Sediment Survey: Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site, Miami, Florida
Survey Date: June 13, 2000
Report Date: July 2001
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Water Management Division, Atlanta, Georgia
Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Athens, Georgia
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sediment samples were collected June 13, 2000 from the Miami Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site (Christopher McArthur, Site Manager; Gary W. Collins, Chief Scientist,
WMD). Sediment analysis was conducted in the Sediment Characterization Laboratory
of the Ecological Assessment Branch of the Science and Ecosystem Support Division
(SESD, US EPA, Region 4). Wet sieve analysis was performed by Candace Halbrook
(SESD). Laser particle size analysis was performed by William F. Simpson (ILS) and
Hillary Goerig (ManTech). Chemical analysis was conducted by the Analytical Support
Branch (SESD). Data reduction, interpretation, statistical analysis, and findings were
reported by Gary W. Collins (WMD) and Bruce A. Pruitt (SESD). The level of successful
completion of the sample collection would not have been possible without the positive
attitude and efforts of the Captain and crew of the OSV Peter W. Anderson.
Appropriate Citation:
Collins1, G.W. and B.A. Pruitt2. 2001. Sediment Survey: Miami Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 'Water
Management Division, Wetlands, Coastal & Nonpoint Source Branch, Coastal &
Nonpoint Source Section, SNAFC, 61 Forsyth St. SW, Atlanta, GA 30303; 2Science and
Ecosystem Support Division, Ecological Assessment Branch, Ecological Evaluation
Section, 980 College Station Rd., Athens, GA 30605.
emails: G.W. Collins, collins.garyw@epa.gov; B.A. Pruitt.pruitt.bruce(a),epa.sov
Scientific Party:
Name
1) Gary Collins
2) Bruce Pruitt
3) Chris McArthur
4) Candace Halbrook
5) Phyllis Meyer
6) Steve Blackburn
7) Hudson Slay
Survey Responsibility
Chief Scientist, Co-author
Sedimentologist, Co-author
Project Manager
Biological Technician
Biologist
Biologist
Biologist
Organization
EPA/Atlanta
EPA/Athens
EPA/Atlanta
EPA/Athens
EPA/Athens
EPA/Atlanta
EPA/Atlanta
This report received peer input from Chris McArthur (R4/WMD) and Philip Murphy
(R4/SESD).
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
SUMMARY vii
INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Background 1
Survey Justification and Rationale 1
Objectives 2
Survey Location and Description 2
Hypothesis/Statistical Tests 2
METHODOLOGY 4
Sediment Particle Size Analysis 4
Sediment Chemical Analysis 5
Statistical Methods 6
On Site Sediment Characterization 6
Sediment Particle Size Analysis (Wet Sieve) 7
RESULTS 8
On Site Sediment Characterization 8
Sediment Particle Size (Wet-Sieve - EPA Dataset) 8
EPA versus CCI 10
Sediment Particle Size (Laser - EPA Dataset) 10
Sediment Chemical Analysis 12
DISCUSSION 13
CONCLUSIONS 14
REFERENCES 17
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Data quality objectives 18
2. On site visual and textural sediment characterization: Miami, Florida Ocean
disposal site (page 1 of 2) 19
3. On site visual and textural sediment characterization: Miami, Florida Ocean
disposal site (page 2 of 2) 20
4. Chi-square distribution, wet sieve using particle size classes (p-values in
parenthesis, highlighted values not significant at p < 0.025) 21
5. EPA versus CCI, a. descriptive statistics (wet sieve), b. chi-square distribution. 22
6. Chi-square distribution, laser particle size (p-values in parenthesis,
highlighted values not significant at p < 0.025) 23
7. Metals and nutrient scans, Miami ODMDS, flagged values removed
(Page 1 of 2) 24
8. Metals and nutrient scans, Miami ODMDS, flagged values removed
(Page 2 of 2) 25
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Miami ODMDS Station Locations 26
2. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA01 (Miami ODMDS) 27
3. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA02 (Miami ODMDS) 27
4. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA03 (Miami ODMDS) 27
5. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA04 (Miami ODMDS) 28
6. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA05 (Miami ODMDS) 28
7. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA06 (Miami ODMDS) 28
8. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA07 (Miami ODMDS) 29
9. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA09 (Miami ODMDS) 29
10. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA10 (Miami ODMDS) 29
11. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA11 (Miami ODMDS) 30
12. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA12 (Miami ODMDS) 30
13. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA13 (Miami ODMDS) 30
14. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA14 (Miami ODMDS) 31
15. Wet sieve particle size distribution using skewness (EPA data,
all particle classes) 32
16. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA01 (EPA vs.CCI) 33
17. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA02 (EPA vs.CCI) 33
18. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA03 (EPA vs.CCI) 33
19. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA04 (EPA vs.CCI) 34
20. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA05 (EPA vs.CCI) 34
21. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA07 (EPA vs.CCI) 34
22. Wet sieve particle size distribution - Station MIA13 (EPA vs.CCI) 35
v
-------
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
36
37
37
37
38
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
40
41
41
42
43
Wet sieve particle size distribution using skewness (EPA versus CCI,
all particle size classes)
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA01 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA02 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA03 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA04 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA05 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA06 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA07 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA08 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA09 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA10 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA11 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA12 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA13 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA14 (Miami ODMDS)....
Particle size distribution by D50 - Laser (Miami ODMDS)
Laser particle size distribution - particle sizes < 2 mm using skewness.
vi
-------
SUMMARY
The goal of the study was to provide scientifically-based data, data interpretation,
and rationale to manage and monitor the Miami ODMDS in the most environmentally
protective manner. The objectives of the study were three-fold: 1) characterize selected
representative areas of the sea floor from a sedimentological and chemical perspective;
2) explore new methods of sediment collection and characterization where deep sea
technology is required; and 3) compare the results of this study against a previous site
survey (Conservation Consultant, Inc in 1986). The results and conclusions of this study
will be utilized as guidance for future site management to develop and refine new
methods of deep sea exploration and sediment characterization and to "ground-truth"
sidescan sonar records from the 1998 survey.
The study area was within and surrounding the Miami, FL ODMDS located offshore
Virginia Key (Figure 1). The ODMDS is approximately 3.4 km2(1.0 square nautical
mile, NM), with stations extending up to 5.6 km (3 NM) to each cardinal point of the
compass.
A total of fourteen discrete samples were collected from fourteen stations which
were established based on:
A subset of seven stations previously sampled by Conservation Consultants, Inc.
(CCI 1985) (MIA01-MIA05, MIA07, MIA14 );
Active disposal area (station MIA08);
Sidescan sonar interpretation (MIA09-MIA11, MIA13); and
• Randomly placed (MIA06 and MIA12).
Bottom sampling at each station was accomplished by deploying a Young grab
(modified Van Veen). Samples were collected for sediment particle size analyses and
sediment chemistry. Both wet sieve and laser particle size analyses were conducted on
sediment samples. Based on assumptions of normality, appropriate statistical analyses
were employed to compare data between sample stations and against the previous site
survey (CCI 1985). Significance was tested at a 95% confidence level (a = 0.05).
Based on the on-site sediment characterization and sediment particle size analyses
(wet sieve and laser), dredged material can be distinguished from the native marine
sediments at the Miami ODMDS as follows:
vii
-------
On-site sediment characterization: In general, stations MIA01 and MIA02 exhibited
characteristic native, tropical marine sediments including near white color (5Y 6/2,
Munsell Value 6), fine sandy clay loam texture, no strata, no odor, no shell
fragments, and benthic organisms (polychaetes). In contrast, marine sediment
collected from Stations MIA03 and MIA08 through MIA 13 were characteristically
stratified, and were slightly darkened with organic matter or minerals not normally
associated with tropical marine sediments (i.e., calcites);
Based on wet sieve particle size analysis alone: Variation in percent particle size
classes (inorganic and volatile solids fractions) was observed between Stations
MIA01, MIA02, MIA06, MIA07, and MIA14 as compared to Stations MIA03 to
MI AO 5 and MIA08 to MIA13;
Particle size analysis (laser): By inspection of percent particle size class distribution
and percent cumulative finer distribution, Stations MIA01, MIA02, MIA06, MIA07,
and MIA14 exhibited finer-grained marine sediment. In addition based on evenness
of distribution (skewness and kurtosis), Stations MIA04 and MIA05 were relatively
more evenly distributed as compared to other stations; and
EPA versus CCI (wet sieve): Seven of the fourteen sites (MIA01-MIA05, MIA07,
and MIA14) sampled during this EPA study overlapped with the stations sampled in
1985 by CCI. By inspection of the differential distribution of particle size classes,
EPA sediment samples were coarser grained as compared to CCI sediment samples.
In addition, as evidenced by the cumulative percent distribution curves, this shift
was especially pronounced in samples collected from Stations MIA03, MIA04, and
MI AO 5.
viii
-------
Based on the interpretation of the on-site sediment characterization, examination of
percent PSC (wet sieve and laser methods), cumulative percent curves, and skewness,
samples stations were stratified as native marine sediments, dredged material, and mixed
sediments as follows:
Native Marine Sediments: Dredged Material: Mixed Sediments:
MIA01 MIA07 MIA03 MIA11 MIA04
MIA02 MIA14 MI AO 8 MIA12 MIA05
MIA06 MIA09 MIA13
MIA10
Also, the data indicate that areas identified by sidescan sonar as potential dumps of
dredged material outside the ODMDS are in fact errant dumps that have occurred.
The chemical data showed that four metals (barium, chromium, manganese, and sodium)
could be used to distinguish native sediments from the dredged materials. It is possible
that this difference is a result of the higher percentages of finer particles (sites available
for sorption) found in the native sediments.
The laser was observed to be more sensitive to subtle variation in particle size
distribution as compared to the wet sieve method. Consequently, Stations MIA04 and
MIA05 could be separated from the other stations. Wet sieve alone was not adequate to
distinguish between these subtle variations in particle size distribution.
In conclusion, the methods used in this study are sufficient to distinguish dredged
material from native marine sediments at the Miami ODMDS. This can in large part be
attributed to the differences in sediment characteristics of the deep slope sediments found
at the Miami ODMDS contrasted with the material being dredged for the Miami Harbor
area.
ix
-------
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem. Ocean disposal of dredged materials can affect the
environment of a disposal site by disturbing the benthic community and potentially
causing long-term reduction of oxygen in the pore waters of the sediments and the
overlying waters. Natural oceanographic processes can also be responsible for
transporting disposed materials offsite into nearby habitats.
Once a site is chosen for ocean disposal of dredged material, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is responsible
for the management and monitoring of the site. A critical component of Region 4's
monitoring program is the characterization and tracking of sediments in and around each
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS).
Traditional techniques have employed the use of gamma radiation and x-ray
fluorescence analyses to discriminate between native and dredged material. However,
the Miami ODMDS presents a unique problem in discriminatory analysis given the
extreme depths are beyond the physical capabilities of traditional techniques commonly
utilized. Consequently, alternate techniques were explored during this study. Results
and conclusions derived from this effort will have utility in future monitoring of deeper
ocean dredged material disposal activities within Region 4 (e.g., Port Everglades and
Palm Beach) and other deep ocean monitoring efforts elsewhere.
Background. The Miami ODMDS was designated in 1995 and a site characterization
study was conducted in 1985. Since then over 2.3 million m3 (3 million cubic yards) of
dredged material has been disposed at the site. Over 459,000 m3 (600,000 cubic yards) of
this material was from an uncharacterized portion of the Miami Harbor West Turning
Basin. This material was uncharacterized due to a permitting error. In 1998 a sidescan
survey of the ODMDS was conducted to identify the footprint of the disposal mound to
aid in future benthic sampling. Several apparent disposal mounds were identified outside
of the site boundaries in addition to those identified within the site.
Survey Justification and Rationale. The purpose of this survey was to determine what
changes may have occurred to the sediment chemistry and grain size distributions at the
disposal site as a consequence of the disposal activity. Sampling station selection were
based on previous surveys as well as sidescan data indicating the possibility that some
material may have been dumped outside the ODMDS.
-------
2
Objectives. The goal of the study was to manage and monitor the Miami ODMDS in the
most environmentally protective manner. The objectives of the study were three-fold
(see Table 1 for Data Quality Objectives): 1) characterize selected representative areas of
the sea floor from a sedimentological and chemical perspective; 2) explore new methods
of sediment collection and characterization where deep sea technology is required; and
3) compare the results of this study against a previous site survey (Conservation
Consultant, Inc in 1985). The results and conclusions of this study will be utilized as
guidance for future site management, to develop and refine new methods of deep sea
sediment exploration, and to "ground-truth" sidescan sonar records from the 1998 survey.
Additional uses of the results will be to determine if there is a need for a biological
impact study and if disposal of the uncharacterized material caused any adverse
environmental impact (such as would be indicated by elevated chemical values).
Survey Location and Description. The study area is within and surrounding the Miami,
FL ODMDS located offshore Virginia Key (Figure 1). The ODMDS is approximately
3.4 km2(1.0 square nautical mile, NM), with stations extending up to 5.6 km (3 NM) to
each cardinal point of the compass. Seven stations were selected to coincide with
stations sampled by Conservation Consultant, Inc in 1986. One station was positioned in
the center of the active disposal area (northwest corner of the ODMDS), whereas four
stations were positioned into areas identified by sidescan sonar as possible offsite dumps.
The other two stations were a result of improper trans-positioning of coordinates from the
survey plan into the navigation system, and were maintained as additional data. The
ODMDS boundary coordinates are:
25°45.50'N 80°03.90'W
25°45.50'N 79°02.83'W
26°44.50'N 79°02.83'W
26°44.50'N 80°03.90'W
Hypothesis/ Statistical Tests. The particle size distributions (PSD) of each station and
specific size classes across stations were tested for normality using normal probability
plots. For normally distributed data, statistical significance was tested using t-tests for
dependent samples at a level of significance p < 0.05 (parametric). For data sets that
were not normally distributed, chi square analysis was used at a level of significance of p
< 0.05 (non-parametric). Testable hypotheses were formulated as:
-------
3
Hypothesis Set 1:
H0 = There is no significant difference between physical and chemical analyses of
native marine sediments (reference) versus dredged material
H, = There is a significant difference between physical and chemical analyses of native
marine sediments (reference) versus dredged material
Hypothesis Set 2:
H0 = There is no significant difference between historic (CCI) and present (EPA)
particle size analysis of native marine sediments (reference) versus dredged material
H2 = There is a significant difference between historic (CCI) and present (EPA) particle
size analysis of native marine sediments (reference) versus dredged material
Initially, sample stations representative of native marine stations and dredged material
were identified by interpretation of previous sidescan sonar records, location with respect
to the designated, active disposal area, and disposal records.
-------
METHODOLOGY
As an integral part of the Miami Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Sediment
Survey conducted June 13-14, 2000, marine sediment samples were collected to meet the
objective of this report. A total of fourteen discrete samples were collected from fourteen
stations which were established based on:
A subset of seven stations previously sampled by Conservation Consultants, Inc.
(CCI 1985) (MIA01-MIA05, MIA07, MIA14);
Active disposal area (station MIA08);
Sidescan sonar interpretation (MIA09-MIA11, MIA13); and
• Randomly placed (MIA06 and MIA12).
Sampling procedures and sample preservation for analyses were be according to the
Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP),
(US EPA 1996, 1998). However, traditional remote techniques of collecting grab
samples were inadequate in meeting the project goals specific to the deep-sea conditions
encountered on the Miami ODMDS. Consequently, new methods of deep-sea technology
and sediment characterization were employed which went beyond marine sediment
procedures previously required and employed in Region 4.
Bottom sampling at selected stations was accomplished by deploying the Young
grab (modified Van Veen). Samples were collected for sediment particle size analyses
and sediment chemistry. The sampling device and handling/preservative protocol for
each type of sample follows.
Sediment Particle Size Analysis. Sediment laboratory analysis included particle size
and volatile solids analyses in the SESD-EAB Sediment Characterization Laboratory
(SCL). Samples for particle size were collected with acrylic 5.1 cm (2-inch) coring tubes
penetrating 15 cm (or to the point of refusal if less than 15 cm) into the substrate within
the grab. Precautions taken to ensure consistent sample volume collected in the Young
grab and sub-samples using coring tubes from the grab included:
To ensure minimal cable scope, current conditions were examined at each sample
location, including opposing currents beneath the pyncnocline;
Special attention was given to depth, cable-wrap counts, and cable tension; and
4
-------
5
To prevent loss of vertical horizons and contamination of the chemical samples,
smaller cores were collected during subsampling within the center of the grab.
With the exception of Station MIA10, consistent sampling volumes among the various
stations were obtained at all stations.
After settling, the structure and texture of the sediment were observed and recorded,
then the clear water decanted and the sediment core placed in a whirl pack, labeled, and
frozen for return to the lab. Two replicate samples were obtained at each station.
Particle size analyses were determined using a Coulter™ Laser Particle Size Analyzer
(Model LS200) in the Sediment Characterization Laboratory (SCL) of the Ecological
Assessment Branch (EAB). Volatile solids analyses were determined on seven particle
sizes using a modified Wet Sieve Method (Ecological Assessment Branch, Standard
Operating Procedures , EAB 2000 as modified from Biological Field and Laboratory
Methods for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents, EPA-670/4-73-001).
Prior to particle size analysis, sediment material for particle size distribution (PSD)
utilizing the Coulter™ Laser Particle Size Analyzer (Model LS200) was dispersed by
adding a dispersing agent (sodium metaphosphate) and placed on an automated shaker
overnight. In contrast, in order to be consistent with methods used in the past, no
dispersing agent or shaking was conducted on sediment material prior to wet sieve
analysis.
Sediment Chemical Analysis. Sediment chemical analysis included pesticides/PCB
scan, extractables, metals scan, and classic nutrients (ammonia, nitrates/nitrites, total
kjeldahl nitrogen, and total phosphorus) (Appendix A). At each station, samples for
metals, nutrient and extractable organic analysis were collected by using 5.1 cm Teflon
coring tubes until sufficient volume was obtained. Volatile organic samples were
collected in two pre-cleaned and weighed 40 ml vials with a septum seal at each station,
with the addition of a 59.1 ml (2 oz.) container at six stations for quality control. Sample
handling of cores was similar to that specified above for particle size. The core samples
for metals, nutrients and extractable organic compounds were transferred to a glass pan
or teflon lined pan and thoroughly mixed. Aliquots of the sample were placed into two
236.6 ml (8 oz.) glass containers. The sample aliquot for nutrients and metals analysis
was preserved by freezing. The sample aliquot for pesticides and extractables were
preserved at 4°C. VOC collection was conducted utilizing an adaptation to SW846
-------
6
Method 5035 to limit the loss of volatile organics and reduce the possibility of
contamination from site conditions, (i.e. diesel fumes from ship operations). Water vials
(40 mis) were pre-weighed and filled in the lab with milli-Q water. Sediment was
removed directly from the grab at each station, filling the vials one quarter full of
sediment. In the ship board lab, approximately 20 mis of sea water was removed
utilizing a pipette, leaving approximately 10 mis of sea water over the undisturbed
sediment. The standard method of VOC preservation utilizes sodium bisulfate as a
preservative. Sodium bisulfate effervesces when it comes in contact with the calcium
carbonate found in all marine sediments in the Southeast. The effervescent action then
causes a loss of volatile organics. Therefore, once the 20 mis of sea water were removed,
and the samples tagged, the samples were preserved by freezing. Samples were placed
on their side in the freezer in a protective container to help prevent breakage from
freezing.
Statistical Methods. Several methods were utilized to discriminate between native
marine sediments and dredged material including (discussed below): on site sediment
characterization, PSC within stations (wet sieve and laser), and EPA data versus CCI data
(wet sieve). Ultimately, the results of the on site sediment characterization and the PSD
analysis were used to stratify stations for interpretation of chemical analysis. Several
discriminatory, statistical tests were used to aid in the interpretation of the above datasets
including: skewness, standard deviation, t-tests, and chi-square distribution. Data were
tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilkes Test for Normality. Based on the results,
parametric (t-tests) or nonparametric (chi-square distribution) tests were employed as
appropriate. Data were tested at the 95 % confidence level (a = 0.05).
In conjunction with on site sediment characterization, the relative degree of
skewness (i.e., variation in PSC) of inorganic fractions plotted against the standard
deviation of the means was used, in part, to discriminate between native marine sediment
and dredged material. Skewness (third moment in calculus), is a measure of the
asymmetry of the PSD in a sediment sample. In general, a frequency curve is skewed
with the mode shifted to the right (positive skewness) for an abundance of coarse
particles, and to the left (negative skewness) for an abundance of fine particles.
On Site Sediment Characterization. Marine sediments were visually and texturally
characterized immediately following collection using a Young box dredge. Sediment
-------
7
characterization included strata, boundary, color (Munsell), texture by feel, and presence
or absence of masses, gravel, shell fragments, odor, and benthic organisms.
Sediment Particle Size (Wet Sieve). Particle size distributions for both inorganic and
volatile solids fractions were plotted on frequency and percent cumulative curves to aid
in discriminating between native marine sediments and sediments altered by dredge
disposal activities (Figures 2 to 14). Due to an oversight, wet sieve analysis was not
conducted on Station MIA08 and is addressed below in Sediment Particle Size (Laser -
EPA Dataset). Both differential percent (per class) and cumulative percent were plotted
against seven particle size classes (PSC, mm): 0.002, 0.063, 0.125, 0.250, 0.500, 1.000,
2.000, 4.000, and 8.000. PSC were arranged on the ordinate axis from left to right (clay
fraction to larger than sand fraction, respectively).
CCI (1985) followed, in general, the procedures outlined by Pequegnat et al. (1981)
in U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report EL-81-1: Procedural
Guide for Designation Surveys of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites. The
method consisted of wet sieving the sample through a 62 //m using a 5 g/1 sodium
hexametaphosphate dispersant. The sand-shell fraction then underwent grain size
analysis by sieving, while pipette analysis was used to quantify the silt-clay fraction. A
Tyler Sieve Shaker (Model R-X24) and nested 20.32 cm (8-inch) brass sieves with mesh
sizes of 2.0, 1.0, 0.5, 0.25, 0.177, 0.12, and 0.06 mm were used to conduct the sieve
analysis. CCI (1985) reported their findings in greater than 2.0, 2.0, 0.50, 0.25, 0.063,
and 0.002 mm PSCs. For comparison, the PSC used by EPA were adjusted
(mathematically) to match the PSC used by CCI. EPA did not use a dispersing agent
prior to wet sieving. Consequently, the assumption was made that the dispersant agent
used by CCI did not significantly change the PSD. Three methods of determining
relative PSD: skewness, standard deviation, and chi-square distribution.
-------
RESULTS
On-Site Sediment Characterization. In general, Stations MIA01 and MIA02 exhibited
characteristic native, tropical marine sediments including near white color (5Y 6/2,
Munsell Value 6), fine sandy clay loam texture, no strata, no limestone gravel, no odor,
no shell fragments, and benthic organisms (polychaetes) (Table 2). In contrast, marine
sediment collected from Stations MIA03, MIA08 through MIA13 were characteristically
stratified, and were slightly darkened with organic matter or minerals not normally
associated with tropical marine sediments (Tables 2 and 3). Limestone gravel was
observed in samples collected from Stations MIA08, MIA10, MIA11, and MIA14. As
evidenced by uneven or wavy boundary and masses of different color, stratified samples
did not form in place and are interpreted as dredged material.
Sediment Particle Size (Wet Sieve - EPA Dataset). Upon close examination of
Figures 2 through 14, variation in percent PSC (inorganic and volatile solids fractions)
was observed between Stations MIA01, MIA02, MIA06, MIA07, and MIA14 as
compared to Stations MIA03 to MIA05 and MIA09 to MIA13.
Positive skewness was observed in the PSD of samples collected from all stations.
However, the degree of skewness varied between stations and was used for
discriminatory analysis in the following way. Native marine sediments were
characterized by a predominance of fine-grained inorganic and organic material (< 0.125
mm), consequently, exhibited a high positive skewness (skewed right). Based on
inspection of PSD (Figures 2 to 14) and skewness (Figure 15), native marine sediments
were observed at Stations MIA01, MIA02, MIA06, MIA07, and MIA14. In contrast,
marine sediments which were either altered by dredged materials or represented a
different native bottom were characterized by the presence of larger particle sizes (>
0.125 mm) and exhibited lower skewness values. These stations included MIA03
through MIA5 and MIA09 through MIA13. This pattern was also observed in the
frequency distribution of the volatile solids fractions (Figures 2 to 14).
Building on the interpretation of the on-site sediment characterization, examination
of percent PSC (wet sieve method), cumulative percent curves, and skewness, samples
stations were stratified as native marine sediments and dredged material initially as
follows:
8
-------
9
Native Marine Sediments:
Dredged Material:
MIA01
MIA02
MIA06
MIA07
MIA14
MIA03 MIAIO
MIA04 MIA11
MI AO 5 MIA12
MIA09 MIA13
Since the dataset was not normally distributed across PSC, a chi-square distribution
(non-parametric) was utilized as a confirmation test on the above findings. In this case,
stations that were interpreted as native marine sediments (as shown above) were treated
as expected PSC and compared against dredged material, observed PSC (Table 4).
Stations MIA01, MIA02, MIA06 and MIA07 associated with native marine sediments
were found to be significantly different (p < 0.05) from dredged material. Consequently,
the results of the chi-square distribution confirmed, in part, the segregation of sample
stations shown above.
The objective of the following statistical test was to determine which PSC (among
sample stations) changed between native marine sediments and dredged material (shown
above). The frequency distribution within specific particle size class was observed to be
normally distributed (Appendix B) and the following hypothesis was tested by means of
the t-test.
H0 = There is no significant difference between specific particle size classes of native
marine sediments (reference) versus the dredged material (wet sieve dataset)
Hj = There is a significant difference between specific particle size classes of native
marine sediments (reference) versus the dredged material (wet sieve dataset)
Statistical tests were conducted on specific particle size classes (mm): 0.002, 0.063,
0.125, 0.250, 0.500, 1.000, and 2.000. Significant differences were observed in mid-
range PSC (mm): 0.063, 0.125, 0.250, and 0.500. No significant difference was observed
in PSC (mm): 0.002, 1.000, and 2.000. Thus, significant increases in mid-range PSC
were observed at dredged material stations as compared wth native marine sediments.
This results complements the relative difference in skewness reported above, in that,
marine sediments influenced by dredged material exhibited a more normal PSD due to
the introduction of mid-ranged PSC.
-------
10
EPA versus CCI. Seven of the fourteen sites (MIA01-MIA05, MIA07, and MIA13)
sampled during this EPA study overlapped with the stations sampled in 1985 by
Conservation Consultants, Inc. (CCI). As discussed in Methods, CCI reported their
findings in greater than 2.0, 2.0, 0.50, 0.25, 0.063, and 0.002 mm PSCs. For comparison,
the PSC used by EPA were adjusted (mathematically) to match the PSC used by CCI.
EPA did not use a dispersing agent prior to wet sieving. Consequently, the assumption
was made that the dispersant agent used by CCI did not significantly change the PSD.
Three methods of determining relative PSD: skewness, standard deviation, and chi-
square.
By inspection, EPA sediment samples were shifted down-field (coarser PSC) as
compared with CCI sediment samples (Figures 16-22). As evidenced by the cumulative
percent distribution curves, this shift was especially pronounced in samples collected
from Stations MIA03, MIA04, and MIA05. In order to emphasis this observation,
skewness was plotted against standard deviation to determine the degree of separation
between the EPA versus the CCI datasets (Figure 23). An excellent segregation of the
EPA versus the CCI datasets was observed. Generally, EPA sediment samples were less
skewed and had lower standard deviations as compared with CCI sediment samples.
Consequently, EPA's dataset exhibited a more even PSD by the inclusion of coarser PSC
with less deviation about the mean PSC as compared with the CCI dataset. As a final
confirmation test of the above observations, chi-square distributions were compared
between paired sets of data (EPA vs. CCI). Significant difference (p < 0.025) was
observed in each of the seven paired datasets (Table 5b).
The above tests were not sensitive to a determination of which PSC was responsible
for the difference between the datasets. Hence, the objective of next statistical test was to
determine which PSC (between sample stations) were responsible for the significant
different observed between the seven paired datasets. Using two-tailed t-tests of each
PSC of EPA versus CCI, significant difference (p < 0.025) were observed in PSC 0.250,
0.500, 2.000, and greater than 2.000 mm. By inspection of the arithmetic means of
paired PSC, the EPA means were higher than CCI in 0.063, 0.500, 2.000, and greater
than 2.000 mm PSC (Table 5a).
Sediment Particle Size (Laser - EPA Dataset). PSD as determined by laser analyses
were plotted on frequency and percent cumulative curves to distinguish between native
marine sediments and sediments altered by dredge disposal activities (Figures 24-37).
The patterns observed on these graphs show distinctive differences in how the PSC are
-------
11
distributed across the various stations related to their proximity to disposal activities as
well as their position on the continental slope. Native marine sediments have
distributions defined by smaller size fractions with little or no large particles present.
This phenomenon is highlighted when D50 values (statistical median) for each station are
compared (Figure 38). Stations that were located either within the active disposal area,
or thought to have been erroneously dumped on, all have higher D50 values.
The relative degree of skewness was also plotted against the standard deviation to
differentiate between native marine sediment and dredged material (Figure 39). The
usefulness and value of comparing skewness and plotting it against the standard deviation
has been previously discussed (see above discussion on wet sieve data). The clustering of
stations as observed in Figure 39 show how the native marine sediments group together,
differently from the other stations. The only anomalies seen are at Stations MIA04 and
MIA05. The fact that MIA04 is shallower and closer to the continental shelf (tendency
toward sandy sediments) would lead one to expect a less homogeneous PSD. The
distribution of MIA05 sediments leads to the conclusion that the sample had a mixture of
dredged material and native sediments.
Similar to wet sieve analysis, significant difference between stations on the laser
generated analysis was tested using chi-square distribution (a = 0.05, two-tailed) (Table
6). Significant difference was observed between MIA01, MIA03, MIA04, MIA05,
MIA08, MIA09, MIA11, and MIA12. MIA02 was also observed to be significantly
different from MIA10 and MIA13. However, no significant difference was observed
between MIA01, MIA02, MIA06, MIA07, and MIA14. MIA03 was observed to be
significantly different from MIA06, MIA07, and MIA14. However, no significant
difference was observed between MIA03 as compared to MIA04 and MIA08 to MIA13.
MIA04 and MIA05 were not significantly different from each other but were
significantly different from MIA06, MIA07, MIA10, MIA12 to MIA14.
Based on the interpretation of the on-site sediment characterization, examination of
percent PSC (wet sieve and laser methods), cumulative percent curves, and skewness,
samples stations were stratified as native marine sediments, dredged material, and mixed
sediments as follows:
Native Marine Sediments: Dredged Material: Mixed Sediments:
MIA01 MIA14 MIA03 MIA11 MIA04
MIA02 MI AO 8 MIA12 MIA05
MIA06 MIA09 MIA13
MIA07 MIA10
-------
12
Sediment Chemical Analysis. No pesticides/ PCBs, extractables or nitrates/nitrites
were observed above detection limits at the fourteen sample stations. Using a two-tailed
t-test, a significant difference (p < 0.025) was observed between native versus dredged
material for metals: barium, chromium, manganese, and sodium. By inspection of the
means, the four metals were higher in native sediment as compared with dredged material
(Table 7 and 8).
The only nutrient that was observed to be significantly different between native as
compared with dredged material was total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). The mean TKN
concentration in native sediments was nearly twice the mean concentration observed in
dredged material (1128 versus 670 mg/kg, respectively).
-------
DISCUSSION
In conjunction with on site sediment characterization, the particle size distribution
of whole size classes and within specific particle size classes was significantly different
between native marine sediments and dredged material.
A major finding of this study was observed by comparing the wet sieve analysis
with the laser analysis. Through careful scrutiny of the laser data, two stations (MIA04
and MIA05) were found to be composed of "mixed" sediments. Consequently, the laser
method provided better resolution demonstrating its ability to detect more subtle
differences in PSD.
The two separate sediment grain size analyses, along with the follow-up statistical
analyses, indicates that dredged material can be distinguished from the native marine
sediments at the Miami ODMDS. The data also indicates that areas identified by
sidescan sonar as potential dumps of dredged material outside the ODMDS are in fact
errant dumps that have occurred. However, these types of conclusions should never be
made based solely on a single method of analysis. An understanding of the whole
environs (e.g., depth, location on the continental shelf vs. continental slope) is also
critical to the data synthesis and interpretation for such a study.
The chemical data showed that four metals could be used to distinguish native
sediments from the dredged materials. It is possible that this difference is a result of the
higher percentages of finer particles (sites available for sorption) found in the native
sediments.
The laser was observed to be more sensitive to subtle variation in particle size
distribution as compared to the wet sieve method. Consequently, Stations MIA04 and
MIA05 could be separated from the other stations. It should be pointed out that one
shortfall of the laser analysis is the loss of comparability with the sample's size fraction
above 2 mm. Wet sieve alone was not adequate to distinguish between these subtle
variations in particle size distribution. However, depending upon the objectives of future
studies, project leaders should use discretion in selecting the method that is best suited
for meeting the data quality objectives and anticipated sediment properties encountered
during the study.
13
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Sediment samples were collected June 13, 2000 from the Miami Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal by the US EPA, Region 4. The objectives of the study were to
characterize selected representative areas of the sea floor from a sedimentological and
chemical perspective, explore new methods of sediment collection and characterization
where deep sea technology is required, and compare the results of this study against a
previous site survey (Conservation Consultant, Inc in 1985). We hypothesized there was
a significance difference between: 1) physical and chemical analyses of native marine
sediments (reference) versus dredged material; and 2) historic (CCI) and current (EPA)
particle size analysis of native marine sediments (reference) versus dredged material.
Based on the interpretation of the on-site sediment characterization, statistical
analysis of percent particle size classes and cumulative percent curves (wet sieve and
laser methods), samples stations were stratified as native marine sediments, dredged
material, and mixed sediments as follows:
Native Marine Sediments: Dredged Material: Mixed Sediments:
MIA01 MIA14 MIA03 MIA11 MIA04
MIA02 MI AO 8 MIA12 MIA05
MIA06 MIA09 MIA13
MIA07 MIA10
A careful examination of the sediment regimes that are associated with native
marine sediments (Stations MIA01, MIA02, MIA06, MIA07, and MIA 14) shows those
areas to be located along a similar depth profile on the continental slope. The physical
characteristics of different sediment grain sizes means that each would be expected to
have different erosional traits and settling rates. Areas such as the five stations listed
above which are under similar physical processes, and outside the influence of different
sources of material such as dredged material disposal, would be expected to show similar
grain size distributions. This explains why these stations, while located far apart, exhibit
the same distribution patterns seen in this study.
Seven of the fourteen sites (MIA01-MIA05, MIA07, and MIA13) sampled during
this EPA study overlapped with the stations sampled in 1985 by CCI. By inspection of
the differential distribution of particle size classes, EPA sediment samples were coarser
grained as compared to CCI sediment samples. In addition, as evidenced by the
cumulative percent distribution curves, this shift was especially pronounced in samples
14
-------
15
collected from Stations MIA03, MIA04, and MIA05. Using a chi-square distribution,
EPA sediment samples at the seven common stations were significantly different from
the CCI sediment samples.
We found the Young grab useful in sampling the deep sea stations of this study.
However, the following cautionary measures are recommended when attempting to
duplicate:
Carefully exam the current conditions that exist at each location, including
opposing currents beneath the pyncnocline, to ensure that minimal scope
on the cable exists. If too much scope (angle on the cable) exists upon
impact, the device will not 'grab' sufficient amounts of material and may
not close properly. This type of occurrence will result in lost sediments on
the retrieve or inadequate amounts of material, necessitating
redeployment;
Unless the device has a bottom pinger to warn of impending impact,
careful attention to present depth, present cable-wrap counts, and tension
on the cable are essential. Should you allow the device to sit on the
bottom for any extended period of time, vessel movement may tip over the
device and waste the time it took for that deployment. Additionally,
stopping the cable from paying out any extra length beyond impact could
result in cable weight tipping over the device or fouling; again, time
wasted on deployment; and
Special care is needed when subsampling the grab with smaller cores to
prevent loss of vertical horizons and contamination of the chemical
samples.
Because sampling in depths such as those at the Miami ODMDS requires
significant amounts of time due to cable pay-out and retrieval, it is essential that each
deployment not be wasted. Following the above recommendations can reduce the
amount of ship time necessary to complete such a study.
In conclusion, the methods used in this study are sufficient to distinguish dredged
material from native marine sediments at the Miami ODMDS. This can in large part be
attributed to the differences in sediment characteristics of the deep slope sediments found
-------
16
at the Miami ODMDS contrasted with the material being dredged for the Miami Harbor
area.
-------
REFERENCES
CCI.1985. Environmental Survey in the Vicinity of An Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site, Miami Harbor, Florida. Report to EPA by Conservation Consultants, Inc.
December, 1985. 55 pgs.
USEPA. 1996. Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality
Assurance Manual. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Athens, GA.
USEPA. 1998. Draft Standard Operation Procedures Ecological Assessment Branch. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Athens, GA.
USEPA. 1973. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of
Surface Waters and Effluents. EPA-670 / 4-73-001.
17
-------
18
Table 1. Data quality objectives.
DQO Step
DQO Description
Remarks
Statement of
Problem
Disposal of dredged materials can adversely
affect ocean benthic communities
Decision
Management decision on future disposal
practices at the site
Objective
Characterize selected representative areas of
the seafloor from a sedimentological and
chemical perspective
Testable
Hypothesis 1
Null: No significant difference native marine
sediments (reference) and dredged material
(physical and chemical analysis)
Alternative: significant
difference between
reference and disposal
site
Testable
Hypothesis 2
Null: No significant difference between
historic (CCI) and present (EPA) particle
size analysis of native marine sediments
(reference) versus the dredged material
Alternative: significant
difference between
historic and present
PSD
Statistical
Tests
Descriptive, Normality, skewness, Chi-
Square, t-test of means
Acceptable
Error and
Limits
a = 0.05
MDL:
Wet Sieve = 2 |im
Laser = 0.375 |im
Sample Size
Variance about the mean
-------
19
Table 2: On-site, visual and textural sediment characterization: Miami, Florida ocean dredged material disposal site (Page 1 of 2).
STA
LAT/LONG
WATER
DEPTH
(ft)
STRATA
MUNSELL
COLOR
TEXTURE
REMARKS
MIA01
25°47.079' /
80°03.383'
605
None
5Y 6/2
Fine Sandy Clay
Loam
No Strata; Few masses (5/10B); No limestone gravel; No
shell fragments; No odor
MIA02
25°46.1177
80°03.432'
570
None
5Y 6/2
Fine Sandy Clay
Loam
No Strata; Few masses (5/10B); No limestone gravel; No
shell fragments; No odor
MI AO 3
25°45.3887
80°03.360'
566
Surface
5Y 6/2
Fine to Medium
Sandy Clay Loam
Infrequent shell fragments; No odor; No limestone gravel
Subsurface
5/10B
Fine to Medium
Sandy Clay Loam
Common Shell Fragments l-3mm; No odor; No limestone
gravel
MIA04
25°44.999' /
80°04.461'
270
None
5Y 7/1
Fine Sandy Loam
No Strata; No limestone gravel; Infrequent small shell
fragments; no odor; large polychaete
MI AO 5
25045.311' /
80°03.413'
550
Surface
5Y 6-7/1
Fine Sand
Thin veneer
Subsurface
5Y 5/1
Silt Loam
No distinct boundary; Calcareous clays mixed with
numerous shell fragments; No odor; No limestone gravel
MIA06
25°45.00' /
80°02.58'
720
None
5Y 6/3
fine Sandy Clay
Loam
No Strata; Infrequent, small shell fragments <2mm, no
odor; No limestone gravel; plasticity; calcareous sediment;
no benthic
MIA07
25°44.00' /
80°03.367'
550
None
5Y 6/1
fine Sandy Clay
Loam
No Strata; Infrequent, small shell fragments 2-4 mm; few
masses (5/5BG); whole small shells on surface; no odor;
No limestone gravel; possibly one polychaete
masses
5/5BG
-------
20
Table 3: On-site, visual and textural sediment characterization: Miami, Florida ocean dredged material disposal site (Page 2 of 2).
STA
LAT/LONG
WATER
DEPTH
(ft)
STRATA
MUNSELL
COLOR
TEXTURE
REMARKS
MI AO 8
25°45.3377
80°03.777'
440
Surface
5Y 6/2
Fine to Medium
Sandy Clay Loam
Infrequent shell fragments; No odor; Common small to
medium limestone gravel
Subsurface
5/10B
Fine to Medium
Sandy Clay Loam
Common shell fragments l-3mm; Some HS" odor on
underside of bluish-green limestone gravel
MI AO 9
25°45.894' /
80°04.315'
310
none
5Y 6/2
Fine to Medium
Sandy Clay Loam
No Strata; No limestone gravel; Infrequent shell
fragments; No odor
MIA10
25°45.3577
80°04.227'
321
None
n/a
n/a
Limestone gravel sized on-site; representative sample
returned to EAB Sediment Laboratory
MIA11
25°45.0437
80°04.009'
373
None
5Y 5/2
Fine-Med. Sandy
Clay Loam
No Strata; Common limestone gravel; Infrequent shell
fragments; No odor; Frequent polychaetes
MIA12
25°44.467' /
80°03.561'
500
Surface
5Y 6/3
Sandy Loam
Stratified; infrequent small shell fragments 1-3 mm; No
odor; No limestone gravel
Subsurface
2.5Y 6/1
Silt Loam
Frequent shell fragments l-3mm; No odor; No limestone
gravel
MIA13
25°44.396' /
80°03.976'
370
None
5Y 6/2
Silt Loam w/ Fine
Sand
No Strata; Small shell fragments <2mm; No odor;
Plasticity; calcareous sediment; No benthic; No limestone
gravel
MIA14
25°45.070' /
80°03.027'
795
Surface
5Y 6/3
Fine Sand
Numerous small shell fragments; No odor; No benthic
Subsurface
5Y 6/1-2
Fine-coarse
Sandy Loam
Larger shell fragments (2-4mm) than surface strata;
Common limestone gravel; Calcareous sand
-------
21
Table 4. Chi-square distribution, wet sieve method using all particle size classes (highlighted values not significant at
p < 0.025).
Station | MIA01
MIA02
MIA03
MIA04
MIA05
MIA06
MIA07
MIA09
MIA10
MIA11
MIA12
MIA13
MIA14
MIA01
9.1
136.4
155.4
135.1
1.1
18.6
44.5
90.8
81.3
83.7
12228
49.3
| MIA02
82.8
96.5
81.1
19.4
6.2
20.9
55.9
43.2
44.9
8873
36.4
MIA03
8.6
12.5
190
76.1
28.8
75.9
19
29
1215.6
212.6
MIA04
2.7
215.3
72.2
24.6
53
11.8
28
2990
142.3
MIA05
215
56.5
23.7
56
4.4
14.4
2966
113.6
MIA06
17.8
38.5
88.1
75.1
82
13419
45.1
MIA07
20.1
50.4
35.3
28.6
4697
38.4
MIA09
41.9
11.2
28.5
9507
60.4
MIA10
66.2
127.3
1540
19.7
MIA11
6.5
4107
66.2
1
MIA12
1828
57.9
MIA13
195.6
MIA14
-------
22
Table 5a. Descriptive statistics: EPA versus CCI (wet sieve)
Size Class
Valid N
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Variance
Std.Dev.
Skewness
Kurtosis
EPA 0.002
7
0.9
0.8
0.6
1.3
0.07
0.27
0.83
-0.78
CCI 0.002
7
2.0
0.0
0.0
14.0
28.00
5.29
2.65
7.00
EPA 0.063
7
31.3
32.7
15.1
53.9
219.17
14.80
0.45
-1.23
CCI 0.063
7
24.3
24.0
9.0
38.0
73.57
8.58
-0.35
2.38
EPA 0.25
7
44.8
46.3
23.4
57.7
127.78
11.30
-1.09
1.71
CCI 0.25
7
69.9
73.0
61.0
75.0
28.14
5.30
-1.04
-0.50
EPA 0.5
7
12.5
13.1
2.7
20.3
29.38
5.42
-0.66
1.71
CCI 0.5
7
2.2
2.0
0.3
7.0
4.92
2.22
2.17
5.22
EPA 2
7
6.3
6.2
1.1
11.3
17.52
4.19
-0.20
-1.82
CCI 2
7
1.5
1.0
0.3
5.0
2.48
1.57
2.50
6.48
EPA >2
7
4.2
1.8
0.1
20.6
53.58
7.32
2.51
6.44
CCI >2
7
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.14
0.38
2.14
4.49
Table 5b. Chi-square distribution
(EPA vs. CCI, wet sieve)
Station
Chi-Square
p-value
MIA01
31.78
0.0000
MIA02
169.85
0.0000
MIA03
191.57
0.0000
MIA04
38.90
0.0003
MIA05
467.12
0.0000
MIA07
92.56
0.0000
MIA13
79.55
0.0000
-------
23
Table 6. Chi-square distributions, laser particle size using < 2 mm fraction (highlighted values not significant at p < 0.025).
Station | MIA01
MIA02
MIA03
MIA04
MIA05
MIA06
MIA07
MIA08
MIA09
MIA10
MIA11
MIA12
MIA13
MIA14
MIA01
10.6
20.4
64.3
62.7
0.6
1.2
25.7
26.1
10
28.5
14.8
9.6
7.6
MIA02
40.4
101
85.7
7.1
4
44.1
45.3
31
54.6
26.2
26.5
4
MIA03
13.7
16.2
31
39.6
5.5
4.6
5.3
4.8
7.8
4.6
72
MIA04
4.3
112.1
122.4
14.2
12.1
48.7
11.3
253.2
33.6
185.9
MIA05
127.7
146.5
10
8.7
343.5
9.4
3694.2
49.5
194
MIA06
1.5
26
26
12.5
29.9
14.7
10.2
8.6
MIA07
29.6
30.4
14.6
35
16.4
13.2
3.9
MIA08
0.4
354.3
1
4095.8
18.9
90.5
MIA09
290
0.5
3350.3
14.7
88
MIA10
7.7
3.8
3.1
38.5
MIA11
3512.7
15.8
92.2
MIA12
7.1
63.8
I MIA13
I
43
MIA14
-------
24
Table 7. Metals and nutrient scans, Miami ODMDS, flagged values removed (Page 1 of 2).
Analyte
Station
Al
AI-DM
Sb
Sb-DM
As
As-DM
Ba
Ba-DM
Ca
Ca-DM
Cr
Cr-DM
Fe
Fe-DM
Pb
Pb-DM
Mg
Mg-DM
Mn
Mn-DM
MFL1
2100
0.11
1.2
18
340000
11
1500
2.8
11000
29
MFL2
1900
0.1
1.4
15
280000
9.9
1500
2.9
9100
22
MFL3
1900
2.3
6.6
130000
7.8
2200
3.8
2700
12
MFL4
800
0.11
11
360000
00
CO
730
1.6
13000
15
MFL5
1600
2.3
5.7
150000
7.6
2100
4.3
2400
9.2
MFL6
2200
0.15
1.4
20
340000
12
1600
1.7
9600
32
MFL7
1700
0.15
1.3
14
270000
9.2
1400
2.2
7800
22
MFL8
1400
0.12
1.5
5.7
160000
6.3
1200
1.8
3000
9
MFL9
1200
0.16
11
350000
9.8
910
2.1
12000
19
MFL10
1100
1.1
9.5
270000
7.8
940
1.9
8700
18
MFL11
1400
0.11
8.9
250000
7.9
1000
1.9
7200
17
MFL12
1300
0.1
1.4
8.6
220000
7.3
1200
1.8
5900
15
MFL13
1400
11
320000
00
CO
1000
1.9
10000
20
MFL14
1300
11
220000
7.7
1200
1.6
5400
19
min
1300
800
0.1
0.1
1.2
1.1
11
5.7
220000
130000
7.7
6.3
1200
730
1.6
1.6
5400
2400
19
9
max
2200
1900
0.15
0.16
1.4
2.3
20
11
340000
360000
12
9.8
1600
2200
2.9
4.3
11000
13000
32
20
Arith. Mean
1840
1344
0.13
0.12
1.3
1.7
16
8.7
290000
245556
9.96
8.01
1440
1253
2.24
2.34
8580
7211
24.80
14.91
Std. Dev.
358
309
0.03
0.02
0.1
0.5
4
2.2
50990
87050
1.65
1.01
152
529
0.60
0.98
2115
4022
5.45
4.07
-------
25
Table 8. Metals and nutrient scans, Miami ODMDS, flagged values removed (Page 2 of 2).
Analyte
Station
Na
Na-DM
Sr
Sr-DM
V
V-DM
Y
Y-DM
Zn
Zn-DM
NH3-N
NH3-N-DM
TKN
TKN-DM
TP
TP-DM
MFL1
MFL2
12000
11000
4300
3300
5.5
5.4
5.3
4.7
11
13
11
14
1300
1200
340
320
MFL3
MFL4
MFL5
6400
9200
5800
910
4800
910
5
4.7
4.6
4.7
4
11
9.4
5.9
10
530
530
480
470
290
260
MFL6
12000
4100
6.3
5.7
12
9
1200
340
MFL7
9400
3100
4.1
14
12
1100
290
MFL8
5100
890
4.3
4.2
9.1
11
390
390
MFL9
11000
4400
4.8
13
810
290
MFL10
13000
2800
3.9
12
18
960
340
MFL11
8800
2600
4
4.2
8.9
690
340
MFL12
8300
2500
3.9
3.2
6.9
730
200
MFL13
10000
3800
4.6
10
910
280
MFL14
8300
2200
3.8
3.3
11
840
190
min
8300
5100
2200
890
3.8
3.9
3.3
3.2
11
9.1
9
5.9
840
390
190
200
max
12000
13000
4300
4800
6.3
5
5.7
4.8
14
12
14
18
1300
960
340
470
Arith. Mean
10540
8622
3400
2623
5.3
4.4
4.6
4.2
12.5
10.4
11.4
10.5
1128
670
296
318
Std. Dev.
1643
2562
843
1508
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.3
1.4
1.8
3.8
176
200
63
79
-------
26
Figure 1. Miami ODMDS station locations.
1360 kHz 8LDG
„ ICLOCKt
MIA01
/MIAMI BEACH
Otaim
PA
234 i
(?W W 1
mo |Uy xms 372
rfjXIU" f j :
TAN* r tr
lyu.SHr
MIA02
MIA09
85
• o wim
I no4<
Fiwlll*
MIA08
MIA03
634
MIA10
O G 56ft
Fl 4a 27*
MIA06
MI AO 5
lap Ga 50fl
R 5M
MIA04
MIA11
ISO G 6s 49ft
Obw .c.'S.h Pl.!l-!.l
(autfi rrinT 2!j tY.!
MIA14
MIA13
MIA12
Jh Co
MIA07
= EPA Stations (June 13, 2000)
EPA and CCI Stations
-------
27
Figure 2. Wet Sieve Particle Size Distribution - Station MIA01
(Miami ODMDS)
at
N
60
to
50 ^
0.002 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.000 2.000 4.000
Particle Size Class (mm)
% Volatile Size Class ~
Volative Solids
~ %Inorg. Size Class
— Inorganic Solids
-------
JH
o
-------
Figure 8. Wet Sieve Particle Size Distribution - Station MIA07
(Miami ODMDS)
c
TO <1}
c ro 50
5 O 40
rn.rfl.jn
0.002 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.000 2.000 4.000 8.000
Particle Size Class(mm)
|% Volatile Size Class |
¦ Volative Solids
]%lnorg. Size Class
Inorganic Solids
Figure 9. Wet Sieve Particle Size Distribution - Station MIA09
(Miami ODM DS)
S O 40
0.002 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.000 2.000 4.000
Particle Size Class (mm)
|% Volatile Size Class q
-Volative Solids
g%lnorg. Size Class
— Inorganic Solids
Figure 10. Wet Sieve Particle Size Distribution - Station MIA10
(Miami ODM DS)
w 60
60 ~ c
cc 50
50 5 2
O40
/
-40 | «
30
/
30 o
20
A
20
10
0
rL
M~\ , M~\ , J~l , _n , — , J~l , J1
10
0
0.002 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.000 2.000 4.000 8.000
Particle Size Class (mm)
|% Volatile Size Class [
-Volative Solids
]%lnorg. Size Class
Inorganic Solids
-------
Figure 11. Wet Sieve Particle Size Distribution - Station MIA11
(Miami ODMDS)
60
c
ns
ai
bO
3
o
40
F
ai
u.
30
o
20
10
0
0.002 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.000 2.000 4.000
Particle Size Class (mm)
] % Volatile Size Class ~
¦ Volative Solids
~ % Inorg. Size Class
— Inorganic Solids
-------
31
Figure 14. Wet Sieve Particle Size Distribution - Station MIA14
(Miami ODMDS)
0.002 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.000 2.000 4.000 8.000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Volatile Size Class I i%lnora. Size Class
Volative Solids Inorganic Solids
-------
Figure 15. Wet Sieve Particle Size Distribution Using Skewness
(EPA Data, All Particle Size Classes)
10 15
Standard Deviation
20
25
-------
Figure 16. Wet Sieve Particle Size Distribution - Station MIA01
(EPA vs. CCI)
33
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
EPA-Cum
]CCI
CCI-Cum.
0.002 0.063 0.25 0.5
Particle Size (m m ]
2+
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 17. Wet Sieve Particle Size Distribution - Station MIA02
(EPA vs. CCI)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
lEPA C
-EPA-Cum. % -
~ CCI
CCI-Cum.
0.002 0.063 0.25 0.5
Particle Size (m m )
2+
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 18. Wet Sieve Particle Size Distribution - Station MIA03
(EPA vs. CCI)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
| EPA l l CCI
-EPA-Cum. % CCI-Cum.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.002 0.063
0.25
0.5
2+
Particle Size (m m ]
-------
Figure 19. Wet Sieve Particle Size Distribution - Station MIA04
(EPA vs. CCI)
100
100
90
80
90
80
EPA
]CCI
CCI-Cum.
EPA-Cum.
70
60
70
60
50
40
50
40
30
20
30
20
10
0
0.002
0.063
0.25
0.5
2
2+
Particle Size (m m )
100
90
at
n 80
55 70
a;
0 60
ra 50
1 40
S 30
o
a 20
Figure 20. Wet Sieve Particle Size Distribution - Station MIA05
(EPA vs. CCI)
| EPA I I CCI
-EPA-Cum. % CCI-Cum.
0.002 0.063 0.25 0.5
Particle Size (m m )
100
90
80
c
ai
70
o
60
a.
50
at
>
40
ns
30
3
E
20
3
o
10
0
2+
Figure 21. Particle Size Distribution - Station MIA07
(EPA vs. CCI)
100
100
90
90
80
80
EPA
CCI
70
70
EPA-Cum.
CCI-Cum.
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
0
0.002
0.063
0.25
0.5
2
2+
Particle Size (m m )
-------
35
Figure 22. Particle Size Distribution - Station MIA13
(EPA vs. CCI)
0)
N
<55
0)
o
t
re
Q.
£
0)
O
0)
CL
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
I 1 EPA C
EPA-Cum. %
~ CCI
CCI-Cum. %
z
H
0.002 0.063 0.25 0.5
Particle Size (mm)
2+
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
£
0)
o
1—
'•P
03
3
E
3
o
-------
36
Figure 23. Wet Sieve Particle Size Distribution Using Skewness
(EPA versus CCI, All Particle Size Classes)
2.5
MIA04
IA02
MIA07&13
2.0
Ml AO
MIA03
(/)
o
c
£
0)
a
(/)
MIA05
MIAI
MIA07
\llA02
0.5
~ EPA ¦ CCI
0.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Standard Deviation
-------
Figure 24. Particle Size Distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA01
(Miami ODMDS)
70
60
50
" 40
o O 30
-------
Figure 27. Particle Size Distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA04
(Miami ODMDS)
O
-------
Figure 30. Particle Size Distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA07
(Miami ODMDS
S 50
0.002 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.000 2.000
Particle Size Class (mm)
IPSA .
-Wet Sieve - Cum.c
-PSA - Cum.
Figure 31. Particle Size Distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA08
(Miami ODM DS)
PSA - Cum
0.002 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500
Particle Size Class (mm)
1.000 2.000
Figure 32. Particle Size Distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA09
(Miam i ODMDS)
in 35
0.002 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.000 2.000
Particle Size Class (mm)
¦ Wet Sieve I
IPSA
-Wet Sieve - Cum.'
-PSA - Cum.
-------
Figure 33. Particle Size Distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA10
(Miami ODMDS)
60
50
o 40
30
20
10
0.002 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.000 2.000
Particle Size Class (mm)
_Wet Sieve PSA Wet Sieve - Cum.% PSA - Cum. %
Figure 34. Particle Size Distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA11
(Miami ODM DS)
o 30
« 15
a> 10
0.002 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500
Particle Size Class (mm)
1.000
2.000
IPSA .
-Wet Sieve - Cum.'
Figure 35. Particle Size Distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA12
(M iam i ODMDS)
0.002 0.063
¦ Wet Sieve I
0.125 0.250 0.500
Particle Size Class (mm)
IPSA ,
-Wet Sieve - Cum.c
1.000 2.000
-PSA - Cum.
-------
Figure 36. Particle Size Distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA13
(Miami ODMDS)
41
50
in
40
in
ra
O
at
30
N
55
c
20
01
o
01
0.
10
0
100
90
80
c
01
70
o
60
01
0.
50
01
>
40
ro
30
3
fc
20
3
o
10
0
0.002 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.000 2.000
Particle Size Class (mm)
I | Wet Sieve |__| PSA
-Wet Sieve - Cum.'
. PSA - Cum.
Figure 37. Particle Size Distribution < 2 mm - Station MIA14
(Miami ODM DS)
80
70
in
in 60
ra
° 50
a)
N
w 40
S 30
o
o 20
o.
10
0
l~l— I"I
100
90
80
+¦»
C
70
0)
o
60
0)
a.
50
0)
>
40
3
30
E
20
3
o
10
0
0.002 0.063 0.125 0.250 0.500
Particle Size Class (mm)
1.000 2.000
Wet Sieve
IPSA
-Wet Sieve - Cum.0/
.PSA - Cum. '
-------
Figure 38. Particle Size Distribution by D50 - Laser
(Miami ODMDS)
42
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
?
•§- 0.08
©
to
Q
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
MixedD
Sedimentsa
DredgeD
Mafia
n
MIA01 MIA02 MIA03 MIA04 MIA05 MIA06 MIA07 MIA08 MIA09 MIA10 MIA11 MIA12 MIA13 MIA14
Station
Nativen
-------
43
(0
(0
------- |