Site:
C-1
a
98.7
1.1
0.2
—
3190
2550
b
98.5
1.2
0.3
3.48
2950
2670
c
98.9
0.9
0.2
3.31
3330
2680
C-2
a
99.4
0.5
0.1
5.06
3580
2540
b
99.4
0.5
0.1
5.16
3740
2440
c
99.5
0.5
0.0
—
3390
2500
OLD-C-3
a
91.9
7.0
1.1
2.10
3010
2730
b
89.4
9.5
1.1
—
3260
2490
c
88.4
10.3
1.3
3.63
2780
2530
*Sand, silt, and clay values are expressed as percentage (dry wt) of bulk
sediment. Total organic carbon (TOC) is expressed as percentage (dry
wt) of the fine (silt + clay) fraction. Phosphate (PO4) and strontium
(Sr) are expressed as ppm (dry wt) of the fine fraction.
C-4
-------
TABLE C.2. RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM SURVEY II.
Composition*
Station
Replicate
Sand
Silt
Clay
TOC
P04
Sr
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
4:
OLD- 1
a
98.8
1.0
0.2
2.30
2770
2650
b
98.6
1.2
0.2
2.86
4480
2400
c
99.0
0.9
0.1
—
3400
2580
OLD—2
a
94.3
4.7
1.0
1.38
2550
2730
b
95.0
4.0
1.0
1.37
2590
2690
c
93.5
5.3
1.2
—
2540
2690
OLD-3
a
99.2
0.7
0.1
3.22
3960
2490
b
99.1
0.8
0.1
2.99
3530
2390
c
99.2
0.7
0.1
—
3110
2560
OLD-4
a
99.2
0.7
0.1
3.14
7440
1810
b
99.2
0.7
0.1
3.23
6960
1940
c
99.3
0.7
0.0
—
7390
1880
OLD-5
a
98.5
1.3
0.2
3.02
6250
2150
b
98.7
1.1
0.2
3.42
6470
2110
c
98.6
1.1
0.3
—
7700
2060
OLD—6
a
97.1
2.5
0.4
1.73
3790
2760
b
96.7
2.8
0.5
1.58
3140
2670
c
96.8
2.7
0.5
—
3180
2550
OLD-7
a
89.8
8.1
2.1
0.97
2420
2980
b
90.6
7.4
2.0
1.05
2140
2990
c
88.8
8.7
2.5
—
2050
2910
OLD—8
a
98.5
1.2
0.3
3.11
3170
2430
b
98.9
0.9
0.2
3.09
3370
2590
c
98.9
0.9
0.2
—
3050
2520
OLD-A
a
94.5
4.4
1.1
1.17
3020
2880
b
93.0
5.0
2.0
1.19
2700
2670
c
92.7
5.1
2.2
—
2790
2730
OLD-B
a
99.2
0.8
0.0
3. 14
3330
2450
b
99.0
0.9
0.1
3.68
4220
2320
c
99.3
0.7
0.0
—
3430
2460
C-5
-------
TABLE C.2. (CONTINUED).
Composition*
Station
Replicate
Sand
(%)
Silt
(%)
Clay
(%)
TOC
(%)
P04
(ppm)
Sr
(ppm)
Site 4 (continued):
OLD-C
a
98.0
1.6
0.4
2.20
5540
2330
b
97.1
2.4
0.5
—
2850
2790
c
95.0
4.0
1.0
1.70
2760
2680
OLD-D
a
96.8
2.6
0.6
1.67
9610
1930
b
96.4
2.9
0.7
2.09
9990
1900
c
96.8
2.6
0.6
—
11000
1840
OLD-E
a
97.0
2.6
0.4
2.30
12100
1580
b
98.6
1.1
0.3
2.39
13200
1510
c
98.7
1.0
0.3
—
8970
2000
OLD-F
a
97.8
1.8
0.4
1.49
3430
2590
b
98.0
1.7
0.3
1.42
2400
2650
c
97.7
1.8
0.5
—
2310
2520
Control Site:
C-1
a
98.2
1.5
0.3
1.40
1810
2790
b
97.7
1.8
0.5
2.54
2490
2610
c
98.3
1.4
0.3
—
2320
2650
C-2
a
99.4
0.6
0.0
5.41
2760
2120
b
99.1
0.8
0.1
6.41
2900
2240
c
99.0
0.8
0.2
—
2670
2240
OLD-C-3
a
61.0
34.0
5.0
0.55
1220
3010
b
64.7
30.7
4.6
0.91
1370
3100
c
60.8
34.2
5.0
—
1430
3260
*Sand, silt, and clay values are expressed as percentage (dry wt) of bulk
sediment. Total organic carbon (TOC) is expressed as percentage (dry
wt) of the fine (silt + clay) fraction. Phosphate (PO4) and strontium
(Sr) are expressed as ppm (dry wt) of the fine fraction.
C-6
-------
TABLE C.3. RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM SURVEY III.
Composition*
Station Replicate Sand Silt Clay TOC PO4 Sr CaC03
(%) (%) (%) (%) (ppm) (ppm) C%)
r:
1
a
99.1
0.4
0.5
2.35
2880
2230
74
b
99.1
0.4
0.5
2.65
4850
1990
67
c
98.3
1.2
0.5
—
2860
2290
74
2
a
95.3
3.7
1.0
1.45
2160
2420
77
b
96.4
2.6
1.0
2.00
2760
2330
76
c
96.2
3.0
0.8
—
2330
2460
77
3
a
96.4
3.0
0.6
2.95
4490
2040
71
b
97.4
1.7
0.9
1.95
3750
2320
74
c
96.5
2.7
0.8
—
3710
2000
69
4
a
95.3
3.5
1.2
1.75
6590
1750
64
b
95.8
3.4
0.8
1.65
6400
1900
67
c
96.3
2.8
0.9
—
6330
1800
67
5
a
98.0
1.2
0.8
1.30
2400
2270
74
b
98.1
1.2
0.7
1.35
3150
2260
71
c
96.9
2.3
0.8
—
2360
2510
75
6
a
99.3
0.2
0.5
2.10
4130
2190
67
b
99.4
0.2
0.4
2. 15
3740
2170
73
c
98.7
0.2
0.9
—
3070
2180
72
7
a
99.4
0.1
0.5
2.50
3350
1120
72
b
98.1
1.3
0.6
2.35
3190
1160
71
c
98.4
0.9
0.7
—
3100
1090
73
8
a
97.1
2.0
0.9
2.50
3840
1080
74
b
98.9
0.3
0.8
2.10
3280
1080
69
c
98.0
1.2
0.8
—
2900
1060
73
A
a
87.1
11.0
1.9
1.15
3510
2260
73
b
83.7
13.9
2.4
1.15
3690
2300
74
c
86.1
11.6
2.3
—
3490
2290
74
B
a
93.2
5.8
1.0
1.10
2930
2330
74
b
94.3
4.5
1.2
1.15
3110
2350
75
c
94.0
4.9
1.1
—
3610
2140
70
C
a
93.3
5.9
0.8
1.30
9910
1460
61
b
95.5
3.7
0.8
1.40
11000
1330
60
c
95.2
4.1
0.7
—
9730
1510
62
-------
TABLE C.3. (CONTINUED).
Composition*
Station Replicate Sand Silt Clay TOC PO4 Sr CaCC>3
(%) (%) (%) (%) (ppm) (ppm) {%)
Site 4 (continued):
D
a
99.4
0.1
0.5
1.65
5760
1790
66
(= OLD-5)
b
97.5
1.7
0.8
2.10
8850
1540
61
c
99.6
0.1
0.3
—
5970
1930
66
E
a
92.2
6.7
1.1
1.05
4280
2160
73
b
94.6
4.7
0.7
1.10
11100
2150
70
c
89.8
8.3
1.9
—
6290
2100
67
F
a
93.7
5.2
1.1
1.25
4540
1970
73
b
97.6
1.7
0.7
2.15
7770
1610
63
c
96.3
2.9
0.8
—
6730
1790
66
OLD-3
a
99.6
0.2
0.2
3.05
3590
2460
74
b
99.6
0.1
0.4
2.85
3640
2390
73
c
99.5
0.2
0.3
—
3750
2350
71
ntrol Site:
C-1
a
99.0
0.5
0.5
2.20
4750
2040
65
b
98.3
1.0
0.7
2.10
3530
2320
72
c
99.1
0.4
0.5
—
4450
1910
65
C-2
a
99.6
0.0
0.4
2.40
4150
2090
68
b
99.5
0.1
0.4
1.75
4880
2320
72
c
99.6
0.1
0.3
—
4140
2220
71
C-3
a
97.6
1.6
0.8
2.50
4040
2040
69
b
99.4
C.3
0.3
2.50
3870
2070
70
c
98.6
0.9
0.5
—
3960
2030
70
mples from Disposal Barge:
DM-1
58.2
36.3
5.5
0.10
11900
140
48
DM-2
93.1
3.4
3.5
0.70
22200
550
43
DM-3
55.0
39.6
5.4
0.50
15100
180
41
*Sand, silt, and clay values are expressed as percentage (dry wt) of bulk
sediment. TOC (total organic carbon) and CaCC>3 (calcium carbonate) are
expressed as percentage (dry wt) of the fine (silt + clay) fraction. PO4
(phosphate) and Sr (strontium) are expressed as ppm (dry wt) of the fine
fraction.
C-8
-------
c
it
k
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
B
C
Sr
(ppm)
2160
2270
2260
2510
2250
2600
2420
2030
2240
1940
1800
1800
2120
2200
1950
2270
2290
2360
2150
2180
2250
2020
1990
2150
2330
2320
2190
2180
1900
1500
1890
1960
1960
RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SURFICIAL SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM
SURVEY IV.
Composition*.
licate
Sand
Silt
Clay
TOC
PO4
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
a
98.7
1.2
0.1
1.73
2740
b
98.6
1.2
0.2
1.88
2830
c
99.1
0.7
CM
•
O
—
3230
a
94.4
5.2
0.4
1.48
3410
b
96.1
3.6
0.3
1.43
3570
c
94.4
5.4
0.2
—
2600
a
94.0
5.0
1.0
2.15
3670
b
99.6
0.3
0.1
2.01
4470
c
98.9
0.9
0.2
—
4930
a
98.0
1.7
0.3
1.89
7020
b
97.9
1.7
0.4
1.93
8510
c
98.4
1.3
0.3
—
7930
a
99.6
0.3
0.1
1.76
2960
b
99.6
0.3
0.1
1.80
3140
c
99.6
0.3
0.1
—
3060
a
94.0
5.4
0.6
1.94
3090
b
93.7
5.6
0.7
2.11
3270
c
95.5
3.9
0.6
—
2830
a
98.4
1.3
0.3
2.00
3120
b
96.2
3.4
0.4
2.34
2960
c
97.6
1.9
0.5
—
3150
a
98.3
1.5
0.2
2.02
4540
b
98.5
1.2
0.3
2.04
4580
c
98.8
0.9
0.3
—
4250
a
83.9
15.2
0.9
1.07
3720
b
85.4
13.6
1.0
1.05
4720
c
88.6
10.5
0.9
—
4920
a
96.7
2.9
0.4
1.30
5300
b
93.5
6.0
0.5
1.22
7880
c
95.2
4.4
0.4
—
10600
a
91.6
7.4
1.0
1.77
9000
b
90.8
8.4
0.8
1.66
8680
c
87.4
11.8
0.8
—
9300
C-9
-------
TABLE C.4. (CONTINUED).
Composition*
Station
Replicate
Sand
Silt
Clay
TOC
P04
Sr
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
Site 4 (continued):
D
a
99.4
0.5
0.1
1.78
5760
1960
(= OLD-5)
b
99.2
0.7
0.1
1.67
6360
1780
c
99.3
0.6
0.1
—
6420
1900
E
a
94.8
4.7
0.5
1.32
7980
1820
b
94.9
4.7
0.4
1.23
6120
2090
c
90.0
9.1
0.9
—
5300
2210
F
a
99.4
0.5
0.1
1.52
10400
1320
b
99.4
0.5
0.1
1.32
11400
1310
c
99.2
0.6
0.2
—
10900
1170
OLD—3
a
98.2
1.6
0.2
1.83
3730
2250
b
97.5
2.4
0.1
1.59
4790
2120
c
99.2
0.6
0.2
—
3600
2240
Control Site:
C-1
a
98.3
1.3
0.4
2.17
2860
2220
b
98.0
1.5
0.5
2.24
3160
1940
c
99.0
0.6
0.4
—
3000
2110
C-2
a
94.3
4.8
0.9
2.20
3660
2030
b
91.8
6.9
1.3
1.99
3670
2230
c
94.4
4.7
0.9
—
3540
2180
C-3
a
95.4
4.2
0.4
2.13
2820
2340
b
95.0
4.5
0.5
1.67
2770
2190
c
95.1
4.4
0.5
—
2920
2110
Disposal Area:
East End
a
85.5
11.0
3.5
0.41
27000
370
b
88.6
9.0
2.4
0.28
22100
350
c
88.1
8.7
3.2
—
24200
350
West End
a
79.1
17.1
3.8
0.54
18100
440
b
81.6
14.9
3.5
0.36
23200
430
c
84.2
12.6
3.2
21700
510
Sand, silt, and clay values are expressed as percentage (dry wt) of bulk
sediment. Total organic carbon (TOC) is expressed as percentage
(dry wt) of the sediment fine (silt + clay) fraction. Phosphate (PO4)
and strontium (Sr) are expressed as ppm (dry wt) of the sediment fine
fraction.
C-10
-------
L:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
B
C
Sr
ppra)
2240
2420
2450
2760
2400
2370
1710
1830
1810
2020
2340
2300
2160
2060
2020
2080
2120
2060
2190
2170
2230
2200
2120
2260
2350
2220
2290
2090
1800
1650
1050
1210
1 190
RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SURFICIAL SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM
SURVEY V.
Composition*
Licate
Sand
Silt
Clay
TOC
P04
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(ppra)
a
98.3
1.4
0.3
2.27
3350
b
97.3
2.3
0.4
2.17
3280
c
98.2
1.3
0.5
—
3090
a
89.0
9.4
1.6
1.86
2880
b
94.8
4.6
0.6
1.68
3160
c
91.2
8.4
0.4
—
3300
a
98.9
0.8
0.2
1.69
6360
b
98.6
1.1
0.3
2.05
6460
c
98.2
1.4
0.4
—
6480
a
92.9
5.8
1.3
1.16
5870
b
88.2
9.5
2.3
1. 19
5690
c
91.0
7.6
1.4
—
5630
a
99.4
0.4
0.2
1.49
3680
b
99.3
0.5
0.2
1.56
3920
c
99.3
0.6
0.1
—
3960
a
99.0
0.7
0.3
1.57
3920
b
99.1
0.7
0.2
1.68
3580
c
98.9
0.8
0.3
—
3800
a
98.4
1.1
0.5
1.84
4120
b
98.0
1.5
0.5
1.97
4200
c
98.6
1.0
0.4
—
3770
a
98.6
1.0
0.4
2.01
4160
b
99.0
0.7
0.3
1.91
4190
c
98.5
1.2
0.3
—
3800
a
89.2
0.3
0.5
1.04
4000
b
88.9
0.3
0.8
1.31
4820
c
89.2
9.6
1.2
—
4080
a
94.8
4.6
0.6
1.48
5620
b
94.2
5.3
0.5
1.60
5860
c
94.0
5.2
0.8
—
5570
a
95.1
3.9
1.0
1.50
10600
b
91.4
7.0
1.6
1.55
7420
c
90.5
8.1
1.4
—
13500
C-ll
-------
TABLE C.5. (CONTINUED).
Composition*
Station
Replicate
Sand
Silt
Clay
TOC
PO4
Sr
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
Site 4 (continued):
D
a
94.0
5.0
1.0
1.37
11200
1090
(=0LD-5)
b
93.1
5.8
1.1
1.38
11300
1090
c
95.8
3.4
0.8
—
11000
1220
E
a
85.7
12.0
2.3
1.30
10800
1380
b
87.9
10.2
1.9
1.18
10800
1330
c
80.3
17.7
2.0
—
8600
1690
F
a
93.5
6.0
0.5
0.80
13100
850
b
95.2
3.9
0.9
1.08
11900
1030
c
98.6
1.2
0.2
—
10000
1060
OLD-3
a
98.8
0.9
0.3
1.78
4280
2110
b
98.6
1.1
0.3
1.67
4170
2200
c
98.6
1.2
0.2
—
4350
2120
Control Site:
C-1
a
99.3
0.6
0.1
2.64
3190
2040
b
99.4
0.5
0.1
2.73
3020
1990
c
98.4
1.2
0.4
—
3440
1990
C-2
a
99.1
0.6
0.3
2.15
3120
2020
b
98.6
1.2
0.2
2.25
3980
2140
c
97.1
2.5
0.4
—
3830
2180
C-3
a
98.3
1.4
0.3
2.56
2800
2020
b
97.8
1.7
0.5
2.23
3200
2060
c
98.4
1.4
0.2
—
2440
2060
OLD-C-3
a
94.4
4.9
0.7
2.27
2690
2410
b
93.3
5.9
0.8
1.78
3400
2700
c
81.5
17.2
1.3
—
2730
2250
Disposal Areas
East End
a
96.5
3.0
0.5
0.74
12000
470
b
96.5
3.2
0.3
0.74
13300
470
c
96.6
2.8
0.6
—
12000
560
West End
a
83.0
16.4
0.6
0.43
10600
540
b
83.5
16.0
0.5
0.45
10000
330
c
86.9
12.6
0.5
10800
510
Sand, silt, and clay values are expressed as percentage (dry wt) of
whole sediment. Total organic carbon (TOC) is expressed as percentage
(dry wt) of the fine (silt + clay) fraction. Phosphate (PO4) and
strontium (Sr) are expressed as ppm (dry wt) of the fine fraction.
C-12
-------
c
t:
I:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
B
C
RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM SURVEY VII.
Composition*
Replicate Sand Silt Clay TOC PO4 Sr
(%) (%) (%) (%) (ppm) (ppm)
a 98.7 1.1 0.2 2.27 2530 2300
b 99.0 0.8 0.2 3.23 2880 2100
c 99.6 0.2 0.2 — 2820 2090
a 96.5 3.1 0.4 2.24 2770 2310
b 96.8 3.0 0.2 2.64 3080 2220
c 95.3 4.2 0.5 — 2790 2380
a 99.4 0.4 0.2 2.87 3500 2100
b 99.3 0.5 0.2 3.16 3710 2180
c 99.8 0.1 0.1- ~ 3050 2260
a 98.4 1.4 0.2 3.34 3200 2130
b 99.1 0.7 0.2 2.83 3050 2080
c 98.4 1.4 0.2 — 3410 1840
a 98.6 1.2 0.2 1.62 2510 2420
b 98.7 1.2 0.1 1.77 3740 2380
c 99.4 0.6 0.0 — 3120 2240
a 99.2 0.7 0.1 1.95 3140 2330
b 98.9 0.9 0.2 2.13 3270 2140
c 99.3 0.6 0.1 — 3000 2770
a 99.7 0.2 0.1 2.56 3280 2120
b 99.5 0.4 0.1 2.23 3300 2240
c 99.5 0.4 0.1 « 3480 2210
a 98.9 0.9 0.2 2.42 3360 2130
b 98.9 0.9 0.2 2.17 3330 2040
c 99.5 0.3 0.2 — 3470 2190
a 94.2 5.0 0.8 1.55 3050 2250
b 93.9 5.2 0.9 1.45 2830 2180
c 93.7 5.9 0.4 ~ 2830 2200
a 98.6 1.1 0.3 2.55 3800 2000
b 98.1 1.6 0.3 2.61 2720 1990
c 98.0 1.6 0.4 — 4320 1990
a 99.5 0.4 0.1 2.22 6540 1850
b 98.6 1.2 0.2 2.42 3900 1910
c 99.0 0.8 0.2 — 3140 1810
a 98.3 1.6 0.1 3.13 3440 1870
b 99.2 0.7 0.1 3.12 3750 1930
c 99.5 0.4 0.1 — 4080 1780
C-13
-------
TABLE C.6. (CONTINUED),
Station Replicate
Sand
(%)
Silt
(%)
Composition*
Clay
(%)
TOC
(%)
P04
(ppm)
Sr
(ppm)
Site 4 (continued)
E a
b
c
a
b
c
a
b
c
OLD-3
Control Site:
C-1
C-2
C-3
OLD-C-3
a
b
c
a
b
c
a
b
c
a
b
c
Disposal Area:
East End
West End
a
b
c
a
b
c
97.7
97.3
97.3
80.6
79.0
83.3
98.8
99.7
99.6
99.6
99.4
99.3
99.4
99.6
99.6
98.9
98.4
99.3
98.7
99.2
99.0
98.5
98.6
97.4
97.5
97.6
97.4
2.0
2.5
2.3
17.2
19.1
14.5
1.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.9
1.3
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.8
1.3
1.2
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
2.2
1.9
2.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.98
2.00
1.70
1.55
1.94
2.26
3.41
2.70
3.66
3.67
2.30
2.35
2.76
3.28
0.60
0.53
1.31
0.77
4830
4690
4670
5710
4250
4840
3070
3100
3050
2930
3320
3050
3260
3340
3100
2860
2920
2750
2670
2860
2720
8070
8530
7880
6720
6770
6930
1800
1350
1920
1830
1760
1910
2240
2160
2230
2000
2090
1750
1850
1900
2040
2260
2120
2190
2110
2080
2110
210
220
180
280
320
360
Sand, silt, and clay values are expressed as percentage (dry wt) of bulk
sediment. TOC (total organic carbon) is expressed as percentage (dry
wt) of the sediment fine fraction. Phosphate (P04) and strontium (Sr)
are expressed as ppm (dry wt) of the sediment fine fraction.
C-14
-------
TABLE C.7. RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT TRAP SAMPLES FROM THE FIRST
TRAPPING INTERVAL (SURVEY I TO SURVEY II).
Deployment
Station* Interval Replicate Total Dry PO^
(d) Wt (g) (ppm)
Sr1"
(ppm)
Site 4:
OLD-1 99
a
b
1.273
0.961
4860
14300
2050
2330
OLD-3
105
a
b
0.452
0.615
14100
11700
2040
1770
OLD-5
99
a
b
0.637
0.573
17000
13800
1320
1320
OLD-6
102
a
b
0.521
0.540
4600
7270
1920
1970
OLD-7
101
a
b
0.640
0.620
5440
3730
2280
2310
OLD-8
101
a
b
0.832
0.959
4190
6390
2080
1840
OLD-C
104
a
b
0.957
0.952
7630
8910
2210
1900
OLD-D
101
a
b
0.760
0.806
12600
12700
1210
1120
OLD-E
101
a
b
0.632
0.609
10800
7500
1460
1620
Control Site:
C-1 99
a
b
0.482
3180
9690
1990
1940
C-2
102
a
b
0.438
0.473
4400
12100
1830
1760
OLD-C-3 103
a
b
0.490
0.403
6150
5660
2030
1660
*Station marker arrays containing sediment traps were lost between
Surveys I and II at Stations OLD-2, OLD-4, OLD-A, OLD-B, and OLD-F.
^Phosphate (PO4) and strontium (Sr) concentrations are expressed
as-ppm (dry wt) of the fine fraction (>63 um).
C-15
-------
TABLE C.8. RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT TRAP SAMPLES FROM THE SECOND TRAPPING
INTERVAL (SURVEY II TO SURVEY III).
Composition*
Deployment <63 um
Station Interval Replicate Total Dry Material PO^ Sr CaCO}
(d) Wt (g) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (%)
Site 4:
OLD- 1
122
a
b
2.32
2.67
63.7
62.8
6500
6610
1800
1800
55
OLD-2
a
b
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
OLD-3
126
2.40
3.04
85.6
82.9
8240
11400
2320
2300
71
69
OLD-4
122
a
b*
2.47
1.30
85.8
85.7
7490
9570
1680
1430
65
60
OLD—5
122
a
b
1.96
7.30
80.0
23.6
7270
6960
1640
1700
65
65
OLD-6
1 19
2.69
2.86
68.5
80.8
5190
4560
2060
2070
70
69
OLD-7
120
b*
4. 16
7.55
57.3
70.3
3570
20400
2120
1600
72
53
OLD-8
120
a'
b+
1.75
2.01
83. 1
81.2
4120
4640
2160
2190
72
71
OLD-A
a
b
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
OLD-B
121
a
b
2.04
2.38
72.5
61.1
3960
4250
2200
1840
72
OLD-C
129
4.04
4.74
69.9
69.8
6050
5520
1960
2000
67
69
OLD-D
122
a
b
6.53
4.68
51.4
73.1
11800
11800
1210
1060
56
54
OLD-E
a
b
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
C-16
-------
TABLE C.8. (CONTINUED).
Composition*
Deployment
Station Interval
(d)
Replicate
Total Dry
Wt (g)
<63 um
Material
(%)
P04
(ppm)
Sr
(ppm)
CaC03
(%)
Site 4 (continued):
OLD-F
a
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
b
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Control Site:
C-1
a
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
b
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
C-2 123
a
2.73
71.0
8080
2220
71
b
2.55
72.9
5360
1840
63
OLD-C-3 122
a
2.14
73.0
7270
1960
65
b
2.09
82.0
4600
1700
58
ND = no data (trap array not recovered on Survey III).
*The <63 um material is given as percentage (dry wt) of bulk sediment collected.
Phosphate (PO4) and strontium (Sr) values are expressed as ppm (dry wt) of the
fine fraction. Calcium carbonate (CaC03) values are given as percentage
(dry wt) of the fine (<63 um) fraction.
+Live cardinal fish (Apogon sp.) present in trap when recovered.
C-17
-------
c
it:
>:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
B
C
D
E
RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT TRAP SAMPLES FROM THE THIRD
TRAPPING INTERVAL (SURVEY III TO SURVEY IV).
Deployment
Interval Replicate Total Dry
(d) Wt (g)
Composition''
<63 um
Material PO4 Sr
(%) (ppm) (ppm)
96
a
b
22.5
22.3
74.3
56.7
1640
1700
2390
2550
94
a
b
16.1
17.1
85.3
82.1
1790
1840
2410
2470
96
a
b
45.7
52.0
61.3
57.7
2560
2490
2570
2450
99
a
b
33.8
33.7
81.9
81.0
3600
3890
2200
2150
96
a
b
41.5
41.7
66.4
67.9
1720
1700
2500
2480
97
a
b
37.2
34.5
61.3
57.4
1520
1620
2630
2630
104
a
b
36.8
36.1
58.3
65.2
1650
1620
2590
2550
134
a
b
32.1
31.6
54.4
63.4
1710
1850
2470
2520
93
a
b
14.2
14.5
83.7
83.3
2240
2220
2380
2500
91
a
b
23.6
11.3
63.7
57.8
2830
2900
2150
2420
92
a
b
50.0
48.0
65. 1
64.7
4870
6170
1910
2040
105
a
b
54.0
57.0
49.6
52.3
1580
2890
2370
2200
96
a
b
24.0
18.5
80.3
83.8
2110
2990
2590
2480
C-18
-------
TABLE C.9. (CONTINUED).
Deployment
Station Interval Replicate Total Dry
(d) Wt (g)
Composition*
<63 um
Material PO4 Sr
(%) (ppm) (ppm)
Site 4 (continued) :
F 90
a
b
34.6
41.0
70.0
67. 1
2230
2390
2450
2330
OLD-3
97
a
b
23.4
25.1
70.0
62. 1
2040
2070
2530
2550
Control Site:
C-1 96
a
b
17.9
19.3
72.7
74.3
2900
3300
2220
2160
C-2
C-3
97
92
a
b
a
b
28.8
25.7
22.5
20.9
52.7
47.5
65.8
66.2
3050
2850
2720
2580
2100
2250
2300
2350
*The <63 um material is given as percentage (dry wt) of bulk sediment
collected. Phosphate (PO4) and strontium (Sr) values are expressed as
ppm (dry wt) of the fine fraction.
C-19
-------
c
It
I:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
B
C
D
E
RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT TRAP SAMPLES FROM THE
FOURTH TRAPPING INTERVAL (SURVEY IV TO SURVEY V).
Deployment Composition*
Interval Replicate Total Dry <63 urn PO4 Sr
(d) Wt (g) (%) (ppm) (ppm)
118 a 1.48 72.6 5280 2050
b 1.55 71.5 7610 2090
118 a 1.41 82.1 5620 1970
b 1.53 81.5 5020 2160
117 a 1.14 84.6 7120 1430
b 1.29 88.1 6280 1450
115 a 1.27 88.2 6260 1100
b 1.54 93.1 5730 1200
118 a 1.28 82.3 6790 1710
b 1.06 77.5 16300 2310
115 a 0.89 89.4 5240 1230
b 1.11 94.4 5680 1260
106 a 0.98 88.0 4630 760
b 0.84 86.5 9540 1170
78 a 1.36 79.9 5340 1320
b 1.01 89.4 8420 1560
118 a 1.80 84.0 12900 1850
b 2.66 71.5 17500 1590
120 a 2.04 76.6 8810 1390
b 2.34 83.9 7310 1420
119 a 6.35 37.4 9800 1180
b 6.37 43.5 8910 1040
115 a 3.14 68.5 9890 1050
b 3.10 67.5 12200 1080
116 a 6.53 36.7 8740 1110
b 7.94 32.4 8500 1170
C-20
-------
TABLE C. 10. (CONTINUED).
Composition*
Deployment
Station Interval Replicate Total Dry <63 urn PO4 Sr
(d) Wt (g) (%) (ppm) (ppm)
Site 4 (continued):
F 118
a
b
3.39
ND1"
60. 1
ND+
8750
ND1"
1 110
ND1-
OLD-3
115
a
b
2.63
2.34
78.8
60.5
8140
5650
1390
1720
Control Site:
C-1 118
a
b
1.49
1.00
90.5
79.0
3700
4320
1420
1870
C-2
118
a
b
5.12
2.76
64.8
70.0
5620
7590
2190
1870
C-3
118
a
b
1.58
1.82
76.6
81.1
8750
15500
1890
1860
*The <63 um material is given as percentage (dry wt) of whole sediment.
Phosphate (PO4) and strontium (Sr) values are expressed as ppm (dry
wt) of the fine fraction.
*No data for replicate (b). Trap was missing when the array was
serviced during Survey V.
C-21
-------
TABLE C.11. RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SEDIMENT TRAP SAMPLES FROM THE SIXTH
TRAPPING INTERVAL (SURVEY VI TO SURVEY VII).
Deployment Composition*
Station Interval Replicate Total Dry <63 um PO4 Sr
(d) Wt (g) (%) (ppm) (ppm)
Site 4:
1 178 a 28.0 33.0 2480 2200
b 26.1 34.6 2420 2180
2 178 a 6.6 19.0 2740 2190
b 16.9 24.2 2300 1700
3 176 a 27.1 49.3 2530 2190
b 28.6 50.3 2380 2200
4 176 a 27.2 41.0 2530 2360
b ND1" ND1" NDf NDf
5 181 a 22.7 29.5 2960 2190
b 20.9 38.3 2860 2350
6 180 a 29.2 58.0 1830 2650
b 26.2 54.0 1980 2440
7 176 a 18.9 35.1 1390 1720
b 19.1 34.2 1700 2410
8 180 a 19.7 39.0 2260 2450
b 21.7 44.0 2360 2260
A ND§ a ND§ ND§ ND§ ND§
b ND§ ND§ ND§ ND§
B 177 a 16.0 28.3 2720 2230
b NDf ND1" ND1- ND1"
C 174 a 30.8 43.5 3610 2120
b 36.1 27.5 4110 1800
D 177 a 31.8 57.3 2570 2250
b 25.7 64.0 2620 2160
E 180 a 22.1 34.6 2290 2480
b 19.4 33.5 2730 2530
F 179 a 23.3 33.6 2880 2350
b 23.0 35.3 2980 2430
C-22
-------
TABLE C.11. (CONTINUED).
Deployment
Station Interval Replicate Total Dry
(d) Wt (g)
Composition*
<63 um
(%)
P°4
(ppm)
Sr
(ppm)
Site 4 (continued):
OLD-3 176
a
b
ND1
39.9
NDfl
30.6
ND*
2390
ND11
2260
Control Site:
C-1 177
a
b
17.0
17.5
22.5
26.3
3450
2480
2260
2270
C-2
178
a
b
34.4
29.9
56.0
56.1
3140
2550
2400
1790
C-3
177
a
b
20.2
20.2
30.7
41.0
2570
2730
2330
2050
*The <63 um material is given as percentage of total dry wt. Phosphate
(PO4) and strontium (Sr) values are expressed as ppm (dry wt) of the
fine fraction.
¦•"Trap missing on Survey VII.
§Trap array missing on Survey VII.
'Sample replicate lost.
C-23
-------
TABLE C.12. MEAN SEDIMENT COMPOSITION VALUES FROM SURVEY I.
Composition*
Total
Organic
Station Clay Fines Carbon Phosphate Strontium
(%) (%) (%) (ppm) (ppm)
Site 4:
OLD-1
0.3
1.3
4.60
3,467
2,587
OLD-2
0.8
4.6
3.05
2,960
2,647
OLD-3
0.1
0.6
3.74
3,597
2,563
OLD—4
0.3
1.4
2.72
3,033
2,567
OLD-5
0.0
0.4
3.70
3,270
2,550
OLD—6
0.4
2.0
2.92
3,220
2,473
OLD-7
2.5
12.0
1.38
2,560
2,690
OLD-8
0.5
2.8
2.65
3,317
2,587
OLD-A
1.1
5.5
1.56
2,290
2,763
OLD-B
0.1
0.9
3.90
3,390
2,583
OLD-C
0.5
2.5
2.08
2,740
2,590
OLD-D
0.2
1.3
3.19
2,807
2,590
OLD-E
0.1
1.0
3.64
3,163
2,543
OLD-F
0.5
2.4
4.33
3,010
2,580
:rol Site:
C-1
0.2
1.3
3.40
3,157
2,633
C-2
0.1
0.6
5.11
3,570
2,493
JLD-C-3
1.2
10.1
2.86
3,017
2,583
*Clay and fines are percentages (dry wt) of bulk sediment. Strontium and
phosphate are ppm (dry wt) of the fine fraction, and total organic
carbon is percentage (dry wt) of the fine fraction.
C-24
-------
TABLE C.13. MEAN SEDIMENT COMPOSITION VALUES FROM SURVEY II.
Station Clay Fines
(%) (%)
Composition*
Total
Organic
Carbon Phosphate Strontium
(%) (ppm) (ppm)
Site 4:
OLD-1
0.2
1.2
2.58
3,550
2,543
OLD-2
1.1
5.7
1.38
2,560
2,703
OLD-3
0.1
0.8
3.10
3,533
2,480
OLD—4
0.1
0.8
3.18
7,263
1,877
OLD-5
CM
•
O
1.4
3.22
6,807
2,107
OLD-6
0.5
3.1
1.66
3,370
2,660
OLD-7
2.2
10.3
1.01
2,203
2,960
OLD—8
0.2
1.2
3.10
3,197
2,513
OLD-A
1.8
6.6
1.18
2,837
2,760
OLD-B
0.0
0.8
3.41
3,660
2,410
OLD-C
0.6
3.3
1.95
3,717
2,600
OLD-D
0.6
3.3
1.88
10,200
1,890
OLD-E
0.3
1.9
2.34
11,423
1,697
OLD-F
0.4
2.2
1.46
2,713
2,587
:rol Site:
C-1
0.4
1.9
1.97
2,207
2,683
C-2
0.1
0.8
5.91
2,777
2,200
3LD-C-3
4.9
37.8
0.73
1,340
3,123
*Clay and fines are percentages (dry wt) of bulk sediment. Strontium and
phosphate are ppm (dry wt) of the fine fraction, and total organic
carbon is percentage (dry wt) of the fine fraction.
C-25
-------
TABLE C.14. MEAN SEDIMENT COMPOSITION VALUES FROM SURVEY III.
Composition*
Total
Organic Calcium
Station Clay Fines Carbon Phosphate Strontium Carbonate
(%) (%) (%) (ppra) (ppra) (%)
Site 4:
1
0.5
1.2
2.50
3,530
2,170
72
2
0.9
4.0
1.72
2,417
2,403
77
3
0.8
3.2
2.45
3,983
2,120
71
4
1.0
4.2
1.70
6,440
1,817
66
5
0.8
2.3
1.32
2,637
2,347
73
6
0.6
0.9
2.12
3,647
2,180
71
7
0.6
1.4
2.42
3,213
2,293
72
8
0.8
2.0
2.30
3,340
2,297
72
A
2.2
14.4
1.15
3,563
2,283
74
B
1.1
6.2
1.12
3,217
2,273
73
C
0.8
5.3
1.35
10,213
1,433
61
D
0.5
1.2
1.88
6,860
1,753
64
E
1.2
7.8
1.08
7,223
2,137
70
F
0.9
4.1
1.70
6,347
1,790
67
OLD-3
0.3
0.5
2.95
3,660
2,400
73
ltrol Site:
C-1
0.6
1.2
2.15
4,243
2,090
67
C-2
0.4
0.4
2.08
4,390
2,210
70
C-3
0.5
1.5
2.50
3,957
2,047
70
"Clay and fines are percentages (dry wt) of bulk sediment. Strontium
and phosphate are ppm (dry wt) of the fine fraction, and total organic
carbon is percentage (dry wt) of the fine fraction.
C-26
-------
TABLE C.I 5. MEAN SEDIMENT COMPOSITION VALUES FROM SURVEY IV.
Station Clay Fines
(%) (%)
Composition*
Total
Organic
Carbon Phosphate Strontium
(%) (ppm) (ppm)
Site 4:
1 0.2 1.2
2 0.3 5.0
3 0.4 2.5
4 0.3 1.9
5 0.1 0.4
6 0.6 5.6
7 0.4 2.6
8 0.3 1.5
A 0.9 14.0
B 0.4 4.9
C 0.9 10.1
D 0.1 0.7
E 0.6 6.8
F 0.1 0.7
OLD-3 0.2 1.7
Control Site:
C-1 0.4 1.6
C-2 1.0 6.5
C-3 0.5 4.8
Disposal Area:
East End 3.0 12.6
West End 3.5 18.4
1.81
2,933
2,230
1.46
3,193
2,453
2.08
4,357
2,230
1.91
7,820
1,847
1.78
3,053
2,090
2.03
3,063
2,307
2.17
3,077
2, 193
2.03
4,457
2,053
1.06
4,453
2,280
1.26
7,927
1,860
1.72
8,993
1,937
1.72
6,180
1 ,880
1.28
6,467
2,040
1.42
10,900
1,267
1.71
4,040
2,203
2.20
3,007
2,090
2.10
3,623
2, 147
1.90
2,837
2,213
0.34
24,433
357
0.45
21,000
460
*Clay and fines are percentages (dry wt) of bulk sediment. Strontium and
phosphate are ppm (dry wt) of the fine fraction, and total organic
carbon is percentage (dry wt) of the fine fraction.
C-27
-------
TABLE C.16. MEAN SEDIMENT COMPOSITION VALUES FROM SURVEY V.
Composition*
Station
Clay
(%)
Fines
(%)
Total
Organic
Carbon
(%)
Phosphate
(ppm)
Strontium
(ppm)
Site 4:
1
0.4
2.1
2.22
3,240
2,370
2
0.9
8.3
1.77
3,113
2,510
3
0.3
1.4
1.87
6,433
1,783
4
1.7
9.3
1.18
5,730
2,220
5
0.2
0.7
1.53
3,853
2,080
6
0.3
1.0
1.63
3,767
2,087
7
0.5
1.7
1.91
4,030
2,197
S
0.3
1.3
1.96
4,050
2,193
A
0.8
10.9
1.18
4,300
2,287
B
0.6
5.7
1.54
5,683
1,847
C
1.3
7.7
1.52
10,507
1,150
D
1.0
5.7
1.38
11,167
1,133
E
2.1
15.4
1.24
10,067
1,467
F
0.5
4.2
0.94
11,667
980
OLD-3
0.3
1.3
1.73
4,267
2,143
Control Site:
C-1
0.2
1.0
2.69
3,217
2,007
C-2
0.3
1.7
2.20
3,643
2,113
C-3
0.3
1.8
2.40
2,813
2,047
OLD-C-3
0.9
10.3
2.03
2,940
2,453
Disposal Area:
East End
0.5
3.5
0.74
12,433
500
West End
0.5
15.5
0.44
10,467
460
•Clay and fines are percentages (dry wt) of bulk sediment. Strontium and
phosphate are ppra (dry wt) of the fine fraction, and total organic
carbon is percentage (dry wt) of the fine fraction.
C-28
-------
TABLE C.17. MEAN SEDIMENT COMPOSITION VALUES FROM SURVEY VII.
Composition*
Total
Organic
Station
Clay
Fines
Carbon
Phosphate
Strontii
(%)
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
Site 4:
1
0.2
0.9
2.75
2,743
2,163
2
0.4
3.8
2.44
2,880
2,303
3
0.2
0.5
3.02
3,420
2,180
4
0.2
1.4
3.08
3,220
2,017
5
0.1
1.1
1.70
3, 123
2,347
6
0.1
0.8
2.04
3,137
2,413
7
0.1
0.4
2.40
3,353
2,190
8
0.2
0.9
2.30
3,387
2,120
A
0.7
6.1
1.50
2,903
2,210
B
0.3
1.7
2.58
3,613
1,993
C
0.2
1.0
2.32
4,527
1,857
D
0.1
1.0
3.12
3,757
1,860
E
0.3
2.6
1.99
4,730
1,690
F
2.1
19.0
1.62
4,933
1,833
OLD-3
0.1
0.6
2.10
3,073
2,210
Control Site:
C-1
0.2
0.6
3.06
3,100
1,947
C-2
0.1
0.4
3.66
3,233
1,930
C-3
0.2
1.1
2.32
2,843
2,190
OLD-C-3
0.2
1.0
3.02
2,750
2,100
Disposal Area:
East End
0.2
1.8
0.56
8,160
203
West End
0.2
2.5
1.04
6,807
320
*Clay and fines are percentages (dry wt) of bulk sediment. Strontium
and phosphate are ppm (dry wt) of the fine fraction, and total organic
carbon is percentage (dry wt) of the fine fraction.
C-29
-------
TABLE C.18. MEAN SEDIMENT TRAP RESULTS FOR THE FIRST TRAPPING INTERVAL
(SURVEY I TO SURVEY II).
Total Dry Wt
Deposition
Composit
ion*
Station
Collected
Rate
Phosphate
Strontium
(g)
(g dry wt/m^/d)
(ppm)
(ppm)
Site 4:
OLD-1
1. 12
22.25
9,580
2, 190
OLD-2
NDf
ND1-
NDf
ND1-
OLD-3
0.53
10.02
12,900
1,905
OLD-4
ND+
NDf
ND1"
NDt
OLD-5
0.60
12.05
15,400
1,320
OLD-6
0.53
10.26
5,935
1,945
OLD-7
0.63
12.30
4,585
2,295
OLD-8
0.90
17.49
5,290
1,960
OLD-A
ND1"
NDf
ND1"
NDf
OLD-B
NDf
NDf
ND+
ND1-
OLD-C
0.95
18. 10
8,270
2,055
OLD-D
0.78
15.29
12,650
1,165
OLD-E
0.62
12. 12
9, 150
1,540
OLD-F
ND+
ND+
NDf
ND1-
Control Site
:
C-1
00
o
9.60
6,435
1,965
C-2
0.46
8.81
8,250
1,795
OLD-C-3
0.45
8.55
5,905
1,845
All values are means of two replicates except where noted otherwise.
*Phosphate and strontium values are expressed as ppm (dry wt) of the fine
fraction.
*Trap array not found.
§One replicate.
C-30
-------
TABLE C.19. MEAN SEDIMENT TRAP RESULTS FOR THE SECOND TRAPPING INTERVAL (SURVEY II TO
SURVEY III).
Composition*
Total Dry Wt Deposition Calcium
Station Collected Rate <63 um Phosphate Strontium Carbonate
(g) (g dry wt/m2/d) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (%)
Site 4:
OLD-1
2.50
40.34
63.2
6,555
1,800
55 f
OLD-2
ND§
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
OLD-3
2.72
42.58
84.2
9,820
2,310
70
OLD-4
2.14
34.52
85.8
8,530
1,555
62
OLD-5
4.63
74.85
51.8
7,115
1,670
65
OLD-6
2.78
45.99
74.6
4,875
2,065
70
OLD-7
5.86
96.24
63.8
11,980
1,860
64
OLD-8
1.88
30.90
82.1
4,380
2,175
72
OLD-A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
OLD-B
2.21
36.02
66.8
4,105
2,020
72f
OLD-C
4.39
67.12
69.8
5,785
1,980
68
OLD-D
5.61
90.62
62.2
11,800
1,135
55
OLD-E
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
OLD-F
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ltrol Site:
C-1
ND
—
ND
ND
ND
ND
C-2
2.64
42.33
72.0
6,720
2,030
67
5LD-C-3
2.12
34.19
77.5
5,935
1,830
62
All values are means of two replicates except where noted otherwise.
The <63 um material (fine fraction) is expressed as percentage of total dry wt.
Strontium and phosphate values are ppm (dry wt) of the fine fraction. Calcium carbonate
values are dry wt percentages of the fine fraction.
*One replicate.
§NL> = no data (trap array was not recovered).
-------
TABLE C.20• MEAN SEDIMENT TRAP RESULTS FOR THE THIRD TRAPPING INTERVAL
(SURVEY III TO SURVEY IV).
Total Dry Wt Deposition Composition*
Station Collected Rate <63 urn Phosphate Strontium
(g) (g dry wt/m2/d) (%) (ppm) (ppm)
Site 4:
1
22.4
460.22
65.5
1,670
2,470
2
16.6
348.32
83.7
1,815
2,440
3
48.8
1003.66
59.5
2,525
2,510
4
33.8
673.30
81.4
3,745
2,175
5
41.6
854.70
67.2
1,710
2,490
6
35.8
728.97
59.4
1,570
2,630
7
36.4
691.28
61.8
1,635
2,570
8
31.8
468.81
58.9
1,780
2,495
A
14.4
304.34
83.5
2,230
2,440
B
17.4
362.30
60.8
2,865
2,285
C
49.0
1006.74
64.9
5,520
1,975
D
55.5
1042.55
51.0
2,235
2,285
E
21.2
436.60
82.0
2,550
2,535
F
37.8
793.15
68.6
2,310
2,390
OLD—3
24.2
493.10
66.0
2,055
2,540
ltrol Site:
C—1
18.6
382.15
73.5
3,100
2,190
C-2
27.2
554.10
50.1
2,950
2,175
C-3
21.7
465.23
66.0
2,650
2,325
All values are means of two replicates.
*The <63 um material is expressed as percentage of total dry wt.
Phosphate and strontium values are ppm (dry wt) of the fine fraction.
C-32
-------
TABLE C.21. MEAN SEDIMENT TRAP RESULTS FOR THE FOURTH TRAPPING INTERVAL
(SURVEY IV TO SURVEY V).
Total Dry Wt Deposition Composition*
Station Collected Rate <63 um Phosphate Strontium
(g) (g dry wt/m2/d) (%) (ppm) (ppm)
Site 4:
1
1.52
25.34
72.0
6,445
2,070
2
1.47
24.59
81.8
5,320
2,065
3
1.22
20.50
86.4
6,700
1,440
4
1.40
24.11
90.6
5,995
1, 150
5
1.17
19.57
79.9
11,545
2,010
6
1.00
17.16
91.9
5,460
1,270
7
0.91
16.95
87.2
7,085
965
8
1.19
29.98
84.6
6,880
1,440
A
2.23
37.30
77.8
15,150
1,720
B
2.19
36.02
80.2
8,060
1,405
C
6.36
105.48
40.4
9,355
1,110
D
3.12
53.55
68.0
11,045
1,065
E
7.24
123.09
34.6
8,620
1,140
F
3.39+
56.70+
60.1 +
8,750+
1,110 +
OLD-3
2.48
42.65
69.6
6,895
1,555
ltrol Site:
C-1
1.24
20.82
84.8
4,010
1,645
C-2
3.94
65.90
67.4
6,605
2,030
C-3
1.70
28.44
78.8
12,125
1,875
Values are means of two replicates except where noted otherwise.
*The <63 um material is expressed as percentage of total dry wt.
Phosphate and strontium values are expressed as ppm (dry wt) of the
fine fraction.
+Based on only one replicate.
C-33
-------
TABLE C.22. MEAN SEDIMENT TRAP RESULTS FOR THE SIXTH TRAPPING INTERVAL
(SURVEY VI TO SURVEY VII).
Total Dry Wt Deposition Composition*
Station Collected Rate <63 um Phosphate Strontium
(g) (g dry wt/m2/d) (%) (ppra) (ppm)
Site 4:
1
27.0
299.4
66.2
2,450
2,190
2
11.8
130.8
78.4
2,520
1,945
3
27.8
311.7
50.2
2,455
2,195
4
27.2*
305.0*
59.0 +
2,530+
2,360+
5
21.8
237.7
66.1
2,910
2,270
6
27.7
303.7
44.0
1,905
2,545
7
19.0
213.1
65.4
1,545
2,065
8
20.7
227.0
58.5
2,310
2,355
A
ND§
ND§
ND§
ND§
ND§
B
16.0 +
178.4+
71.7 +
2,720+
2,230+
C
33.4
378.8
64.5
3,860
1,960
D
28.8
321.1
39.4
2,595
2,205
E
20.8
228.1
66.0
2,510
2,505
F
23.2
255.8
65.6
2,930
2,390
OLD-3
39.9+
447.4+
69.4t
2,39C+
2,260+
ltrol Site:
C-1
17.2
191.8
75.6
2,965
2,265
C-2
32.2
357.0
44.0
2,845
2,095
C-3
20.2
225.2
64.2
2,650
2,190
Values are means of two replicates except where noted otherwise.
*The <63 um material is expressed as percentage of total dry wt.
Phosphate and strontium values are expressed as ppm (dry wt) of the
fine fraction.
+One replicate trap not found.
§Trap array not found.
C-34
-------
APPENDIX D
DATA FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF
TRANSECT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM HARD-BOTTOM STATIONS
D-l
-------
TABLE D.I. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM
STATION C-3, SURVEY III.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
1
170
70.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
11.2
6.5
3.5
0.0
8.8
1
2
177
66.1
1.7
0.0
0.0
32.2
16.4
3.4
6.2
0.0
6.2
1
3
173
52.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.4
30.1
0.0
2.9
0.0
14.5
1
4
188
36.7
1.6
0.0
0.0
61.7
47.3
1.6
1.1
0.0
11.7
1
5
173
46.8
8.7
1.2
0.0
43.4
27.2
1.2
2.9
0.0
12.1
1
6
175
49.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.3
28.6
2.9
1.1
0.0
17.7
1
7
166
51.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
45.2
27.7
2.4
0.0
1.2
13.9
1
e
183
51.4
0.0
1.6
0.0
47.0
22.4
3.8
6.6
0.0
14.2
1
9
184
58.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.8
12.0
5.4
2.7
0.0
21.7
1
10
163
55.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.2
27.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.6
1
11
169
55.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.0
23.1
2.4
2.4
0.0
17.2
1
12
171
67.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.2
12.3
1.8
0.6
0.0
17.5
1
13
178
38.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
61.8
27.0
1.1
10.1
7.9
15.7
2
1
177
63.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.2
27.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
8.5
2
2
175
71.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.6
14.9
1.1
0.0
0.0
12.6
2
3
169
63.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
35.5
17.2
0.0
0.6
1.8
16.0
2
4
185
67.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.0
21.1
1.1
6.5
0.0
4.3
2
5
174
60.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.1
25.9
2.9
1.1
0.0
9.2
2
6
178
60.1
3.9
0.0
0.0
36.0
28.7
0.6
0.0
0.6
6.2
2
7
181
51.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
48.6
32.0
1.7
0.0
0.6
14 .4
-------
TABLE D.1. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
8
175
41.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
58.3
40.0
4.0
4.6
0.0
9.7
2
9
165
52.7
4.2
0.6
0.0
42.4
26.7
5.5
2.4
0.0
7.9
2
10
174
63.2
1.7
0.0
0.0
35.1
20.7
0.6
9.2
0.6
4.0
2
11
179
68.2
6.1
1.1
0.0
24.6
9.5
0.6
7.8
0.6
6.1
2
12
175
84.6
2.3
1.1
0.0
12.0
4.6
0.0
1.7
1.1
4.6
2
13
177
54.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.8
27.7
2.3
4.0
0.6
11.3
3
1
172
35.5
0.0
3.5
0.0
61.0
40.1
2.3
12.8
1.2
4.7
3
2
180
52.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.2
34.4
5.0
1.7
0.0
6.1
3
3
175
41.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
58.9
44.6
0.0
5.7
0.0
8.6
3
4
171
54.4
8.2
1.2
0.0
36.3
24.6
4.7
4.1
0.0
2.9
3
5
180
40.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
60.0
46.1
0.0
7.8
0.0
6.1
3
6
174
46.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.0
24.1
5.7
8.0
0.0
16.1
3
7
171
53.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.8
17.0
0.0
9.9
2.3
17.5
3
8
177
54.8
1.1
0.0
0.0
44.1
15.3
4.5
17.5
0.6
6.2
3
9
180
58.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.7
20.6
7.8
5.6
1.1
6.7
3
10
184
57.6
8.2
0.0
0.0
34.2
17.4
8.7
0.5
1.1
6.5
3
11
182
72.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.0
7.1
18.7
0.0
0.0
2.2
3
12
184
42.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
57.6
31.5
2.7
10.3
0.0
13.0
4
1
191
42.9
1.6
2.1
0.0
53.4
38.2
3.7
5.2
2.6
3.7
4
2
184
54.3
1.6
8.7
0.0
35.3
27.7
0.0
2.7
0.5
4.3
-------
TABLE D.1. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
4
3
180
62.2
6.7
O
•
o
0.0
31.1
28.3
0.0
0.6
o
•
o
2.2
4
4
188
84.6
12.8
0.0
0.0
2.7
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
5
166
77.7
0.0
0.6
0.0
21.7
17.5
0.6
1.8
0.0
1.8
4
6
182
66.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.5
24.7
0.5
0.0
0 .0
8.2
4
7
178
54.5
0.6
0.0
0.0
44.9
38.8
0.6
0.0
2.2
3.4
4
8
174
39.1
35.6
0.0
0.0
25.3
23.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
4
9
174
56.3
1.7
0.0
0.0
42.0
31.6
0.0
0.0
0.6
9.8
4
10
175
89.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.3
9.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
4
11
178
73.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.0
14.0
1.7
0.6
0.0
10.7
4
12
178
83.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.3
10.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.2
4
13
177
67.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.8
13.6
1.7
8.5
0.0
9.0
5
1
171
73.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.9
13.5
7.6
1.2
0.0
4.7
5
2
171
49.7
0.0
0.6
0.0
49.7
26.3
6.4
3.5
6.4
7.0
5
3
177
79.7
0.0
5. 1
0.0
15.3
14.7
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
4
177
50.3
16.4
1.1
0.0
32.2
26.0
1.7
0.6
1 .7
2.3
5
5
185
56.8
0.0
1.1
0.0
42.2
34.1
0.0
3.2
0 .0
4.9
5
6
177
58.2
0.0
1.1
0.0
40.7
25.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
14.1
5
7
175
65.1
6.9
0.0
0.0
28.0
10.3
2.9
2.3
3.4
9. 1
5
8
173
65.9
2.9
0.0
0.0
31.2
8.7
12.1
6.4
0.0
4.0
5
9
180
78.3
0.0
2.?
0.0
19.4
6.1
6.1
3.3
0.0
3.9
-------
TABLE D.1. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Transect
No.
Photograph
No.
No. of
Usable Points*
Sand
Rock
Rubble
Dredge
Spoil
Total
Biota
Algae
Non-
Sponge
•Algal
Coral
Biota
Other
Unid.
Biota
5
10
166
74.7
0.0
0.6
0.0
24.7
13.9
0.0
4.8
0.0
6.0
5
11
185
72.4
5.4
0.5
0.0
21.6
15.1
0.5
1.1
0.5
4.3
5
12
178
71.9
0.0
1.1
0.0
27.0
15.7
1.7
1.7
0.0
7.9
5
13
181
66.3
0.0
o .5
0.0
33.7
20.4
0.0
4.4
0.0
8.8
Mean
Standard
Deviation
59.8
12.9
2.2
5.4
0.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
37.4
13.3
22.5
10.4
2.5
3.3
3.3
3.7
0 .6
1.4
8.4
5.2
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE n.2. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM
STATION 1, SURVEY III.
Percent Cover
Substrate
Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Eiota
1
1
177
48.0
0.0
O
•
c
0.0
52.0
43.5
4.5
o
•
o
0.6
3.4
1
2
170
57.6
2.9
0.6
0.0
38.8
34.7
0.0
1.2
0.0
2.9
1
3
165
58.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.8
37.6
0.0
0.0
0.6
3.6
1
4
193
35.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
64.8
58.5
2.6
1.0
0.0
2.6
1
5
186
62.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.6
35.5
1.1
0.0
0.0
1 .1
1
6
184
65.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.8
32.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
1
7
171
•
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
53.2
49.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
1
8
180
59.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
40 .6
20.6
2.8
0.6
1.1
15.6
1
9
183
75.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
24.0
19.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.4
1
10
178
60.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.3
32 .0
0.6
0.0
0.6
6.2
1
11
175
83.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.6
14.3
1.1
0.0
0.0
1. 1
2
1
180
51.7
7.2
0.0
0.0
41.1
30.6
3.3
0.0
0.0
7.2
2
2
174
55.2
2.9
0.0
4.6
37.4
29.3
0.6
0.0
2.3
5.2
2
3
190
73.7
0.0
0.5.
0.0
25.8
17.9
3.7
0.0
0.0
4.2
2
4
178
78.7
0.6
0.0
0.6
20.2
11.8
0.0
0.0
0.6
7.9
2
5
171
71.9
0.0
0.0
1 .8
26.3
15 .8
0.6
0.0
1.2
8.8
2
6
181
71.8
0.6
0.6
0.0
27.1
7.2
1.1
1.1
0.0
17.7
2
7
175
62.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.1
30.9
1.1
0.0
0.0
5. 1
2
8
180
70.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
28.9
21.7
1.7
0.0
0.0
5.6
2
9
172
62 .8
0 .0
0.0
0.0
37.2
23.3
4.1
0.0
1 .7
8.1
-------
TABLE D.2. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral other Biota
2
10
186
67.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.8
27.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.4
2
11
170
70.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
25.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
3.5
3
1
175
61.1
0.0
2.3
1.7
34.9
24.6
0.0
6.9
0.0
3.4
3
2
181
63.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.5
23.2
4.4
1.7
0.0
7 .2
3
3
167
55.7
0.6
0.0
0.0
43.7
31.1
0.0
4.8
1.2
6 .6
3
4
186
52.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.3
38.7
2.7
1.6
0.0
4.3
3
5
181
68.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
31.5
18.8
2.2
5.0
0.0
5.5
3
6
163
65.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
33.7
12.3
0.0
11.0
0.0
10.4
3
7
176
62.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.5
12.5
2.3
4.5
0.0
18.2
3
8
170
77.6
4.7
0.0
0.0
17.6
10.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
6.5
3
9
169
77.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.5
13.0
0.6
2.4
0.0
6.5
3
10
180
77.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.2
10.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.7
3
11
174
62.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.9
24.7
0.6 .
0.6
0.0
12.1
4
1
172
73.8
0.6
0.6
0.0
25.0
13.4
3.5
0.6
0.0
7.6
4
2
181
72.4
2.2
0.0
0.0
25.4
14.4
0.6
5.0
0.0
5.5
4
3
183
46.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
53.6
41 .0
0.0
2.7
0.0
9.8
4
4
182
72.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.5
17.0
4.4
0.0
0.0
6.0
4
5
186
74.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
25.3
16.7
1.1
0.5
0.5
6.5
4
6
176
69.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.1
19.3
2.8
0.0
0.0
8.0
4
7
183
65.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.4
24.0
0.5
0.0
0 .0
9.8
-------
TABLE D.2. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Noil-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph Mo. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rabble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
4
9
174
51.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
48.9
35.1
o
«
o
0.0
0.0
13.8
4
9
171
66.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
32.7
24.6
1 .2
0.0
0.0
7.0
4
10
178
69.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.3
19.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
9.0
4
11
177
65.5
4.0
0.0
2.3
28.2
19.2
0.0
0.0
0 .0
9.0
4
12
170
73.5
1.2
0.0
3.5
21 .8
13.5
1.8
0.0
0.0
6.5
5
1
173
69.4
3.5
0.0
0 .0
27 .2
8.1
2.3
7.5
0.0
9.2
5
2
177
50.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.2
32.8
0.6
3.4
1.7
10.7
5
3
183
53.6
2.2
0.0
0.0
44.3
41.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
5
4
179
80.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.6
5.0
3.9
0.6
0.0
10.1
5
5
182
66.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
32.4
25.3
1.6
1.6
0.0
3 .8
5
6
173
67.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.9
22.5
1 .7
0.0
0.0
8.7
5
7
173
65.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.1
17.3
1.2
5.2
0 .0
10 .4
5
8
189
76.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.8
7.4
3.7
2.1
5.3
5.3
5
9
183
51.4
0.0
0 .0
0.0
48.6
28.4
6.0
0.0
1 .6
12.6
5
10
168
45.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.8
38.1
3.6
0.0
3.6
9.5
5
11
177
61.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.0
28.8
2.3
1.1
0.0
6.8
:an
64.3
0.7
0.1
0.3
34.7
24.1
1.5
1.3
0.4
7.3
:andard
Deviation
10.3
1.4
0.3
0.9
10 .4
11.3
1 .6
2.3
1 .n
3.8
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.3. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIV2 SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM STATION F,
SURVEY III.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral other Biota
1
188
79.8
0.0
O
•
O
O
•
o
20.2
11.2
1.6
0.0
1.1
6.4
2
184
76.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
22.8
3.8
6.0
0.0
0.0
13 .0
3
185
92.4
0.0
0.0
O
o
7.6
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
5.9
4
o**
5
167
79.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.4
3.6
1.8
0.0
0.0
15 .0
6
0**
7
0**
8
0**
9
169
92.3
0.0
0 .0
3.0
4.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
2.4
10
0**
11
0**
12
173
79.2
0.0
o
•
o
1.2
19.7
1.2
0.0
0.0
7.5
11 .0
13
177
92.7
2.3
2.3
O
•
o
2.8
1.7
O
•
o
o
•
O
1.1
0.0
2
1
171
94.7
0.0
O
•
©
1.8
3.5
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
2
2
176
97.2
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.1
0.0
0.0
O
•
O
0.0
1.1
2
3
168
94.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
3.0
0.0
o
o
1 .8
1 .2
2
4
179
81.0
o
•
O
O
•
O
4.5
14.5
3.4
1.1
0.6
O
o
9.5
2
5
175
56.6
0.0
0.6
21.7
21.1
8.0
O
•
o
0.0
2.3
10.9
2
6
180
90.0
©
•
O
0.0
0.0
10.0
2.2
1.1
O
•
o
0.0
6.7
2
7
182
98.4
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.1
o
•
o
0.0
o
•
o
o
•
o
1.1
-------
TABLE D.3. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
8
177
91.0
0.0
O
•
o
0.0
9.0
o
•
o
0.0
0.6
0.0
8.5
2
9
179
97.8
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
2
10
165
97.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
2
11
165
96.4
0.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
12
173
93.1
0.0
0.0
2.3
4.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
2.9
1.2
2
13
169
87.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
12.4
4.1
0.0
0.0
1.8
6.5
3
1
185
97.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
2
188
96.3
2.7
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
171
92.4
6.4
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
3
4
177
85.9
4.5
0.0
0.0
9.6
5.6
2.3
0.0
0.0
1 .7
3
5
187
87.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.3
4.8
2.7
0.0
4.3
0.5
3
6
171
90.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
8.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
3
7
165
85.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.5
1.2
0.0
0.0
6.7
6.7
3
8
179
60.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.1
10.1
2.2
0.0
1.1
25.7
3
9
174
93.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.6
3
10
194
98.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
11
171
97.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
2.3
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
3
12
167
90.4
1.2
1.R
0.0
6.6
2.4
0 .0
0.0
3.6
0.6
4
1
194
82.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
17.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
0.0
8.2
4
2
194
64.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.6
20.6
3.1
0.5
0.5
10.8
-------
TABLF D.3. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
3
184
72.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.7
18.5
3.8
0.5
0.0
4.9
4
193
67.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.1
18.7
2.1
3.6
0.0
7.8
5
179
75.4
0.0
0.0
0.6
24.0
12.3
5.6
1.1
0.0
5.0
6
173
75.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.9
0.6
17.3
4.0
0.0
2.9
7
170
87.6
1.8
0.0
8.2
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
4
8
167
87.4
0.0
0.6
1.2
10.8
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
4
9
173
79.8
0.0
0.0
5.2
15.0
2.9
0.6
9.8
1.7
0.0
4
10
166
54.8
0.0
0.0
1.2
44.0
42.2
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
11
167
76.6
3.0
0.0
0.0
20.4
20.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
12
162
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
13
167
89.8
0.6
0.0
0.0
9.6
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.6
5
1
176
97.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.6
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
5
2
194
91.8
2.6
0.0
0.0
5.7
2.1
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.5
5
3
0**
5
4
174
86.8
0.0
0.0
8.0
5.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.6
5
5
180
65.0
0.0
0.0
25.6
9.4
2.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
6.7
5
6
170
73.5
0.0
0.0
18.8
7.6
3.5
1.2
1.2
0.0
1.8
5
7
188
25.5
0.0
0.0
63.3
11.2
2.7
5.9
0.0
0.0
2.7
5
8
174
4.6
0.0
0.0
95.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
9
176
27.8
0.0
4.0
68.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
TABLE D.3. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-
-Algal
Biota
Transect
Photograph
No. of
Dredge
Total
IJnid.
No.
No.
Usable Points*
Sand
Rock
Rubble
Spoil
Biota
Algae
Sponge
Coral
Other
Biota
5
10
194
15.5
0.0
0.0
84.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
11
181
7.2
0.0
0.0
87.8
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
5
12
176
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
13
170
0.0
0.0
0.0
100 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mean
76.3
0.5
0.2
12.5
10.5
4.2
1.1
0.5
0.8
3.9
Standard
Deviation
27.1
1.2
0.6
28.5
10.8
7.3
2.7
1 .5
1.7
4.9
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
**Too turbid for slide analysis.
-------
TABLE D.4. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM
STATION OLD-3, SURVEY III.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
1
186
93.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
5.9
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.0
3.8
1
2
192
86.5
0.0
1.6
0.0
12.0
9.4
0.0
0.5
0.0
2. 1
1
3
176
85.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
14.2
4.0
4.0
2.8
0.0
3.4
1
4
196
88.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.7
8.7
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.5
1
5
186
91.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.6
1.6
2.2
0.5
0.0
4.3
1
6
190
94.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
4.7
4.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
7
174
79.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.1
8.6
1.1
2.9
0.0
7.5
1
8
173
87.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.1
1.2
2.9
0.6
0.0
7.5
1
9
184
85.9
0.0
0.5
0.0
13.6
6.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
7. 1
1
10
191
82.2
0.0
1.6
0.0
16.2
4.7
6.3
0.0
5.2
0.0
1
11
190
93.7
0.0
1.1
0.0
5.3
4.2
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
1
12
179
83.2
2.2
1.7
0.0
12.8
8.4
2.2
0.0
1.1
1.1
1
13
157
70.7
20.4
0.0
0.0
8.9
3.2
1.3
0.0
2.5
1.9
2
1
196
94.4
0.0
2.0
0.0
3.6
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2
2
189
78.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.2
15.3
2.6
0.5
0.0
2.6
2
3
197
78.7
8. 1
0.0
0.0
13.2
4. 1
4.6
0.0
0.0
4.6
2
4
194
99.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2
5
194
98.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
2
6
178
95.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
2.8
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.1
2
7
193
90.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.3
2.6
3.1
0.0
0.0
3.6
-------
TABLE 0.4. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
8
196
79.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.9
8.2
2.6
.1.0
5.1
4.1
2
9
195
85.6
0.0
0.5
0.0
13.8
2.1
1.5
6.7
0.0
3.6
2
10
192
91.7
o
•
o
1.0
0.0
7.3
4.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
2. 1
2
11
200
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
©
•
o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
12
195
88.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.3
5.6
4.1
0.5
0.0
1.0
2
13
199
87.9
2.0
0.0
0.0
10.1
2.0
3.5
0.0
2.0
2.5
3
1
200
94.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
5.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3
2
194
94.8
2.1
0.0
0.0
3.1
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
3
3
193
92.7
0.0
1.0
0.0
6.2
2.1
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
4
196
83.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
15.8
9.2
4.6
0.0
0.0
2.0
3
5
187
o
•
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.0
14.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
3
6
175
78.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.7
10.9
4.6
0.0
0.0
6. 3
3
7
179
88.3
5.6
0.6
0.0
5.6
2.2
2.2
0.0
0.0
1. 1
3
8
183
75.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.6
8.2
2.7
12.0
0.0
1.6
3
9
196
94.4
0.0
0.5
0.0
5.1
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
3
10
194
94.3
1.5
0.5
0.0
3.6
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
3
11
195
92.8
0.0
3.1
0.0
4.1
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
3
12
190
77.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.6
13.2
1.6
3.7
0.0
4.2
4
1
182
82.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.6
11.5
2.2
O
•
o
0.0
3.8
4
2
195
76.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
23.1
6.7
2.6
11.3
0.0
2.6
-------
TABLE 0.4. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
4
3
192
93.2
2.1
1.0
0.0
3.6
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
4
4
198
90.9
2.0
1 0
0.0
6.1
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
4
5
195
89.7
0.0
2.1
0.0
7.2
5.6
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
4
6
169
87.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
10.7
3.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
5.3
4
7
195
80.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.5
6.2
4.1
4.6
0.0
4.6
4
8
194
52.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.4
26.8
7.2
6.7
0.5
6.2
4
9
192
92.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.8
5.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
2. 1
4
10
195
97.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
2. 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2. 1
4
11
195
95.4
2.1
0.0
0.0
2.6
1.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
12
191
96.9
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
4
13
195
92.8
0.5
0.5
0.0
6.2
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
5
1
193
90.7
0.0
1.6
0.0
7.8
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.7
5
2
196
98.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
5
3
197
97.0
0.5
1.0
0.0
1.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
5
4
196
98.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
5
5
195
95.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.6
3.6
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
5
6
179
98.3
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
7
176
71.0
6.3
1.1
0.0
21.6
13.6
2.3
0.6
0.0
5.1
5
8
189
50.3
10.1
2.1
0.0
37.6
32.3
0.0
3.7
0.0
1.6
5
9
193
49.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
49.7
23.3
3.1
14.0
0.0
9.3
-------
TABLE D.4. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-
-Algal
Biota
Transect
Photograph
No. of
Dredge
Total
Unid.
No.
No.
Usable Points*
Sand
Rock
Rubble
Spoil
Biota
Algae
Sponge
Coral
Other
Biota
5
10
191
39.8
15.7
2.1
0.0
42.4
24. 1
2.6
7.3
0.0
8.4
5
11
193
56.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.5
21.2
3.6
10.4
1.6
6.7
5
12
196
51.0
24.5
3.6
0.0
20.9
10.7
6.1
0.5
1.5
2.0
5
13
200
52.0
5.0
2.5
0.0
40.5
19.5
9.5
3.0
2.0
6.5
Mean
84.7
1.8
0.6
0.0
12.9
6.6
1.8
1.5
0.4
2.6
Standard
Deviation
14.2
4.6
0.9
0.0
12.1
7.1
2.1
3.2
1.1
2.4
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.5. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM
STATION C-3, SURVEY IV.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
1
166
77.7
0.6
0.0
0.0
21.7
3.6
2.4
4.8
o
o
10.8
1
2
166
88.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.0
4.2
3.0
0.6
1.8
2.4
1
3
174
71.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.7
21.8
0.0
1.7
0.0
5.2
1
4
165
80.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
13.3
0.6
1.2
0.0
4.8
1
5
177
57.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.4
21.5
0.6
2.8
3.4
14.1
1
6
178
74.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.8
13.5
2.2
3.4
1.7
5.1
1
7
168
75.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
23.8
8.9
0.6
2.4
0.6
11.3
1
8
182
66.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
33.0
8.2
5.5
11.0
0.0
8.2
1
9
168
64.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.1
11.9
7.7
3.0
0.0
12.5
1
10
167
72.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.5
11.4
4.2
1.2
0.0
10.8
1
11
167
76.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.0
11.4
3.0
3.0
0.0
6.6
1
12
176
77.8
0.0
1.7
0.0
20.5
9.1
1.7
2.3
1.1
6.3
1
13
176
60.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.8
23.9
0.0
4.5
0.0
11.4
2
1
171
75.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.6
15.8
0.0
2.3
1.2
5.3
2
2
170
76.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.5
10.6
1.2
0.0
1 .8
10.0
2
3
175
64.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.4
21.1
0.6
0.0
5.7
8.0
2
4
174
73.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
24.7
12.6
0.6
5.7
0.0
5.7
2
5
174
60.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.7
27.0
2.3
4.6
2.3
3.4
2
6
176
78.4
6.3
0.0
0.0
15.3
7.4
1.1
1.7
0.0
5. 1
2
7
166
77.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.3
10.2
2.4
1.2
1.2
7.2
-------
TABLE D.5. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
8
173
57.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
41.6
22.0
0.6
13.3
0.0
5.8
2
9
173
60. 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.9
22.5
4.0
5.8
0.6
6.9
2
10
174
71.3
0.0
0.6
0.0
28.2
7.5
3.4
9.2
1.7
6.3
2
11
171
72.5
0.0
1.2
0.0
26.3
7.0
1.8
6.4
5.8
5.3
2
12
179
84.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.6
7.8
0.0
1.7
5.6
0.6
2
13
187
79.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.3
7.5
0.5
4.3
3.2
4.8
3
1
186
57.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
42.5
26.3
0.5
10.2
0.0
5.4
3
2
169
54.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.6
32.0
2.4
1.2
4.7
5.3
3
3
175
54.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.7
18.9
0.0
9.1
9.7
8.0
3
4
166
81.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.7
12.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
4.2
3
5
170
66.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.5
17.1
0.0
10.6
1 .8
4. 1
3
6
175
54.9
0.0
1.1
0.0
44.0
14.9
2.9
11.4
1. 1
13.7
3
7
171
58.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.5
9.9
0.6
21.1
4.7
5.3
3
8
174
64.9
0.0
5.2
0.0
29.9
9.2
3.4
10.9
2.3
4.0
3
9
175
63.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.6
9.1
8.0
5.7
8.6
5. 1
3
10
172
87.8
0.0
1.2
0.0
11.0
0.6
2.3
5.2
1.2
1.7
3
11
171
87.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
12.3
3.5
2.9
2.9
0.6
2.3
3
12
179
49.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.3
12.3
3.4
17.9
8.9
7.8
4
1
172
72.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.9
17.4
1.7
2.3
0.0
6.4
4
2
188
71.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.2
20.2
0.0
5.9
0.0
2. 1
4
3
172
77.9
0.0
3.5
0.0
18.6
18.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
TABLE D.5. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
4
4
164
93.9
0.0
1.2
0.0
4.9
0.0
1.2
0.6
0.0
3.0
4
5
169
91.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.3
3.0
0.6
3.0
0.0
1.8
4
6
162
95.1
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
4.9
1.9
1.2
0.6
o
•
o
1.2
4
7
175
74.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.1
9.7
0.6
1. 1
2.9
10.9
4
8
177
90.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.6
2.3
3.4
1.7
0.0
2.3
4
9
173
75.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.9
20.8
0.0
1.7
o
•
o
2.3
4
10
170
95.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.7
2.4
0.0
0.6
o
•
o
1.8
4
11
179
78.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.8
11.2
0.6
3.4
0.6
6. 1
4
12
176
79.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.5
13.6
0.0
0.6
2.8
3.4
4
13
170
78.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.2
10.6
1.8
6.5
1.2
1.2
5
1
179
82.7
0.0
o
•
o
0.0
17.3
11.7
1.7
0.6
1.1
2.2
5
2
179
53.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.4
34.1
3.9
4.5
0.0
3.9
5
3
171
9C.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.4
8.2
0.6
0.0
o
•
o
0.6
5
4
175
77.1
9.7
0.0
o
•
o
13. 1
6.9
0.0
0.6
0.0
5.7
5
5
171
84.8
0.0
o
•
o
o
•
o
15.2
8.8
o
•
o
0.0
5.3
1.2
5
6
160
71.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.1
21.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
5.6
5
7
175
84.6
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
15.4
9.1
1.7
2.3
0.0
2.3
5
8
186
68.8
0.0
1.6
0.0
29.6
6.5
19.4
1.6
0.0
2.2
5
9
171
77.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.2
10.5
9.4
0.6
o
0
o
1.8
5
10
183
79.8
0.0
1.6
0.0
18.6
10.4
0.0
6.6
0.0
1.6
-------
TABLE D.5. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
5 11 169 82.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.2 6.5 1.2 4.7 0.0 4.7
5 12 173 79.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.2 5.8 2.9 1.7 0.0 9.8
5 13 168 78.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 5.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 13.7
Mean 74.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 25.3 12.3 2.0 4.1 1.5 5.5
Standard Deviation 11.2 1.4 0.9 0.0 11.4 7.5 3.0 4.3 2.4 3.6
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.6. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM STATION 1,
SURVEY IV.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
195
56.9
©
•
©
o
•
o
o
•
o
43.1
32.8
1.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
2
191
62.8
0.0
0.0
1.0
36.1
18.8
0.5
1.0
1.0
14.7
3
190
68.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.6
5.8
1.1
0.5
1.6
22.6
4
187
52.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.1
32.6
1.1
0.0
0.0
13.4
5
177
77.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.6
14.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.5
6
171
69.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
30.4
19.9
0.0
0.6
3.5
6.4
7
183
62.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
37.2
24.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
12.6
8
189
75. 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.9
12.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.2
9
184
82.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.4
8.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
10
179
69.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.2
12.8
1.7
0.0
0.0
15.6
11
164
83.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.5
7.9
0.0
0.0
1.2
7.3
2
1
189
63.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.5
19.0
5.3
0.5
0.0
11.6
2
2
187
77.5
1.1
0.0
0.0
21.4
3.7
0.0
0.0
2.7
15.0
2
3
168
85.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
7.7
1.2
0.0
0.0
5.4
2
4
178
68.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
22.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
2
5
185
88.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.9
4.3
1.1
0.0
0.0
6.5
2
6
173
74.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.0
8.7
1.2
0.6
1.2
14.5
2
7
173
63.0
2.9
0.6
0.0
33.5
15.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.5
2
8
180
69.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.6
2.8
1.1
0.0
4.4
22.2
2
9
172
75.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
5.8
1.2
0.0
0.6
17.4
-------
TABLE D.6. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
10
174
64.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.1
12.1
6.3
0.0
o
•
o
16.7
2
11
162
65.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.6
12.3
1.2
2.5
4.3
14.2
3
1
176
76.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.9
14.2
0.0
4.0
0.0
5.7
3
2
167
74.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.7
19.2
0.6
1.2
0.0
4.8
3
3
167
74.9
0.0
1.2
0.0
24.0
14.4
0.0
0.6
0.6
8.4
3
4
172
43.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
56.4
27.9
2.9
5.2
0.0
20.3
3
5
170
79.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.6
8.8
0.0
1.2
0.0
10.6
3
6
173
71.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.9
14.5
1.7
7.5
0.0
5.2
3
7
178
64.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.4
14.0
1.7
5.1
6.2
8.4
3
8
170
75.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.7
7.6
0.0
5.3
1.2
10.6
3
9
166
80.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.9
6.0
0.0
1.2
1.8
10.8
3
10
178
74.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.3
11.2
1.7
1.1
1. 1
10.1
3
11
160
64.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.6
11.9
4.4
1.2
0.6
17.5
4
1
174
69.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.5
11.5
6.9
1. 1
1.1
9.8
4
2
165
85.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.5
7.9
1.8
4.8
0.0
0.0
4
3
177
48.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
51.4
30.5
0.6
5.1
4.5
10.7
4
4
174
49.4
0.0
0.0
9.8
40.8
20.1
4.0
0.0
1. 1
15.5
4
5
171
71.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.7
4. 1
4.1
0.0
5.3
15.2
4
6
167
64.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.9
9.0
1.2
0.6
4.8
20.4
4
7
176
68.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.3
10.8
1.1
0.0
3.4
15.9
-------
TABLE D.6. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
4
8
168
53.6
o
•
o
O
•
o
0.0
46.4
33.3
2.4
o
•
o
1.8
8.9
4
9
170
79.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.6
5.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
14. 1
4
10
167
63.5
1.8
0.0
0.0
34.7
15.6
0.6
0.6
0.0
18.0
4
11
170
66.5
7.1
0.0
0.0
26.5
9.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
16.5
4
12
145
62.8
2.1
0.0
0.0
35.2
10.3
1.4
0.0
0.7
22.8
5
1
181
65.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.3
13.3
0.6
10.5
1.1
8.8
5
2
161
64.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
34.8
13.7
3.7
3.7
2.5
11.2
5
3
167
59.3
0.6
0.0
0.0
40.1
32.3
1.2
0.0
2.4
4.2
5
4
170
75.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.7
11.2
0.6
0.6
0.0
12.4
5
5
182
55.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.5
24.2
6.6
3.3
0.0
10.4
5
6
177
66.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.9
7.3
2.3
2.3
5.6
16.4
5
7
170
68.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.8
3.5
0.0
4.7
1 .2
22.4
5
8
176
65.9
1.1
0.6
0.0
32.4
14.2
1.7
0.6
2.8
13. 1
5
9
170
65.9
0.0
0.6
0.0
33.5
8.8
7.1
1.8
6.5
9.4
5
10
171
45.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.4
31.0
1.8
0.0
1.2
20.5
5
11
165
59.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.6
30.3
1.8
0.6
0.0
7.9
Mean
68.0
0.3
0.1
0.2
31.4
14.5
1.6
1.4
1.4
12.5
Standard
Deviation
10.0
1.1
0.2
1.3
9.7
8.6
1.9
2.2
1.8
5.3
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.7. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM STATION F,
SURVEY IV.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
1
167
91.6
0.0
O
•
o
0.0
8.4
6.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
1
2
175
92.0
0.0
o
•
o
O
•
O
8.0
2.9
4.6
0.0
O
•
o
0.6
1
3
179
96.6
o
•
o
o
•
o
0.0
3.4
0.0
2.2
0.0
o
•
o
1.1
1
4
174
97.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
1.1
0.0
O
•
o
0.0
1.1
1
5
166
84.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.1
4.2
5.4
0.0
1.2
4.2
1
6
174
97.1
0.0
o
•
o
0.0
2.9
2.3
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
0.6
1
7
178
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
8
173
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
9
171
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O
•
O
O
•
o
0.0
1
10
179
97.2
1.1
O
•
o
0.0
1.7
1.1
O
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
0.6
1
11
172
89.0
5.2
o
•
o
0.0
5.8
3.5
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.2
1
12
169
88.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
11.2
4.1
1.2
1.2
0.0
4.7
1
13
176
94.3
0.6
0.0
0.0
5.1
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
2
1
178
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o
•
O
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
2
2
163
99.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
O
•
O
0.0
0.0
2
3
161
87.6
0.0
0.0
0.6
11.8
0.0
0.6
2.5
6.2
2.5
2
4
164
94.5
0.0
O
•
o
0.0
5.5
1.2
0.0
o
•
o
0.0
4.3
2
5
172
88.4
1.2
0.0
0.0
10.5
2.9
1.2
1.2
o
•
o
5.2
2
6
165
93.3
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
6.7
4.2
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
7
165
98.2
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
1.2
-------
TABLE D.7. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
8
171
88.9
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
11.1
0.6
7.6
O
•
o
0.0
2.9
2
9
172
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
0.0
0.0
2
10
170
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
11
172
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
12
167
98.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
2
13
170
81.2
0.0
0.0
3.5
15.3
7.6
0.0
1.8
2.9
2.9
3
1
190
98.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
3
2
187
99.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
182
99.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
4
194
93.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.2
0.5
3.6
0.0
o
•
o
2.1
3
5
179
94.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
0.0
5.6
o
•
o
0.0
0.0
3
6
176
97.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
1.7
1.1
0.0
0.0
3
7
183
92.3
6.6
o
•
o
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
8
195
76.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.1
5.6
3.1
0.5
2.6
11.3
3
9
190
94.2
0.0
1.6
0.0
4.2
1.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.1
3
10
189
97.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
3
11
181
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
12
190
96.8
0.0
0.0
0.5
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
4
1
182
92.3
0.0
o
•
o
o
•
o
7.7
1.6
4.4
1.1
o
•
o
0.5
4
2
196
79.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.4
15.3
1.5
0.0
0.0
3.6
-------
TABLE D.7. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
3
171
84.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.8
10.5
0.0
0.0
0.6
4.7
4
195
88.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.3
6.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
5
196
90.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
3.1
2.0
1.0
0.0
3.1
6
196
87.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.8
0.0
12.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
177
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8
194
95.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
3.1
9
183
82.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.5
2.2
0.0
8.7
6.0
0.5
10
179
95.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
3.9
11
188
99.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
177
94.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
3.4
13
166
88.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.4
0.0
11.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
1
186
99.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
2
187
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
3
186
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
4
195
94.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.1
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
3.1
5
5
184
88.6
2.2
0.0
7.6
1.6
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
5
6
168
98.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
5
7
176
94.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
8
176
81 .3
0.0
0.0
18.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
9
171
84.8
1.8
0.0
10.5
2.9
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
-------
TABLE D.7. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-
Algal Biota
Transect
Photograph
No. of
Dredge
Total
Unid.
No.
No.
Usable Points*
Sand
Rock
Rubble
Spoil
Biota
Algae
Sponge
Coral
Other
Biota
5
10
167
87.4
0.0
0.0
12.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
11
175
95.4
0.0
0.0
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
12
170
94.7
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
13
170
98.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mean
93.7
0.3
0.0
1.0
5.0
1.6
1.3
0.3
0.3
1.4
Standard
Deviation
6.0
1.1
0.2
3.3
5.6
2.8
2.6
1.2
1.2
2.0
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.8. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM
STATION OLD-3, SURVEY IV.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
1
183
100.0
©
•
o
0.0
o
•
o
0.0
o
•
o
o
•
O
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
2
190
94.2
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
©
5.8
0.5
o
•
o
1.1
0.0
4.2
1
3
177
91.5
o
•
o
o
•
o
0.0
8.5
0.6
1.7
1.7
1.1
3.4
1
4
183
91.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
1.1
4.4
0.5
o
•
o
2.7
1
5
176
93.8
o
•
o
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.6
o
•
o
1.7
o
o
4.0
1
6
183
98.4
o
•
o
o
•
o
0.0
1.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
0. 0
1. 1
1
7
172
83.7
o
•
o
o
•
o
0.0
16.3
1.2
1.2
5.2
0.0
8.7
1
8
165
97.0
o
•
o
o
•
o
O
•
o
3.0
o
•
o
o
•
o
1.8
0.0
1.2
1
9
174
89.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.9
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
8.6
1
10
185
82.7
o
•
o
0.0
0.0
17.3
5.4
3.8
o
•
o
2.2
5.9
1
11
175
99.4
o
•
o
o
•
o
0.0
0.6
0.0
o
•
o
o
o
o
•
o
0.6
1
12
168
93.5
o
•
o
1.2
O
•
o
5.4
1.8
o
•
o
o
•
o
O
•
O
3.6
1
13
157
99.4
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
o
0.6
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
0.6
0.0
2
1
188
99.5
0.0
o
•
o
0.0
0.5
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
0.0
0.5
2
2
195
81.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
18.5
10.8
1.5
o
•
o
0.0
6.2
2
3
197
83.8
0.0
o
•
o
O
•
o
16.2
6. 1
3.0
0.5
0.0
6.6
2
4
187
97.9
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
2. 1
o
•
o
o
•
o
1.1
O
o
1.1
2
5
182
97.3
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
2.7
1.1
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
1.6
2
6
188
92.6
o
•
o
0.0
0.0
7.4
1.6
1.1
0.0
0.0
4.8
2
7
169
92.9
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
7. 1
0.0
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.6
-------
TABLE 0.8. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
8
199
78.4
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
21.6
0.5
4.5
2.0
6.5
8.0
2
9
180
87.8
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
12.2
0.6
3.3
6. 1
0.0
2.2
2
10
183
96.7
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
3.3
2.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
2
11
179
100.0
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
0.0
0.0
0.0
O
•
o
0.0
0.0
2
12
192
90.1
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
9.9
4.7
3. 1
0.0
0.0
2.1
2
13
198
89.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.6
1.5
3.0
0.5
0.0
5.6
3
1
183
97.8
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
2.2
0.0
1.6
o
•
O
O
•
o
0.5
3
2
187
98.9
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
1.1
0.0
0.0
O
•
o
0.0
1.1
3
3
190
96.8
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
3.2
0.0
2. 1
o
•
o
0.0
1.1
3
4
190
88.9
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
11.1
0.0
7.9
o
•
o
O
•
o
3.2
3
5
185
89.2
o
•
o
0.0
o
•
o
10.8
1.1
1.1
o
•
o
0.0
00
•
3
6
196
90.3
o
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
9.7
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
7. 1
3
7
175
97.7
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
2.3
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
3
8
180
82.8
o
•
o
0.0
o
•
o
17.2
0.6
2.8
11.7
0.0
2.2
3
9
175
93.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
3
10
180
96.1
0.0
O
•
o
o
•
o
3.9
0.0
o
o
0.0
3.9
0.0
3
11
192
99.0
0.0
o
•
o
o
•
o
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
3
12
184
87.5
o
•
o
0.0
o
•
o
12.5
5.4
0.5
4.3
0.5
1.6
4
1
187
86.1
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
13.9
10.2
0.5
1.1
O
•
o
2.1
4
2
186
80. 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.9
3.8
0.0
11.3
0.0
GO
•
<1*
-------
TABLE D.8. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate ' Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
4
3
193
99.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
4
4
192
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
5
182
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
6
193
91.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.3
6.2
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.6
4
7
180
75.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
5.0
7.2
11.1
0.0
1.7
4
8
172
82.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.4
0.6
5.8
4.7
0.6
5.8
4
9
179
98.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
4
10
181
99.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
4
11
177
.99.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
12
181
99.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
13
180
96.7
1.1
0.0
0.0
2.2
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
1
187
85.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
5.9
1.1
0.5
0.0
7.5
5
2
182
40.7
0.0
1.1
0.0
58.2
17.6
10.4
4.9
6.0
19.2
5
3
191
76.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.6
5.2
4.7
6.8
0.5
6.3
5
4
181
99.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
5
178
88.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.8
1. 1
0.0
3.9
0.0
6.7
5
6
178
76.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.6
8.4
4.5
3.4
0.0
7.3
5
7
195
82.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.9
2.1
10.3
0.0
0.0
5.6
5
8
194
90.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.8
3.6
2.6
0.0
0.0
3.6
5
9
186
88.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.3
3.8
2.7
0.0
0.0
4.8
-------
TABLE D.8. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
5 10 179 94.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 1.1 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.6
5 11 185 98.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
5 12 186 84.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 6.5 2.2 0.0 7.0
5 13 180 92.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 2.2 0.0 1. 1 0.0 3.9
5 14 178 92.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 2.8
Mean 91.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 2.1 1.8 1.4 0.3 3.2
Standard Deviation 9.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 9.4 3.2 2.6 2.8 1.2 3.4
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.9. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM
STATION C-3, SURVEY V.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Nonalgal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
1
174
63.2
o
•
o
0.0
o
•
o
36.8
27.0
0.6
1.7
o
•
o
7.5
1
2
173
72.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.2
21.4
1.7
0.6
0.0
3.5
1
3
186
38.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
61.3
48.4
0.0
2.2
0.0
10.8
1
4
186
36.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
64.0
54.8
0.5
0.5
0.0
8.1
1
5
183
67.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.8
21.9
0.5
5.5
0.0
4.9
1
6
195
43.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
56.4
44.6
4. 1
3.1
0.0
4.6
1
7
198
56.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.4
32.3
3.5
3.5
1.0
3.0
1
8
196
55. 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.9
30. 1
0.0
8.2
0.0
6.6
1
9
190
60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
26.8
6.3
2. 1
0.0
4.7
1
10
195
62.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.4
32.3
2. 1
0.5
0.0
2.6
1
11
194
63.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.1
24.2
1.0
4.6
2. 1
4. 1
1
12
189
77.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.2
13.8
1.6
0.0
0.0
6.9
1
13
180
46.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
53.3
40.0
0.6
6. 1
0.0
6.7
2
1
192
66.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.3
25.5
0.0
1.6
1.6
4.7
2
2
184
53.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.7
40.8
0.5
0.5
1.1
3.8
2
3
165
58.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.2
28.5
0.0
1.2
8.5
3.0
2
4
187
73.8
0.0
0.5
0.0
25.7
19.3
0.5
4.3
0.0
1.6
2
5
175
43.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
56.6
42.3
3.4
2.9
5. 1
2.9
2
6
179
58. 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.9
28.5
2.2
0.6
3.9
6.7
2
7
195
50.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.2
40.0
2.6
0.5
0.0
6.2
2
8
169
60.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
39. 1
24.9
0.6
11.8
0.0
1.8
2
9
188
58.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.0
36.2
0.5
3.2
0.0
2. 1
2
10
181
78.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.5
16.0
0.6
4.4
0.0
0.6
2
11
164
76.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.2
11.6
0.6
4.3
0.0
6.7
-------
TABLE D.9. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Nonalgal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
12
185
83.8
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
16.2
1.6
7.0
3.2
0.0
4.3
2
13
182
73.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.4
18.7
1. 1
2.7
0.0
3.8
3
1
187
61.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.5
26.7
0.0
6.4
0.0
5.3
3
2
184
45.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.3
47.8
2.2
0.5
0.0
3.8
3
3
190
56.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.7
36.3
0.0
3.7
0.0
3.7
3
4
183
71.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.4
24.6
0.5
2.7
0.0
0.5
3
5
189
57.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.9
30.2
0.5
9.0
0.0
3.2
3
6
183
60.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.3
27.9
4.9
3.8
1. 1
1.6
3
7
189
62.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.6
15.9
1.6
10.6
7.4
2.1
3
8
191
68.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.4
15.7
1.6
9.9
1.0
3. 1
3
9
192
64.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.4
20.8
0.5
6.3
2. 1
5.7
3
10
181
84.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
15.5
1.7
0.6
9.9
0.6
2.8
3
11
190
88.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.6
2. 1
4.7
4.2
0.0
0.5
4
1
193
50.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.7
34.7
2. 1
3.6
0.5
8.8
4
2
193
69.9
0.0
1.6
0.0
28.5
21.8
0.0
3.6
0.0
3. 1
4
3
179
70.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
29.1
21.2
0.0
2.2
0.0
5.6
4
4
186
87.1
0.0
2.7
0.0
10.2
2.7
0.0
2.2
0.0
5.4
4
5
190
85.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.2
2.6
0.0
10.0
0.0
1.6
4
6
185
85.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.1
10.3
2.7
0.0
0.0
1. 1
4
7
180
87.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.2
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.3
4
8
184
88.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.0
9.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
4
9
192
82.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.2
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.2
4
10
177
93.8
0.0
1.1
0.0
5.1
1.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
3.4
4
11
189
64.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.4
21.7
1.1
4.2
0.0
8.5
4
12
177
75.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.9
19.2
0.0
0.6
1.7
3.4
-------
TABLE D.9. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Nonalgal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
4
13
188
74.5
0.0
0.0
O
•
o
25.5
14.9
2. 1
5.9
2. 1
0.5
5
1
193
80.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.7
12.4
1.0
1.0
2.6
2.6
5
2
185
68.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.9
18.4
4.3
4.3
0.0
4.9
5
3
173
85.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
13.9
11.6
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.2
5
4
185
73.0
13.5
0.5
0.0
13.0
8.6
0.0
2.7
0.0
1.6
5
5
179
97.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1. 1
5
6
187
69.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.0
20.9
1.6
0.0
0.0
8.6
5
7
170
82.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
17. 1
7.1
1.2
0.6
1.2
7.1
5
8
175
82.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
17. 1
10.3
0.0
2.3
0.0
4.6
5
9
166
81.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.7
10.2
0.6
3.6
0.0
4.2
5
10
178
70.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.8
18.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
2.8
5
11
183
79.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.2
15.8
0.5
3.3
0.0
0.5
5
12
184
64.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.9
28.8
0.5
2.7
0.0
3.8
5
13
181
77.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.7
17.7
0.0
2.2
0.0
2.8
in
68.7
0.2
0.2
0.0
30.9
21.5
1.2
3.4
0.7
4. 1
indard
Deviation
14.1
1.7
0.5
0.0
14.4
13.0
1.6
3.0
1.7
2.4
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.10. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM STATION 1,
SURVEY V.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Nonalgal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
1
195
34.9
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
65.1
56.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
1
2
184
63.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
35.9
18.5
3.8
1.1
0.0
12.5
1
3
184
15.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
84.8
67.9
0.0
1.6
0.0
15.2
1
4
175
62.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
37. 1
22.9
2.9
0.6
0.0
10.9
1
5
167
82.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.0
14.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
1
6
171
46.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
53.8
31.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
22. 2
1
7
178
49.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.6
29.2
0.0
1. 1
0.0
20.2
1
8
174
62.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.4
25.3
0.0
0.6
0.0
11.5
1
9
174
83.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
6.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.3
1
10
171
49.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.9
38.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
12.3
2
1
167
29.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
70.1
53.9
0.6
0.6
0.0
15.0
2
2
164
37.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
62.8
42.7
0.6
1.8
0.6
17.1
2
3
165
78.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.2
13.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
6.7
2
4
165
44.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.8
43.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
11.5
2
5
192
64.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.4
28. 1
0.5
0.0
0.0
6.8
2
6
171
39.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
60.2
51.5
1.8
0.0
0.0
7.0
2
7
172
37.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
62.8
53.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.3
2
8
166
22.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
77.1
67.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.6
2
9
179
7.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
92.2
77.7
2.2
0.0
0.0
12.3
2
10
183
32.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
67.2
60.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.6
2
11
162
27.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
72.8
60.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.3
3
1
172
62.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.2
27.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.9
3
2
186
64.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.5
24.7
0.0
2.7
0.0
8. 1
-------
TABLE D.10. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Nonalgal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
3
3
182
42.3
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
57.7
36.8
0.0
2.7
0.0
18. 1
3
4
172
36.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
64.0
43.6
0.6
1.2
0.0
18.6
3
5
171
37.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
62.6
49.1
0.6
5.3
0.0
7.6
3
6
181
43.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
56.4
32.0
0.0
12.7
0.0
11.6
3
7
179
58.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.3
29.1
0.0
2.8
0.0
9.5
3
8
163
31.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
68.1
54.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
12.9
3
9
177
42.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
57.1
19.2
0.0
5.6
0.0
32. 2
3
10
172
71.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.5
10.5
1.7
0.0
0.0
16.3
3
11
169
50.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.1
41.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.7
4
1
175
46.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
53.1
28.6
6.9
2.3
0.0
15.4
4
2
164
52.4
O'.O
0.0
0.0
47.6
30.5
0.0
2.4
0.0
14.6
4
3
169
45.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.0
30.2
0.0
5.3
0.0
19.5
4
4
173
52.6
13.3
0.0
0.0
34.1
6.9
1.7
0.0
11.6
13.9
4
5
168
70.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.2
13. 1
0.0
0.0
2.4
13.7
4
6
176
44.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.7
34. 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.6
4
7
165
56.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.6
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.6
4
8
175
49.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.3
21.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.6
4
9
162
62. 3
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.7
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.4
4
10
165
52.7
4.8
0.0
0.0
42.4
19.4
1.8
1.8
0.0
19.4
4
11
176
69.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.7
22.7
1.7
0.0
0.0
6.3
5
1
167
58.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.9
19.2
0.6
5.4
0.0
16.8
5
2
184
55.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.6
25.5
1.6
3.3
0.0
14. 1
5
3
172
64.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.5
7.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
27.3
5
4
168
50.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.4
29.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.6
-------
TABLE 0.10. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Monalqal Biota
Transect
Photograph
No. of
Dredge
Total
Unid.
No.
No.
Usable Points*
Sand
Rock
Rubble
Spoil
Biota
Algae
Sponge
Coral
Other
Biota
5
5
169
69.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.8
21.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.5
5
6
162
58.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.4
30.9
0.0
1.2
0.0
9.3
5
7
174
44.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.7
46.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
8.6
5
a
162
53.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.9
32.7
3.1
0.6
0.0
10.5
5
9
182
59.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.7
20.9
3.3
2.2
0.0
14.3
5
10
164
55.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.5
17.7
1.8
0.6
0.0
24.4
Mean
50.7
0.4
0.0
0.0
49.0
32.7
0.7
1.3
0.3
14.0
Standard
Deviation
15.8
1.9
0.0
0.0
16.0
16.9
1.3
2.2
1.6
6.2
*Out of 200 possible points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.11. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM STATION F,
SURVEY V.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Nonalqal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
1
186
89.2
o
•
o
0.0
o
•
o
10.8
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
1
2
185
85.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.6
1.1
9.7
0.0
0.0
3.8
1
3
178
94.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.1
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
1
4
182
99.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
5
189
88.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.1
8.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
1
6
188
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
7
180
99.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
8
174
98.3
0.0
0.6
0.0
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
9
188
95.7
0.0
1.1
0.0
3.2
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1
10
187
95.2
1.6
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
1
11
186
89.2
1.1
0.0
0.0
9.7
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.6
1
12
185
86.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.5
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
1
13
171
97.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
2
1
192
95.8
1.6
0.0
0.0
2.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2
2
183
97.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
2
3
170
88.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.8
5.3
0.0
2.9
0.0
3.5
2
4
177
87.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.0
8.5
2.3
0.0
0.0
2.3
2
5
188
84.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.0
9.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
6.4
2
6
173
85.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
11.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
2.9
2
7
175
93.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
2.9
0.0
1.7
0.0
1.7
-------
TABLE D.11. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Nonalgal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
8
181
81.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.2
3.3
0.0
0.0
O
•
o
14.9
2
9
180
98.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
2
10
180
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
11
192
95.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
2
12
181
92.3
0.0
0.6
0.0
7.2
1.7
4.4
0.0
0.0
1.1
2
13
166
72.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.7
13.3
3.6
1.2
2.4
7.2
3
1
193
98.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
2
180
98.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
183
9'-\3
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
3
4
192
86.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.5
8.3
1.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
3
5
195
92.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.7
1.5
2.1
0.0
0.0
4. 1
3
6
190
96.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
3
7
190
82.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
.17.4
4.7
7.9
0.5
0.0
4.2
3
8
165
61.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.2
17.6
3.0
0.6
1.2
15.8
3
9
179
84.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
15.1
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.5
3
10
185
95.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
1. 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
3
11
179
97.8
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
1
164
90.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
9. 1
0.0
2.4
1.2
0.0
5.5
4
2
189
78.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.7
9.0
3.7
0.5
0.0
8.5
4
3
188
79.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
20 .2
13.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.4
-------
TABLE D.11. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Nonalgal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
4
4
191
80.1
o
•
o
0.0
O
•
o
19.9
9.4
0.0
1.6
0.0
8.9
4
5
193
86.5
o
o
O
o
0.0
13.5
5.7
1.6
o
•
o
0.0
6.2
4
6
196
84.7
o
•
o
o
•
o
O
•
o
15.3
o
•
o
13.3
O
•
O
0.0
2.0
4
7
188
100.0
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
O
•
o
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
o
•
o
0.0
4
8
180
98.9
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
1.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.6
4
9
189
92.6
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
7.4
1.6
0.0
3.7
o
o
2.1
4
10
169
94.7
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
o
5.3
o
•
O
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.2
4
11
176
96.0
o
©
o
•
o
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
3.4
4
12
189
93.7
o
•
o
0.5
o
•
o
5.8
0.0
2.1
1.1
0.0
2.6
4
13
165
85.5
0.0
o
•
o
0.0
14.5
0.0
14.5
0.0
0.0
O
•
o
5
1
189
98.4
1.1
o
•
o
0.0
0.5
0.0
o
•
o
0.0
0.0
0.5
5
2
188
100.0
0.0
o
•
o
O
•
©
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
3
187
99.5
in
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
o
0.0
0.0
o
o
o
O
5
4
193
90.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
8.8
5.2
0.0
1.0
0.0
2.6
5
5
192
87.0
6.8
o
o
o
o
6.3
4.7
O
O
o
•
o
0.0
1.6
5
6
187
91.4
2.7
0.0
0.0
5.9
O
o
1.1
1.1
0.0
3.7
5
7
186
95.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
5
8
196
100.0
0.0
O
•
o
0.0
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
9
184
98.4
1.6
0.0
0.0
o
o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O
•
o
5
10
181
98.9
1.1
O
•
o
O
•
o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
11
189
100.0
o
«
o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
TABLE D.11. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Nonalqal Biota
Transect
Photograph
No. of
Dredge
Total
Unid.
No.
No.
Usable Points*
Sand
Rock
Rubble
Spoil
Biota
Algae
Sponge
Coral
Other
Biota
5
12
187
99.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
13
178
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mean
92.1
0.3
0.1
0.0
7.5
3.0
1.3
0.3
0.1
2.8
Standard
Deviation
7.8
1.0
0.3
0.0
7.9
4.1
3.0
0.7
0.4
3.5
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.12. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM
STATION OLD-3, SURVEY V.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Nonalgal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
1
182
75.8
0.0
o
•
o
o
•
o
24.2
22.0
0.0
o
•
o
0.0
2.2
1
2
192
68.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.8
25.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
5.7
1
3
189
81.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.5
11.1
2.1
0.5
0.0
4.8
1
4
186
72.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.0
20.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
6.5
1
5
35
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
68.6
11.4
2.9
0.0
17. 1
1
6
172
94.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.8
1.2
3.5
0.0
0.0
1.2
1
7
180
82.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.2
8.3
0.6
3.9
0.0
4.4
1
8
183
88.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.0
6.6
0.0
0.5
0.0
4.9
1
9
175
79.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.6
12.0
1.7
0.0
0.6
6. 3
1
10
192
63.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
35.4
22.4
9.9
0.0
2. 1
1.0
1
11
180
81.7
0.0
11.1
0.0
7.2
5.6
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
1
12
178
89.9
0.0
2.2
0.0
7.9
3.9
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.6
2
1
182
90.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.9
7.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
1.6
2
2
185
78.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.6
17.8
0.5
0.5
2.2
0.5
2
3
173
79.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.2
16.8
0.6
0.0
0.0
2.9
2
4
186
95.7
0.0
1.1
0.0
3.2
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
5
181
99.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
6
188
85.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.4
8.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
5.9
2
7
187
87.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.8
6.4
1.6
0.0
4.3
0.5
2
8
176
79.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.0
5.7
7.4
4.0
0.6
3.4
2
9
196
82. 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.9
6. 1
3.6
6. 1
0.0
2.0
2
10
186
96.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
2
11
187
98.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
12
184
86.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.6
10.9
2.2
0.0
.0.0
0.5
-------
TABLE D.12. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Nona1gal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
13
175
92.0
0.0
o
•
o
o
•
o
8.0
2.3
2.3
0.6
1.7
1. 1
3
1
186
93.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
3
2
177
98.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1. 1
3
3
186
92.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
3.2
1.1
0.0
0.0
3.2
3
4
179
87.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.3
5.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
2.8
3
5
184
77.2
0.0
0.5
0.0
22.3
17.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.9
3
6
170
86.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.5
9.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
4. 1
3
7
173
89.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
7.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
3
8
179
81.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.0
5.6
2.2
7.3
0.0
3.9
3
9
183
90.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.8
7.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
3
10
184
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
11
165
97.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
1
182
75.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.7
12.1
3.3
3.3
0.0
6.0
4
. 2
179
77.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.9
14.5
0.6
7.3
0.0
0.6
4
3
184
98.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
4
4
184
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
5
180
96.7
0.0
0.6
0.0
2.8
1.1
1. 1
0.0
0.0
0.6
4
6
186
82.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.2
15.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
4
7
190
54.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.8
18.4
7.9
12.1
1.6
5.8
4
8
169
88.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.8
5.3
3.6
1.2
0.0
1.8
4
9
178
97.8
0.0
1. *.
0.0
1.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
4
10
174
96.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
3.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
4
11
174
98.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
4
12
193
88.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.4
1.6
0.0
0.0
5.2
4.7
-------
TABLE D.12. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Nonalqal Biota
Transect
Photograph
No. of
Dredge
Total
Unid.
No.
No.
Usable Points*
Sand
Rock
Rubble
Spoil
Biota
Algae
Sponge
Coral
Other
Biota
4
13
186
93.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
5.4
5.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
1
175
89.2
0.0
1.1
0.0
9.7
8.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
5
2
182
96.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
3
194
97.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
5
4
188
95.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
2. 1
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
5
5
183
92.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.7
7.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
6
174
87.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
12. 1
8.0
0.0
1.7
2.3
0.0
5
7
193
82.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.1
7.8
0.0
4.1
1.0
4. 1
5
8
190
75.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.7
15.8
0.5
4.2
0.0
4.2
5
9
192
45.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.7
32.3
0.0
18.8
0.0
3.6
5
10
189
51.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
48.1
39.7
0.5
4.8
1. 1
2. 1
5
11
189
55.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.0
25.4
0.5
15.9
2. 1
1.1
5
12
187
88.8
0.0
1.1
0.0
10.2
5.9
1.6
1.1
0.0
1.6
5
13
189
75.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.9
19.0
2.6
0.5
0.0
2.6
Mean
83.9
0.0
0.4
0.0
15.8
9.9
1.4
1.7
0.4
2.3
Standard
Deviation
16.4
0.0
1.5
0.0
16.5
11.3
2.4
3.7
1.0
2.8
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.13. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM
STATION C-3, SURVEY VII.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
1
180
55.0
0.0
0.0
o
•
o
45.0
38.3
1.1
1.1
0.0
4.4
1
2
174
66.7
0.0
1.7
0.0
31.6
20.7
2.9
1.1
0.0
6.9
1
3
178
55.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.4
38.8
1.1
1.1
0.0
3.4
1
4
188
60.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.4
32.4
2.7
2.1
0.0
2.1
1
5
185
58.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.1
31.9
0.0
2.7
0.0
6.5
1
6
181
47.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
51.9
33.7
0.6
5.0
0.0
12.7
1
7
187
66.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.7
21.9
1.6
2.7
0.0
7.5
1
8
167
59.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.1
17.4
5.4
6.0
0.0
11.4
1
9
171
54.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.6
27.5
1.8
7.6
0.0
8.8
1
10
181
58.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.0
24.3
0.0
2.2
0.0
15.5
1
11
178
57.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.7
27.5
1.1
3.9
1.1
9.0
1
12
171
64.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.7
16.4
4.1
3.5
2.9
8.8
1
13
188
54.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.2
28.2
2.7
4.8
0.5
9.0
2
1
183
55.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.8
35.0
0.0
2.2
0.5
7. 1
2
2
178
68.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
23.6
0.0
1.1
1.7
5. 1
2
3
186
58.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.4
25.3
1.6
3.2
3.8
7.5
2
4
183
71.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
28.4
20.2
2.7
1.6
0.0
3.8
2
5
186
59.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.3
26.3
1.6
4.8
0.0
7.5
2
6
180
65.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.0
31.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
2
7
193
50.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.2
26.4
5.7
0.0
0.0
17.1
-------
TABLE D.13. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
8
194
47.4
0.0
1.0
o
•
o
51.5
34.5
0.5
9.3
o
•
o
7.2
2
9
190
73.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.8
8.4
3.7
10.0
0.0
4.7
2
10
175
67.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.6
18.9
1.7
7.4
0.0
4.6
2
11
191
52.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.1
35.6
0.5
8.4
0.0
2.6
2
12
171
73.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.3
25.7
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
2
13
175
62.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.1
25.1
0.0
4.0
2.3
5.7
3
1
196
56.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.4
35.7
3.6
1.5
0.0
2.6
3
2
189
57.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.3
29.1
0.5
1.1
0.0
11.6
3
3
177
57.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.4
29.4
0.0
10.2
0.6
2.3
3
4
183
73.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.2
18.0
1.6
2.7
1.1
2.7
3
5
186
46.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
53.8
21.0
0.0
13.4
18.8
0.5
3
6
178
59.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.0
24.7
2.2
8.4
0.0
5.6
3
7
190
54.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.3
13.7
4.2
16.8
9.5
1.1
3
8
180
81.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.9
11.7
1.1
2.2
0.0
3.9
3
9
179
35.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
64.8
40.8
1.1
13.4
1.1
8.4
3
10
189
75.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.9
3.7
4.2
7.9
0.5
8.5
3
11
193
75.6
0.0
3.1
0.0
21.2
7.3
5.2
1.0
5.2
2.6
4
1
196
70.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.6
17.9
3.6
1.0
0.0
7.1
4
2
185
78.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
2 1.1
13.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
1. 1
4
3
194
77.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.7
19. 1
0.0
0.5
0.0
3.1
4
4
193
74.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.9
23.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
2. 1
-------
TABLE D. 13. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
4
5
191
71.7
0.0
o
o
o
o
28.3
22.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
4.7
4
6
185
49.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.3
38.4
0.0
0.5
0.0
11.4
4
7
179
61.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.5
36.3
0.0
0.6
0.0
1.7
4
8
181
70.7
0.0
0.0
0,0
29.3
22.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.2
4
9
180
34.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
65.6
51.1
7.8
0.0
0.0
6.7
4
10
180
75.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
23.9
0.0
1. 1
0.0
0.0
4
11
192
34.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
65.6
62.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
4
12
175
49.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.3
48.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
1. 1
4
13
185
64.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.1
28.6
0.5
1.6
0.0
4.3
5
1
177
63.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.7
24.3
0.0
1.1
3.4
7.9
5
2
178
63.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.5
23.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.9
5
3
174
92.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
6.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
5
4
180
78.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.7
16.1
3.3
0.0
0.0
2.2
5
5
187
75.9
0.0
4.3
0.0
19.8
12.8
3.7
0.0
0.0
3.2
5
6
185
64.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.1
27.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
7.0
5
7
172
72.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.3
20.9
0.6
4.1
0.0
1.7
5
8
175
84.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.0
4.6
0.0
5.1
0.0
6.3
5
9
174
76.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.6
14.9
0.6
3.4
0.0
4.6
5
10
172
61.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.0
18.0
0.0
12.8
0.0
8. 1
5
11
172
69.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.2
23.3
1.7
0.6
1.2
3.5
-------
TABLE D.13. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
5 12 173 52.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 47.4 29.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 15.0
5 13 174 59.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.8 35.1 0.6 1.1 0.0 4.0
Mean 62.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 36.9 25.3 1.5 3.5 0.9 5.8
Standard Deviation 11.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 11.9 10.9 1.8 4.0 2.8 3.9
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.14. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM STATION 1,
SURVEY VII.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
1
187
61.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.5
34.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
3.7
1
2
179
56.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.6
36.3
0.0
1.1
0.6
5.6
1
3
191
71.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.8
19.4
0.0
0.5
0.0
8.9
1
4
189
62.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.6
33.9
1.1
0.0
0.0
2.6
1
5
177
74.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.0
15.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.2
1
6
177
65.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.5
29.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
1
7
183
72.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.3
20.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
7. 1
1
8
190
73.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.3
20.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
5.8
1
9
188
86.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.3
11.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2. 1
1
10
193
66.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.7
18.1
2.6
0.0
0.0
13.0
1
11
191
85.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.1
9.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
4.2
2
1
173
72.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.2
23.1
1.7
0.0
0.0
2.3
2
2
175
77.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.9
15.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
6.3
2
3
186
83.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
10.2
0.5
0.0
0.5
5.4
2
4
178
95.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
2
5
186
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
92.5
4.3
2
6
187
70.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.4
23.0
0.5
2.1
0.0
3.7
2
7
197
75.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.4
22.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2
8
183
68.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.7
23.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
8.2
2
9
181
81.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.8
10.5
0.0
0.0
3.3
5.0
-------
TABLE D.14. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
10
189
64.0
o
•
o
o
•
o
0.0
36.0
33.9
o
•
o
0.0
0.5
1.6
2
11
193
64.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.2
14.5
0.5
0.0
18. 1
2.1
2
12
169
64.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.5
34.3
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
3
1
188
91.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.5
2.7
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.5
3
2
184
90.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.8
8.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
3
3
192
88.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.0
9.9
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.6
3
4
185
48.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
51.9
46.5
0.0
0.0
3.2
2.2
3
5
182
64.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.7
28.6
1.1
0.0
0.0
6.0
3
6
184
69.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.0
14.7
0.0
0.0
12.5
3.8
3
7
191
56.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
41.4
0.5
3
8
176
79.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.5
2.8
0.0
0.0
15.9
1.7
3
9
174
72.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.6
26.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1. 1
3
10
182
83.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.0
14.3
0.5
0.0
1.6
0.5
3
11
178
69.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.3
28. 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
4
1
187
64.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.8
21.9
7.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
4
2
189
82.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.0
14.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
4
3
193
49.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.8
43.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
4
4
181
74.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.4
19.9
1.1
0.6
0.6
3.3
4
5
191
71.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.3
23.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
4.7
4
6
190
66.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.2
24.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
8.4
-------
TABLE D.14. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
4
7
182
66.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.5
30.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
4
8
185
86.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.5
10.8
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.2
4
9
181
60.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.8
37.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
4
10
195
65.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.9
32.8
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
4
11
171
67.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.2
28.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
4
12
174
66.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.9
28.7
2.3
0.0
0.0
2.9
5
1
185
81.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.4
16.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
5
2
194
62.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.6
30.9
1.5
2.1
0.0
3. 1
5
3
192
53.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.4
41.1
0.0
0.5
0.0
4.7
5
4
178
78.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.3
12.4
0.6
1.7
0.6
6.2
5
5
186
68.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.2
23.7
1.6
0.0
0.0
5.9
5
6
186
62.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.1
27.4
1.6
1.1
0.0
7.0
5
7
195
57.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.6
40.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2. 1
5
8
193
64.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.8
33.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.6
5
9
185
57.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.7
28.6
4.9
0.5
2.7
5.9
5
10
183
56.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.2
38.8
0.0
2.2
0.0
2.2
5
11
182
71.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.6
25.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
-------
TABLE D.14. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
Mean 69.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.8 22.5 0.6 0.2 3.5 4.0
Standard Deviation 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 11.3 1.2 0.6 13.6 2.6
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.15. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM STATION F,
SURVEY VII.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
1
199
74.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.6
16.6
3.5
O
•
o
0.0
5.5
1
2
187
79.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.3
7.5
11.8
0.0
0.0
1.1
1
3
189
95.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
1.6
2.6 .
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
4
193
94.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
3. 1
1
5
182
92.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
1
6
188
97.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
1
7
189
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
8
186
98.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
.1.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
9
176
96.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
1
10
186
96.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1
11
185
67.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.4
31.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1
12
185
73.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.0
21.6
0.5
0.5
0.0
4.3
1
13
181
83.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.6
16.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
2
1
185
87.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.4
8.6
0.0
0.0
2.7
1. 1
2
2
189
76.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.3
6.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.9
2
3
184
89.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.3
6.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
3.3
2
4
188
80.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.1
13.8
0.5
0.0
0.0
4.8
2
5
184
88.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.4
7.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
3.8
2
6
192
62.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.5
35.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
-------
TABLE D.15. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
7
172
91.3
0.0
0.0
o
•
©
8.7
5.8
o
•
©
0.0
0.0
2.9
2
8
180
91.7
0.6
0.0
0.0
7.8
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
2
9
181
99.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
10
178
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
11
179
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
12
179
99.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
13
191
98.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
1
190
84.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.3
14.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
3
2
179
92.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.3
7.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
3
189
91.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.5
8.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
4
184
93.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
3
5
172
91.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
4.7
1.7
0.0
0.0
2.3
3
6
177
92.1
0.0
1.1
0.0
6.8
4.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
7
178
89.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
10. 1
0.6
7.3
0.0
1.1
1.1
3
8
177
71.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.2
14.7
0.6
1.7
1 .7
9.6
3
9
181
93.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.6
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
3
10
189
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
11
190
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
12
174
94.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.2
2.3
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
4
1
187
88.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.8
7.5
1.1
0.5
0.0
2.7
4
2
192
63.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.0
30.2
2.6
0.0
0.0
4.2
-------
TABLE D.15. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
4
3
174
67.2
0.0
o
•
o
0.0
32.8
26.4
o
•
o
O
•
o
0.0
6.3
4
4
181
59.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.9
33.7
0.6
2.8
0.0
3.9
4
5
196
83.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.8
8.2
4.6
0.0
0.0
4. 1
4
6
197
78.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.3
0.0
15.7
0.0
5.6
0.0
4
7
188
96.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
4
8
185
97.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
9
179
82.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.3
2.2
0.0
3.9
0.0
11.2
4
10
180
95.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
3.3
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.6
4
11
190
93.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
6.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
12
185
97.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
13
195
90.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
4.1
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
1
181
96.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
2
184
99.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
3
181
99.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
4
180
90.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
6.1
0.0
2.2
0.6
1.1
5
5
190
80.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.5
15.8
1.6
0.0
0.0
2. 1
5
6
186
88.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.3
8.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.1
5
7
196
82.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.9
14.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
5
8
189
96.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.5
5
9
191
95.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.7
1.6
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.0
-------
TABLE D.15. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
5 10 190 94.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6
5 11 190 94.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7
5 12 191 99.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 13 190 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mean 89.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 7.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 2.0
Standard Deviation 10.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 10.5 8.8 2.7 0.7 1.0 3.0
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.16. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM
STATION OLD-3, SURVEY VII.
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
1
190
83.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.3
16.3
o
•
o
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
197
52.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.7
41 .1
1.0
0.5
0.0
5.1
3
182
65.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.6
29.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
4
179
57.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
43.0
39. 1
1.1
0.0
0.0
2.8
5
190
75.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.7
22.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.1
6
187
96.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
190
74.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.3
17.4
0.5
3.2
0.0
4.2
8
182
88.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.5
8.8
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.2
9
179
62.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.0
30.2
1.7
1.1
0.0
5.0
10
177
62.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.9
24.9
6.8
0.6
0.0
5.6
11
188
82.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.6
17.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
190
78.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.6
17.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
3.7
13
181
69.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.9
28.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
2
1
195
82.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.9
16.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2
2
173
60.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.9
34.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.8
2
3
198
25.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
74.7
69.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
2
4
177
60.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.5
39.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
2
5
178
99.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
6
195
77.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.6
18.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
3.6
2
7
191
77.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.0
14. 1
1.0
0.0
1.0
6.8
-------
TABLE D.16. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
2
8
190
75.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.7
12.1
6.3
1.6
0.0
4.7
2
9
183
50.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.2
22.4
7.1
5.5
0.0
14.2
2
10
195
52.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.7
41.5
2.6
0.0
0.0
3.6
2
11
136
88.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.8
9.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
2
12
188
69.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.3
23.4
2.7
0.0
0.0
4.3
2
13
176
86.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.6
6.8
3.4
0.6
0.0
2.8
3
1
189
82.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.5
13.2
0.5
0.5
0.0
3.2
3
2
190
93.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
5.8
3
4
194
49.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.5
29.4
7.2
0.0
0.0
13.9
3
5
185
52.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.6
43.8
0.0
1.1
0.0
2.7
3
6
194
36.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
63.9
53.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.8
3
7
189
65.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.9
31.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7
3
8
184
58.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.3
23.9
1.1
3.8
0.0
12.5
3
9
183
62.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.7
30.6
0.0
3.3
0.0
3.8
3
10
190
93.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.8
3.2
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.6
3
11
188
92.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.4
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
3
12
188
66.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.5
16.0
2.1
4.3
0.0
11.2
4
1
189
64.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
34.4
25.4
3.2
0.5
0.0
5.3
4
2
191
62.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.2
18.3
1.6
8.4
0.0
8.9
4
3
182
88.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.5
11.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
-------
TABLE D.16. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
4
4
175
89.1
0.0
o
•
o
0.0
10.9
7.4
o
•
o
0.0
0.0
3.4
4
5
188
89.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.6
10. 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
4
6
177
86.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.6
12.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
4
7
195
51.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
48.7
35.4
0.5
9.2
0.0
3.6
4
8
165
35.8
0.0
0,-0
0.0
64.2
36.4
6.1
4.8
0.6
16.4
4
9
179
89.4
0.0
1.1
0.0
9.5
7.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
4
10
184
92.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
4
11
184
90.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
8.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
4
12
188
87.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.8
11.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
4
13
178
91.6
0.0
3.4
0.0
5.1
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
1
188
69.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.9
27.7
0.5
0.0
0.5
2.1
5
2
185
85.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.6
12.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
5
3
176
94.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
5
4
194
94.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.2
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
5
5
180
75.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
23.9
20.6
1.7
0.0
0.0
1.7
5
6
170
87.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.4
12.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
7
181
86.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.3
3.9
1.1
1.7
0.0
6.6
5
8
193
43.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
56.5
48.2
0.0
4.7
2.1
1.6
5
9
187
46.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.0
23.0
4.3
18.2
2.7
5.9
5
10
185
58.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.1
22.7
2.2
8.1
5.4
2.7
-------
TABLE D. 16. (CONTINUED).
Percent Cover
Substrate Biota
Non-Algal Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Dredge Total Unid.
No. No. Usable Points* Sand Rock Rubble Spoil Biota Algae Sponge Coral Other Biota
5 11 168 56.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 31.0 1.2 4.8 0.0 7.1
5 12 188 85.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 5.3 4.8 1.1 0.0 3.7
5 13 177 68.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.1 16.9 1.7 5.6 1.1 5.6
Mean 72.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 27.3 20.3 1.2 1.5 0.2 4.0
Standard Deviation 17.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 17.6 14.3 2.0 3.1 0.8 3.7
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.17. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM STATION
OLD-3, SURVEY I.
Percent Cover
Substratum Biota
Transect
Photograph
No. of Usable
Total
Non-algal
Unidentified
No.
No.
Points*
Sand
Rock
Rubble
Biota
Algae
Biota
Biota
1
1
183
95.6
0.0
0.5
3.8
3.3
0.0
0.5
1
2
192
91.7
3.6
0.0
4.7
0.0
1.0
3.6
1
3
181
98.9
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
4
184
98.9
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.0
1
5
174
90.8
0.0
0.0
9.2
0.6
0.0
8.6
2
1
173
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
2
179
92.2
1.1
0.6
6.1
1.1
1.1
3.9
2
3
172
75.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
11.6
7.0
6.4
2
4
173
97.1
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.6
2.3
2
5
179
99.4
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
3
1
166
97.6
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
1.8
0.6
3
2
178
98.9
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.6
0.6
3
3
182
89.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
1.6
3.3
6.0
3
4
170
92.4
0.0
0.0
7.6
0.0
3.5
4. 1
3
5
172
93.6
0.0
0.0
6.4
1.2
1.7
3.5
4
1
170
56.5
3E..8
0.0
4.7
0.6
1.2
2.9
4
2
174
80.5
16.7
0.0
2.9
0.0
2.3
0.6
4
3
173
90.2
0.0
0.6
9.2
0.0
8. 1
1.2
4
4
170
89.4
0.0
0.0
10.6
0.6
4.7
5.3
4
5
171
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
1
176
93.2
0.0
0.0
6.8
1.7
1.7
3.4
5
2
183
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
3
174
96.6
0.0
2.3
1.1
0.0
1.1
0.0
5
4
168
28.0
56.0
0.0
16.1
3.0
4.8
8.3
5
5
177
52.0
6.2
1.7
40.1
5.6
26.0
8.5
Mean
87.9
4.9
0.3
7.0
1.3
2.9
2.8
Standard
Deviation
17.6
13.5
0.6
9.0
2.5
5.3
2.9
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.18. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM
STATION OLD-C, SURVEY 1.
Percent Cover
Substratum Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Usable Total Non-algal Unidentified
No. No. Points* Sand Rock Rubble Biota Algae Biota Biota
1
1
198
nt
4.0
0.0
0.0
96.0
0.0
96.0
0.0
1
1
2
3
0
187
28.3
49.2
0.0
22.5
0.0
4.3
18.2
1
4
151
81.5
0.0
0.0
18.5
0.0
0.0
18.5
1
5
172
87.8
0.0
0.0
12.2
0.0
0.0
12.2
2
1
170
22.4
45.9
0.0
31.8
17.6
9.4
4.7
2
2
169
65.1
20.1
0.0
14.8
3.6
0.6
10.7
2
3
189
61.4
9.0
0.0
29.6
0.5
6.9
22.2
2
4
176
86.4
4.6
0.0
9. 1
0.0
0.6
8.5
2
5
170
75.9
8.2
0.0
15.9
0.0
1.2
14.7
3
1
191
47.6
2.1
0.5
49.7
14.7
2. 1
33.0
3
2
178
74.7
5.1
0.0
20.2
0.6
2.2
17.4
3
3
178
65.2
26.4
0.0
8.4
1.1
1.7
5.6
3
4
169
65.1
14.8
7.7
12.4
0.0
12.4
12.4
3
5
165
86.1
3.0
0.0
10.9
0.0
0.0
10.9
4
1
166
62.6
6.6
0.0
30.7
3.6
0.6
26.5
4
2
190
57.9
10.0
0.0
32.1
5.3
3.6
23.2
4
3
177
79.1
6.8
0.0
14.1
5.1
0.0
9.0
4
4
198
77.8
6.6
0.0
15.7
4.6
3.0
8. 1
4
5
178
48.9
18.0
0.0
33.1
6.7
5.6
20.8
5
c
1
195
nt
66.2
0.0
0.0
33.8
5.6
9.2
19.0
3
5
£.
3
U
173
74.6
0.0
0.0
25.4
0.0
0.0
25.4
5
4
162
68.5
12.3
0.0
19.1
0.0
0.0
19.1
5
5
186
78.5
4.8
0.0
16.7
0.0
0.5
16. 1
Mean
63.8
11.0
0.4
24.9
3.0
7.0
15.5
Standard
Deviation
21.0
13.5
1.6
18.5
4.8
19.7
7.9
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling
were excluded.
"•¦Too turbid for slide analysis.
on the measuring taper data box, or marker stake
-------
TABLE D.19. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM STATION
OLD-3, SURVEY II.
Percent Cover
Substratum Biota
Transect Photograph No. of Usable Total Non-algal Unidentified
No. No. Points* Sand Rock Rubble Biota Algae Biota Biota
1
1
161
82.6
0.0
0.6
16.8
14.9
0.0
1.9
1
2
196
46.4
11.7
0.5
41.3
34.2
4.6
2.6
1
3
173
93.1
0.0
0.6
6.4
1.7
2.9
1.7
1
4
181
64.1
0.6
0.0
35.4
23.2
2.2
9.9
1
5
181
50.3
0.0
48.1*
1.7
1.7
0.0
0.0
2
1
172
83.7
0.0
0.6
15.7
11.6
0.0
4. 1
2
2
170
81.8
0.0
0.0
18.2
5.9
8.8
3.5
2
3
178
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
4
179
86.0
0.0
0.0
14.0
2.8
1.1
10. 1
2
5
162
90.1
0.0
0.0
9.9
8.6
0.0
1.2
3
1
179
78.2
0.0
0.0
21.8
13.4
3.9
4.5
3
2
163
95.7
0.0
0.6
3.7
3.7
0.0
0.0
3
3
157
51.0
0.6
0.0
48.4
43.3
0.0
5.1
3
4
180
71.1
0.0
0.0
28.9
18.9
3.3
6.7
3
5
173
83.2
0.0
0.0
16.8
14.5
0.0
2.3
4
1
177
83.6
0.0
1.1
15.3
13.0
1.7
0.6
4
2
180
58.8
8.3
0.0
32.8
18.9
1.7
12.2
4
3
187
67.4
0.0
1.6
31.0
20.9
3.7
6.4
4
4
191
22.0
0.0
0.0
78.0
41.4
13.1
23.6
4
5
183
62.8
0.0
0.0
37.2
30.6
0.0
6.6
5
1
171
76.6
0.6
0.6
22.2
10.5
1.8
9.9
5
2
188
85.1
0.0
1.6
13.3
5.3
1.6
6.4
5
3
177
76.3
0.0
0.0
23.7
21.5
0.6
1.7
5
4
176
65.3
8.0
0.0
26.7
19.3
2.3
5. 1
5
5
180
23.9
12.2
0.0
63.9
37.8
14.4
11.7
Mean 71.2 1.7 2.2 24.9 16.7 2.7 5.5
Standard Deviation 20.3 3.8 9.6 18.6 12.7 3.9 5.3
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
*Shell hash (fine shell rubble intermixed with sand). Mean = 0.3 and standard deviation = 0.5 if this
value omitted.
-------
TABLE D.20. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM STATION
OLD-C, SURVEY II.
Percent Cover
Substratum Biota
Transect
Photograph
No. of Usable
Total
Non-algal
Unidentified
No.
No.
Points*
Sand
Rock
Rubble
Biota
Algae
Biota
Biota
1
1
1
»>
173
q-7t
17.9
56.1
0.0
26.0
7.5
14.6
4.0
1
1
z.
3
J f 1
166
11.4
0.0
0.0
88.6
4.8
0.6
83.1
1
4
191
14.1
20.4
0.0
65.5
14.7
1.6
49.2
1
5
158
25.3
7.6
0.0
67.1
13.9
3.2
50.0
2
1
164
18.9
15.8
0.0
65.3
34.8
7.9
22.6
2
2
191
33.0
8.9
0.0
58.1
11.0
6.3
40.8
2
3
168
8.9
7.1
0.0
84.0
31.0
7.1
45.8
2
4
186
29.0
9.1
0.0
61.8
12.9
2.2
46.8
2
5
174
45.4
6.9
0.0
47.7
20.7
4.6
22.4
3
1
168
26.2
3.0
0.0
70.8
7.7
3.0
60. 1
3
2
169
42.6
1.8
0.0
55.6
20.7
16.6
18.3
3
3
176
23.9
2.3
0.5
73.3
31.2
1.7
40.3
3
4
178
43.3
12.4
0.0
44.4
4.5
3.9
36.0
3
5
170
47.1
0.0
0.0
52.9
27. 1
0.0
25.9
4
1
171
12.3
12.3
0.0
75.4
9.9
2.3
63.2
4
2
169
10.1
10.1
0.0
79.9
27.2
7.1
45.6
4
3
170
14.7
0.6
0.0
84.7
29.4
0.6
54.7
4
4
172
48.3
2.3
0.0
49.4
18.6
4.7
26.2
4
5
171
14.6
5.8
0.0
79.5
7.6
8.2
63.7
5
1
159
44.0
6.9
0.0
49.1
15.7
28.3
5.0
5
2
163
46.0
6.7
0.0
47.2
31.9
4.9
10.4
5
3
169
53.8
3.6
0.0
42.6
17.8
11.8
13.0
5
4
166
50.6
4.8
0.0
44.6
28.3
2.4
13.9
5
5
176
30.7
7.4
0.0
61.9
47.2
2.3
12.5
Mean
29.7
8.8
0.0
61.5
19.8
6. 1
35.6
Standard
Deviation
15.1
11.2
0.1
16.1
11.2
6.4
21.3
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
*Too turbid for slide analysis.
-------
TABLE D.21. PERCENT COVER ESTIMATES FROM QUANTITATIVE SLIDE ANALYSIS OF QUADRAT PHOTOGRAPHS FROM STATION
OLD-E, SURVEY II.
Percent Cover
Substratum Biota
Transect
Photograph
No. of Usable
Total
Non-algal Unidentified
No.
No.
Points*
Sand
Rock
Rubble
Biota
Algae
Biota
Biota
1
1
171
96.5
0.0
0.0
3.5
2.3
1.2
0.0
1
2
194
65.5
0.0
0.0
34.5
25.3
0.0
9.3
1
3
173
49.1
0.0
0.0
56.6
43.9
6.9
5.8
1
4
175
80.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
6.9
2.3
10.9
1
5
190
89.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
5.2
4.2
1.6
2
1
191
77.5
0.0
0.0
22.5
13.6
2.6
6.3
2
2
185
89.2
0.0
0.0
10.8
9.7
0.0
1.1
2
3
188
97.9
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
2
4
183
98.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
5
191
80.6
0.0
0.0
19.4
10.5
0.0
8.9
3
1
191
90.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
1.6
1.0
7.3
3
2
195
88.7
0.0
0.0
11.3
8.7
0.0
2.6
3
3
194
77.3
0.0
0.0
22.7
5.7
0.0
17.0
3
4
171
92.4
2.3
0.0
5.3
1.8
0.0
3.5
3
5
185
89.2
0.0
0.0
10.8
4.9
1.6
4.3
4
1
190
89.5
0.0
0.0
10.5
0.0
1.6
8.9
4
2
189
88.4
3.2
0.0
8.5
1.6
0.5
6.3
4
3
182
77.5
1.1
0.0
21.4
8.2
2.2
11.0
4
4
179
91.6
0.0
0.0
8.4
3.9
0.0
4.5
4
5
187
88.8
0.0
0.0
11.2
7.5
0.0
3.7
5
1
179
62.6
0.0
0.0
37.4
19.6
15.1
2.8
5
2
183
74.9
0.6
0.0
24.5
8.7
0.5
15.3
5
3
179
78.8
2.8
0.0
18.4
7.8
1.1
9.5
5
4
180
83.3
1.1
0.0
15.6
8.3
5.6
1.7
5
5
195
43. 1
5.6
0.0
51.3
30.3
9.7
11.3
Mean
81.6
0.7
0.0
17.9
9.5
2.2
6.1
Standard
Deviation
14.0
1.4
0.2
14.3
10.4
3.6
4.7
*Out of possible 200 points per slide. Points falling on the measuring tape, data box, or marker stake
were excluded.
-------
TABLE D.22. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION C-3,
SURVEY III.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
59.778
NA
Halimeda sp.
8.845
23.629
unidentified biota
8.376
22.377
coralline algae
7.235
19.329
Cladocora arbuscula
2.910
7.774
red algae
2.733
7.302
rock
2.229
NA
Sarqassum sp.
1.813
4.844
green algae
1.335
3.568
unidentified Porifera
1.008
2.694
shell rubble
0.557
NA
Axinella sp.
0.460
1.229
Lytechinus varieqatus
0.353
0.945
Aplysina fistularis
0.336
0.898
Eucheuma isiforme
0.327
0.874
Spirastrella sp.
0.238
0.638
Cinachyra alloclada
0.212
0.567
Siderastrea sp.
0.203
0.543
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.115
0.307
Gracilaria sp.
0.106
0.284
Polycarpa circumarata
0.088
0.236
Epipolasis lithophaga
0.088
0.236
Echinaster sp.
0.070
0.189
Gracilaria debilis
0.061
0. 165
Manicina areolata
0.061
0. 165
Ulosa sp.
0.053
0. 142
Anthosiqmella varians
0.044
0. 118
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
0.035
0.095
Solenastrea hyades
0.035
0.095
Dictyota sp.
0.035
0.095
Phyllanqia americana
0.026
0.071
Axinellidae
0.026
0.071
Dictyopteris sp.
0.026
0.071
Arbacia punctulata
0.026
0.071
Stenorhynchus seticornis
0.026
0.071
Udotea sp.
0.026
0.071
Diplectrum fortnosum
0.026
0.071
Telesto sp.
0.017
0.047
Homaxinella waltonsmithi
0.017
0.047
Caulerpa sp.
0.008
0.024
Geodia gibberosa
0.008
0.024
Euryspongia rosea
0.008
0.024
D-67
-------
TABLE D.23. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION 1,
SURVEY III.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
64.293
NA
red algae
16.826
48.491
unidentified biota
7.250
20.894
coralline algae
3.322
9.576
Eucheuma isiforme
1.087
3. 134
Halimeda sp.
1.006
2.902
Botryocladia occidentalis
0.714
2.060
Cinachyra alloclada
0.704
2.031
rock
0.654
NA
Cladocora arbuscula
0.624
1.799
Gracilaria sp.
0.553
1.596
unidentified Porifera
0.483
1.393
Caulerpa sp.
0.271
0.784
dredge spoil
0.251
NA
Siderastrea sp.
0.241
0.696
Isophyllia sp.
0. 181
0.522
Sargassum sp.
0.151
0.435
green algae
0. 151
0.435
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
0. 141
0.406
Celleporaria magnifica
0.141
0.406
Solenastrea hyades
0.110
0.319
Spirastrella sp.
0. 100
0.290
Udotea sp.
0.100
0.290
shell rubble
0.090
NA
Phyllanqia americana
0.080
0.232
Diplectrum formosum
0.070
0.203
Axinella sp.
0.060
0.174
unidentified Osteichthyes
0.060
0. 174
unidentified Bryozoa
0.050
0. 145
Polycarpa circumarata
0.040
0. 116
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.040
0. 116
unidentified Scleractinia
0.030
0.087
Cinachyra sp.
0.020
0.058
Celleporaria albirostris
0.020
0.058
Phakellia folium
0.020
0.058
Axinellidae
0.010
0.0 29
Echinaster sp.
0.010
0.029
coral rubble
0.010
NA
Synodus sp.
0.010
0.029
Hippoporidra edax
0.010
0.0 29
D-68
-------
TABLE D.24. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION F,
SURVEY III.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
76.144
NA
dredge spoil
12.598
NA
unidentified biota
3.901
36.936
Halimeda sp.
1.568
14.850
blue-green algal film
0.992
9.398
coralline algae
0.784
7.425
Diplectrum formosum
0.615
5.827
rock
0.526
NA
Axinella sp.
0.476
4.511
green algae
0.397
3.759
unidentified Porifera
0.208
1.974
red algae
0. 188
1.786
Cladocora arbuscula
0.168
1.598
shell rubble
0. 168
NA
Cinachyra alloclada
0.158
1.504
Gracilaria sp.
0.129
1.222
Solenastrea hyades
0. 119
1.128
Cinachyra sp.
0.119
1.128
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.109
1.034
Celleporaria maqnifica
0.109
1.034
Udotea sp.
0.099
0.940
Spirastrella sp.
0.069
0.658
Horaaxinella waltonsmithi
0.059
0.564
Polycarpa circumarata
0.049
0.470
Axinellidae
0.049
0.470
Celleporaria albirostris
0.049
0.470
Phyllanqia americana
0.039
0.376
Siderastrea sp.
0.039
0.376
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
0.029
0.282
Eucheuma isiforme
0.019
0. 188
Echinaster sp.
0.009
0.094
D-69
-------
TABLE D.25. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TOPES AT STATION
OLD-3, SURVEY III.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
84.731
NA
coralline algae
3.677
28.562
unidentified biota
2.574
20.000
rock
1.744
NA
red algae
1.094
8.498
Haliineda sp.
0.756
5.879
Cladocora arbuscula
0.649
5.048
shell rubble
0.641
NA
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.641
4.984
unidentified Porifera
0.617
4.792
Caulerpa racemosa
0.419
3.259
green algae
0.287
2.236
Codium sp.
0.189
1.470
Aplysina fistularis
0.181
1.406
Axinella sp.
0.164
1.278
Cinachyra sp.
0.148
1. 150
Siderastrea sp.
0.131
1.022
Cliona sp.
0.123
0.958
Cinachyra alloclada
0.115
0.895
Caulerpa sp.
0.098
0.767
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
0.090
0.703
Spirastrella sp.
0.090
0.703
unidentified Hydrozoa
0.090
0.703
Celleporaria albirostris
0.090
0.703
Homaxinella waltonsmithi
0.082
0.639
Solenastrea hyades
0.074
0.575
Celleporaria sp.
0.074
0.575
Geodia gibberosa
0.065
0.511
Cinachyra kuekenthali
0.065
0.511
Botryocladia occidentalis
0.041
0.319
Telesto sp.
0.032
0.256
Polycarpa circumarata
0.024
0. 192
Lytechinus varieqatus
0.024
0.192
Diplectrum formosum
0.024
0. 192
Phakellia folium
0.024
0. 192
Axinellidae
0.016
0. 128
Udotea sp.
0.016
0.128
unidentified Scleractinia
0.016
0.128
Schizoporella unicornis
0.016
0. 128
unidentified Bryozoa
0.016
0. 128
Didemnidae
0.016
0. 128
coral rubble
0.008
NA
Hypselodoris edenticulata
0.008
0.064
D-70
-------
TABLE 0.26. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION C-3,
SURVEY IV.
Biota or Substratum Type
Percent Cover
Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
73.969
NA
Halimeda sp.
7.128
28.074
unidentified biota
5.440
21.429
Cladocora arbuscula
3.663
14.428
coralline algae
3.103
12.225
Sargassum sp.
1.290
5.082
unidentified Porifera
0.541
2.132
red algae
0.523
2.061
Aplysina fistularis
0.451
1.777
Diplectrum forraosum
0.415
1.630
Polycarpa circumarata
0.379
1.490
rock
0.270
NA
Spirastrella sp.
0.225
0.890
green algae
0.216
0.850
coral rubble
0.207
NA
Axinella sp.
0.180
0.710
Timea sp.
0.180
0.710
shell rubble
0.162
NA
Siderastrea radians
0.162
0.640
Amathia convoluta
0.153
0.600
Area zebra
0.117
0.460
Lytechinus variegatus
0.108
0.430
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.108
0.430
Homaxinella waltonsmithi
0.099
0.390
Phyllanqia americana
0.081
0.320
Manicina areolata
0.081
0.320
unidentified Hydrozoa
0.081
0.320
Cinachyra alloclada
0.081
0.320
Celleporaria albirostris
0.054
0.210
Cliona sp.
0.054
0.210
Leucetta sp.
0.054
0.210
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
0.045
0.180
Ulosa sp.
0.045
0. 180
Echinaster sp.
0.036
0.140
Cinachyra sp.
0.0 36
0. 140
Diadema antillarum
0.036
0. 140
Mangrove pod
0.036
0.140
Phakellia folium
0.027
0.110
Didemnum candidum
0.027
0.110
Peyssonnelia siraulans
0.027
0. 110
Udotea sp.
0.018
0.070
Polyandrocarpa floridana
0.018
0.070
Dysidea sp.
0.018
0.070
Axinellidae
0.009
0.040
Gracilaria sp.
0.009
0.040
unidentified Scleractinia
0.009
0.040
unidentified Bryozoa
0.009
0.040
Muricea sp.
0.009
0.040
D-71
-------
TABLE D. 27. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION 1,
SURVEY IV.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
67.984
NA
unidentified biota
12.471
39.670
red algae
11.137
35.420
coralline algae
2.473
7.870
Cladocora arbuscula
0.852
2.710
Halimeda sp.
0.831
2.640
Cinachyra alloclada
0.636
2.020
unidentified Porifera
0.595
1.890
Diplectrum formosum
0.349
1.110
rock
0.307
NA
Didemnura sp.
0.215
0.690
unidentified Bryozoa
0.195
0.620
dredge spoil
0. 195
NA
Isophyllia sp.
0.174
0.555
Phyllanqia americana
0.143
0.457
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
0.143
0.457
Amathia convoluta
0.133
0.424
Celleporaria maqnifica
0. 123
0.392
Polycarpa circumarata
0.102
0.326
Siderastrea radians
0.102
0.326
shell rubble
0.071
NA
Manicina areolata
0.071
0.229
Solenastrea hyades
0.061
0.196
Udotea sp.
0.061
0. 196
Celleporaria albirostris
0.061
0.196
Spirastrella sp.
0.051
0. 163
Hippoporidra edax
0.051
0. 163
Asteroidea
0.051
0. 163
Anthosiqmella varians
0.041
0.131
Axinellidae
0.041
0. 131
Axinella sp.
0.030
0.098
green algae
0.030
0.098
Echinaster sp.
0.030
0.098
Geodia gibberosa
0.030
0.098
unidentified Osteichthyes
0.030
0.098
unidentified Octocoral
0.030
0.098
Botryocladia occidentalis
0.020
0.065
Placosponqia melobesioides
0.020
0.065
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.010
0.033
Phakellia folium
0.010
0.033
Peyssonnelia simulans
0.010
0.033
Cnidaria
0.010
0.033
D-72
-------
TABLE D.28. PERCENT OOVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION F,
SURVEY IV.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
93.678
NA
unidentified biota
1.422
28.420
Halimeda sp.
1.079
21.580
dredge spoil
0.974
NA
unidentified Porifera
0.465
9.300
coralline algae
0.439
8.770
rock
0.298
NA
Polycarpa circuraarata
0.263
5.260
Axinella sp.
0.245
4.910
Homaxinella waltonsmithi
0.201
4.040
Cinachyra alloclada
0. 166
3.330
Cladocora arbuscula
0. 114
2.280
Solenastrea hyades
0. 105
2.110
Placospongia melobesioides
0.079
1.580
Axinella sp. C. (zooanthids)
0.070
1.400
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.052
1.050
Cinachyra kuekenthali
0.052
1.050
green algae
0.043
0.880
unidentified Bryozoa
0.043
0.880
shell rubble
0.035
NA
Phyllanqia americana
0.026
0.530
Spirastrella sp.
0.026
0.530
Axinellidae
0.017
0.350
Udotea sp.
0.017
0.350
Celleporaria albirostris
0.017
0.350
Phakellia folium
0.017
0.350
Siderastrea radians
0.017
0.350
red algae
0.008
0. 180
coral rubble
0.008
NA
Didemnum sp.
0.008
0. 180
D-73
-------
TABLE D.29. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION
OLD-3, SURVEY IV.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
90.987
NA
unidentified biota
3.233
36. 150
Halimeda sp.
1.268
14.180
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.823
9.200
unidentified Porifera
0.655
7.320
coralline algae
0.512
5.730
Cladocora arbuscula
0.453
5.070
Cinachyra alloclada
0.386
4.320
red algae
0.310
3.470
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
0. 176
1.970
Axinella sp.
0. 168
1.880
Axinellidae
0. 142
1.600
Celleporaria albirostris
0.117
1.310
Siderastrea radians
0.084
0.940
Polvcarpa circuraarata
0.075
0.850
Spirastrella sp.
0.075
0.850
Geodia qibberosa
0.075
0.850
Solenastrea hyades
0.067
0.750
Homaxinella waltonsmithi
0.067
0.750
unidentified Bryozoa
0.058
0.660
Bothidae
0.058
0.660
shell rubble
0.042
NA
Cinachyra sp.
0.033
0.380
unidentified Hydrozoa
0.033
0.380
rock
0.025
NA
Cinachyra kuekenthali
0.025
0. 280
Homaxinella sp.
0.025
0.230
Cliona sp.
0.016
0. 190
D-74
-------
TABLE D.30. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION C-3,
SURVEY V.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
68.549
NA
Halimeda sp.
13.841
44.534
unidentified biota
4.096
13.180
coralline algae
3.647
11.737
Cladocora arbuscula
2.975
9.573
green algae
1.948
6.271
Udotea sp.
1.552
4.994
red algae
0.620
1.998
unidentified Porifera
0.577
1.859
Polycarpa circumarata
0.310
0.999
Siderastrea radians
0.241
0.777
rock
0.215
NA
Axinella sp.
0.181
0.583
Cinachyra alloclada
0. 155
0.499
Spirastrella sp.
0.138
0.444
Luidia alternata
0. 120
0.388
coral rubble
0.112
NA
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.094
0.305
Diadema antillarum
0.077
0.250
Axinellidae
0.060
0.194
Dictyota sp.
0.051
0.166
Homaxinella sp.
0.051
0. 166
Area zebra
0.051
0.166
shell rubble
0.043
NA
Cinachyra sp.
0.043
0.139
Phyllanqia araericana
0.034
0.111
Manicina areolata
0.034
0.110
Tridideranura sp.
0.034
0.110
Polyandrocarpa sp.
0.025
0.080
Aplysina fistularis
0.017
0.060
Hippoporidra edax
0.017
0.060
Astraea sp.
0.017
0.060
Gastropod egg mass
0.017
0.060
Ulosa sp.
0.008
0.030
Stenorhynchus seticornis
0.008
0.030
Geodia qibberosa
0.008
0.030
Botryocladia occidentalis
0.008
0.030
Anenome sp.
0.008
0.030
D-75
-------
TABLE D.31. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION 1,
SURVEY V.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
50.617
NA
blue-green algal film
22.676
46.246
unidentified biota
13.937
28.425
Halimeda sp.
2.971
6.059
coralline algae
2.304
4.700
red algae
2.261
4.611
Botryocladia occidentalis
1.048
2.139
Cladocora arbuscula
0.917
1.871
green algae
0.753
1.537
Udotea sp.
0.546
1. 114
rock
0.349
NA
unidentified Porifera
0.240
0.490
Isostichopus badionotus
0.218
0.446
Gracilaria sp.
0.207
0.423
Cinachyra sp.
0.185
0.379
Isophyllia sp.
0. 120
0.245
Cliona sp.
0.109
0.223
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
0.087
0. 178
Axinella sp.
0.076
0.156
Phyllangia americana
0.076
0.156
Solenastrea hyades
0.076
0.156
Siderastrea radians
0.076
0. 156
Celleporaria albirostris
0.043
0.089
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.032
0.067
Axinellidae
0.021
0.045
Spirastrella sp.
0.021
0.045
PoJycarpa circumarata
0.010
0.022
Homaxinella waltonsmithi
0.010
0.022
D-76
-------
TABLE 0.32. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION F,
SURVEY V.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
92.189
NA
unidentified biota
2.767
37.380
Halimeda sp.
1.833
24.770
unidentified Porifera
0.397
5.370
Axinella sp.
0.328
4.440
rock
0.328
NA
Udotea sp.
0.328
4.440
red algae
0.285
3.860
coralline algae
0.259
3.500
green algae
0. 198
2.690
Cladocora arbuscula
0.121
1.640
Aplysina fistularis
0. 103
1.400
Cinachyra sp.
0.103
1.400
Cinachyra kuekenthali
0. 103
1.400
Polycarpa circumarata
0.077
1.050
Homaxinella waltonsmithi
0.077
1.050
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.069
0.930
shell rubble
0.060
NA
Spirastrella sp.
0.060
0.820
Solenastrea hyades
0.060
0.820
Gracilaria sp.
0.060
0.820
Cinachyra alloclada
0.060
0.820
Homaxinella sp.
0.025
0.350
Phyllanqia americana
0.017
0.230
coral rubble
0.017
NA
Synodus sp.
0.017
0.230
blue-green algal film
0.017
0.230
Siderastrea radians
0.017
0.230
Axinellidae
0.008
0. 120
D-77
-------
TABLE D.33. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION
OLD-3, SURVEY V.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
84.831
NA
Halimeda sp.
2.692
18.180
coralline algae
2.155
14.550
unidentified biota
2.155
14.550
red algae
1.931
13.040
blue-green algal film
1.046
7.070
Cladocora arbuscula
0.948
6.400
Udotea sp.
0.670
4.530
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.652
4.410
shell rubble
0.357
NA
Codium sp.
0.322
2.170
unidentified Porifera
0.232
1.570
Udotea conqlutinata
0.214
1.450
Cinachyra alloclada
0.214
1.450
Aplysina fistularis
0.196
1.329
Halophila decipiens
0. 143
0.966
Ulosa sp.
0.125
0.845
green algae
0. 107
0.725
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
0.107
0.725
Valonia sp.
0.080
0.543
Geodia qibberosa
0.080
0.543
Diplectrum formosum
0.071
0.483
Siderastrea radians
0.071
0.483
Spirastrella sp.
0.062
0.423
Homaxinella waltonsmithi
0.062
0.423
Celleporaria albirostris
0.062
0.423
Axinella sp.
0.053
0.362
unidentified Hydrozoa
0.053
0.362
Axinellidae
0.044
0.302
Gracilaria sp.
0.035
0.242
Cinachyra kuekenthali
0.035
0.242
unidentified Osteichthyes
0.035
0.242
Gastropod egg mass
0.035
0.242
Phyllangia americana
0.017
0. 121
Polycarpa circumarata
0.017
0.121
Stenorhynchus seticornis
0.017
0. 121
Diadema antillarum
0.017
0.121
Solenastrea hyades
0.008
0.060
Dictyota sp.
0.008
0.060
Placospongia melobesioides
0.008
0.060
Astraea sp.
0.008
0.060
D-78
-------
TABLE D.34. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION C-3,
SURVEY VII.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
62.371
NA
red algae
9.508
25.750
Halimeda sp.
7.458
20.198
coralline algae
6.438
17.434
unidentified biota
5.775
15.639
Cladocora arbuscula
3.079
8.339
Udotea sp.
1.064
2.882
unidentified Porifera
0.337
2.268
Diadema antillarum
0.348
0.945
Polycarpa circumarata
0.322
0.874
Sarqassum sp.
0.279
0.756
green algae
0.244
0.661
Spirastrella sp.
0.183
0.496
Siderastrea radians
0. 183
0.496
Isostichopus badionotus
0. 165
0.449
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.139
0.378
Aplysina fistularis
0.139
0.378
shell rubble
0. 130
NA
Gracilaria sp.
0.122
0.331
Botryocladia occidentalis
0.113
0.307
Axinella sp.
0.104
0.283
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
0. 104
0.283
Cinachyra alloclada
0.096
0.260
coral rubble
0.069
NA
Caulerpa sp.
0.061
0.165
Phyllanqia americana
0.034
0.094
Codium sp.
0.034
0.094
Axinellidae
0.017
0.047
Manicina areolata
0.017
0.047
Didemnum sp.
0.017
0.047
Area zebra
0.017
0.047
Teichaxinella sp.
0.008
0.024
Geodia gibberosa
0.008
0.024
D-79
-------
TABLE D.35. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION 1,
SURVEY VII.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
69.105
NA
red algae
17.454
56.498
unidentified biota
3.957
12.811
Caulerpa sp.
2. 154
6.974
Halophila decipiens
1.774
5.745
Polycarpa circumarata
1.632
5. 284
coralline algae
1.006
3.256
Halimeda sp.
0.892
2.887
green algae
0.351
1. 136
Udotea sp.
0.256
0.829
Botryocladia occidentalis
0.161
0.522
Codium sp.
0. 142
0.460
unidentified Porifera
0.132
0.430
Epipolasis lithophaqa
0. 123
0.399
Cinachyra alloclada
0.123
0.399
Cinachyra sp.
0. 104
0.337
Siderastrea radians
0.085
0.276
Cladocora arbuscula
0.075
0.245
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
0.075
0.245
Schizoporella unicornis
0.066
0.215
Sargassum sp.
0.047
0.153
Dictyota sp.
0.047
0. 153
Celleporaria albirostris
0.047
0. 153
Solenastrea hyades
0.037
0.122
Axinella sp.
0.0 28
0.092
Spirastrella sp.
0.0 28
0.092
Phyllanqia americana
0.018
0.061
Axinellidae
0.018
0.061
Gobiosoma sp.
0.009
0.030
Pandaros acanthifolium
0.009
0.030
unidentified Ascidiacea
0.009
0.030
Campanularia marqinata
0.009
0.030
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.009
0.030
D-80
-------
TABLE D.36. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION F,
SURVEY VII.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
39.347
NA
red algae
4.858
45.714
unidentified biota
2.032
19.127
Halimeda sp.
0.868
8. 175
coralline algae
0.548
5. 159
unidentified Porifera
0.337
3. 175
Udotea sp.
0.320
3.016
Axinella sp.
0.295
2.778
Caulerpa sp.
0.202
1.905
green algae
0.118
1.111
Cinachyra sp.
0.118
1.111
unidentified Osteichthyes
0. 118
1.111
Celleporaria albirostris
0.101
0.952
Homaxinella waltonsmithi
0.092
0.873
Cinachyra kuekenthali
0.092
0.873
Codium sp.
0.075
0.714
Cladocora arbuscula
0.067
0.635
Solenastrea hyades
0.059
0.556
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.050
0.476
Pteria colymbus
0.042
0.397
Cinachyra alloclada
0.042
0.397
Luidia alternata
0.042
0.397
Cliona sp.
0.033
0.317
Axinellidae
0.025
0.238
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
0.025
0.238
Dictyota sp.
0.025
0.238
Sargassum sp.
0.016
0.159
shell rubble
0.016
NA
rock
0.008
NA
Polycarpa circumarata
0.008
0.079
Siderastrea radians
0.008
0.079
D-81
-------
TABLE D.37. PERCENT COVER OF BIOTA AND SUBSTRATUM TYPES AT STATION
OLD-3, SURVEY VII.
Biota or Substratum Type Percent Cover Percent of Biotic Cover
sand
72.467
NA
red algae
15.058
54.899
unidentified biota
4.040
14.730
coralline algae
2. 196
8.009
Halimeda sp.
1.387
5.057
Cladocora arbuscula
0.783
2.858
Udotea sp.
0.611
2.230
Stephanocoenia michelinii
0.491
1.790
green algae
0.370
1.351
Caulerpa sp.
0.327
1. 193
unidentified Porifera
0.310
1.131
Codium sp.
0. 198
0.722
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
0.146
0.534
Siderastrea radians
0.137
0.503
Geodia gibberosa
0.129
0.471
Dictyota sp.
0.129
0.471
Cinachyra alloclada
0.120
0.440
shell rubble
0. 103
NA
Spirastrella sp.
0.103
0.377
Aplysina fistularis
0.094
0.345
Cliona sp.
0.094
0.345
Diadema antillarum
0.086
0.314
Botryocladia occidentalis
0.077
0.283
Solenastrea hyades
0.068
0.251
Valonia sp.
0.060
0.220
Axinella sp.
0.060
0.220
Cinachyra sp.
0.051
0.188
Epipolasis sp.
0.034
0.126
Lytechinus varieqatus
0.034
0.126
Area zebra
0.034
0.126
Siphonodicyton sp.
0.025
0.094
Acetabularia sp.
0.025
0.094
Astraea sp.
0.025
0.094
Halophila decipiens
0.017
0.063
Spondylus americana
0.017
0.063
Phyllanqia americana
0.017
0.063
Homaxinella waltonsmithi
0.017
0.063
Homaxinella sp.
0.017
0.063
unidentified Osteichthyes
0.008
0.031
Didemnum sp.
0.008
0.031
unidentified Microcionidae
0.008
0.031
D-82
-------
TABLE 0.38. STATION OCCURRENCE TABLE FOR SPECIES OF EPIBIOTA IN PHOTOGRAPHS AT HARD-BOTTOM STATIONS.
Survey:
VII
V
IV
III
VII
VII
IV
III
V
III
V
IV
VII
V
IV
III
OLD
OLD
OLD
OLD
Species Station:
1
1
1
3
F
F
F
F
3
3
3
C3
C3
C3
C3
Homaxinelia sp*
*
_
+
_
~
Valonia sp.
+
*
Spondvlus americana
•
Halophila decipiens
•
-
Area zebra
~
-
~
»
Epipolasis sp.
•
Schizoporella unicornis
*
*
Siphonodicyton sp*
*
Acetabularia sp.
•
Astraea sp.
*
*
*
Polyandrocarpa sp.
*
•
Dysidea sp.
•
Huricea sp*
*
Gracilaria sp.
+
*
•
¥
-
-
+
Tiaea sp*
*
Axinella sp*
.
.
.
~
•
*
*
-
.
¥
.
-
-
Spirastrella sp.
-
-
+
+¦
#
•
•
*
*
•
*
Amathia convoluta
•
Siderastrea sp*
-
*
¥
-
¥
-
*
¥
•
•f
•
•
~
Lvtechinus varieqatus
-
-
~
*
Hippoporidra edax
*
-
¥
Leucetta sp*
*
Celleporaria sp.
-
.
¥
•f
*
-
•
*
¥
*
-
Pseudaxinella lunaecharta
-
-
-
-
¥
-
-
+
¥
*
-
-
•
Ulosa sp*
*
•
-
-
Isophyllia sp.
+
*
•
Pevssonnelia simulans
~
*
Phakellia folium
-
-
*
+
¥
Dictyota sp.
+
•
~
-
~
-
Echinaster sp.
~
-
¥
*
*
Diadena ant11la rum
~
-
•
¥
-
Cliona sp*
-
¥
+
*
-
-
Anthosiqmella varians
*
*
Telesto sp.
•
-
Didemnum sp.
*
*
~
-
-
Hanicina areolata
*
-
¥
*
~
Trididemnum sp.
*
Stenorhvnchus seticornis
«
-
•
Anenoae sp*
«
Botrvocladia occidentalis
-
*
•
•
-
-
-
*
Hypselodoris edenticuiata
•
Udotea sp*
-
-
•
•
+
¥
•
-
*
.
*
¥
*
•
•
Phvllanqia americana
-
~
•
¥
-
•
*
-
*
-
D-83
-------
TABLE D.38• CONTINUED*
Survey:
VII
V
IV
III
VII
VII
IV
III
V
III
V
IV
VII
V
IV
III
OLD
OLD
OLD
OLD
Species Stationi
1
1
1
1
3
F
F
F
F
3
3
3
C3
C3
C3
C3
Dictyopt.rls sp.
•
Arbacia punctulata
•
PolvcarDa circuoarata
*
.
.
.
*
-
-
.
.
-
-
-
•
Placosponcjia nelobesioides
.
*
Solenastrea hvades
•
-
-
-
-
+
*
+
~
•
¦f
Teichaxinella so.
*
EurvsDonqia rosea
•
Geodia qibberosa
-
~
•
*
*
•
•
•
Caulerpa sp.
•
-
-
*
•
•
Staphanocoenia michelinii
•
•
.
•
-
-
-
-
+
+
*
.
.
•
•
Canpanularia maririnata
*
Pandaros acanthifolium
*
Epioolasis lithophaqa
*
*
Codivaa sp.
-
+
+
*
•
•
Aolvsina fistularis
-
*
*
*
-
.
•
~
Eucheuma isiforrae
»
•
~
Cinachyra sp*
"
-
+
~
-
+-
*
>
*
*
.
-
-
-
Isostichopus badionotus
*
•
Pteria colymbus
*
Luidia alternata
•
*
Sargasauo sp.
•
-
.
-
•
*
coralline alqae
-
~
~
+
-
~
-
-
*
¥
-
*
¥
~
•
Halineda sp.
•
-
.
.
-
-
~
-
+
~
~
*
•
~
Cladocora arbuscula
•
—
—
•
~
•*
*
*
•
*
~
Species and stations are listed in order of output from the normal and Inverse classification analyses*
Cover percentages for each species were divided by total biotic cover for the station on that survey. For
this table, the cover percentages were then divided by the row maximum (i.e., the maximum biotic cover for
that species). Symbols are as follows:
* x > 75% of row maximum
+ SO < x <75% of row maximum
25 < x <50% of row maximum
0 < x <25% of row maxintum
D-84
-------
APPENDIX E
INFAUNAL DATA
E-l
-------
E-2
-------
TABLE E.1. SURVEY I INFAUNAL ABUNDANCE DATA.
J
Mean Abundance (no./m )
Total
Station Annelida Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Miscellaneous Mean SD
Site 4:
OLD— 1
1,402
749
403
13
140
2,707
755
OLD-2
915
691
550
160
238
2,554
832
OLD-3
3,411
666
288
70
480
4,915
1,831
OLD—4
4,870
723
339
134
539
6,605
2, 104
OLD-5*
3,347
506
352
51
538
4,794
2,189
OLD-6
1,261
493
352
378
402
2,886
674
OLD-7
2,093
1,062
1,242
179
186
4,762
1,139
OLD-8
3,456
934
371
211
622
5,594
1,758
OLD-A
1,190
410
429
0
147
2,176
493
OLD-B
11,923
851
397
6
743
13,920
4,252
OLD-C
1,005
672
262
198
231
2,368
459
OLD-D
1,472
326
211
32
321
2,362
815
OLD-E
2,259
531
486
58
391
3,725
1,783
OLD-F
1,869
506
179
51
345
2,950
739
Control
Site:
C-1
1,587
538
621
19
90
2,854
1,424
C-2
1,466
589
371
237
147
2,810
695
>LD-C-3
1,626
518
1,690
102
314
4,250
1,338
Values are arithmetic means of 10 replicates.
*Same as "new" Station D.
-------
TABLE E.2. SURVEY I INFAUNAL BIOMASS DATA.
Mean Biomass (g wet wt/m^ )
Station Annelida Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Miscellaneous Total
Site 4:
OLD- 1
0.48
0.16
0.19
0.00
0.02
1.06
OLD-2
1.71
0.15
0.58
0.01
0.11
3.12
OLD-3
2.00
0.14
0.35
0.01
0.17
4.12
OLD-4
0.99
0.22
0.57
0.02
0.24
2.85
OLD-5*
0.69
0.10
0.50
0.00
0.12
2.77
OLD-6
1.32
0.19
0.16
0.01
0.12
3.15
OLD-7
2.41
0.28
0.40
0.02
0.02
4.66
OLD-8
2.26
0.38
0. 16
0.05
0.24
8.94
OLD-A
2.85
0.09
0.36
0.00
0.08
5.15
OLD-B
2.22
0.21
0.71
0.00
1.61
6.04
OLD-C
0.92
0.17
0.20
0.01
0.10
1.74
OLD-D
0.64
0.14
0.15
0.01
0.21
1.57
OLD-E
1.08
0.21
0.51
0.03
0.10
3.20
OLD-F
0.86
0.15
0.22
0.01
0.13
1.84
Control Site:
C-1
1.01
0.14
0.32
0.00
0.03
1.97
C-2
0.57
0.15
0.17
0.00
0.03
1.23
5LD-C-3
2.69
0.09
0.72
0.04
0.13
4.91
Values are geometric means of 10 replicates.
*Same as "new" Station D.
-------
TABLE E.3. SURVEY I SPECIES RICHNESS AND COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
PARAMETERS.
Station
Total
No. of
Taxa
Diversity
Index
(H')
Evenness
Index
(J')
Species
Richness
Index
(D)
Site 4:
OLD-1
OLD-2
OLD-3
OLD-4
OLD-5*
OLD-6
OLD-7
OLD-8
OLD-A
OLD-B
OLD-C
OLD-D
OLD-E
OLD-F
85
86
156
157
109
81
98
143
87
143
88
79
153
78
3.69
3.52
4.11
3.89
3.41
3.70
3.61
3.96
3.58
3.19
3.67
3.26
4.27
3.14
0.83
0.79
0.81
0.77
0.73
0.84
0.79
0.80
0.80
0.64
0.82
0.75
0.85
0.72
13.89
14.19
23.33
22.48
16.32
13.09
14.67
20.97
14.75
18.48
14.71
13.20
23.88
12.55
Control Site:
C-1 108
C-2 102
OLD-C-3 91
3.91
3.79
3.64
0.83
0.82
0.81
17.54
16.60
13.85
*Same as "new" Station D.
E-5
-------
TABLE E.4. SURVEY II INFAUNAL ABUNDANCE DATA.
Mean Abundance (no./m^)
Total
Station Annelida Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Miscellaneous Mean SD
Site 4:
OLD-3
OLD-5*
1,958
11,238
646
4,691
1,050
934
173
96
83
513
3,910
17,472
1,171
3,483
Control Sites
C-1
C-2
4,531
5,517
1,382
1,568
1,203
1,216
64
102
161
147
7,341
8,550
1,814
2,711
Values are arithmetic means of 10 replicates*
~Same as "new" Station D.
-------
TABLE E.5. SURVEY II INFAUNAL BIOMASS DATA.
Mean Biomass (g wet wt/m^)
Station
Annelida
Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Miscellaneous
Total
Site 4:
OLD-3
OLD-5*
1.23
3.58
0.27
1.87
0.62
2.30
0.20
0.06
0.08
0.75
3.72
10.24
Control Site:
C-1
C-2
1.89
2.09
1.26
0.28
2.03
0.95
0.02
0.03
0.27
0.06
7.33
3.92
Values are geometric means of 10 replicates.
~Same as "new" Station D.
-------
TABLE E.6. SURVEY II SPECIES RICHNESS AND COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
PARAMETERS.
Station
Total
No. of
Taxa
Diversity
Index
(H')
Evenness
Index
(J')
Species
Richness
Index
(D)
Site 4:
OLD-3
OLD-5*
157
227
4.33
3.99
0.86
0.74
24.32
28.56
Control Site:
C-1 189
C-2 141
4.25
3.65
0.81
0.74
26.69
19.45
*Same as "new" Station D.
E-8
-------
TABLE E.7. SURVEY III INFAUNAL ABUNDANCE DATA.
Mean Abundance (no./m^ )
Total
Station Annelida Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Miscellaneous Mean SD
Site 4:
1
5,427
1, 146
877
58
236
7,744
904
2
1,888
1,050
710
0
288
3,936
1,171
3
5,939
1,894
506
90
352
8,781
2,723
4
4,371
1,542
666
218
435
7,232
2,655
5
10,778
1, 107
474
224
550
13,133
5,953
6
2,157
858
384
109
198
3,706
2,513
7
3,616
1,024
301
141
249
5,331
2,643
8
9,472
2,694
1,254
819
921
15,162
6,617
A
1,491
1,030
1,459
19
270
4,269
541
B
1,510
1,267
813
0
212
3,802
755
C
2,995
1,171
768
38
346
5,318
1,722
D*
6,528
1,920
544
19
442
9,453
4, 127
E
6,682
4,058
1,882
346
946
13,914
7,611
F
3,949
1,894
307
128
205
6,483
2,351
OLD-3
1,446
845
282
58
102
2,733
1,522
Control
Site:
C-1
1,478
653
358
26
154
2,669
1, 153
C-2
1,165
499
493
19
147
2,323
564
C-3
1,498
730
442
51
172
2,893
715
Values are arithmetic means of 10 replicates.
*Same as Station OLD-5.
-------
TABLE E.8. SURVEY HI INFAUNAL BIOMASS DATA.
Mean Biomass (g wet wt/m^)
Station Annelida Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Miscellaneous Total
Site 4:
1
1.69
0.18
0.73
0.02
0. 10
3.28
2
2.67
0.27
0.62
0.00
0.07
4.39
3
1.53
0.77
0.50
0.05
0.50
4.51
4
2.43
0.40
0.69
0.20
0. 18
4.74
5
4.89
0.18
0.48
0.08
0.71
8.18
6
0.39
0.24
0.32
0.10
0.18
2.40
7
2.28
0.16
0.08
0.01
0.10
3.04
8
2.20
1.37
2.85
0.95
0.59
12.35
A
2.87
0.19
1.75
0.01
0.14
6.29
B
2.87
0.22
0.77
0.00
0.08
4.30
C
2.74
0.44
0.34
0.04
0.27
6.16
D*
1.96
0.42
0.52
0.00
0.29
3.72
£
2.54
1.23
6.05
0.28
0.49
12.22
F
2.41
0.77
0.60
0.11
0.20
5.90
OLD-3
0.68
0.13
0.15
0.03
0.09
1.60
Control Site:
C-1
0.72
0.11
0.36
0.01
0.08
1.83
C-2
0.58
0.21
0.36
0.01
0.10
1.68
C-3
1.16
0.39
0.34
0.06
0.13
3.35
Values are geometric means of 10 replicates*
*Same as Station OLD-5.
-------
TABLE E.9. SURVEY III SPECIES RICHNESS AND COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
PARAMETERS.
Station
Total
No. of
Taxa
Diversity
Index
(H-)
Evenness
Index
(J')
Species
Richness
Index
(D)
Site 4:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
B
C
D*
E
F
OLD-3
158
120
186
179
204
138
141
247
117
140
161
176
246
214
129
3.48
3.98
4.08
4.16
3.85
4.18
4.02
4.42
3.84
4.11
4.40
4.08
4.48
4.33
4.30
0.69
0.83
0.78
0.80
0.72
0.85
0.81
0.80
0.81
0.83
0.87
0.79
0.81
0.81
0.88
22. 12
18.53
25.61
25.32
26.62
21.54
20.82
31.66
17.84
21.76
23.80
23.98
31.88
30.78
21.13
Control Site:
C-1 96
C-2 97
C-3 115
3.67
3.92
4.12
0.80
0.86
0.87
15.75
16.29
18.65
~Same as Station OLD-5.
E-ll
-------
TABLE E.10. SURVEY IV INFAUNAL ABUNDANCE DATA.
Mean Abundance (no./m^)
Total
Station Annelida Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Miscellaneous Mean SD
Site 4:
1
1,043
435
1,229
6
103
2,816
1,582
2
966
1,466
691
6
77
3,206
614
3
6,515
723
730
109
595
8,672
2,119
4
2,637
659
1,222
32
212
4,762
1,270
5
4,954
589
301
448
543
6,835
1,804
6
6,861
1,037
435
198
154
8,685
2,219
7
3,885
461
653
77
178
5,254
1,792
8
2,426
979
621
134
320
4,480
1,262
A
1,568
1,933
2,093
58
63
5,715
1,890
B
1,850
1,210
1,306
38
210
4,614
1,259
C
5,517
768
307
256
416
7,264
2,741
D*
3,968
1,184
659
198
404
6,413
2,263
E
1,568
659
2,765
122
243
5,357
3,447
F
2,771
717
166
179
269
4,102
1,836
OLD-3
6,080
685
448
243
269
7,725
3,242
Control
Site:
C-1
1,549
480
698
122
140
2,989
594
C-2
6,982
608
634
410
396
9,030
5,803
C-3
2,547
1,222
1,549
224
429
5,971
950
Values are arithmetic means of 10 replicates.
*Same as Station OLD-5.
-------
TABLE E.11. SURVEY IV INFAUNAL BIOMASS DATA.
Mean Biomass (g wet wt/m2 )
Station Annelida Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Miscellaneous Total
Site 4:
1
0.67
0.06
0.41
0.00
0.10
2.05
2
1.48
0.24
0.72
0.00
0.04
2.91
3
2.18
0.16
0.70
0.05
0.74
5.28
4
1.56
0.14
0.83
0.00
0.13
3.04
5
2.41
0.23
0.44
0.04
0.30
3.96
6
4.52
0.49
1.13
0.07
0.15
10.06
7
1.61
0.19
1.54
0.07
0.13
5.89
8
0.82
0.37
0.46
0.08
0.12
3.94
A
2.30
0.26
1.79
0.02
0.01
6.15
B
2.87
0.15
0.42
0.00
0.05
3.95
C
3.01
0.14
0.23
0.17
0.26
6.34
D*
1.89
0.24
0.47
0.02
0.26
3.70
E
1.13
0.11
0.67
0.01
0.08
2.90
F
0.93
0.55
0.47
0.12
0.37
7.18
OLD-3
2.42
0.44
0.52
0.05
0.50
5.99
Control Site:
C-1
1.18
0.19
0.74
0.02
0.08
2.84
C-2
1.74
0.36
0.23
0.13
0.18
3.78
C-3
2. 38
0.29
0.96
0.02
0.30
4.52
Values are geometric means of 10 replicates.
*Same as Station OLD-5.
-------
TABLE E.12. SURVEY IV SPECIES RICHNESS AND COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
PARAMETERS.
Station
Total
No. of
Taxa
Diversity
Index
(H' )
Evenness
Index
(J')
Species
Richness
Index
(D)
Site 4:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
B
C
D*
E
F
OLD-3
80
87
168
121
122
157
112
120
97
99
171
163
113
121
170
3.41
3.10
3.88
3.81
3.66
3.64
3.46
4.04
3.31
3.67
3.89
4.12
3.48
3.98
3.78
0.78
0.69
0.76
0.79
0.76
0.72
0.73
0.84
0.72
0.80
0.76
0.81
0.74
0.83
0.74
12.98
13.83
23.16
18.15
17.35
21.63
16.54
18.16
14.13
14.89
24.17
23.45
16.64
18.57
23.82
Control Site:
C-1 120
C-2 138
C-3 133
4.12
3.42
3.98
0.86
0.70
0.81
19.36
18.89
19.30
~Same as Station OLD-5.
E-14
-------
TABLE E.13. SURVEY V INFAUNAL ABUNDANCE DATA.
Mean Abundance (no./m2)
Total
Station Annelida Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Miscellaneous Mean SD
Site 4:
OLD-3
D*
3,002
6,893
1,747
2,976
410
768
179
186
217
396
5,555
11,219
2,398
4,729
Control Site:
C-1
C-2
4,102
1 1,187
2,598
2,822
986
269
461
397
243
263
8,390
14,938
1,278
4,447
Values are arithmetic means of 10 replicates.
*Same as Station OLD-5.
-------
TABLE E.14. SURVEY V INFAUNAL BIOMASS DATA.
Mean Biomasa (g wet wt/m^ )
Station Annelida Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Miscellaneous Total
Site 4s
OLD-3
D*
1.91
3.69
0.65
1.67
0.26
2.08
0.05
0.09
0.51
0.67
5.84
10.23
Control Site:
C-1
C-2
2.02
4.88
1.02
0.78
1.17
0.14
0.37
0.15
0.22
0.36
8.62
7.74
Values are geometric means of 10 replicates.
*Same as Station OLD-5.
-------
TABLE E.15. SURVEY V SPECIES RICHNESS AND COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
PARAMETERS.
Station
Total
No. of
Taxa
Diversity
Index
(H')
Evenness
Index
(J')
Species
Richness
Index
(D)
Site 4:
OLD-3
185
4.45
0.85
27.19
D*
217
4.27
0.79
28.92
Control Site:
C-1
192
4.36
0.83
26.61
C-2
216
4.03
0.75
27.72
*Same as Station OLD-5.
E-17
-------
TABLE E.16. SURVEY VII INFAUNAL ABUNDANCE DATA.
Mean Abundance (no./m2)
Total
Station Annelida Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Miscellaneous Mean SD
Site 4:
1
3,603
2,125
205
83
173
6,189
2,372
2
4,160
2,714
531
26
255
7,686
1,337
3
7,117
3,514
333
211
249
11,424
3,404
4
6,822
2,342
947
198
257
10,566
3,608
5
3,942
1,325
218
45
165
5,695
2,255
6
2,266
1,958
237
269
134
4,864
1,527
7
7,219
2,349
243
211
185
10,207
3,415
8
5,837
2,496
358
205
192
9,088
2,927
A
6,163
1,837
954
51
166
9,171
3,726
B
6,842
2,138
454
58
216
9,708
2,102
C
7,834
2,566
256
122
242
11,020
3,816
D*
5,549
4,211
499
58
281
10,598
3,056
E
6,733
2,893
531
154
325
10,636
2,292
F
5,882
2,035
774
51
179
8,921
3,668
OLD-3
5,043
1,715
314
179
282
7,533
3,466
Control
Site:
C- 1
4,582
2,509
762
141
249
8,243
2,335
C-2
8,128
2,950
262
128
218
11,686
3,516
C-3
4,531
3,238
774
160
257
8,960
2,250
Values are arithmetic means of 10 replicates.
*Same as Station OLD-5.
-------
TABLE E.17. SURVEY VII INFAUNAL BIOMASS DATA.
Mean Biomass (g wet wt/m2 )
Station Annelida Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Miscellaneous Total
Site 4:
1
2.19
2.86
0.38
0. 10
0.38
11.90
2
3.44
1.07
0.31
0.01
0.29
5.40
3
1.78
1.90
0.41
0.14
0.24
6.37
4
2.40
0.34
0.53
0.19
0.23
5.37
5
1.33
0.32
0.47
0.01
0.22
3.62
6
1.74
2.41
0.18
0.33
0.25
9.51
7
2.56
0.96
0.13
0.11
0.27
6.16
8
1.86
0.68
0.10
0.12
0.14
3.69
A
2.76
0.45
0.32
0.00
0.13
3.91
B
4.99
0.71
0.13
0.05
0.56
7.76
C
3.62
1.25
0.23
0.07
0.26
6.99
D*
2.39
2.58
0.46
0.02
0.65
8.72
E
3.55
1.19
0.68
0.06
0.57
14.98
F
4.64
0.50
0.98
0.04
0.14
9.29
OLD-3
2.46
0.71
0.31
0. 17
0.67
16.94
Control Site:
C-1
1.54
0.85
0.66
0.02
0.17
3.57
C-2
2.18
0.96
0. 16
0.03
0.24
4.00
C-3
1.70
1.03
0.93
0.04
0.14
5.11
Values are geometric means of 10 replicates.
*Same as Station OLD-5.
-------
TABLE E.18. SURVEY VII SPECIES RICHNESS AND COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
PARAMETERS.
Station
Total
No. of
Taxa
Diversity
Index
(H ¦)
Evenness
Index
(J')
Species
Richness
Index
(D)
Site 4:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
B
C
D*
E
F
OLD-3
147
156
192
192
148
154
185
180
168
167
226
199
227
159
210
4.08
4.12
4.14
3.91
3.98
4.29
3.88
4.03
3.94
3.83
4. z 1
4.24
4.27
3.97
4.40
0.82
0.82
0.79
0.74
0.80
0.85
0.74
0.78
0.77
0.75
0.78
0.80
0.79
0.78
0.82
21.24
21.86
25.51
25.78
21.65
23.07
24.95
24.66
22.98
22.66
30.20
26.71
30.48
21.82
29.56
Control Site:
C-1 151
C-2 183
C-3 183
4.07
3.89
4.24
0.81
0.75
0.81
20.95
24.23
25. 12
~Same as Station OLD-5.
E-20
-------
TABLE E.19. RANKED ABUNDANCES OF INFAUNAL TAXA COLLECTED AT SITE 4 AND
THE CONTROL SITE, ALL STATIONS AND SURVEYS.
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Taxon Collected Total
Oligochaeta (LPIL)
7683
9.20
Prionospio cristata
3404
4.08
Cirrophorus (LPIL)
3190
3.82
Ostracoda (LPIL)
3031
3.63
Polyqordius (LPIL)
2684
3.21
Protodorvillea kefersteini
1911
2.29
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
1526
1.83
Goniadides carolinae
1313
1.57
Paleanotus sp. A
1272
1.52
Armandia maculata
1114
1.33
Fabriciola trilobata
1055
1.26
Amphipoda (LPIL)
1038
1.24
Nereidae (LPIL)
991
1.19
Eunice vittata
986
1.18
Pionosyllis gesae
930
1.11
Exoqone lourei
891
1.07
Tellinidae (LPIL)
858
1.03
Leptochelia sp. D
841
1.01
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
837
1.00
Pisione sp. A
819
0.98
Ophiuroidea (LPIL)
788
0.94
Ancistrosyllis hartmanae
781
0.93
MageIona sp. C
776
0.93
Ceratocephale oculata
768
0.92
Sabellidae (LPIL)
759
0.91
Lumbrineris verrilli
664
0.79
Aqlaophamus verrilli
661
0.79
Bowmaniella portoricensis
656
0.79
Axiothella sp. A
575
0.69
Maldanidae (LPIL)
561
0.67
Eunice (LPIL)
516
0.62
Spionidae (LPIL)
511
0.61
Laevicardiura pictum
503
0.60
Cyclaspis unicornis
493
0.59
Apoprionospio dayi
489
0.59
Paratanaidae Genus K
488
0.58
Paguridae (LPIL)
470
0.56
Synchelidium americanum
468
0.56
Corbulidae (LPIL)
465
0.56
Mediomastus (LPIL)
450
0.54
Lucinidae (LPIL)
449
0.54
Turbellaria (LPIL)
437
0.52
Anchialina typica
436
0.52
Microdeutopus myersi
420
0.50
E-21
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of
Percent
Individuals
of
Taxon
Collected
Total
Maqelona pettiboneae
390
0.47
Lumbrineris (LPIL)
389
0.47
Owenia sp. A
385
0.46
Dentatisyllis carolinae
376
0.45
Gastropoda (LPIL)
376
0.45
Paraprionospio pinnata
373
0.45
Aricidea taylori
370
0.44
Parapionosyllis lonqicirrata
367
0.44
Cyclaspis sp. N
356
0.43
Brachiopoda (LPIL)
350
0.42
Eunicidae (LPIL)
340
0.41
Cumella sp. G
339
0.41
Nephtys simoni
338
0.40
Ehlersia sp. E
319
0.38
Echinoidea (LPIL)
312
0.37
Aricidea wassi
311
0.37
Aspidosiphon albus
303
0.36
Galathowenia oculata
299
0.36
Garosyrrhoe sp. B
290
0.35
Acuminodeutopus sp. A
289
0.35
Cyclasjais sp. K
289
0.35
Prionospio (LPIL)
285
0.34
Heteropodarke formalis
275
0.33
Xenanthura brevitelson
275
0.33
Nephtyidae (LPIL)
274
0.33
Acuminodeutopus (LPIL)
272
0.33
Crassinella lunulata
263
0.31
Cirratulidae (LPIL)
257
0.31
Campylaspis sp. I
257
0.31
Mediomastus californiensis
253
0.30
Lumbrineris sp. D
241
0.29
Rutiderma (LPIL)
240
0.29
Cirrophorus branchiatus
239
0.29
Isaeidae Genus A
230
0.28
Lembos (LPIL)
229
0.27
Tellina sp. I
228
0.27
Chone (LPIL)
219
0.26
Cumella sp. H
217
0.26
Spio pettiboneae
192
0.23
Mysidopsis furca
192
0.23
Ehlersia cornuta
187
0.22
Tellina (LPIL)
183
0.22
Branchiostoma floridae
183
0.22
Phyllodocidae (LPIL)
181
0.22
E-22
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of
Percent
Individuals
of
Taxon
Collected
Total
Terebellidae (LPIL)
180
0.22
Decapoda natantia (LPIL)
174
0.21
Hesionura sp. A
173
0.21
Spiophanes borabyx
173
0.21
Cyclaspis sp. D
173
0.21
Seraelidae (LPIL)
172
0.21
Ceratocephale sp. B
171
0.20
Parapionosyllis sp. A
169
0.20
Branchiostoma (LPIL)
168
0.20
Serolis mgrayi
166
0.20
Tellina versicolor
164
0.20
Philine sagra
164
0.20
Heteropodarke lyonsi
163
0.20
Synelmis sp. B
162
0. 19
Processa hemphilli
162
0.19
Processa (LPIL)
162
0. 19
Synelmis ewingi
155
0. 19
Amphiuridae (LPIL)
155
0. 19
Asteroidea (LPIL)
152
0. 18
Schistomerinqos pectinata
150
0.18
Caecum pulchellum
150
0.18
Strombiformis auricinctus
147
0.18
Acuminodeutopus naqlei
147
0.18
Calozodion wadei
147
0. 18
Podarke sp. D
140
0.17
Ceratonereis (LPIL)
136
0.16
Monoculodes nyei
136
0. 16
Brania wellfleetensis
134
0. 16
Polynoidae (LPIL)
132
0.16
Abra lioica
132
0.16
Ampelisca bicarinata
132
0.16
Pettiboneia sp. A
131
0.16
Natica pusilla
131
0.16
Mooreonuphis pallidula
130
0.16
Cyclaspis varians
130
0.16
Glycera sp. A
129
0.15
Metharpina floridana
129
0. 15
Aricidea philbinae
128
0.15
Synasterope (LPIL)
128
0.15
Glycera (LPIL)
126
0.15
Therochaeta sp. A
125
0.15
Abra aequalis
125
0.15
Caulleriella cf. alata
124
0. 15
Sphaerosyllis aciculata
123
0.15
E-23
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Taxon Collected Total
Tiron triocellatus
Tharyx cf. annulosus
Elasmopus sp. C
Cyclaspis (LPIL)
Acteocina candei
Eudevenopus honduranus
Leptochela serratorbita
Plslone remota
Haminoea succinea
Aricidea cerrutii
Podarkeopsis levifuscina
Exogone atlantica
Ceradocus sp. C
Siqambra bassi
Eurydice littoralis
Volvulella persimilis
Aricidea (LPIL)
Malacoceroa indicus
Mitrella lunata
Melitidae (LPIL)
Aricidea sp. E
Ampelisca (LPIL)
Amphiodia pulchella
Exogone dispar
Lumbrinerldes dayi
Podocerus brasiliensis
Aspidosiphon gosnoldi
Sigalionidae Genus A
Onuphidae (LPIL)
Parvilucina multilineata
Nereis (LPIL)
Maera sp. G
Cyclaspis bacescui
Photis (LPIL)
Capitellidae (LPIL)
Plakosyllis quadrioculata
Lima pellucida
Ophioderma (LPIL)
Sipuncula (LPIL)
Aricidea sp. H
Oxyurostylis sp. B
Strombiformis hemphilli
Gouldia cerina
Nephtys pieta
123
0. 15
122
0.15
120
0. 14
120
0.14
119
0. 14
117
0.14
117
0.14
115
0.14
113
0. 14
111
0. 13
110
0. 13
107
0.13
103
0.12
102
0.12
100
0.12
98
0.12
97
0. 12
97
0.12
97
0. 12
97
0. 12
96
0.11
93
0.11
93
0.11
91
0.11
90
0.11
90
0.11
87
0.10
87
0.10
86
0.10
86
0.10
85
0. 10
85
0.10
85
0. 10
83
0.10
82
0.10
82
0.10
82
0.10
82
0.10
81
0. 10
81
0. 10
81
0. 10
80
0.10
79
0.09
76
0.09
E-24
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Taxon Collected Total
Olivella (LPIL)
76
0.09
Goniada littorea
75
0.09
Boguea enigmatica
75
0.09
Divaricella quadrisulcata
75
0.09
Pseudophiloraedes polyancistrus
75
0.09
Calyptraea centralis
74
0.09
Aoridae (LPIL)
74
0.09
Phoronis (LPIL)
71
0.08
Spiophanes cf. raissionensis
71
0.08
Mastobranchus variabilis
69
0.08
Photis (LPIL)
69
0.08
Sphaerosyllis glandulata
68
0.08
Soleraya occidentalis
68
0.08
Cyclaspis sp. 0
68
0.08
Actiniaria (LPIL)
67
0.08
Apseudidae Genus H
67
0.08
Ampharetidae (LPIL)
66
0.08
Laonice cirrata
66
0.08
Pectinaria gouldii
65
0.08
Acteon punctostriatus
65
0.08
Branchiostoma virginiae
64
0.08
Serpulidae (LPIL)
63
0.08
Turridae (LPIL)
63
0.08
Sicyonia typica
63
0.08
Pararaphinome sp. B
61
0.07
Synelmis klatti
61
0.07
Terebellides sp. C
61
0.07
Araphiodia (LPIL)
61
0.07
Nereis sp. E
60
0.07
Aricidea sp. A
59
0.07
Isolda pulchella
58
0.07
Boguea sp. A
58
0.07
Processa berraudensis
57
0.07
Magelona (LPIL)
56
0.07
Marginella (LPIL)
56
0.07
Cuniacea (LPIL)
56
0.07
Asteropteryqion oculitristis
56
0.07
Dentaliura (LPIL)
55
0.07
Crustacea (LPIL)
55
0.07
Apseudes propinquus
55
0.07
Trichobranchidae (LPIL)
54
0.06
Eusarsiella elofoni
53
0.06
Prionospio cirrifera
52
0.06
Pectinariidae (LPIL)
52
0.06
E-25
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Taxon Collected Total
Linqa amiantus
52
0.06
Photis sp. D
52
0.06
Crenella divaricata
51
0.06
Ehlersia ferrugina
50
0.06
Opisthodonta sp. B
50
0.06
Ampelisca sp. A
50
0.06
Asychis elongatus
49
0.06
Odontosyllis enopla
49
0.06
Aricidea catherinae
48
0.06
Verticordia ornata
48
0.06
Dentalium eboreum
48
0.06
Golfingia sp. V
47
0.06
Litocorsa sp. A
47
0.06
Syllidae (LPIL)
47
0.06
Gitana calitemplado
46
0.06
Mitrella (LPIL)
45
0.05
Hippomedon sp. B
45
0.05
Amboleberis americana
45
0.05
Hesionidae (LPIL)
44
0.05
Anaitides longipes
44
0.05
Ischnochiton sp. A
44
0.05
Mysidae (LPIL)
44
0.05
Spiochaetopterus oculatus
43
0.05
Lumbrineris latreilli
43
0.05
Oqyrides alphaerostris
43
0.05
Leptochela papulata
42
0.05
Siqambra tentaculata
41
0.05
Campylaspis sp. M
41
0.05
Branchiostoma lonqirostrum
41
0.05
Olividae (LPIL)
40
0.05
Notoraastus (LPIL)
39
0.05
Magelona sp. I
39
0.05
Galathowenia (LPIL)
39
0.05
Sphaerosyllis piriferopsis
39
0.05
Maera sp. D
39
0.05
Eusarsiella disparalis
39
0.05
Vermiliopsis annulata
38
0.05
Pista sp. B
38
0.05
Caecum (LPIL)
38
0.05
Phascolion strombi
37
0.04
Schistomerinqos cf. rudolphi
36
0.04
Scolelepis squamata
36
0.04
Finella dubia
36
0.04
Ampelisca sp. C
36
0.04
E-26
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Taxon Collected Total
Anthuridae (LPIL)
35
0.04
Hipporaedon sp. A
35
0.04
Erichthonius brasiliensis
35
0.04
Aspidosiphon (LPIL)
34
0.04
Glycera sp. M
34
0.04
Ceratonereis longicirrata
34
0.04
Megalomma pigmentum
34
0.04
Varicorbula operculata
34
0.04
Cylichna sp. B
34
0.04
Hippolyte zostericola
34
0.04
Macroclymene sp. C
33
0.04
Phyllodoce arenae
33
0.04
Turridae Genus H
32
0.04
Marginella lavalleeana
32
0.04
Arene tricarinata
32
0.04
Apanthura magnifica
32
0.04
Carinobatea carinata
32
0.04
Campylaspis sp. E
32
0.04
Glycera americana
31
0.04
Paraonidae (LPIL)
31
0.04
Megamphopus sp. A
31
0.04
Harbansus paucichelatus
31
0.04
Atys sandersoni
30
0.04
Aonides mayaguezensis
29
0.03
Eusarsiella pillipollicis
29
0.03
Amphi nomi dae (LPIL)
28
0.03
Litocorsa antennata
28
0.03
Typosyllis sp. A
28
0.03
Naticidae (LPIL)
28
0.03
Caecum imbricatura
28
0.03
Acanthochitona pygmaea
28
0.03
Leitoscoloplos fragilis
27
0.03
Sigalionidae (LPIL)
27
0.03
Fauveliopsis sp. A
27
0.03
Aspidosiphon muelleri
26
0.03
Sipunculus nudus
26
0.03
Lumbrineris januarii
26
0.03
Sphaerosyllis riser!
26
0.03
Exogone sp. B
26
0.03
Cardiomya perrostrata
26
0.03
Chaetopteridae (LPIL)
25
0.03
Glycera dibranchiata
25
0.03
Synopia ultramarina
25
0.03
Brachyura (LPIL)
25
0.03
E-27
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Taxon Collected Total
Mystides borealis
24
0.03
Fimbriosthenelais minor
24
0.03
Photis melanicus
24
0.03
Cumella (LPIL)
24
0.03
Hydroides sp. E
23
0.03
Poecilochaetus (LPIL)
23
0.03
Macrochaeta sp. A
23
0.03
Diplodonta punctata
23
0.03
Polyplacophora (LPIL)
23
0.03
Ampelisca agassizi
23
0.03
Lysianassidae (LPIL)
23
0.03
Tiron tropakis
23
0.03
Amphideutopus sp. A
23
0.03
Ophelina sp. C
22
0.03
StreptosylLis pettiboneae
22
0.03
Pseudovermilia occidentalis
22
0.03
Semele bellastriata
22
0.03
Lyonsia sp. A
22
0.03
Maera (LPIL)
22
0.03
Schistomeringos sp. B
21
0.03
Rullierinereis sp. A
21
0.03
Nereiphylla fragilis
21
0.03
Typosyllis cf. lutea
21
0.03
Megalomma bioculatum
21
0.03
Olivella sp. E
21
0.03
Atys caribaea
21
0.03
Lumbrineris ernesti
20
0.02
Serpula sp. A
20
0.02
Polycirrus (LPIL)
20
0.02
Olivella dealbata
20
0.02
Antias sp. B
20
0.02
Melinna maculata
19
0.02
Kinbergonuphis sp. E
19
0.02
Typosyllis (LPIL)
19
0.02
Poecilochaetus serpens
19
0.02
Lucina nassula
19
0.02
Lyonsia (LPIL)
19
0.02
Turbonilla (LPIL)
19
0.02
Nannodiella (LPIL)
19
0.02
Lembos unifasciatus
19
0.02
Automate (LPIL)
19
0.02
Leptosynapta crassipatina
19
0.02
Golfingia (LPIL)
18
0.02
Pettiboneia sp. B
18
0.02
E-28
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of
Percent
Individuals
of
Taxon
Collected
Total
Nereis falsa
18
0.02
Artacamella hancocki
18
0.02
Semele nuculoides
18
0.02
Acteocina (LPIL)
18
0.02
Mesanthura floridensis
18
0.02
Isopoda Family F
18
0.02
Ceradocus (LPIL)
18
0.02
Tiron sp. A
18
0.02
Neomeqamphopus roosevelti
18
0.02
Kalliapseudes sp. A
18
0.02
Mesochaetopterus sp. A
17
0.02
Mesochaetopterus (LPIL)
17
0.02
Boguea (LPIL)
17
0.02
Harmothoe sp. B
17
0.02
Microspio pigmentata
17
0.02
Opisthodonta sp. A
17
0.02
Nudibranchia (LPIL)
17
0.02
Oedicerotidae (LPIL)
17
0.02
Listriella barnardi
17
0.02
Vaunthompsonia sp. A
17
0.02
Decapoda reptantia (LPIL)
17
0.02
Araphiodia trychna
17
0.02
Nematonereis hebes
16
0.02
Nephtys squamosa
16
0.02
Aricidea sp. L
16
0.02
Eulepethidae (LPIL)
16
0.02
Edotea lyonsi
16
0.02
Elasmopus (LPIL)
16
0.02
Garosyrrhoe (LPIL)
16
0.02
Apseudidae Genus I
16
0.02
Maqelona sp. G
15
0.02
Aricidea frac^ilis
15
0.02
Aricidea sp. S
15
0.02
Syllides fulvus
15
0.02
Exoqone (LPIL)
15
0.02
Pectinaria regalis
15
0.02
Pteromeris perplana
15
0.02
Melanellidae (LPIL)
15
0.02
Scaphopoda (LPIL)
15
0.02
Apanthura signata
15
0.02
Lerabos smithi
15
0.02
Campylaspis sp. L
15
0.02
Paleanotus heteroseta
14
0.02
Nephtys (LPIL)
14
0.02
E-29
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of Percent
Individuals• of
Taxon Collected Total
Malacoceros (LPIL)
14
0.02
Polydora sp. A
14
0.02
Turbonilla sp. C
14
0.02
Nannodiella cf. vespuciana
14
0.02
Strombiformis bilineatus
14
0.02
Alvania (LPIL)
14
0.02
Aplacophora (LPIL)
14
0.02
Elasraopus sp. A
14
0.02
Alpheus (LPIL)
14
0.02
Hemus cristulipes
14
0.02
Nebalia biges
14
0.02
Caulleriella sp. A
13
0.02
Sigalionidae Genus C
13
0.02
Terebellides stroemi
13
0.02
Nucula proxima
13
0.02
Olivella floralia
13
0.02
Olivella sp. K
13
0.02
Cerapus sp. B
13
0.02
Ceradocus sp. A
13
0.02
Synopiidae (LPIL)
13
0.02
Mysidopsis sp. D
13
0.02
Majidae (LPIL)
13
0.02
Glj^cera sp. J
12
0.01
Mooreonuphis cf. nebulosa
12
0.01
Scoloplos rubra
12
0.01
Aonides paucibranchiata
12
0.01
Sphaerosyllis taylori
12
0.01
Sphaerosyllis bilobata
12
0.01
Mysella planulata
12
0.01
Unciola sp. B
12
0.01
Photis melanicus
12
0.01
Kalliapseudes sp. C
12
0.01
Golfingia sp. N
11
0.01
Lumbrineris Candida
11
0.01
Prionospio steenstrupi
11
0.01
Polycirrus sp. F
11
0.01
Veneridae (LPIL)
11
0.01
Cryoturris citronella
11
0.01
Rildardanus laminosa
11
0.01
Dulichiella appendiculata
11
0.01
Dulichiella sp. B
11
0.01
Synopia (LPIL)
11
0.01
Isaeidae (LPIL)
11
0.01
Tanaidacea (LPIL)
11
0.01
E-30
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of
Percent
Individuals
of
Taxon
Collected
Total
Axiothella mucosa
10
0.01
Onuphis eremita oculata
10
0.01
Naineris bicornis
10
0.01
Euraida sanguinea
10
0.01
Pectinaria (LPIL)
10
0.01
Caecum johnsoni
10
0.01
Caecum sp. A
10
0.01
Ampelisca abdita
10
0.01
Ampelisca vadorum
10
0.01
Tiron (LPIL)
10
0.01
Amathimysis bratteqardi
10
0.01
Amphicteis scaphobranchiata
9
0.01
Leiocapitella sp. C
9
0.01
Caulleriella sp. C
9
0.01
Glycera sp. C
9
0.01
Magelona sp. B
9
0.01
Nereis micromma
9
0.01
Diopatra cuprea
9
0.01
Eteone lactea
9
0.01
Protomystides bidentata
9
0.01
Harmothoe (LPIL)
9
0.01
Sthenelais sp. A
9
0.01
Typosyllis prolifera
9
0.01
Branchiosyllis oculata
9
0.01
Trichobranchus qlacialis
9
0.01
Grubeulepis sp. C
9
0.01
Divaricella (LPIL)
9
0.01
Lucina sombrerensis
9
0.01
Lucina sp. A
9
0.01
Pitar fulminatus
9
0.01
Turbonilla sp. J
9
0.01
Oliva sayana
9
0.01
Strombiforrais (LPIL)
9
0.01
Pananthura formosa
9
0.01
Ampelisca sp. L
9
0.01
Aoridae Genus B
9
0.01
Cerapus sp. B
9
0.01
Oxyurostylis sp. C
9
0.01
Alpheus normanni
9
0.01
Ampharete sp. A
8
o
•
o
•A
Leitoscoloplos (LPIL)
8
0.01
Paranaitis gardineri
8
0.01
Malacoceros sp. B
8
0.01
Sphaerosyllis (LPIL)
8
0.01
E-31
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Taxon Collected Total
Syllis gracilis
8
0.01
Megalomma (LPIL)
8
0.01
Hydroides microtis
8
0.01
Tellina probrina
8
0.01
Corbula dietziana
8
0.01
Cardiomya (LPIL)
8
0.01
Epitoniura (LPIL)
8
0.01
Turbonilla conradi
8
0.01
Terebra (LPIL)
8
0.01
Kurtziella rubella
8
0.01
Olivella adelae
8
0.01
Marqinella hartleyanum
8
0.01
Horoloanthura irpex
8
0.01
Mesanthura cf. paucidens
8
0.01
Listriella carinata
8
0.01
Lembos unicornis
8
0.01
Kalliapseudes (LPIL)
8
0.01
Processa vicina
8
0.01
Speloeophorus pontifer
8
0.01
Thalassema philostracum
7
0.01
Capitella capitata
7
0.01
Tharyx sp. A
7
0.01
Chaetozone (LPIL)
7
0.01
Dorvilleidae Genus F
0.01
Lysidice sp. B
7
0.01
Magelona sp. H
7
0.01
Levinsenia gracilis
7
0.01
Eteone heteropoda
7
0.01
Spiophanes (LPIL)
7
0.01
Dispio uncinata
7
0.01
Scolelepis texana
7
0.01
Syllides bansei
7
0.01
Ehlersia sp. H
7
0.01
Syllidae Genus E
7
0.01
Arabella mutans
7
0.01
Musculus lateralis
7
0.01
Lucina (LPIL)
7
0.01
Tellina listeri
7
0.01
Lyonsia hyalina floridana
7
0.01
Natica (LPIL)
7
0.01
Ithycythara lanceolata
7
0.01
Isopoda (LPIL)
7
0.01
Monoculodes (LPIL)
7
0.01
Hippomedon (LPIL)
7
0.01
E-32
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Taxon Collected Total
Araphilochidae (LPIL)
7
0.01
Campylaspis sp. K
7
0.01
Amathiraysis gibba
7
0.01
Kalliapseudes sp. B
7
0.01
Automate everraanni
7
0.01
Pinnixa (LPIL)
7
0.01
Heterocrypta granulata
7
0.01
Enterojoneusta (LPIL)
7
0.0 1
Bhawania heteroseta
6
0.01
Flabelliyeridae (LPIL)
6
0.01
Goniadidae (LPIL)
6
0.01
Microphthalmus sp. A
6
0.01
Magelona sp. AA
6
0.01
Ceratonereis irritabilis
6
0.01
Opheliidae (LPIL)
6
0.01
Oweniidae (LPIL)
6
o
•
o
Ancistrosyllis sp. C
6
0.01
Euraida sp. A
6
0.01
Malmqreniella (LPIL)
6
o
•
o
Megalomma sp. C
6
0.01
Streblosoma hartmanae
6
0.01
Pontogenia sp. A
6
0.01
Laevicardium (LPIL)
6
0.01
Lucina hendersoni
6
0.01
Macoma pulleyi
6
0.01
Corbula barrattiana
6
0.01
Athleenia burryi
6
0.01
Mesanthura (LPIL)
6
0.01
Edotea sp. A
6
0.01
Carinobatea sp. B
6
0.01
Carinobatea (LPIL)
6
0.01
Listriella sp. H
6
0.01
Ceradocus sheardi
6
0.01
Tiron sp. C
6
0.01
Isaeidae Genus B
6
0.01
Campylaspis (LPIL)
6
0.01
Leptochela carinata
6
0.01
Eusarsiella (LPIL)
6
o
•
o
Amphiura fibulata
6
0.01
Ophiolepis elegans
6
0.01
Ophiolepis sp. C
6
0.01
Lytechinus variegatus
6
0.01
Golfingiidae (LPIL)
5
0.01
Chloeia viridis
5
0.01
E-33
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of
Percent
Individuals
of
Taxon
Collected
Total
Cirriformia (LPIL)
5
0.01
Lysidice ninetta
5
0.01
Glycera sp. I
5
0.01
Glycera sp. F
5
0.01
Lumbrineridae (LPIL)
5
0.01
Lumbrineris testudlnum
5
0.01
Mooreonuphis (LPIL)
5
0.01
Polynoidae Genus A
5
0.01
Apoprionospio pygraaea
5
0.01
Malacoceros sp. 0
5
0.01
Polydora (LPIL)
5
0.01
Syilides floridanus
5
0.01
Typosyllis sp. C
5
0.01
Typosyllis tiqrinoides
5
0.01
Ehlersia (LPIL)
5
0.01
Chone americana
5
0.01
Polycirrus sp. A
5
0.01
Sclerocheilus sp. A
5
0.01
Macoma tenta
5
0.01
Pitar (LPIL)
5
0.01
Periploma marqaritaceum
5
0.01
Episcynia inornata
5
0.01
Dentalium ceratum
5
0.01
Cadulus tetrodon
5
0.01
Mesanthura sp. A
5
0.01
Corophium (LPIL)
5
0.01
Carinobatea sp. A
5
0.01
Stenothoidae (LPIL)
5
0.01
Garosyrrhoe sp. D
5
0.01
Synopia sp. A
5
0.01
Oxyurostylis sp. D
5
0.01
Oxyurostylis (LPIL)
5
0.01
Nannastacidae (LPIL)
5
0.01
Campylaspis sp. N
5
0.01
Leptochela (LPIL)
5
0.01
Mesopenaeus tropicalis
5
0.01
Sicyonia (LPIL)
5
0.01
Euryplax nitida
5
0.01
Asteropella sp. B
5
0.01
Sipunculidae (LPIL)
4
0.00
Ampharete sp. B
4
0.00
Tharyx marioni
4
0.00
Chaetozone sp. B
4
0.00
Schistomeringos sp. A
4
0.00
E-34
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Taxon Collected Total
Eunice sp. B
4
0.00
Glycera abranchiata
4
0.00
Podarke obscura
4
0.00
Microphthalmias sp. D
4
0.00
Lumbrineris coccinea
4
0.00
Ceratocephale (LPIL)
4
0.00
Kinbergonuphis sp. C
4
0.00
Aricidea sp. Q
4
0.00
Eumida parvicirrus
4
0.00
Anaitides mucosa
4
0.00
Anaitides (LPIL)
4
0.00
Sthenelais (LPIL)
4
0.00
Polydora sp. I
4
0.00
Polydora sp. K
4
0.00
Syllides sp. B
4
0.00
Hydroides bispinosa
4
0.00
Pista (LPIL)
4
0.00
Polycirrus sp. G
4
0.00
Poecilochaetus johnsoni
4
0.00
Acrocirridae (LPIL)
4
0.00
Chione (LPIL)
4
0.00
Arqopecten sp. A
4
0.00
Thyasira trisinuata
4
0.00
Gastrochaena hians
4
0.00
Epitonium novangliae
4
0.00
Caecum sp. C
4
0.00
Crepidula (LPIL)
4
0.00
Odostomia (LPIL)
4
0.00
Turridae Genus I
4
0.00
Strombiformis sp. F
4
0.00
Melanella (LPIL)
4
0.00
Batea catharinensis
4
0.00
Listriella (LPIL)
4
0.00
Unciola (LPIL)
4
0.00
Lembos sp. D
4
0.00
Phoxocephalidae (LPIL)
4
0.00
Lysianassa cubensis
4
0.00
Lysianassa alba
4
0.00
Garosyrrhoe sp. E
4
0.00
Iphimedia sp. A
4
0.00
Bowmaniella (LPIL)
4
0.00
Amathimysis (LPIL)
4
0.00
Pseudotanais sp. B
4
0.00
Upogebia sp. B
4
0.00
E-35
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Taxon Collected Total
Asteropella sp. A
4
0.00
Pteroraeniscus sp. A
4
0.00
Actinoseta chelisparsa
4
0.00
Eusarsiella sp. B
4
0.00
Micropholis atra
4
0.00
Ophiostiqma isacanthum
4
0.00
Ascidiacea (LPIL)
4
0.00
Echiura (LPIL)
3
0.00
Capitellidae Genus FF
3
0.00
Mesochaetopterus taylori
3
0.00
Tharyx sp. C
3
0.00
Caulleriella sp. B
3
0.00
Caulleriella sp. E
3
0.00
Glyceridae (LPIL)
3
0.00
Microphthalmus sp. C
3
0.00
Lumbrineris inflata
3
0.00
Nephtys incisa
3
0.00
Orbiniidae (LPIL)
3
0.00
Scoloplos sp. B
3
0.00
Scoloplos (LPIL)
3
0.00
Aricidea sp. AA
3
0.00
Paraonic fulgens
3
0.00
Levinsenia sp. H
3
0.00
Ancistrosyllis carolinensis
3
0.00
Questidae (LPIL)
3
0.00
Stheneiais sp. F
3
0.00
Fimbriosthenelais sp. A
3
0.00
Brania clavata
3
0.00
Brania gallagheri
3
0.00
Syllides (LPIL)
3
0.00
Autolytus sp. A
3
0.00
Pionosyllis sp. C
3
0.00
Exoqone arenosa
3
0.00
Notaulax sp. A
3
0.00
Hydroides protulicola
3
0.00
Notocirrus sp. A
3
0.00
Sabellaria sp. A
3
0.00
Arcidae (LPIL)
3
0.00
Cardiidae (LPIL)
3
0.00
Laevicardium sybariticum
3
0.00
Macoma (LPIL)
3
0.00
Chione cancellata
3
0.00
Arqopecten gibbus
3
0.00
Limopsis (LPIL)
3
0.00
E-36
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of
Percent
Individuals
of
Taxon
Collected
Total
Caecidae (LPIL)
3
0.00
Turbonilla sp. F
3
0.00
Turbonilla sp. W
3
0.00
Odostomia sp. E
3
0.00
Kurtziella limonitella
3
0.00
Strombiformis sp. C
3
0.00
Niso aeglees
3
0.00
Marqinella aureocincta
3
0.00
Mathilda (LPIL)
3
0.00
Dentalium antillarum
3
0.00
Dentalium pilsbryi
3
0.00
Accalathura crenulata
3
0.00
Corophium sp. L
3
0.00
Ampelisca sp. M
3
0.00
Arqissa hamatipes
3
0.00
Acanthohaustorius sp. D
3
0.00
Maera sp. B
3
0.00
Garosyrrhoe sp. C
3
0.00
Amphilochus sp. A
3
0.00
Amphilochus sp. C
3
0.00
Amphipoda Family E
3
0.00
Apseudidae (LPIL)
3
0.00
Trachypenaeus (LPIL)
3
0.00
Automate cf. evertnanni
3
0.00
Callianassa (LPIL)
3
0.00
Albunea paretii
3
0.00
Parthenopidae (LPIL)
3
0.00
Ostracoda Family B
3
0.00
Pteromeniscus (LPIL)
3
0.00
Eusarsiella sp. A
3
0.00
Eusarsiella sp. C
3
0.00
Nebalia sp. A
3
0.00
Halacaridae Genus A
3
0.00
Amphioplus thrombodes
3
0.00
Thyone pawsoni
3
0.00
Sabellides sp. A
2
0.00
Mastobranchus sp. A
2
0.00
Mesochaetopterus capensis
2
0.00
Chaetopterus (LPIL)
2
0.00
Chaetozone sp. A
. 2
0.00
Caulleriella (LPIL)
2
0.00
Dodecaceria diceria
2
0.00
Schistomerincps (LPIL)
2
0.00
Eunice sp. C
2
0.00
E-37
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of
Percent
Individuals
of
Taxon
Collected
Total
Glycera papillosa
2
0.00
Podarke (LPIL)
2
0.00
Lumbrineris tenuis
2
0.00
Onuphis sp. A
2
0.00
Myriowenia sp. A
2
0.00
Aricidea sp. B
2
0.00
Aricidea sp. 0
2
0.00
Ancistrosyllis jonesi
2
0.00
Phyllodoce sp. D
2
0.00
Genetyllis castanea
2
0.00
Genetyllis sp. A
2
0.00
Lepidasthenia varius
2
0.00
Malmqreniella sp. A
2
0.00
Harmothoe sp. H
2
0.00
Pholoe sp. E
2
0.00
Apoprionospio (LPIL)
2
0.00
Malacoceros vanderhorsti
2
0.00
Pseudopolydora sp. A
2
0.00
Parapionosyllis (LPIL)
2
0.00
Pionosyllis sp. G
2
0.00
Demonax microphthalmias
2
0.00
Hydroides (LPIL)
2
0.00
Polycirrus plumosus
2
0.00
Polycirrus sp. E
2
0.00
Terebella rubra
2
0.00
Terebellides sp. A
2
0.00
Arabella iricolor
2
0.00
Bathyarca (LPIL)
2
0.00
Amyqdalum papyria
2
0.00
Lima (LPIL)
2
0.00
Linqa pensylvanica
2
0.00
Strigilla (LPIL)
2
0.00
Corbula (LPIL)
2
0.00
Dosinia elegans
2
0.00
Chione intapurpurea
2
0.00
Crassinella (LPIL)
2
0.00
Pandora trilineata
2
0.00
Pectinidae (LPIL)
2
0.00
Natica floridana
2
0.00
Natica canrena
2
0.00
Colubraria lanceolata
2
0.00
Caecum heladum
2
0.00
Macromphalina palmalitoris
2
0.00
Turbonilla hemphilli
2
0.00
E-38
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of
Percent
Individuals
of
Taxon
Collected
Total
Turbonilla sp. R
2
0.00
Lucapinella liraatula
2
0.00
Terebra dislocata
2
0.00
Strombiformis sp. H
2
0.00
Atys (LPIL)
2
0.00
Granulina ovuliformis
2
0.00
Marqinella cf. aureocincta
2
0.00
Marline11a sp. C
2
0.00
Rissoina multicostata
2
0.00
Dentalium semlstriolatum
2
0.00
Chaetopleuridae Genus A
2
0.00
Stenetrium minocule
2
0.00
Erichthonius brasiliensis
2
0.00
Bateidae (LPIL)
2
0.00
Ampelisca parapacifica
2
0.00
Ampelisca sp. G
2
0.00
Listriella sp. G
2
0.00
Rildardanus (LPIL)
2
0.00
Photidae (LPIL)
2
0.00
Leucothoe sp. 0
2
0.00
Melita (LPIL)
2
0.00
Maera sp. C
2
0.00
Lysianassa (LPIL)
2
0.00
Orchomene sp. A
2
0.00
Amphilochus cf. neopolitanus
2
0.00
Mysidopsis (LPIL)
2
0.00
Kalliaiaseudes sp. D
2
0.00
Leptochelia (LPIL)
2
0.00
Pseudotanais sp. A
2
0.00
Penaeidae (LPIL)
2
0.00
Metapenaeopsis cjoodei
2
0.00
Alpheus floridanus
2
0.00
Bresiliidae Genus A
2
0.00
Lucifer faxoni
2
0.00
Goneplacidae (LPIL)
2
0.00
Euryplax (LPIL)
2
0.00
Glyptoplax smithi
2
0.00
Callianassa biformis
2
0.00
Portunidae (LPIL)
2
0.00
Collodes trispinosa
2
0.00
Asteropella sp. C
2
0.00
Asteropella maclauqhlinae
2
0.00
Ophiophraqmus pulcher
2
0.00
Amphiura (LPIL)
2
0.00
E-39
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Taxon Collected Total
Ophiothrichidae (LPIL) 2 0.00
Holothuroidea (LPIL) 2 0.00
Moira atropos 2 0.00
Astropectinidae Genus A 2 0.00
Balanoqlossus aurantiacus 2 0.00
Golfinqia sp. BB 1 0.00
Phascolion (LPIL) 1 0.00
Sipunculus sp. B 1 0.00
Sipunculus (LPIL) 1 0.00
Thalassema (LPIL) 1 0.00
Paramphinome (LPIL) 1 0.00
Capitella (LPIL) 1 0.00
Dasybranchus (LPIL) 1 0.00
Notomastua tenuis 1 0.00
Leiocapitella sp. B 1 0.00
Leiocapitella glabra 1 0.00
Scyphoproctus (LPIL) 1 0.00
Chaetopterus variopedatus 1 0.00
Tharyx sp. E 1 0.00
Chaetozone sp. D 1 0.00
Caulleriella sp. F 1 0.00
Dorvilleidae (LPIL) 1 0.00
Schistomeringos sp. C 1 0.00
Ougia tenuidentis 1 0.00
Nematonereis (LPIL) 1 0.00
Flabelligeridae Genus C 1 0.00
Glycera sp. E 1 0.00
Glycera sp. 0 1 0.00
Goniada maculata 1 0.00
Goniada teres 1 0.00
Microphthalmus hartmanae 1 0.00
Microphthalmus (LPIL) 1 0.00
Hesione picta 1 0.00
Hesionidae Genus C 1 0.00
Lumbrineris sp. Q 1 0.00
Lumbrineris sp. Z 1 0.00
Lumbrineris sp. V 1 0.00
Euclymene sp. B 1 0.00
Clymenella torguata 1 0.00
Petaloproctus (LPIL) 1 0.00
Magelona cf. riojai 1 0.00
Magelona sp. K 1 0.00
Magelona sp. BB 1 0.00
Micronereis (LPIL) 1 0.00
E-40
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
Taxon
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Collected Total
Armandia agilis
Diopatra neotridens
Diopatra cf. papillata
Owenia (LPIL)
Oweniidae Genus B
Scoloplos sp. F
Orbinia riseri
Aricidea sp. U
Levinsenia reducta
Pilargidae (LPIL)
Anclstrosyllis (LPIL)
Paranaitis speciosa
Hesionura sp. B
Lepidasthenia sp. B
Harroothoe sp. G
Polyodontes (LPIL)
Questidae Genus C
Pionosyllls sp. D
Psammolyce ctenidophora
Fimbriosthenelais (LPIL)
Sthenelanella sp. A
Polydora sp. G
Polydora sp. J
Prionospio sp. I
Prlonospio sp. J
Spiophanes wigleyi
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Scolelepis (LPIL)
Sphaerosyllis longicauda
Autolytus sp. B
Autolytus (LPIL)
Typosyllis sp. B
Typosyllls sp. J
Typosyllis sp. K
Ehlersia sp. F
Pionosyllis weismanni
Exoqone sp. G
Proceraea sp. B
Odontosyllis (LPIL)
Streptospinigera heteroseta
Diplosyllis octodentata
Eurysyllis tuberculata
Megalomma sp. F
Euchone cf. incolor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
E-41
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
Taxon
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Collected Total
Demonax sp. A
Serpulidae Genus B
Pista sp. A
Pista cristata
Amaeana (LPIL)
Terebellidae Genus G
Neoleprea sp. A
Scalibregmatidae (LPIL)
Sclerobregma stenocerum
Arabellidae (LPIL)
Drilonereis sp. H
Grubeulepis sp. A
Amphictene sp. A
Euphrosine triloba
Aphroqenia sp. A
Protodrilus (LPIL)
Dlplodonta sp. B
Semele (LPIL)
Nucula crenulata
Barbatia Candida
Musculus sp. A
Modiolus (LPIL)
Pinnidae (LPIL)
Limidae (LPIL)
Lima sp. C
Laevicardi um mortoni
Pteromeris (LPIL)
Linga (LPIL)
Lucinoma filosa
Lucina pectinata
Lucina sp. B
Anodontia (LPIL)
Corbula contracta
Mercenaria campechiensis
Chione latilirata
Chione hendersoni
Macrocallista maculata
Pltar albidus
Aligena sp. A
Ostrea equestris
Cardiomya ornatissima
Mysella (LPIL)
Pandoridae (LPIL)
Pandora bushiana
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
E-42
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Taxon
Collected Total
Argopecten (LPIL)
1 0.00
Ervilia concentrica
1 0.00
Limopsidae (LPIL)
1 0.00
Poromya sp. A
1 0.00
Solemya (LPIL)
1 0.00
Epitonium humphreysi
1 0.00
Polinices lacteus
1 0.00
Siqatica semisulcata
1 0.00
Siqatica carolinensis
1 0.00
Haliotinella sp. A
1 0.00
Columbellidae (LPIL)
1 0.00
Acteocina canaliculata
1 0.00
Caecum bipartitum
1 0.00
Caecum sp. D
o
•
o
o
Murex sp. A
1 0.00
Crepidulidae (LPIL)
1 0.00
Crepidula sp. A
1 0.00
Macroraphalina floridana
1 0.00
Turbonilla sp. M
1 0.00
Turbonilla sp. P
1 0.00
Turbonilla sp. S
1 0.00
Turbonilla interrupta
1 0.00
Odostoraia laevigata
1 0.00
Cyclostremiscus (LPIL)
1 0.00
Vitrinella floridana
1 0.00
Parviturboides interruptus
1 0.00
Kurtziella (LPIL)
1 0.00
Nannodiella sp. A
1 0.00
Nannodiella oxia
1 0.00
Cryoturris fargoi
1 0.00
Cryoturris (LPIL)
1 0.00
Ithycythara psila
1 0.00
Strombiformis sp. G
1 0.00
Melanella arcuata
1 0.00
Marginella sp. A
1 0.00
Melongenidae (LPIL)
1 0.00
Seila adamsi
1 0.00
Zebina browniana
1 0.00
Turritella acroporis
1 0.00
Dentalium sp. B
1 0.00
Dentalium sp. C
1 0.00
Ischnochiton papillosus
1 0.00
Chaetopleura apiculata
1 0.00
Mesanthura pulchra
1 0.00
Malacanthura caribbica
1 0.00
E-43
-------
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Taxon
Collected Total
Anthura magnifica
1 0.00
Edotea triloba
1 0.00
Exosphaeroma alba
1 0.00
Paracerceis caudata
1 0.00
Carpias sp. A
1 0.00
Antias sp. A
1 0.00
Corophium acherusicum
1 0.00
Corophium sp. J
1 0.00
Erichthonius (LPIL)
1 0.00
Cerapus benthophilus
1 0.00
Ampeliscidae (LPIL)
1 0.00
Stenothoe (LPIL)
1 0.00
Parametopella texensis
1 0.00
Parametopella (LPIL)
1 0.00
Parametella (LPIL)
1 0.00
Liljeborgiidae (LPIL)
1 0.00
Idunella sp. G
1 0.00
Podocerus (LPIL)
1 0.00
Podoceridae Genus A
1 0.00
Unciola irrorata
1 0.00
Lembos tigrinis
1 0.00
Lembos foresti
1 0.00
Photis dentata
1 0.00
Photis sp. D
1 0.00
Rhepoxynius epistomus
1 0.00
Acanthohaustorius pansus
1 0.00
Tiburonella (LPIL)
1 0.00
Elasmopus levis
o
o
•
o
Elasmopus sp. D
1 0.00
Maera sp. H
1 0.00
Traetonyx (LPIL)
1 0.00
Orchomene sp. B
1 0.00
Amphilochus (LPIL)
1 0.00
Microprotopus raneyi
1 0.00
Microprotopus (LPIL)
1 0.00
Neoraegamphopidae (LPIL)
1 0.00
Bodotriidae (LPIL)
1 0.00
C^claspis sp. P
1 0.00
Cyclaspis sp. R
1 0.00
Vaunthompsonia (LPIL)
1 0.00
Diastyliclae (LPIL)
1 0.00
Campylaspis sp. J
1 0.00
Lysiosquilla sp. B
1 0.00
Stomatopoda Family A
1 0.00
Bowmaniella floridana
1 0.00
E-44
-------
1
TABLE E.19. CONTINUED.
Taxon
No. of Percent
Individuals of
Collected Total
Leptochelia (LPIL) 1 0.00
Tanaissus sp. A 1 0.00
Acetes americanus carolinae 1 0.00
Trachypenaeus constrictus 1 0.00
Penaeus duorarum 1 0.00
Penaeus (LPIL) 1 0.00
Metapenaeus goodei 1 0.00
Alpheidae (LPIL) 1 0.00
Automate gardineri 1 0.00
Automate sp. C 1 0.00
Synalpheus longicarpus 1 0.00
Synalpheus (LPIL) 1 0.00
Hippolyte curacaoensis 1 0.00
Hippolyte (LPIL) 1 0.00
Solenocera atlantidis 1 0.00
Callianassidae (LPIL) 1 0.00
Ebalia cariosa 1 0.00
Illacantha intermedia 1 0.00
Speloeophorus (LPIL) 1 0.00
Calappa angusta 1 0.00
Heterocrypta sp. A 1 0.00
Podochela sidneyi 1 0.00
Macrocoeloma trispinosum 1 0.00
Inachoides forceps 1 0.00
Asteropella punctata 1 0.00
Asteropella (LPIL) 1 0.00
Ostracoda Family G 1 0.00
Ostracoda Family H 1 0.00
Cephalocarida (LPIL) 1 0.00
Decapoda (LPIL) 1 0.00
Amphiura sp. B 1 0.00
Amphiura sp. C 1 0.00
Amphiura sp. D 1 0.00
Ophiopsila sp. A 1 0.00
Ophiopsila sp. B 1 0.00
Ophiopsila (LPIL) 1 0.00
Ophioleucidae (LPIL) 1 0.00
Leptosynapta sp. A 1 0.00
Encope aberrans 1 0.00
Encope michelini 1 0.00
Hemichordata a 1 0.00
Balanoglossus aurantiacus 1 0.00
Branchiostoma bermudae 1 0.00
Rotifera (LPIL) 1 0.00
E-45
-------
IP
^ IfmrniUmM
,F&
ion 4
10'2isa
~fz ^ -o 3
IJ 81
DATE DUE
J
------- |