Environmental Assessment and Evaluation Study
for Designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site for the
Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern
Massachusetts Coastal Region
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
In cooperation with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England
District
August 2019
-------
Environmental Assessment and Evaluation Study for Designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site for the Southern Maine, New
Hampshire, and Northern Massachusetts Coastal Region
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
Boston, Massachusetts
Comments on this Draft Environmental Assessment should be addressed to:
Olga Guza-Pabst
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
5 Post Office Square, 6-1
Boston, MA 02109
(617)918-1542
Guza-Pabst.01ga@epa.gov
Comments must be received no later than:
30 days after publication of the Proposed Rule for the designation of an Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site for the Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern Massachusetts Coastal
Region and notice of availability for the Draft Environmental Assessment in the Federal
Register.
For further information, please contact:
Olga Guza-Pabst
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
5 Post Office Square, 6-1
Boston, MA 02109
(617)918-1542
Guza-Pabst.01ga@epa.gov
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
-------
Environmental Assessment and Evaluation Study for
Designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
for the Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern
Massachusetts Coastal Region
Table of Contents
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT F-l
1.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 1
2.0 BACKGROUND 2
2.1 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 2
2.2 Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern Massachusetts Dredging Needs 3
3.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 4
3.1 No-Action Alternative 4
3.2 Upland Placement Alternative 5
3.3 Beach Placement Alternative 5
3.4 Nearshore Placement Alternative 6
3.5 Unconfined Ocean (Open Water) Disposal 6
3.5.1 Cape Arundel Disposal Site 7
3.5.2 Isles of Shoals Disposal Site Historic 9
3.5.3 Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North 11
3.6 Disposal Off Continental Shelf 13
3.7 Preferred Alternative 13
4.0 OCEAN DUMPING SITE DESIGNATION PROCESS 13
4.1 Overview 13
4.2 Defining a Zone of Siting Feasibility 14
4.3 Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern Massachusetts
Zone of Siting Feasibility 15
4.4 Eleven Specific Factors and Four General Criteria for Ocean Disposal Site Selection.. 18
4.4.1 Application of Eleven Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6) 18
4.4.2 Application of Four General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5) 20
5.0 DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE AND SELECTION FOR FORMAL
DESIGNATION (40 CFR 227) 24
6.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 26
6.1 General Location 26
6.2 Sediments 26
6.3 Oceanographic Circulation and Water Quality 28
6.3.1 Ocean Circulation 28
6.3.2 Water Quality 29
6.4 Geology 31
6.5 Biological Resources 32
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
-------
6.5.1 Plankton and Fish Larvae 32
6.5.2 Benthos 34
6.5.3 Fish 36
6.5.4 Shellfish and Lobster 40
6.5.5 Wildlife 41
6.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 41
6.5.7 Essential Fish Habitat 43
6.6 Commercial and Recreational Fishing 44
6.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 48
6.8 Recreational Uses 49
6.9 Shipping 49
6.10 Mineral, Oil, and Gas Exploration 50
6.11 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste 50
6.12 Marine Sanctuaries 50
6.13 Air Quality 50
6.14 Noise 50
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 50
7.1 General 50
7.2 Sediments 51
7.3 Oceanographic Circulation and Water Quality 52
7.3.1 Ocean Circulation 52
7.3.2 Water Quality 53
7.4 Geology 53
7.5 Biological Resources 54
7.5.1 Plankton and Fish Larvae 54
7.5.2 Benthos 55
7.5.3 Fish 57
7.5.4 Shellfish and Lobster 58
7.5.5 Wildlife 58
7.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 59
7.5.7 Essential Fish Habitat 59
7.6 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries 60
7.7 Cultural Resources 61
7.8 Recreational Uses 61
7.9 Shipping 61
7.10 Mineral, Oil, and Gas Exploration 62
7.11 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste 62
7.12 Marine Sanctuaries 62
7.13 Air Quality 62
7.13.1 Effect of Dredging Operations in the ZSF 62
7.13.2 Effects of Disposal at the Proposed ODMDS 62
7.14 Noise 63
8.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 63
8.1 No-Action Alternative 63
7.2 Preferred Alternative 63
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
-------
9.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 66
9.1 Federal Action 66
9.2 Compliance 51
10.0 COORDINATION AND OUTREACH 69
11.0 SELECTION OF OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES FOR FORMAL DESIGNATION .. 70
12.0 REFERENCES 71
List of Figures
Figure 3-1. Location of the Cape Arundel Disposal Site 8
Figure 3-2. Bathymetric Map of the Cape Arundel Disposal Site 8
Figure 3-3. Location of the Historic Isles of Shoals Disposal Site 10
Figure 3-4. Side Scan Sonar of the Historic Isles of Shoals Disposal Site 10
Figure 3-5. Location of the Isles of Shoals North Disposal Site 11
Figure 3-6. Bathymetry at the proposed Isles of Shoals North Disposal Site 12
Figure 4-1. Phases of the Site Designation Process 16
Figure 4-2. Zone of Siting Feasibility 17
Figure 6-1. Surficial Sediment Types of the Gulf of Maine 27
Figure 6-2. Currents of the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank 29
Figure 6-3. Sample Locations at the Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North 31
Figure 6-4. Location of US ACE trawl transects in May 2016 and February 2017 39
Figure 6-5. Location of USACE lobster pot trawl transects in 2016 - 2017 40
Figure 6-6. Greater Atlantic Region Statistical Areas for Fisheries Landings 44
Figure 6-7. State of Maine Lobster Management Zones 46
Figure 6-8. Atlantic herring landings by month for the MA/NH Spawn Closure Area for the
years 2008-2015 47
Figure 6-9. Herring fishery activity for 2015-2016 47
Figure 6-10. Shipwrecks in the Gulf of Maine in the vicinity of proposed IOSN 48
Figure 6-11. Marine Transportation in the Gulf of Maine in the vicinity of proposed IOSN 49
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
-------
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Federal Navigation Projects in Draw Area of Proposed Site 4
Table 3-1. Potential Ocean (Open-Water) Disposal Sites Within the southern Maine, New
Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts study area 7
Table 3-2. Use of Historic Isles of Shoals Site by USACE projects 9
Table 6-1. Grain Size for Isles of Shoals North Disposal Site, November 2010 30
Table 6-2. Benthic community collected at proposed IOSN stations in 2010 35
Table 6-3. Species identified during the 1989 characterization of the Cape Arundel Disposal
Site (USACE, 1989) 37
Table 6-4. Species identified from the Maine-New Hampshire (MENH) Inshore Trawl Survey
in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN during the spring and fall (2000-2015) 38
Table 6-5. Catch (in metric tons) from NMFS Area 513 from 1984 and 2015 45
Table 10-1. List of Organizations Coordinated With 69
Appendices
Appendix A - Sediment Grain Size Data from Proposed IOSN
Appendix B - Benthic Community Analysis Report
Appendix C - DAMOS Summary Report for Monitoring Survey at Proposed
IOSN
Appendix D - Fish Trawl and Lobster Pot Trawl Survey report of Proposed IOSN
Appendix E- Bureau of Marine Science Comments on the Proposed IOSN
Appendix F - Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for Proposed
IOSN
Appendix G - Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP)
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
vi
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
aRPD Apparent redox potential discontinuity
ASMFC Atlantic States Fisheries Management Commission
CADS Cape Arundel Disposal Site
CY Cubic yards
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DAMOS Disposal Area Monitoring System
DO Dissolved oxygen
EA Environmental Assessment
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIS Environmental impact statement
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERL Effects-range low
ERM Effects-range median
ESA Endangered Species Act
DAMOS Disposal Site Monitoring System
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
GOM Gulf of Maine
ISDSH Isles of Shoals Historic Disposal Site
IOSN Isles of Shoals North Disposal Site
MCZM Maine Office of Coastal Zone Management
MDMR Maine Department of Marine Resources
MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHCP New Hampshire Coastal Program
NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NERDT Northeast Regional Dredging Team
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ODMDS Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
ppb Parts per billion
PV Plan-view imaging
ROV Remotely operated vehicle
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SMMP Site Management and Monitoring Plan
SPI Sediment profile imaging
TOC Total organic carbon
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ww Wet weight
ZSF Zone of Siting Feasibility
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
vii
-------
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The Region 1 office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, Region 1, or
the Region) finds that its action to designate the Isles of Shoals North (IOSN) site as an Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) will not significantly impact the environment and
natural resources of the Gulf of Maine. As a result, Region 1 is issuing this Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) pursuant to EPA's Statement of Policy for Voluntary Preparation of
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents, 63 FR 58045 (Oct. 29, 1998). See also
40 C.F.R. § 1508.13. The Region's FONSI is based on the discussion herein as well as the
analysis presented in the Environmental Assessment (EA), which is appended below and
incorporated herein by reference.
INTRODUCTION
The availability of an ODMDS in the vicinity of southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern
Massachusetts is necessary to maintain safe navigation of authorized federal channels and for
other public and private permitted dredging projects. Projected dredging needs for the area were
calculated to be approximately 1.5 million cubic yards (CY) of material over the next 20 years.
While there are some alternatives to open-water disposal available, such as beneficial use, the
projected dredging needs quantities significantly exceed the capacity of available practicable
alternatives. The states of Maine and New Hampshire have expressed concern over this situation
to the EPA. While the current situation does not constitute an imminent hazard to life and
property, the EPA has agreed that a prudent management action was required in order to meet the
long-term dredging needs of southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts.
EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) evaluated the possibility of expanding the
existing Cape Arundel Disposal Site, which was selected for short-term use by the USACE, to
accommodate the region's dredging needs. However, studies revealed that suitable areas for an
ODMDS are limited at this site due to capacity and diversity of habitats in and around the
existing site. EPA and the USACE also evaluated the potential to reuse another site which had
been used prior to the passage of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
of 1972, however, the site is located in an area that contains a diversity of habitats that are not
compatible with the placement of dredge material under MPRSA.
Given the lack of available existing capacity among both ocean disposal and other alternatives,
and the incompatibility of some material types with those other alternatives, the EPA is seeking
to designate an ODMDS that will serve the region's long-term dredging needs.
PROPOSED ACTION
EPA is proposing to designate the Isles of Shoals North (IOSN) site as an ODMDS. This will
provide the region with an appropriate disposal location to meet the long-term dredging needs of
the southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts region.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The attached EA considers the following alternatives for the designation of an ODMDS in the
vicinity of northern Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and southern Maine, as well as the "no
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
F-l
-------
action" alternative {i.e., the option of not designating a site):
No Action Alternative: Within the context of ocean placement, the no action alternative
would be for EPA to refrain from designating a new ODMDS for the placement of
dredged material. The most plausible outcome of the no action alternative is that existing
and proposed navigation projects in southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern
Massachusetts would not be maintained and/or could be terminated as the increased costs
to transport dredge material long distances would make project maintenance infeasible.
Terminating maintenance dredging would reduce the safety of the projects for both small
and large ships and would have an adverse economic impact to the region.
Cape Arundel Disposal Site Alternative: The Cape Arundel Disposal Site (CADS) is
located in the Gulf of Maine and is situated near Cape Arundel in southern Maine. CADS
has received dredged material periodically between 1975 and 2019 , though some records
indicate the site may have been used since the 1930s. CADS is defined as a 1500-foot
(457 meter ) diameter circle on the seafloor centered at 43° 17.805' N, 70° 27.170' W,
with its center located approximately 3.2 miles (5.1 km ) south-southeast of Cape
Arundel, Maine.
Cape Arundel Disposal Site Expansion Alternative: An area located in federal waters to
the east of, and adjacent to, the existing CADS site (described above) was considered for
potential inclusion in an expanded site.
Historic Isles of Shoals Disposal Site Alternative: The historic Isles of Shoals Disposal
Site (IOSH) is located in the Gulf of Maine, approximately 8 nautical miles east of
Portsmouth, New Hampshire and just east of the Isles of Shoals. This historic site was
used prior to the passage of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA) of 1972 for material from Portsmouth Harbor, NH and Rye Harbor, NH.
Isles of Shoals North Disposal Site Alternative: The Isles of Shoals North Disposal Site
(IOSN) is located in the Gulf of Maine, approximately 10.8 nautical miles east of
Portsmouth, New Hampshire. This site is currently defined as an 8,500-foot (2590-meter)
diameter circle on the seafloor with its center located at 70° 26.995' W and 43° 1.142' N.
EPA's Preferred Alternative is to designate the Proposed IOSN site as an ODMDS.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The alternatives analysis and EA concludes that the IOSN site would have the least effects on the
ecological and socio-economic environments of all the alternatives considered. Periodic
insignificant and short-term effects to water quality and biological resources in areas of the
ODMDS would be likely realized during disposal events. However, these effects will be
infrequent and limited to periods of active dredged material disposal. Long term impacts to the
resources in the IOSN footprint are anticipated to be limited to the creation of sediment mounds
on the seafloor. Dredged material mounds are not expected to interfere with ecological processes,
commerce, or navigation in the vicinity of the site.
Designation of an ocean dredged material disposal site by EPA does not by itself authorize the
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
F-2
-------
disposal at that site of dredged material from any dredging project. Designation of the IOSN
would only make that ocean site available to receive dredged material from a specific project if it
is permitted or authorized by the USACE. Such permit or authorization will only be provided if
the applicable MPRSA regulations are satisfied, which means that no environmentally preferable,
practicable alternative for managing that dredged material exists, and that analysis of the dredged
material indicates that it is suitable for ocean disposal under the MPRSA.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the environmental impact and alternatives analysis presented in the EA, EPA has
determined that the proposed action, the designation of IOSN as an ODMDS, would have no
significant impact on the human environment or natural resources within the Gulf of Maine.
Deborah A. Szaro Date
Acting Regional Administrator
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
F-3
-------
Environmental Assessment and Evaluation Study for
Designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site for
the Southern Maine, New Hampshire and Northern
Massachusetts Coastal Region
1.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
This Environmental Assessment (EA) and Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS)
Evaluation has been jointly prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of this evaluation is to provide
documentation in support of final designation by EPA of one ODMDS needed for long-term use
by navigation projects on the coasts of southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern
Massachusetts. This evaluation will select one of the alternative ODMDSs and determine if the
selected ODMDS fully meets all criteria and factors set forth in Parts 228.5 and 228.6 of Title 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations were promulgated in accordance with the
criteria set out in Sections 102 and 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972. Further, this document is intended to provide sufficient information to determine
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable laws and
regulations (e.g., the National Historic Preservation Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and
Endangered Species Act), se of the proposed IOSN site would be for the disposal of dredged
material determined to be suitable for ocean disposal to support the operation and maintenance
of several federally authorized navigation projects in southern Maine, New Hampshire, and
northern Massachusetts, as well as for separate MPRSA Section 103 permit evaluations for
disposal of dredged material from other non-federal dredging projects.
The availability of an ODMDS near the coastline of southern Maine, New Hampshire, and
northern Massachusetts is necessary to maintain safe navigation of authorized federal channels
and permitted actions. Projected dredging needs for the area were calculated to be approximately
1.5 million cubic yards (CY) of material over the next 20 years (see Section 2.2). While there are
alternatives to ocean disposal available, the quantity of dredged material projected to be generated
over the planning horizon significantly exceeds the capacity of available practicable alternatives.
The states of Maine and New Hampshire have expressed concern over this situation to both the
USACE and EPA. While the current situation does not constitute an imminent hazard to life and
property, the EPA and USACE agreed that a prudent management action was required to meet
the long-term dredging needs of the southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern
Massachusetts coastal region.
The USACE and EPA did study the possibility of expanding the nearby, active Cape Arundel
Disposal Site (CADS), selected by the USACE under MPRSA Section 103, to accommodate the
regions dredging needs. However, studies revealed that suitable areas with sufficient capacity
for an ODMDS are limited at that location. Additionally, a former, historically used disposal site
near the Isles of Shoals was examined for potential use, however, the former site is in an area
that contains a diversity of habitats that are not compatible with the ocean disposal of dredged
material.
Given the lack of available existing capacity and the incompatibility of material types associated
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
1
-------
with alternative options available (see Section 4.0), the EPA is seeking to designate an ODMDS
that will serve the region's long-term dredging needs.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), also known as the Ocean
Dumping Act, was passed in recognition of the fact that the disposal of material into ocean
waters could potentially result in unacceptable adverse environmental effects. Under Title I of
the MPRSA, the EPA and US ACE were assigned responsibility for developing and
implementing regulatory programs to ensure that ocean disposal would not"... unreasonably
degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological
systems, or economic potentialities."
The EPA administers and enforces the overall program for ocean disposal. Under Section 102 of
the MPRSA, EPA is responsible for establishing the environmental criteria that are to be
addressed before an ocean dredged material disposal permit can be granted. EPA's ocean
dumping criteria are published at 40 CFR 220-229. Under section 103 of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the
federal agency that decides whether to issue a permit authorizing the ocean disposal of dredged
materials. In the case of federal navigation projects, USACE may implement the MPRSA
directly in the USACE projects involving ocean disposal of dredged materials. While USACE
does not administratively issue itself a permit, dredged material from USACE projects must
meet the same requirements as those for which a permit would be issued to be dispose of
dredged material into ocean waters. USACE relies on EPA's ocean dumping criteria when
evaluating permit requests for (and implementing federal projects involving) the transportation
of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. MPRSA permits and
federal projects involving ocean dumping of dredged material are subject to EPA review and
concurrence. EPA may concur with or without conditions or decline to concur on the permit, i.e.
non-concur. If EPA concurs with conditions, the final permit must include those conditions. If
EPA declines to concur (non-concurs) on an ocean dumping permit for dredged material, the
USACE cannot issue the permit.
The MPRSA criteria (40 CFR, Part 228) states that final site designation under Section 102(c)
must be based on environmental studies of each site and on historical knowledge of the impact of
dredged material disposal on areas similar to such sites in physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics. General criteria (40 CFR 228.5) and specific factors (40 CFR 228.6) that must be
considered prior to site designation are described and evaluated in this assessment. Related
federal statutes applicable to the site designation process include the National Environmental
Policy Act; the Coastal Zone Management Act; the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Endangered Species Act. As required by Section 104(a)(3) of the MPRSA, ocean disposal of
dredged material can occur only at a site that has been designated to receive dredged material.
Pursuant to Section 102(c), the EPA has the responsibility for site designation. Section 103(b),
while encouraging use of EPA-designated sites where feasible, does provide for alternative site
selection by the USACE when a suitable EPA-designated site is not available. However, the
same ocean dumping criteria (40 CFR 228.5-228.6) are used in the evaluation process that leads
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
2
-------
to alternative site selection and the EPA must concur with the selection.
An EPA-designated ocean disposal site requires a site management and monitoring plan. Use of
the designated site is subject to any restrictions included in the management and monitoring
plan and EPA's designation regulations. These restrictions are based on an in-depth evaluation
of the site and potential disposal activity as well as public review and comment. Designation
of an ODMDS in itself does not result in disposal of dredged material.
2.2 Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern Massachusetts Dredging Needs
The draw area (i.e., the area from which dredged material would come from) for the ODMDS would
encompass any projects closer to that site than to either the Portland or Massachusetts Bay disposal
sites. The center of the Zone of Siting Feasibility (ZSF) is located about 42 miles from the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) and 43 miles from the Portland Disposal Site (PDS).
Harbors and navigation projects that require an ocean disposal site within this area generally do not
have sandy or other course-grained sediments suitable for nourishment purposes on nearby beaches
or in nearshore feeder bar systems. Also, some harbors that do generate sandy material are either
too far from suitable beaches or have no non-federal sponsors willing and capable of providing the
funds needed to facilitate placement as nourishment.
Table 2-1 shows the Federal Navigation Projects located within the draw area and the current total
shoal volumes present in each (from latest condition surveys). Some harbors such as Wells Harbor,
Maine and Hampton Harbor, New Hampshire, yield sandy dredged materials and have adjacent
beaches that are typically nourished, either by direct placement or nearshore bar placement. Other
Federal Navigation Projects, such as the Exeter River, Lamprey River, and Bellamy River, in New
Hampshire would either be placed upland, as was done with the neighboring Cocheco River in 2005
or would be beneficially used somewhere around Great Bay.
The volume listed for Portsmouth Harbor is for the upcoming navigation improvement project that
would widen the upper-most turning basin for the 35-foot channel. Periodic maintenance dredging
of the Portsmouth Harbor channel is accomplished about every ten years and typically yields coarse
sandy material that's placed in-river.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
S
-------
TABLE 2-1
FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECTS IN DRAW AREA OF PROPOSED ISLES OF SHOALS
Federal Navigation Projects
Closer to proposed IOSN than
to Either MBDS or PDS
Cubic Yards
Source of Volume Data
Frequency of
Dredging in
Next 20 Years
Cape Porpoise Harbor, ME
25,000
2013 Condition Survey
Once
Kennebunk River, ME
16,300
2014 After-Dredge Survey
Once
Wells Harbor, ME
31,000
2017 condition (partial)*
Every 3 Years
Josias River, ME
8,500
2014 Condition Survey
Once
Pepperell Cove, ME
152,700
2014 Condition Survey
Once
Portsmouth Harbor, NH & ME
753,800
2014 Feasibility Report
Once
Little Harbor, NH
205,800
2013 Condition Survey
Once
Rye Harbor, NH
49,100
2014 Condition Survey
Once
Hampton Harbor, NH
85,000
2017 condition survey
Every 10 Years
Newburyport Harbor, MA
(9-Foot Inner Channel)
21,100
2016 Condition Survey
Once
Ipswich River, MA
30,000
2016 Condition Survey
Once
Essex River, MA
69,800
2015 Condition Survey
Once
TOTAL
1,448,100
* Wells 2017 volume includes the 8' entrance channel and the 8' settling basins. It does not include
anything upstream of the basins.
3.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives for the placement of dredged material from the southern Maine, New
Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts complex of projects that were considered by the EPA
and USACE for the purposes of this document include no-action, upland placement, beach
placement, nearshore placement and ocean placement. The various alternatives are discussed
below.
3.1 No-Action Alternative
Within the context of ocean disposal, the no-action alternative would be for EPA to refrain from
designating a new ODMDS for the disposal of dredged material. The most plausible outcome of
the no-action alternative is that existing and proposed navigation projects in southern Maine,
New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts would not be maintained and/or could be
terminated as the increased costs to transport dredge material long distances would make project
maintenance unfeasible. Terminating maintenance dredging would reduce the safety of the
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
4
-------
projects for both small and large ships and would have an adverse economic impact to the region.
One option under the no-action alternative would include continuing use of the existing CADS (a
USACE-selected ocean disposal site that will expire on December 21, 2021). However, the site
already has use restrictions (limited to 80,000 CY per project) that would make full maintenance
of many of the projects in the region unlikely.
Another option under the no-action alternative would be for the US ACE to select an alternative
site for short-term use as a disposal site. Under MPRSA section 103(a), if the use of an EPA-
designated site is not feasible, then the US ACE has the authority to select alternate sites. While
the selection of a site would be subject to meeting the appropriate criteria and would have to
receive the concurrence of EPA (the substantive requirements for information and evaluation of a
Section 103 action are similar to those of an EPA formal designation under Section 102), use of a
Section 103 site is limited to five years, with one possible five-year extension. Therefore, 103
site selections by the US ACE are temporary and offer only a stopgap solution.
None of the disposal options under the no-action alternative meet the long-term maintenance
needs of the projects from southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts. For
these reasons, the no- action alternative is deemed unacceptable by the EPA. However, for the
purposes of determining whether the designation of an ODMDS is acceptable, the no-action
alternative is evaluated throughout the Environmental Assessment for comparison to the other
alternatives.
3.2 Upland Placement Alternative
Upland alternatives for the placement of dredge material include placement at landfills, the use
of confined disposal facilities (CDFs), or beneficially using the material for environmental and
economic restoration of degraded lands. Each individual dredging project will need to evaluate
any available upland placement alternatives during the planning phase for each project, as an
inventory of all potential upland alternatives in the study area is beyond the scope of this
document. Environmental impacts associated with upland placement vary depending on the
current use of the upland site. Sites such as landfills and degraded uplands tend to have minimal
environmental impacts to the specific sites, while the creation of CDFs may involve construction
related impacts. The disadvantages of upland placement are additional costs for
dewatering/processing the dredged material, additional material handling, increased
transportation costs, and increased impacts to air quality associated with the transportation.
Given the volume of dredge material noted in the dredging needs section of this EA, the capacity
of available upland placement areas for all of the material from the southern Maine, New
Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts projects within the study area is likely insufficient to
meet long-term disposal needs. Additionally, upland placement is generally not feasible for
operational, economic, and environmental reasons.
3.3 Beach Placement Alternative
Beach placement is a common form of beneficial use in which suitable sandy dredged material
is placed on beaches in close proximity to the dredge area. This is one of the most common
beneficial use of dredged material in New England. In the ZSF for southern Maine, New
Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts (see Section 4.2), this alternative is commonly used for
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
5
-------
maintenance dredging of entrance channels and anchorages for Hampton Harbor (New
Hampshire) and Wells Harbor (Maine). Beach placement usually involves using a hydraulic
pipeline dredge to pump materials from the dredge area directly onto the receiving beach. For
most projects, this requires a receiving beach within about one mile of the dredging site.
Material that is primarily fine-grained (silts/clays) is not appropriate for placement on beaches,
as the high energy nature of most New England beaches would continually re-suspend the fine-
grained material in the water column and create severe environmental impacts to adjacent
nearshore habitats. While beach placement is an acceptable placement alternative for sandy
dredged material, the majority of material in the southern Maine, New Hampshire, and
northern Massachusetts study area is fine-grained material that is incompatible with beach
placement.
3.4 Nearshore Bar/Berm Placement Alternative
The practice of depositing clean sandy or silty-sand materials from hopper dredges into the
nearshore littoral bar system off beaches is common in much of New England. This method of
dredging and placement allows placement of the material in beach systems at a greater
distance from the dredging site than can be achieved with a pipeline dredge, and it also allows
natural forces to sort fine sands from the coarser sands.
Nearshore berms are submerged, high-relief mounds, generally built parallel to the shoreline.
They are commonly constructed of sediment removed from a nearby dredging project. There
are typically two types: feeder berms and stable berms. Feeder berms are transient features
that contain predominantly clean sand placed in the nearshore zone directly adjacent to a
beach. The physical benefits of feeder berms include the introduction of new sediment to the
littoral system, indirect beach nourishment through onshore sediment transport, and a
reduction in nearshore wave energy along with reduced shoreline erosion. Stable berms are
generally longer-lasting features constructed in deeper water or low-energy environments,
where sediment transport is limited. These stable berms can be constructed with finer-grained
sandy material or sediments containing a mix of sands and silts since the environment is not
conducive to wave- or current-induced sediment transport. The physical benefits to stable
berms include reduced wave energy along the shoreline, lower shoreline erosion, and enhanced
habitat for fisheries. While nearshore placement is an acceptable placement alternative for
silty-sand and sandy dredged material, the majority of material in the southern Maine, New
Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts study area is fine-grained material (i.e., silts and clays)
that is incompatible with this alternative, he placement of predominately fine-grained material
in the nearshore environment would likely significantly increase suspended sediments in the
water column which could negatively impact ecological resources in the vicinity of the site.
Therefore, this alternative, which will need to be evaluated on a project by project basis, was
determined to be an unacceptable alternative for material that would be placed at an ODMDS.
3.5 Unconfined Ocean (Open-Water) Disposal
Unconfined disposal refers to areas where dredged material is placed directly on the seafloor
through release from a bottom-release hopper or barge at the surface. Three historic/potential
unconfined ocean disposal alternatives have been identified for potential use by USACE
navigation projects and private projects within the southern Maine, New Hampshire and northern
Massachusetts study area (Table 3-1).
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
6
-------
Table 3-1. Potential Ocean (Open-Water) Disposal Site Alternatives within the southern Maine,
New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts study area.
Site ID
Type
Site Name
Authority
Available
Capacity (CY)
Site Expiration
Date
CADS
Unconfined
Ocean
(Open-
Water)
Cape Arundel
Disposal Site
USACE-selected
800,000
January 17, 2019
IOSH
Unconfined
Ocean
(Open-
Water)
Isles of Shoals
Disposal Site
Historic (former
disposal location)
USACE-selected
unknown
Candidate Site
IO SN
Unconfined
Ocean
(Open-
Water)
Proposed Isles of
Shoals Disposal Site
North
EPA-designated
TBD
Candidate Site
3.5.1 Cape Arundel Disposal Site (CADS)
The Cape Arundel Disposal Site (CADS) is located in the Gulf of Maine near Cape Arundel in
southern Maine (Figure 3-1). CADS received dredged material periodically between 1975 and 2010,
though some records indicate the site may have been used since the 1930s. CADS is defined as a
1500-foot (457 m) diameter circle on the seafloor centered at 43° 17.805' N, 70° 27.170' W, with its
center located approximately 3.2 mile (5.1 km) south-southeast of Cape Arundel, Maine (Figure 3-
1). As an alternative dredged material disposal site selected by the USACE under the MPRSA in
1985 (and not a formally designated site by the EPA), CADS was closed in 2010 when its temporary
status ended. The site was reopened by Congressional legislation in 2014 for a period of five years
or until designation of an alternative dredged material disposal site for southern Maine was
completed. Site use will expire on December 31, 2021.
Water depths at CADS vary from 98 feet to 138 feet with complex topography. CADS is generally
deeper in the north and south and shallower in the west and southeast portions. Past surveys have
found hard rock outcrops in the shallower areas and relatively soft sediment in the deeper basins in
CADS (SAIC 1991). As part of this alternative, an additional area located in federal waters to the
east of the existing site would be considered for potential expansion of the disposal site boundary
(Figure 3-2).
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
7
-------
Figure 3-1. Location of the Cape Arundel Disposal Site
IO MwUk Bull lymokte Coii
Kennebunkport
Kennebunk
York
Figure 3-2. Bathymetric Map of the existing Cape Arundel Disposal Site and potential expansion
area
70*27aw
70'27 WW
Depth (r
C ^ Cape Arundel Disposal Site Boundary 1-0 m contours MLLW |__J Expanded Area
0 50 100 /X\
^^¦z^J'vteters Data: 2013 Bathymetric contour map and depth data over acoustic relief model 5x vertical exaggeration
Projection; Transverse Mercator Coordinate System. Maine West State Plane FIPS1802 (m) Datum; NAD83
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
8
-------
3.5.2 Historic Isles of Shoals Disposal Site (IOSH)
The Historic Isles of Shoals Disposal Site (IOSH) is located in the Gulf of Maine, approximately
eight nautical miles east of Portsmouth, New Hampshire and just east of the Isles of Shoals
(Figure 3-3). This historic site was used prior to the passage of the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972 for material from Portsmouth Harbor, NH and Rye
Harbor, NH. Table 3-2 contains data on use of the site by USACE projects.
Table 3-2. Use of the Historic Isles of Shoals Disposal Site by USACE projects.
Site
Date
Quantity (CY)
Material Type
Source of Material
ISDSH
1964
670,000
Mixed sand,
gravel, and rock
Portsmouth Harbor
Improvement Project
ISDSH
1964
2,470
Rock and Mixed
Rye Harbor
ISDSH
1970
61,400
Mixed sand and
silty material
Portsmouth Harbor
Back Channels
Improvement Project
A side scan sonar survey of IOSH was completed by EPA in July 2010. The survey showed that
the site contains a mosaic of soft-bottom and hard-bottom areas. The soft-bottom areas were
likely predominately silt, while the hard-bottom areas contained boulder fields, rock outcrops,
and ledge ridges (Figure 3-4). Given the diversity of habitat types in the IOSH, the limited
areas of soft bottom area that would be compatible with the disposal of fine-grained dredged
material, and the recommendations of federal and state resource agencies which noted that
IOSH is a prime area for marine resources and is an important fishing ground, the EPA has
removed this alternative from consideration for designation as an ODMDS.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
9
-------
Figure 3-3. Historic Isles of Shoals Disposal Site
B HISTORIC
LES OF SHOALS
: DISPOSAL SITES
York
Kitlery
) New 1
Castle
Figure 3-4. Side scan sonar (July 2010) of the Historic Isles of Shoals Disposal Site
1ingp Rock
67 163
({28 Old Henry
108
ttynose I'
158 Wfit
rty
Anderson Ledge
Sl- ndle
ry 142 m.
,JJ N "2"sCO J, ,-^MOP. .
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
10
-------
3.5.3 Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North (IOSN)
The proposed Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North (IOSN) is located in the Gulf of Maine,
approximately 10.8 nautical miles east of Portsmouth, NH (Figure 3-5). This potential disposal
site is currently defined as a 8,500-foot (2590-meter) diameter circle on the seafloor with its
center located at 70° 26.995' W and 43° 1.142' N. Water depths at the proposed IOSN vary
from 255 feet to 340 feet and gradually slope from approximately 295 feet on the western
boundary to 328 feet in the southeastern portion of the site. The area is generally flat soft-bottom
(Figure 3-6).
Figure 3-5. Location of the Proposed Isles of Shoals Ocean Disposal Site
70~Xr
-------
Figure 3-6. Bathymetry of the Proposed Isles of Shoals Ocean Disposal Site
70o27'0"W
70o26'0"W
70 28 0 W
70°27,0"W
70°26,0"W
ISLES OF SHOALS NORTH DISPOSAL SITE
usArmy corps 2015 DAMPS BATHYMETRY
of Engineers
New England District
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
4-
NOAA CHART 13278
1:24,000
I Kilometers
1.5
GCS NAD 1983
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
12
-------
3.6 Disposal off the Continental Shelf
Locating dump sites off the continental shelf is one of the five general criteria required to be
addressed under Criteria for the Management of Disposal Sites for Ocean Dumping [40 CFR
228.5(e)], subject to a determination of feasibility and practicability. For projects in southern
Maine, New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts, potential disposal areas located off the
continental shelf would be at least 230 nautical miles offshore. This distance is well beyond the
economical haul distance for typical coastal hopper dredges or tugs and scows. The longer
distance would increase fuel consumption and generate more emissions, contributing to local and
regional air quality problems. The longer tug and barge transits also increase the potential for
accidents that could jeopardize the safety of the crew.
Transporting dredged material off the continental shelf also presents potentially significant
environmental concerns. Benthic and pelagic ecosystems near the shelf contain important fishery
resources and the effects of disposal operations on them are not well understood. Fine-grained
sediment and rocky habitats may be directly impacted by disposal of dredged material. These
deep-water areas are stable and generally not disturbed by wave action or sediment movement.
Consequently, the benthic invertebrate communities in these deep, offshore environments are
adapted to very stable conditions and would be less able to survive disturbance from the
immediate impact of disposal and the long-term alteration of substrate type. As previously noted,
the longer transits increase the potential for accidents, which could result in the accidental
dumping of dredged material in an ecologically important area either in transit to the shelf or on
it. The cost for site evaluation necessary to designate a site and subsequent monitoring, along with
unanswered environmental concerns about the effects of disposal in such areas, makes off-shelf
disposal undesirable as well as infeasible.
3.7 Preferred Alternative
Based on an evaluation of the alternative solutions previously discussed, disposal of dredged
material from the southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts region into the
ocean is necessary and unavoidable. USACE and EPA have concluded that the designation of
the proposed Isles of Shoals North ODMDS is necessary to meet the long-term disposal needs of
the study area.
4.0 OCEAN DUMPING SITE DESIGNATION PROCESS
4.1 Overview
The disposal of material, including dredged sediments, into the ocean is permitted only at sites
or in areas where the impact of disposal activities on other uses of that area and the marine
environment would be minimal. The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA) authorizes EPA to designate areas for ocean dumping and requires sites selected in
locations that mitigate adverse impacts to the greatest extent practicable. Under MPRSA
section 102, EPA is responsible for designating sites for the ocean dumping of all materials,
including dredged material. EPA designates ocean disposal sites through rulemaking and sites
are published at 40 CFR 228. EPA bases the designation of an ocean disposal site on
environmental studies of a proposed site, environmental studies of regions adjacent to the
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
13
-------
site, and historical knowledge of the impact of disposal on areas similar to the sites in
physical, chemical and biological characteristics. All studies for the evaluation and potential
selection of dredged material disposal sites are conducted in accordance with the criteria
published in 40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6. Only dredged material that is permitted (or, in the case
of a federal navigation project, authorized) for disposal under the MPRSA may be disposed in
an EPA designated ocean dredged material disposal site. For the proposed IOSN site, EPA
and the US ACE generally followed the site designation procedures developed by a joint task
force of EPA and US ACE personnel titled, General Approach to Designation Studies for
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (EPA and US ACE, 1984).
The procedures utilize a hierarchical framework that initially establishes the broadest
economically and operationally feasible area of consideration for site location. A step-by-step
sequence of activities is then conducted to eliminate critical and/or unsuitable sub-areas. Further
evaluation of alternative sites (candidate sites) within this area entails various levels of
assessment as suggested by the sensitivity and value of critical resources or uses at risk, and
potential for unreasonable adverse impact presented by the disposal of dredged material. The
site designation criteria at 40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6 are applied to the information assembled
through this process, and a final site or sites are selected and proposed for formal designation.
The site designation process is structured into three major phases (Figure 4-1). Phase I includes
the delineation of the general area being considered for locating a site and the identification and
collection of the necessary information on critical resources and uses, and on the physical and
environmental processes for the area. Reasonable distance of haul is the determining factor and
will be affected by considerations such as available dredging equipment, energy use constraints,
cost, and safety considerations. Then a preliminary analysis, based on available data, is applied
to identify and map reach boundaries for critical resources, as well as areas of incompatibility.
Such critical areas and resources may include clustered areas of geographically limited habitats,
fisheries and shellfisheries, navigation lanes, beaches, and marine sanctuaries.
Phase II primarily involves the elimination of sensitive and incompatible areas, determining
additional data needs, and identification of candidate sites within the area based on the
information collected and processed in Phase I. Phase III primarily involves the evaluation of
candidate sites, selection of a proposed site or sites for designation, and the development of
management strategies.
4.2 Defining a Zone of Siting Feasibility
The ZSF is an appropriate area of consideration to ensure that a full range of reasonable and
practicable alternatives is considered. The EPA site designation guidance manual (EPA, 1986)
describes the factors that should be addressed in identifying the ZSF. Specifically, EPA
recommends locating ocean disposal sites within an economically and operationally feasible
radius from the point of dredging. Other considerations include navigational restrictions,
political or other jurisdictional boundaries, distance to the edge of the continental shelf, the
feasibility of surveillance and monitoring, and operational and transportation costs (Pequegnat
et al., 1981). Thus, the ZSF represents the area from within which a range of reasonable specific
alternatives may be selected for evaluation. By doing so, study efforts can be focused on areas
that will actually meet project needs.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
14
-------
4.3 Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts Zone of Siting Feasibility
The ZSF analyzed in this EA includes the region of southern Maine, New Hampshire, and
northern Massachusetts between Cape Porpoise, Maine and the waters north of Cape Ann,
Massachusetts. These boundaries were chosen as they are the points that are approximately
halfway between the proposed IOSN and the Portland Disposal Site (PDS) to the north and the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) to the south. The PDS and the MBDS are the nearest
EPA-designated ocean disposal sites in the region and are located about 85.5 miles apart.
Factors involved in the defining of the ZSF include dredge cycle time, weather, and distance
from potential source harbors. A site roughly central to this area of the coast would give a
maximum haul distance of about 21 miles for any harbor to either the PDS, MBDS or a new
centrally located site. This ZSF meets the dredging needs in the region and represents a
reasonable haul distance for marinas, boatyards, commercial docks, and federal harbors and
anchorages in the region.
The amount of time necessary to maintain a coastal project (exclusive of weather downtime) is a
function of dredging a scow or hopper full of material (loading), then transporting that material
to and placing it at a disposal site. This is called "cycle time" and the cycle time can be
different for each dredge. Loading time is essentially fixed based on the characteristics of the
sediments being dredged, the dredge itself (size of bucket, drag arms, etc.) and the dredging site
conditions. The time to discharge material also is basically fixed for a given dredge and the type
of material. Transport time depends primarily on the haul distance to the disposal site. Thus, the
critical variable for new construction or maintenance dredging is haul distance between the
dredging site and disposal site from both a time and cost perspective. A significant haul distance
will affect the ability to construct or maintain the individual project.
Weather is also a significant limiting factor for dredging and ocean disposal of material along
the east coast that must be considered in the development of the ZSF. While tugs/scows and
hopper dredges are generally able to work safely in North Atlantic coastal waters during all
months of the year, the probability of down time due to rough seas or other adverse weather
conditions during the winter months is possible. The longer the haul distance (time) to the
disposal site, the more likely that adverse weather conditions will stop or limit work. More
frequent work stoppage increases the probability that dredging of a particular harbor might
require more than one dredging season to complete.
Thus, this EA examines the potential environmental impacts associated with the use of a
potential open-water dredged material disposal site in the area of southern Maine, New
Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts, and the no-action alternative. Figure 4-2 shows the
current assessment area, referred to in this document as the Zone of Siting Feasibility (ZSF).
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
15
-------
Figure 4-1. Phases of the Site Designation Process
DEFINE
RESOURCES
PRESENT
LITERATURE SURVEYS
DEFINE TYPES OF
DREDGED MATERIAL
DEFINE PHYSICAL
PROCESSES
DELINEATE BOTTOM
AREAS
INTERVIEWS
DEFINE ZSF
Phase I
SELECT ALTERNATIVE
SITINGS
DETERMINE ADDITIONAL
DATA NEEDS
DETERMINE DISPOSAL
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
ELIMINATE
SENSITIVE
AND
INCOMPATIBLE
AREAS
GATHER
ADDITIONAL
DATA AND/OR
APPLY II
SPECIFIC FACTORS
(40 CFR 228.6)
Phase II
FINAL SIZINC
AND
POSITIONING
DETERMINE POTENTIAL
FOR CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
DETERMINE NEED FOR
MONITORING PROCRAM
DEVELOP SITE
MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES
SELECTION OF MOST
ENVIRONMENTALLY
SUITABLE AREA(S)
EVALUATE
CANDIDATE
SITES
USING 5 GEN.
CRITERIA
(40 CFR 228.5)
Phase III
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
16
-------
Figure 4-2. Zone of Siting Feasibility
US Army Corps
of Engineers
New England District
FIGURE 4-3:
ISLES OF SHOALS NORTH DISPOSAL SITE
ZONE OF SITING FEASIBILITY
3 Nautical Miles
NOSNE ATLANTIC DEM
GCSNAD 1983
MAINE
BOON
ISLAND
ISLES OF '
SHOALS %
(TILLIES BAP
71 WW
70°30'0"W
I
70°30,0"W
70°0'0"W
71°0,0"W
NEW HAMPSHIRE
MASSACHUSETTS
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
17
-------
4.4 Four General and Eleven Specific Criteria for Ocean Disposal Site Selection
EPA bases the designation an ODMDS on the evaluation of compliance with the four general
and eleven specific criteria at 40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6. A discussion of each criterion for the
proposed site can be found below.
4.4.1 Application of Four General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
Minimize Interference with Other Activities (a.). The first of the four general criteria require
that a determination be made as to whether the proposed site or its use will minimize interference
with other activities in the marine environment. EPA and US ACE used information from a
variety of sources to determine what activities may be interfered with by the disposal of dredged
material at the proposed IOSN ODMDS. EPA considered recreational activities, commercial
fishing areas, cultural or historically significant areas, commercial and recreational navigation,
and existing scientific research activities.
The information noted above was obtained from: the states of Maine's and New Hampshire's
Inshore Trawl Survey (http://www.maine.gov/dmr/science-
research/proiects/trawlsurvey/index.html): a report on biological resources submitted to USACE
from Maine's Bureau of Marine Science (Appendix F); information on cultural resources was
obtained from NOAA's Office of Coast Survey (http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/): USACE
archival files for Federal Navigation Projects and disposal sites located in the ZSF; recent
condition surveys of Federal Navigation Projects located in the ZSF
(http://www.nae.usace.armv.mil/Missions/Navigation.aspx): personal communications with the
shipping industry (Portsmouth Pilots); biological community (benthos, fish, and lobster) and
sediment sampling; and USACE DAMOS archives
(http://www.nae.usace.armv.mil/Missions/Disposal-Area-Monitoring-Svstem-DAMOS/). This
information allows EPA to determine the degree of existing use and how the indirect effect of
site designation and disposal of dredged material may interfere with these uses.
In terms of interference with other activities, the known activities that spatially overlap with the
proposed ODMDS include recreational activities such as boating and whale watching,
recreational fishing for groundfish, and commercial fishing for lobster, Atlantic herring, and
other groundfish, and recreational and commercial navigation. Even though these activities may
spatially overlap, the proposed ODMDS and the disposal of dredged material in the site either
do not interfere with the activities at all (whale watching, boating, navigation), or do not
interfere with the activities at a level that would result in significant effects to the activity.
The information gathered about existing activities at the proposed ODMDS has not identified
any potential conflicts that would eliminate the site from consideration for final ODMDS
designation.
Minimizes Changes in Water Quality (b.). The second of the four general criteria requires
changes to ambient seawater quality levels occurring outside the disposal site to be within water
quality criteria, and that no detectable contaminants reach beaches, shoreline, sanctuaries, or
geographically limited fisheries or shellfisheries. No significant contaminant or suspended solids
releases are expected. Based on previous monitoring work at similar disposal sites by the
USACE's Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) program, disposal of either sandy or
fine-grained material would not have any long-term impact on the water quality at the proposed
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
18
-------
IOSN site. No adverse water quality impacts to any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or
known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery near the proposed ODMDS are expected.
The proposed IOSN site is located in a depositional area and material placed at the site is
anticipated to remain within the site boundaries.
Interim Sites Which Do Not Meet Criteria (c.). Effective January 9, 2009, 40 CFRPart 288.5
was amended by removing and reserving paragraph (c).
Size of Sites (d.). The fourth general criterion requires that the size, configuration and location
of the site be evaluated as part of the study and that the size be limited. Ocean disposal sites are
sized to localize, for identification and control, any immediate adverse impact and permit the
implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance programs to prevent long-term impacts
over time.
The proposed IOSN has been sized to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate material
dredged from the Federal Navigation Projects within the ZSF, as well as material from smaller
private projects. The size of the proposed IOSN was calculated based on the requirement to
provide at least 20 years of disposal capacity per site, without the site accumulating dredged
material to a height that could potentially interfere with navigation and allow for both
management of dredged material disposal within the site and monitoring of the disposal mounds
and adjacent areas. The site covers a shallow basin area bounded by a slope to higher ground on
the west and by small ridges to the north and southeast, leaving a deeper area in the central and
east areas of the site. This topography, and the significant depth of the site (about 300 feet)
should allow for long term containment of any material placed there.
Bathymetric surveys of the disposal area following disposal events will be conducted as part of
the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP, Appendix G). The results will be used to
document the fate of the dredged material and provide information for future management.
Sites off the Continental Shelf (e.). Potential disposal areas located off the continental shelf
(off-shelf) would be a significant distance offshore, and impractical for dredging projects. The
nearest point on the continental shelf/slope boundary to Portsmouth Harbor is more than 230
miles south, about 96 miles southeast of Nantucket. The distant to the slope due east is about 270
miles. The haul distance to an off-shelf disposal site is therefore much greater than the average
operational limit of the southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts projects,
making an off-shelf site infeasible for all projects. Additionally, the cost for evaluation and
monitoring and the uncertainty of the environmental effects of off-shelf ocean disposal makes
the option undesirable.
Benthic and pelagic ecosystems near the shelf contain important fishery resources and the effects
of disposal operations upon those resources are not well understood. Fine-grain sediment and
rocky habitats would be directly impacted in disposal operations. These deep-water areas are
stable and generally not disturbed by wave action or sediment movement. Consequently, these
areas have benthic invertebrate communities that are adapted to very stable conditions and would
not likely be able to survive disturbance from disposal. Little is known of the ecology of benthic
communities on the continental slope, and disposal in this area could cause impacts of unknown
severity and duration.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
19
-------
4.4.2 Application of Eleven Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)
Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography and Distance from the Coast
(1). The proposed IOSN is located in the Gulf of Maine, approximately 10.8 nmi (20 km) east of
Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Figure 3-3), or about 13 statute miles east of Whaleback Light at
the harbor entrance. This potential disposal site is currently defined as a 8,500-foot (2590-meter)
diameter circle on the seafloor with its center located at 70° 26.995' W and 43° 1.142' N. Water
depths at the proposed IOSN vary from 255 feet to 340 feet and gradually slope from
approximately 295 feet on the western boundary to 328 feet in the southeastern portion of the
site. The designated site would be used for disposal of dredged material from authorized Federal
Navigation Projects and non-US ACE projects permitted under the MPRSA.
Based upon consideration of the location, depth of water, bottom topography, and distance from
the coast, the Isles of Shoals North Site is suitable for the disposal of dredged material when
done in accordance with the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP; see Appendix G).
Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or Passage Areas of Living
Resources in Adult of Juvenile Phases (2). The proposed IOSN is located approximately 11
nautical miles offshore of New Hampshire where species characteristic of the offshore areas of
the Gulf of Maine occur. A broad scale assessment of physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of this area of the Gulf of Maine are described within the "State of the Gulf of
Maine Report" (http://www.gulfofmaine.Org/2/sogom-homepage/). a modular document made
up of a series of theme or issue papers. Marine pelagic communities of zooplankton (e.g.,
copepods, euphausiids, pteropods, and chaetognaths), meroplankton (fish and invertebrate
larvae), forage species, and pelagic predators have coast-wide distribution and generally display
seasonal changes in abundance.
Spawning. The proposed site supports a variety of pelagic and demersal fish species and
epibenthic invertebrates including lobster and Atlantic herring. Many of these species have a
reproductive strategy that includes releasing a large quantity of eggs so that some individuals
will survive the substantial mortality common to the species during the larval and juvenile
stages. The alteration of the seafloor at the proposed site (in discrete locations year to year)
from the disposal of dredged material may temporarily impact resource spawning, however
effects would be short-term and localized. Additionally, resource spawning is not exclusive to
the proposed site and occur within the entire ZSF as well as outside the ZSF.
Passage Areas. Various anadromous resources (e.g., herring, alewife, striped bass, Atlantic
salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, etc.) that utilize the rivers and watersheds of
southern Maine and New Hampshire may pass over the proposed disposal site area. Ocean
disposal of dredged material at the site is not anticipated to interfere with fish passage or
adversely affect habitat used by transiting resources.
Nursery Areas. The proposed IOSN is a flat expanse of fine-grained sediments in 255-340 feet
of water. This type of habitat is not generally noted as preferred nursery habitat for Gulf of
Maine species. Therefore, no significant effects to nursery areas are expected from the
designation of proposed IOSN as an ODMDS.
Feeding. The proposed disposal site is not known to congregate organisms because of food
resources. However, the substrate does provide prey items (polychaetes, amphipods, bivalves,
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
20
-------
gastropods, shrimp, etc.) that are consumed by bottom-feeding fish, lobster, crab, and other
demersal organisms. Jeffery's Ledge, located to the east of the proposed IOSN, is an important
feeding ground for humpback whales and right whales in the summer and fall months and
serves as prime recreational whale watching areas. However, no effects to Jeffery's Ledge are
anticipated, as the proposed site is a depositional area which will retain any dredged material
placed there.
In summary, the proposed IOSN ODMDS encompass these resources however the site does not
provide unique breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage habitat. Additionally, the habitat
for the species that inhabit the proposed IOSN is not geographically limited to the ZSF and the
disposal of dredged material occurs for discrete periods of time over a discrete spatial area. Thus,
the temporary effects to the habitat at the site are not likely to translate into significant effects at
a population or species level.
Location in Relation to Beaches and other Amenity Areas (3). The proposed IOSN is located
approximately 10.8 nmi (20 km) east of Portsmouth, NH. The shoreward edge of the site is
approximately nine nautical miles off the nearest beaches in Rye, NH and is in waters ranging
from 255 to 340 feet deep.
Types and Quantity of Wastes Proposed to be Disposed of, and Proposed Methods of
Release, including Methods of Packing the Waste, if Any (4). Dredged material subject to the
MPRSA is not a waste. Sites that are designated will receive dredged material transported by
either government or private contractor hopper dredges or scows. Current hopper dredges or
scows available for use have hopper capacities ranging from 800 to 6,000 CY. This would be
the likely volume range of dredged material deposited in any one dredging disposal cycle.
The dredged material to be removed from federal projects in the southern Maine, New
Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts varies greatly from year to year depending upon need
and funding. The majority of the dredged material to be placed in the ocean would come from
shoals in the channels, anchorages, and turning basins in navigation projects within the study
area and would consist primarily of fine-grained marine sediments that have been transported
into the projects by tidal currents, riverine deposition, and upland erosion. The fine-grained
material undergoes rigorous testing to confirm that the material is suitable for ocean disposal.
The proposed site has been sized to accommodate the quantity of material to be placed.
Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (5). The feasibility of surveillance and monitoring
is maximized when disposal sites are located near shore and a port where research vessels can be
launched. The closer the sites are to such facilities the lower the cost to monitor (lower fuel
costs, less time). Thus, when considering feasibility, sites are chosen as close to shore as possible
to meet criteria for operational capability and safety for dredges, and to match the grain size of
the dredged material the site will be receiving as closely as possible. The EPA and US ACE will
monitor the designated site for physical, biological, and chemical attributes. The seafloor will be
surveyed for bathymetry annually, and the benthic infauna and epibenthic organisms will be
monitored every five years, as funding allows. The EPA and US ACE New England District's
Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS)will conduct routine monitoring and special studies.
Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing Characteristics of the Area Including
Prevailing Current Direction and Velocity, if Any (6). Section 6.3 of this document provides a
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
21
-------
detailed discussion regarding this criterion. The proposed IOSN site is in federal waters in water
depth of approximately 255 to 340 feet. Water circulation in the vicinity of proposed IOSN is
strongly influenced by the counterclockwise flow, or gyre, normally occurring in the Gulf of
Maine. The circulation of the Gulf consists of two circular gyres, one counterclockwise within
the interior of the Gulf, and the second, clockwise over Georges Bank. Maine coastal waters are
included as the western portion of the counterclockwise gyre within the Gulf. Current patterns in
the vicinity of the proposed IOSN are typified by coastal-parallel, non-tidal southerly drift
currents generated by the overall circulation of the Gulf of Maine.
Based upon the fine-grained sediments that dominate the area that proposed IOSN encompasses,
it can be concluded that the area is depositional in nature. Consequently, any material disposed
of at the proposed site will likely remain within the site and not be significantly affected or
transported away from the site by currents.
Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and Dumping in the Area
(including Cumulative Effects) (7). US ACE dredging and disposal records do not show
evidence of dredged material ever being placed at the area that encompasses the proposed
IOSN. The only known disposal activity in the ZSF has been at either the former Isles of Shoals
disposal site (IOSH) which was used, according to USACE files, in the 1960s and early 1970s,
or at the CADS. Both IOSH and CADS are considered in this document as alternative disposal
sites (see Section 3.0).
The EPA and USACE DAMOS program routinely monitor active and historic disposal sites
throughout the New England region. In general, results from decades of monitoring efforts
indicate that the placement of sediments found suitable for ocean disposal do not significantly
alter the long-term functions and values of seafloor bottom as potential habitat for biological
communities or contribute to long-term changes in water quality or water circulation at the
disposal sites.
Interference with Shipping, Fishing, Recreation, Mining Extraction, Desalination, Fish
and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special Scientific Importance and Other Legitimate Uses
of the Ocean (8).
Shipping. The EPA does not anticipate conflicts with commercial navigation at the Isles of
Shoals North site. In personal communication (teleconference) on November 21, 2016, between
Mr. Mark Habel of the USACE-NAE and Mr. Chris Holt of the Portsmouth Pilots, USACE-NAE
discussed the proposed IOSN disposal site location and its anticipated use with respect to
navigation transit impacts. The USACE stated that for large projects, like the Portsmouth Harbor
improvement project, about three disposal trips per day were anticipated during the fall to winter
construction window. Mr. Holt indicated that vessels transiting to and from Portsmouth Harbor
from the south and southeast follow a route inshore of the Isles of Shoals. Vessels approaching or
departing to and from the east and northeast (Maine and Canada) do cross the general area of the
proposed IOSN disposal site. The pilots stated that conflicts between dredge disposal operations
and shipping for large and small projects can be avoided by adequate notice to mariners of
disposal activities and frequent marine communication between the disposal tugs and the
Portsmouth Pilots.
Commercial and Recreational Fishing. Commercial fishing in the vicinity of the proposed
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
22
-------
IOSN includes lobster fishing, Atlantic herring trawling, and groundfish gill netting and bottom
trawling. These activities are not exclusive to the site and occur within the entire ZSF as well as
outside the ZSF. Fishing efforts vary annually in intensity because of shifting movement of the
target species and seasonal restrictions.
The principal recreational fishing off the coast of southern Maine, New Hampshire, and
northern Massachusetts is for groundfish and is done primarily from charter and private boats.
Private and charter boats generally conduct fishing for striped bass and cod, which are
generally associated with hard bottom substrates (e.g., ledge, boulder, and cobble habitat).
The potential exists for conflicts between the ocean disposal dredge material and commercial
fishing for lobster and herring. Ocean disposal of dredge material could interfere with lobster
fishing gear if it were present and a small percentage of the lobster resources present at
whichever portion of the site is being used in any particular year would be buried during
disposal events. However, with proper coordination efforts between the USACE and the lobster
fishermen's association, impacts to fishing gear can be eliminated and disposal events can be
localized within the site on a yearly basis to minimize impacts to lobster resources present.
Transit of the tugs/scows or hopper dredges to, from, and at the site during months when
herring trawlers are actively fishing could interfere with the herring fishery. Additionally,
depending on the month(s) in which disposal occurs, some herring resources (i.e., eggs) present
at the site have the potential to be buried during disposal events. However, with proper
coordination efforts between the USACE and the herring fishermen's association, impacts to
fishing gear can be eliminated and disposal events can be localized within the site on a yearly
basis to minimize impacts to any herring resources present.
Recreation. The waters in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN offer a variety of marine related
recreation opportunities such as recreational boating, whale watching, and fishing. Given the
discrete spatial and temporal components of dredge material disposal, it is unlikely that any
interference would occur with these activities.
Mineral Extraction. There are no known mineral extraction operations or proposed operations in
the vicinity of the proposed disposal site. The disposal site is not expected to interfere with any
future offshore mining or oil/gas exploration or extraction.
Desalination. There are no desalination plants in the area of the proposed IOSN.
Fish and Shellfish Culture. There are no commercial fish aquaculture or shellfish aquaculture
operations that would be impacted by use of the proposed IOSN Site.
Areas of Special Scientific Importance. There are no known oceanographic research efforts
directly within the area of the proposed ODMDS. The Maine Department of Marine Resources
and the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department partner to conduct groundfish surveys in
coastal waters of Maine and New Hampshire. The Maine-New Hampshire Inshore Trawl
Survey is a resource assessment survey performed along the coastal waters of Maine and New
Hampshire. Bi-annual surveys, spring and fall, have been conducted since the fall of 2000. This
survey is a collaborative research project inventorying groundfish resources by using a
commercial fishing vessel as a platform. This study would not be impacted by disposal at the
proposed site.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
23
-------
Coastal Zone Management. The preferred action (designation of the proposed IOSN Site) has
been determined by the EPA to be consistent with the states of Maine's and New Hampshire's
Coastal Zone Management Programs. The states will review this consistency determination
with a request to provide written notification of their findings.
The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Site as Determined by Available Data or
by Trend Assessment or Baseline Survey (9). Water and sediment quality analyses
conducted in conjunction with past disposal actions in the New England region have not
identified any adverse water quality impacts from ocean disposal of dredged material. The
ecology of the proposed ODMDS is typical of a northwest Atlantic fine-grained bottom
community. This determination is based mainly on fisheries and benthic data. Neither the
pelagic or benthic communities should sustain long-term adverse effects because of their
resilience to episodic disturbance and widespread distribution off the New England coast.
Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance Species in the Disposal Site
(10). Nuisance species are considered as any undesirable organism not previously existing at the
disposal site. They are either transported or recruited to the site because the disposal of dredged
materials created an environment where they could establish. Most of the dredged
material from projects in southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts that
would be placed at the disposal site historically have been classified as uncontaminated marine
silts and clays, which are similar to the sediments found at the proposed IOSN site. Disposal at a
designated proposed IOSN site shall be limited to dredged material determined to be suitable for
ocean disposal under the MPRSA and the ocean dumping regulations. Therefore, it is highly
unlikely that any nuisance species could be established at the proposed disposal site since habitat
(i.e., sediment type) or contaminant levels are unlikely to change over the long-term use of the
site.
Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any Significant Natural or Cultural
Features of Historical Importance (11). Jeffery's Ledge, located to the east of the proposed
IOSN, is an important feeding ground for humpback whales and right whales in the summer and
fall months and serves as a prime recreational whale watching area.
Sidescan sonar of the proposed IOSN was conducted and no potential shipwrecks or other cultural
features were noted. The cultural resource literature search conducted for the proposed IOSN area
did not identify any shipwrecks in the vicinity. While undiscovered shipwrecks could occur in the
area, it is unlikely based on the results of the sidescan survey of the area. Based on this
information, it is unlikely that any significant cultural resources will be affected by the
designation and use of the disposal site.
5.0 DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE AND SELECTION FOR
FORMAL DESIGNATION (40 CFR 227)
Determination of Environmental Acceptability of Ocean Disposal (Subpart B). The US ACE
and EPA have documented for the record via this evaluation the anticipated environmental effects
from designation of an ocean dredged material disposal site offshore of southern Maine, New
Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts and from the potential future regulated use of that site
pursuant to the SMMP (Appendix G) for disposal of dredged materials. Designation of an ocean
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
24
-------
dredged material disposal site does not mandate use; however, once designated, the use of the site
is anticipated. Material that could be disposed in the ocean is anticipated to be clean marine fine-
grained material (primarily silts and clays) from the Federal Navigation Projects in coastal areas
of southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts.
By regulation, dredged sediments suitable for ocean dumping may not contain any materials
listed in Section 227.5 or contain any of the materials listed in Section 227.6 except as trace
contaminants. Determination of trace contaminants is accomplished by USACE and EPA
evaluation of the dredged material employing the procedures of applicable national and regional
testing manuals. Compliance with the applicable prohibitions, limits, and conditions for site use
will assure that formal designation of ocean dredged material disposal sites and their use will not
unduly degrade or endanger the marine environment.
With respect to this subpart, it is concluded that site designation and use would present:
a) No unacceptable adverse effects on human health and no significant damage to the
resources of the marine environment;
b) No unacceptable adverse effect on the marine ecosystem;
c) No unacceptable adverse persistent or permanent effects due to the dumping of dredged
materials; and
d) No unacceptable adverse effect on the ocean for other uses as a result of direct
environmental impact.
Determination of Need for Designation of Sites (Subpart C). The need for ocean dumping
has been adequately documented by a thorough evaluation of the factors listed in Section 227.15.
No practicable alternatives presently exist to manage dredged sediments from southern Maine,
New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts federal projects. Designation of an ocean dredged
material disposal site to fulfill the present and anticipated future need is required. While the use
of a designated site is anticipated, that use is not mandated by the designation. Notwithstanding
compliance with the other ocean dumping criteria, ocean dumping of dredged material may not
be authorized if there is no need for the dumping, and alternative means of disposal are available,
as determined in accordance with Subpart C. These factors must be evaluated and documented
for the record for each proposed dumping on an individual project basis.
Impact on Esthetics, Recreational and Economic Values (Subpart D). In itself, designation
of the proposed ODMDSs has no effect on esthetics, recreational or economic values. Designation
of an ODMDS does not mandate use. However, use of the site once designated is anticipated and
the potential for adverse effects results from the individual and cumulative disposals at the
designated site.
The location of the ODMDS is chosen to minimize resource impacts and use conflicts to
acceptable levels, not to necessarily avoid all conflicts. Potential impacts to esthetics, recreation,
and economics from using the proposed site offshore of southern Maine and New Hampshire
were evaluated by USACE and EPA and are documented in this evaluation study. The EPA's site
designation rule will define site use conditions that, in conjunction with the SMMP (Appendix
G), will limit the extent and severity of any impacts to acceptable levels.
Recreational use and esthetics and the potential effects of disposal operations on these factors are
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
25
-------
described in detail in Sections 6-8 and 7-8 of this evaluation, respectively. No significant adverse
effects on recreational use and esthetics are expected. The economic use (i.e., commercial and
recreational fishing) and the potential effects of disposal operations on economics are described in
detail in Section 6-6 and 7-6 of this evaluation. No significant adverse effects towards economic
resources are anticipated.
EPA must also consider the consequences of not authorizing disposal sites and use of those sites,
including without limitation, the impact on esthetic, recreation and economic values with respect
to the municipalities and industries involved. Without ocean disposal, the Federal Navigation
Projects in southern Maine and New Hampshire cannot be economically maintained. The benefits
associated with continued ocean commerce of the southern Maine and New Hampshire region are
substantial on a regional and national scale. While all economic values would not be completely
lost, failure to maintain the navigation projects could result in severe economic disruption to
municipalities, industries, and individuals throughout the region. Failure to maintain the
navigation projects would not be expected to directly impact recreational uses or esthetic values
defined by this subpart.
With respect to this subpart, it is concluded that the designation and use of the proposed ODMDS
would not result in unacceptable adverse effects to esthetic, recreational, and economic values.
Further, it is concluded that in the absence of an ODMDS, unacceptable adverse economic effects
to municipalities and industries will occur throughout the region.
Impact on Other Uses of the Ocean (Subpart E). This evaluation study identified and
assessed the nature and extent of existing and potential use of the disposal site itself and of any
areas that reasonably may be affected by designation of the site and its use. Temporary and long-
range effects were evaluated with particular emphasis on any irreversible or irretrievable
commitment of resources that would result from use of the designated site. Based on these
evaluations, it is concluded that there would be no unacceptable adverse effect on other uses of
the ocean as defined by this subpart.
6.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
6.1 General Location
The proposed Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North (IOSN) is located in the Gulf of Maine seaward
of the three-nautical mile limit of the territorial sea in federal waters, just northeast of the Isles of
Shoals and approximately 20 km (10.8 nmi) east of Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Figure 3-5).
The site is defined as a 8,500-foot (2590-meter) diameter circle on the seafloor with its center
located at 70° 26.995' W and 43° 1.142' N. Water depths at the proposed IOSN vary from 255
feet to 340 feet and gradually slope from approximately 295 feet on the western boundary to 328
feet in the southeastern portion of the site (Figure 3-6).
6.2 Sediments
In general, the bathymetry of the seafloor in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN is a fairly uniform
flat bottom. Surficial sediments at the site were sampled in November of 2010 by the USACE
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
26
-------
using a 0.4 m2 grab sampler. Sample locations are noted in Figure 6-3. Sediments at all stations
were dominated by silt-clay (Table 6-1). All stations, with the exception of Station B, were
composed of 93% or more of silt clay (with the remaining fraction sands). The sediments at
Station B were composed of 80% silts and clays and 20% sands. Grain size curves of all samples
can be found in Appendix B.
A review of data from the Northeast Ocean Data Portal (https://www.northeastoceandata.org)
shows that the sediments within the proposed IOSN are primarily silts. Figure 6-1 illustrates the
sediments within proposed IOSN and the surrounding Gulf of Maine.
Figure 6-1. Surficial Sediment Types of the Gulf of Maine
(Northeast Ocean Data Portal, https://www.northeastoceandata.org)
Benthic Habitats
Soft sediments (by grain
size)
¦ Clay (< 0.002)
H Silt (0.002 - 0.06)
Hj Very Fine Sand (0.06
- 0.125)
~ Fine Sand (0.125 -
0.25)
~ Medium Sand (0.25 -
0.5)
F^l Coarse Sand (0.5 -
^ Gravel/Granule (> 2)
Seabed Forms
| Depression
~ Mid Flat
| | Upper Flat
| Low Slope
| Scarp
~ Side Slope
~ Upper Slope
Isles of Shoals North
Disposal Site - Areas
Hampton
[***•) PolyStyle30
Anderson, M. G., Greene, J., Morse, D., Shumway, D. and Clark, M (2010) Benthic Habitats of the Northwest Atlantic in Greene, J.K., M.G. Anderson, J.
Odell, and N. Steinberg, eds. The Northwest Atlantic Marine Ecoregional Assessment: Species, Habitats and Ecosystems. Phase One. The Nature
Conservancy, Eastern U.S. Division, Boston, MA. | Esri, HERE, Garmin, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA
In September 2015, USACE's DAMOS program performed a monitoring survey of proposed
IOSN (Guarinello, et al., 2016) using the Sediment-Profile Imaging/Plan View Imaging (SPI/PV)
monitoring technique that involves deploying an underwater camera system to photograph a plan
view of the seafloor as well as a cross-section of the sediment-water interface. The SPI/PV
monitoring survey concluded that the sediments at all stations surveyed were characterized as
soft muds (e.g., silt/clay). SPI camera penetration depths throughout the site also indicated soft
sediments with a mean penetration depth of 15.2 cm and a range from 9.3 to 18.7 cm. The SPI
data showed no evidence of low dissolved oxygen or sedimentary methane within the
sediments of the proposed disposal site.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
27
-------
6.3 Oceanographic Circulation and Water Quality
6.3.1 Oceanographic Circulation
The water column at proposed IOSN behaves in a manner typical of northeastern continental
shelf regions, with isothermal conditions less than 6°C during the winter, giving way to stratified
conditions with maximum surface temperatures on the order of 18°C, and a strong thermocline at
a depth of 20-30 meters during the summer months. The water column overturns during the fall,
returning to isothermal conditions. Although this typical water column structure is persistent
over the long term, there are anomalous perturbations that can cause significant variations,
particularly in the winter months.
Water circulation in the vicinity of proposed IOSN is strongly influenced by the
counterclockwise flow, or gyre, normally occurring in the Gulf of Maine (Figure 6-2)
(http://www.gulfofmaine-census.org/about-the-gulf/oceanography/circulation/). The circulation
of the Gulf consists of two circular gyres, one counterclockwise within the interior of the Gulf,
and the second, clockwise over Georges Bank. Maine coastal waters are included as the western
portion of the counterclockwise gyre within the Gulf. Studies using drift bottles and sea-bed
drifters (Bigelow, 1927; Bumpus, 1976) indicated seasonal variability in this circulation under
the combined effects of local wind stress and input of freshwater flows. In general, the
circulation gyres are most strongly developed in the summer; during the winter, the interior gyre
tends to move northward and become more diffuse.
Current patterns in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN are typified by coastal-parallel, non-tidal
southerly drift generated by the overall circulation of the Gulf of Maine. The southerly flow is
affected by tidally induced currents (averaging 15 cm/sec) that generate inshore and offshore
movements, and local topography that may create local eddies. Strong northeast storms can
generate southwesterly flows with speeds of 30-40 cm/sec. Bottom currents are influenced by
topographic features in the region that disrupt the vertical coherence of the current structure.
Near bottom currents in the region are generally less than 10 cm/sec and highly variable in
direction (USACE, 1989).
Wave conditions in the vicinity of coastal southern Maine result from both local wind wave
formation and propagation of long period waves (swell) generated on the adjoining continental
shelf. USACE (1989) stated that the sheltering provided by the coastline limits wave generation
from the westerly direction and that waves from the westerly quadrants larger than 1.8 m (6 feet)
occur only 0.2% of the time on an annual basis and waves over 3.7 m (12 feet) are virtually
nonexistent. Conversely, waves from the easterly quadrant that are over 1.8 m (6 feet) occur 4%
of the time, or nearly twenty times more frequently, and waves over 3.7 m (12 feet) occur
approximately 0.5% of the year.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
28
-------
Figure 6-2. Currents of the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank
6.3.2 Water Quality
This section describes the water quality in the water column of the Gulf of Maine in the vicinity of
the proposed GDMDS. Water quality is evaluated using the following parameters: turbidity,
nutrients, dissolved oxygen, metals, and organic compounds. This evaluation relies primarily on
information collected during previous studies of the Cape Arundel Disposal Site (USACE, 1989),
data from EPA coastal nutrient trend monitoring (EPA, 2011), and data from Northeastern Regional
Association of Coastal Ocean Observing System (NERACOOS) ocean observing system buoys in
the Gulf of Maine (NERACOOS, 2017).
6.3.2.1 pH
The pH values in the waters in vicinity of the proposed IOSN site generally ranged from 7.78 to
8.15. These are typical ocean pH values, which generally change little because of the large buffering
capacity of seawater (USACE, 1989).
6.3.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Average DO concentrations in the water column in the vicinity of proposed IOSN rarely fall below
6.5 mg/L (EPA, 2011; NERACOOS, 2017). This indicates that the water quality is excellent in this
area. DO has the tendency to decline during the middle of the year due to stratification, respiration,
and warming of the water.
6.3.2.3 Nutrients
Nitrogen and phosphorous compounds are essential nutrients that are metabolized by primary
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
29
-------
producers (e.g. plankton, algae) in photosynthetic processes. It is this primary production that forms
the lowest trophic level of marine food webs. Excess nutrients can cause eutrophication and
influence phytoplankton populations. Nitrogenous compounds (ammonia and nitrate) are of
particular concern as nitrogen is often limiting in ocean waters. Phosphorous concentrations,
although a concern in fresh water systems, are rarely limiting in the marine environment.
Water column analyses of nutrients (ammonia, nitrates, and phosphorous) were obtained during a
study of the Cape Arundel Disposal Site (USACE, 1989). Data showed that nutrient concentrations
varied seasonally with highest concentrations in the winter. This seasonal variation is most likely the
result of biological activity and uptake.
6.3.2.4 Turbidity
Turbidity affects the depth of light penetration and therefore primary productivity in the water
column. Particulate material suspended in the water column contributes to turbidity. Although not
equivalent, turbidity is often measured by concentrations of suspended solids in grams/liter.
Shevenell's (1974) data for the coastal waters of New Hampshire suggests that the suspended solid
concentrations at nearby Cape Arundel are low (1-3 mg/1). Data from EPA's coastal nutrient
monitoring (EPA, 2011) measured turbidity at sites located inshore and further offshore than the
proposed IOSN and found turbidity levels ranging between 0.5 - 0.9 NTUs, also suggesting that the
turbidity in offshore waters contain low levels of suspended sediments.
6.3.2.5 Metals and Organic Compounds
There are no existing data that characterize the sediment chemistry of the sediments at the proposed
IOSN site. The Cape Arundel Disposal Site evaluation (USACE, 1989) noted that the sediments at
the CADS site were similar in metal and organic compound concentrations to nearby reference
areas, which were at low levels. As the proposed IOSN site is far from contaminant sources, the
sediment concentrations of metals and organic compounds are anticipated to be similar to other sites
in the Gulf of Maine, such as the baseline conditions at CADS and the CADS reference areas
(USACE, 1989).
Table 6-1. Grain Size for Isles of Shoals North Disposal Site, November 2010
Station
Depth (ft)
% Sand
% Silt & Clay
A
319
2.1
97.9
B
314
20.2
79.8
C
315
2.4
97.6
D
318
3.4
96.6
E
316
3.7
96.3
F
321
2.4
97.6
G
317
3.9
96.1
H
328
7.3
92.7
I
313
2.1
97.9
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
30
-------
FIGURE 6-3. USAGE Sample Locations at the Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North, November 2010
70,27(TW
70'2e0"W
Isles of Shoals North
Disposal Site
6.4 Geology
Earnhardt et. al (1996) note that the surficial materials of the inner continental shelf of the
northwestern Gulf of Maine are the most complex of any place along the Atlantic continental
margin of the United States. Igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks spanning hundreds of
millions of years of Earth's history form the regional basement. Glacial deposits, containing all class
sizes from boulders to mud, partially cover these rocks. The materials, in turn, have been reworked
by coastal processes during extreme fluctuations of sea level over the past few thousand years to
create better sorted modern deposits. The surficial sediments at the proposed IOSN are fine-grained
silts and clays (Table 6-1 and Figure 6-1).
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
31
-------
6.5 Biological Resources
6.5.1 Plankton and Fish Larvae
Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton communities in the northeastern coastal shelf consist of a diverse assemblage of
species, the most abundant of which can be divided into three main groups. These groups are the
small-sized diatoms, the phytoflagellates, and the ultraplankton (2-5 um in size). The small diatoms
(e.g., Skeletonema costatum and Rhizosolenia delicatula) are seasonally associated with spring and
fall blooms, with highest concentrations occurring near shore and close to large estuaries. The
phytoflagellates are a diverse group (dinoflagellates, coccolithophores, cryptomonads, and
euglenoids) which occur in high numbers during late spring and summer. The ultraplankton are a
ubiquitous group primarily composed of unidentified round or oval non-flagellated cells in the 2-5
um size range.
The species composition and annual cycles of the phytoplankton community in the Gulf of Maine
were have been described by Lillick (1940), Bigelow (1940), TRIGOM (1974), Marshall and Cohn
(1983), Marshall (1984), Sherman et al. (1983, 1984), and Johnson et al. (2011). Phytoplankton
densities in the Gulf of Maine are lowest in the winter and peak during spring and fall blooms.
Winter diatom populations are concentrated along the western coast of the Gulf of Maine.
Predominant species include Skeletonema costatum, Thalassiosira nordenskioldii, T. rutala, T.
aestivalis, Leptocyndricus danicus, and Nitzchiapungens. The predominant dinoflagellate species
are Ceratium fusus, C. lineatum, C. tripos and Prorocetrum micans.
Bloom conditions occur in late March and early April (Johnson et al. 2011). The spring bloom is
characterized by the rapid development of high populations of small, mostly chained and colonial
diatoms such as Skeletonema costatum, L. danicus, Asterionella glacialis, and Rhizosolenia
delicatula. The spread of these diatoms from the nearshore seaward generally corresponds to the
nearshore circulation pattern in the Gulf of Maine. As the bloom progresses, the dominant diatoms
are replaced in a successional sequence by larger diatom species, both single celled and colonial.
The number of dinoflagelates in the southwest portion of the Gulf of Maine also increases with the
addition of several species of Gymnodium (Sherman et al. 1983 and 1984).
Diatom numbers decrease during the summer, with small diatoms retaining population centers along
the coast (Johnson et al. 2011). Dinoflagelate populations increase in the summer. Highest
concentrations occur along the western margin where species such as Ceratium fusus, C. lineatum,
C. tripos, Prorocentrum balticum, P. micans, and several species of Protoperidinium and
Gonyaulux are common. The pattern of the fall bloom is similar to the spring bloom. The dominant
diatoms included, gracialis, L. danicus, and S. costatum. Dinoflagellates increase slightly in the
nearshore.
Primary Productivity and Chlorophyll a
In general, phytoplankton productivity off the northeast continental shelf is high May through
September and low from December to February with peaks of high productivity in March and
October. The estimated annual productivity in the waters around proposed IOSN is on the order of
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
32
-------
260 gC/m2 (Sherman et al., 1988). Chlorophyll a standing stock reaches its highest values during the
spring bloom, tapers off during the summer and has a secondary maximum in the fall. During the
spring period, most of the production is attributable to diatoms. Dinoflagellates and flagellates
contribute significantly to the production in the summer. Although chlorophyll a concentrations are
low during the summer relative to spring and fall levels, primary production in coastal waters
remains high. This is a result of the increased summer solar radiation and from the efficiency of
small nanoplankton with high turnover rates that dominate the plankton.
Zooplankton
The zooplankton community of Gulf of Maine waters is generally dominated by the ubiquitous
copepods, Calanus finmarchicus, Centrophages typicus, and Pseudocalanus minutus. C.
finmarchicus is the dominant species from spring through early fall, when C. typicus becomes
dominant. P. minutus is abundant from spring through summer but in lower concentrations than C.
calunus (Sherman et al., 1988). C. finmarchicus and I\ minutus are herbivorous, C. typicus is
omnivorous, but prefers zooplankton prey. Other typical copepod species include Temora
longicornis, Acartia longiremis, and Oithona similis (Sherman, 1968, 1970). Zooplankton biomass
(as measured by displacement volume) in coastal Gulf of Maine waters peaks in July and October
(Sherman et al., 1988). Overall, in the Gulf of Maine, peak zooplankton biomass occurs in May with
a gradual decline through fall.
Microzooplankton (zooplankton capable of passing through a 333-um mesh net) are also an
important component of the Gulf of Maine zooplankton community (Johnson et al. 2011). Principal
components of the microzooplankton include immature copepods (eggs, naupuli, and copepodites),
and members of the copepod genus Oithona. The microzooplankton component is most abundant in
summer and autumn (Johnson et al. 2011). Zooplankton encountered in winter and early spring are
primarily adults. Microzooplankton biomass in northeast shelf waters may be approximately 30% of
the biomass retained by a standard 333 um net.
Fish eggs and larvae
Information concerning the ichthyoplankton of coastal Maine waters is available from several
sources. For this EA, data was drawn from Bigelow (1924), Normandeau (1985), and the coastal
Maine MARMAP studies (Morse et al., 1987; (Johnson, et al. 2011). Long-term studies
conducted in coastal New Hampshire by Normandeau (1985) indicate that highest concentrations
of planktonic eggs in the Gulf of Maine occur from June through August. Eggs of cunner,
yellowtail flounder, mackerel, hake (Urophycis spp.), and rockling are predominant during the
summer peak. Although concentrations of planktonic eggs are low from October through April,
substantial numbers of demersal eggs, from species such as Atlantic herring, are presumably
present at this time.
Planktonic larvae are most abundant in coastal Gulf of Maine during July and August. Atlantic
mackerel and cunner are the predominant species at this time. Secondary peaks dominated by
American sand lance (Ammodytes spp., February-April) and Atlantic herring (October-
November) also occur.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
S3
-------
6.5.2 Benthos
Benthic samples were collected at nine stations on November 1, 2010, within the proposed IOSN
disposal area (Figure 6-2). At each station, samples for benthic community analysis and sediment
grain size analyses were retrieved using a 0.04 m2 modified Van Veen grab. The results of the
survey showed that the site is uniform both physically (the sediments have a very high fine
silt/clay content) (USACE, 2014) and biologically (Larsen, 2011).
The results of the benthic community analysis indicate that, while not extremely diverse, the
macroinvertebrate fauna at the proposed IOSN shows a mix of short-lived opportunistic species
and longer-living stable climax community species (Larsen, 2011). The benthic community
sampled consisted of 40 species representing just four phyla (Table 6-2). The assemblage is
noteworthy for its lack of oligochaetes, nearly ubiquitous elsewhere, and the absence of
echinoderms and colonial species. Polychaetes were the overwhelmingly dominating taxa within
the community in terms of numbers of species and individuals. Density was relatively low, while
the species richness, diversity and evenness were also at low to modest levels (Larsen, 2011). One
species, the polychaete Paraonis gracilis, was the numerical dominant at eight of the nine stations
sampled.
As previously described, the DAMOS program conducted a monitoring survey of proposed
IOSN in September 2015 (Guarinello, et al., 2016) using the Sediment-Profile Imaging/Plan
View Imaging (SPI/PV) monitoring technique. The SPI data showed that the apparent redox
potential discontinuity (aRPD) depths (an approximation of the depth between oxygen-rich and
oxygen-poor sediments) at the proposed disposal site stations were relatively deep, indicative of
a healthy seafloor that has been biologically modified by infaunal reworking. The average station
aRPD depths ranged from 4.8 to 9.5 cm with an overall mean of 7.3 cm across all the proposed
disposal site stations (Guarinello, et al., 2016). The DAMOS survey also concluded that Stage 3
infauna (i.e., a diverse, stable benthic community) were present across the proposed disposal site
with the predominant stage at all stations being Stage 1 on 3 (Stage 1 communities tend to
fluctuate rapidly and are characterized by short-lived, opportunistic species with a rapid
reproductive rates). Evidence for the presence of Stage 3 fauna included large-bodied infauna,
deep subsurface burrows, and/or deep feeding voids; opportunistic Stage 1 taxa were indicated
by the presence of small tubes at the sediment water interface. Subsurface feeding voids,
indicating Stage 3 fauna, were present in at least one replicate of all but two stations surveyed.
The mean of maximum subsurface feeding void depth ranged from 5.7 to 15.9 cm with an
overall mean of 9.9 cm (Guarinello, et al., 2016).
In summary, the study area is physically homogeneous and inhabited by a benthic invertebrate
community that is predominately Stage 1 on 3. Richness, at the species and higher taxonomic
levels, and density are low relative to both further inshore and further offshore habitats. Deposit-
feeding polychaetes dominate the fauna qualitatively and quantitatively. The complete benthic
community analysis report (Larsen, 2011) is attached as Appendix C and the DAMOS report
(Guarinello, et al., 2016) is attached as Appendix D.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
34
-------
Table 6-2. Benthic community collected at proposed IOSN stations in 2010.
STATIONS
Taxon
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Annelida
Aglctophctmus neotenus
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ampharete arctica
6
12
2
-
4
3
-
7
4
Aricidect suecica
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
Ceratocephcde loveni
1
-
1
2
2
2
-
1
-
Chctetozone setosa
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
Cossurct longocirrata
2
2
7
9
19
9
4
4
5
Harmothoe extenuata
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
Lepidonotus squctmatus
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lepidonotus squctmatus
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
Lumbrineris latreilli
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
Maldcme sarsi
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mediomastus ambiseta
-
1
-
4
-
3
-
3
3
Nephtys incisa
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
Ninoe nigripes
-
6
-
-
1
-
-
2
3
Ow enict fusiformis
-
-
2
1
-
1
2
2
2
Pcircimphinome pulchella
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
2
-
Pcircionis gracilis
8
8
20
1
22
16
8
20
47
Praxillella gracilis
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
5
2
Prionospio sp
-
-
-
2
4
-
1
4
-
Sabaco elongatus
-
2
-
4
2
-
1
15
7
Scalibregma inflatum
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
Scoletoma tenuis
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
Syllid juvenile
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
-------
Table 6-2 (continued). Benthic community collected at proposed IOSN stations in 2010.
STATIONS
Taxon
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Thctryx aciitus
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
Unidentified Polychaete
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Arthropoda
Cyclctspis various
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
Eudorellct pusilla
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Harpinia propinqua
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Leptocheirus plumulosus
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
Leptostylis longimctna
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
Paracaprella tenuis
-
-
1
-
-
1
-
-
-
Photis sp.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
Mollusca
Astarte undata
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chaetoderma nitidulum
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
Parvicardium pinnulatum
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
Thyctsira sp.
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
-
Unidentified bivalve (juv.)
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
Rhynchocoela
Mi crura sp.
-
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
-
Unidentified Nemertean
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
6.5.3 Fish
The proposed IOSN area supports a variety of pelagic and demersal fish species. The habitat at
the proposed disposal site is not a rare or especially unique habitat for the Gulf of Maine,
consisting of a primarily flat, silt/clay bottom. Species identified as common in the Gulf of
Maine during the characterization of the CADS (USACE, 1989) include the fish species noted
in Table 6-3.
Fish community data collected jointly by the states of Maine and New Hampshire was also used
to describe the communities at proposed IOSN. The Maine-New Hampshire (MENH) Inshore
Trawl Survey samples areas off of coastal New Hampshire and Maine in the Gulf of Maine in
spring (typically the first week of May) and the fall (typically the last week of September)
(Maine DMR, 2016 - See Appendix F). Sampling in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN has
been conducted since the fall of 2000 and there have been 136 trawl tows made in proximity to
the proposed disposal site from 2000 through 2015 (See Appendix F - Figure 9). A total of 65
spring tows were performed and a total of 71 tows were made in the fall. Specifics of the
bottom trawl procedures and protocols can be found at https://www.maine.gov/dmr/science-
research/proiects/trawlsurvev/reports/documents/proceduresandprotocols.pdf. A total of 91
species were caught in all tows, with the spring tows averaging 21 species per tow (with a
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
36
-------
minimum of 9 and a maximum of 33) and the fall tows averaging 23 species per tow (with a
minimum of 8 and a maximum of 34). Table 6-4 shows a listing of all fish species caught from
the trawl tows in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN. The average tow catch weight was 75.20 kg
per tow in the spring and 321.52 kg per tow in the fall. The dominant fish species by weight in
the MENH trawls in the fall were spiny dogfish, silver hake, and Atlantic Herring. The
dominant fish species by weight in the MENH trawls in the spring were American plaice and
silver hake.
Table 6-3. Species identified during the 1989 characterization of the Cape Arundel Disposal
Site (USACE, 1989).
Bottom-Dwelling Fish
Pelagic or Semi-Demersal Fish
Common Name
Scientific Name
Common Name
Scientific Name
American plaice
Hippoglossoides
plcttessoides
Spiny dogfish
Squalus acanthias
Atlantic cod
Gadus morhna
Sandlance
Ammodytes
americanns
Winter flounder
Pseiidopleiironectes
americanns
Atlantic mackerel
Scomber scombms
Yellowtail flounder
Limcmda ferniginea
Atlantic herring
Cliipea harengns
Witch flounder
Glyptocephcdus cvnoglossiis
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia Uwannus
Ocean pout
Mctcrozoctrces americanns
Alewife
Alosa pseiidoharengns
Red hake
Urophycis chuss
Blueback Herring
Alosa aestivalis
Silver hake
Merluccius bilinearis
Blueflsh
Pomatomas
saltatrix
White hake
Urophycis tenuis
Redflsh
Sebastes fasciatus
Atlantic Wolfflsh
Anctrhichcts lupus
Bluefln Tuna
Thunnus thvnnas
Sea raven
Hemitriptenis americanns
Butterflsh
Peprilus triacanthns
Haddock
Melanogrammns aeglefimis
Gooseflsh
(Monkflsh)
Lophins americanns
Pollock
Pollctchius virens
Little skate
Raja erinacea
Barndoor skate
Raja laevis
Thorny skate
Raja radiata
Smooth skate
Malacoraja senta
Cusk
Brosme
Snake blenny
Liimpemis lumpretaeformis
Wrymouth
Cnptacanthodes maculatus
Rock gunnel
Pholis giinnelhis
Sea Raven
Hemitriptenis americanns
Longhorn sculpin
Myoxocephalus
octodecemspinosus
Shorthorn sculpin
Myoxocephalus scorpins
Mailed sculpin
Triglops ommatistius
Grubby
Myoxocephalus aenaens
Lumpfish
Cycloptenis lumpus
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
37
-------
Table 6-4. Species identified from the Maine-New Hampshire (MENH) Inshore Trawl Survey
in the vicinity of t
le proposed IOSN during the spring and fall (2000-2015).
Common Name
Scientific Name
Common Name
Scientific Name
Acadian Redfish
Se bastes fasciatus
Little Skate
Raja erinacea
Alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
Longhorn Sculpin
Myoxocephalus
octodecemspinosus
Alligatorfish
Aspidophoroides
monopterygius
Lumpfish
Cyclopteriis lumpus
American Plaice
Hippoglossoides platessoides
Moustache Sculpin
Triglops miirravi
American Sand
Lance
Ammodytes americanns
Northern Pipefish
Svngnathus fits ens
American Shad
Alosa sapidissima
Northern Puffer
Sphoeroides maculatus
Atlantic Cod
Gadus morhna
Northern Sea robin
Prionotus carolinns
Atlantic Halibut
Hippglossiis hippoglossus
Ocean Pout
Macrozoarces americanns
Atlantic Herring
Chipea harengus
Pearlsides
Maiirolicus mnelleri
Atlantic Mackerel
Scomber scombriis
Pollock
Pollachiiis virens
Atlantic Silverside
Menidia
Rainbow Smelt
Osmerus mordax
Atlantic Torpedo
Torpedo nobiliana
Red Hake
Urophycis chuss
Barndoor Skate
Raja laevis
Scup
Stenotomas chrvsops
Bigeye Scad
Selar crumenopthalmus
Sea Raven
Hemitripterus americanns
Black Sea Bass
Centropristis striata
Silver Hake
Merluccius bilinearis
Blueback Herring
Alosa aestivalis
Silver Rag
Ariomma bondi
Bluefish
Pomatomas saltatrix
Smooth Skate
Raja senta
Bristled Longbeak
Dichelopandalas leptocerus
Snakeblenny
Liimpemis lumpretaeformis
Buckler Dory
Zenopsis conchifera
Spiny Dogfish
Squalus acanthias
Butterfish
Peprilus triacanthns
Spotted Hake
Urophycis regia
Cunner
Taiitogolabriis adspersns
Spotted Tinselfish
Xenolepidichthvs dalgleishi
Daubed Shanny
Liimpemis maculatus
Thorny Skate
Raja radiata
Fourbeard Rockling
Enchelyopus cimbrius
White Hake
Urophycis tenuis
Fourspot Flounder
Paralichthys oblongns
Windowpane
Scophthalmus aquosus
Goosefish
Lophins americanns
Winter Flounder
Pseiidopleiironectes
americanns
Greenland Halibut
Reinhardtius hippoglossoides
Winter Skate
Raja ocellata
Grubby
Myoxocephalus aenaens
Witch Flounder
Glyptocephalus cvnoglossiis
Gulf Stream Flounder
Citharichthys arctifrons
Wrymouth
Crvptacanthodes maculatus
Haddock
Melanogrammns aeglefimis
Yellowtail
Flounder
Limanda ferruginea
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
38
-------
The USAGE sampled the area within the proposed IOSN site on May 24, 2016, and February
20, 2017, (Battelle, 2017 See Appendix E). Six trawl transects were established within the
proposed site (Figure 6-4) and at each location a 15-minute trawl was performed at a speed of
approximately 2.6 knots. In general, species composition of the fish community was similar to
that reported by USACE (1989) and from the MENH data set (Maine DMR, 2016).
In the May 2016 effort, the total number of individuals caught during the spring sampling was
12,218 across a total of 24 species. The mean species per tow was 15, with a minimum of 13
species and a maximum of 18 species. The numerically dominant species in the May effort at
all stations were silver hake (Merluccim hi linear is) and American plaice (Hippoglossoides
plcitessoides). In the February 2016 effort, the total number of individuals caught was 26,131
across a total of 28 species. The mean species per tow was 15, with a minimum of 11 species
and a maximum of 18 species. The numerically dominant species in the February effort were
silver hake (Merluccim bi/hiearis) and alewives/blueback herring (,Alosa pseudoharengus,
Alosa aestivalis) (Battelle, 2017).
Figure 6-4. Location of USAGE trawl transects in May 2016 and February 2017.
Batrene
ifta BujdneM c/ Innovation
Isles of Shoals
Trawl Lines
(February 20,2017)
Isles of Shoals
Monitoring Project
Explanation
4 Trawl Line End
O Trawl Line Start
Trawl Line
CTIjIOSN Boundary
1
Isles of Shoals
Area
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
39
-------
6.5.4 Shellfish and Lobster
The Maine DMR Lobster Monitoring Program has routinely collected lobster population data
throughout the state since 1985, with the sampling occurring primarily from May through
November and occasionally in the winter months, as conditions allow. Each lobster
management zone (Figure 6-7) is sampled three times monthly from May through November
with trips spread throughout the zone. Zone G is the southwestern most lobster management
zone spanning from the Presumpscott River (near Portland, Maine) south to the New Hampshire
border, and is the zone in which the proposed IOSN is located. Using a subset of data from Zone
G that was relevant to the location of the proposed IOSN, the Maine DMR Lobster Monitoring
Program calculated a mean catch of 0.39 legal lobsters per trap (± 0.09 lobsters) during the
December through April timeframe, which was comparable to the overall Zone G winter catches.
The mean catch in the May through November timeframe ranged from 1-2 legal lobsters per trap
(Maine DMR, 2016 - See Appendix F).
USACE collected lobster abundance data in and around the proposed IOSN in December 2016
and January 2017 to assess the winter lobster community in the area (Battelle, 2017 - Appendix
E). A total of six deployment/retrieval events were conducted. For the first four deployment
events (December 7, 13, and 28, 2016, and January 2, 2017), six trawls, each containing 20
vented traps, were deployed from a commercial lobster vessel. For the fifth deployment event
(January 20, 2017), six trawls of 16 vented traps were used, and for the sixth deployment event
(January 31, 2017), eight trawls of 16 vented traps were used. The placement of the lobster
trawls in and around the proposed IOSN was conducted with input from the captains of both the
F/YRolling Stone and l'"V Jacquie and Nicole (local lobstermen). Figure 6-5 shows the
locations of each of the deployments. The mean catch ranged from 0.6 to 2.15 legal lobsters per
trap and from 1.1 to 4.9 shorts (i.e., lobsters under the legal size) per trap. The mean number of
lobsters per trawl generally decreased from December through January. Appendix E contains all
the lobster data collected during the effort.
Figure 6-5 Location of USACE lobster pot trawl transects in 2016 - 2017.
I
i
I
'
i
::
i
\
Isles of Shoals
Area
¦DeceiKbsr7
isies or Shoals
Monitoring Project
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
40
-------
6.5.5 Wildlife
Birds
Several species of migratory birds have the potential to use or transit over the waters in the
vicinity of proposed IOSN. USFWS's "Information for Planning and Consultation" (IPaC)
(https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) lists 32 species of migratory birds that may or have the potential to
occur at the proposed IOSN. They include Arctic Tern (,Sternaparadisaea), Atlantic Puffin
(Fratercula arctica), Black Scoter (Melanitta nigra), Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla),
Common Eider (Somateria mollissima), Common Loon (Gavia immer), Common Murre (IJria
aalge), Common Tern (,Sterna hirundo), Cory's Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea), Double-
crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus), Great
Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), Great Shearwater (Puffinus gravis), Herring Gull {Larus
argentatus), Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica), Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla), Least
Tern (,Sterna antillarum), Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis), Manx Shearwater (Puffinus
puffinus), Northern Gannet (Morus bassanus), Pomarine Jaeger (Stercorariuspomarinus),
Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima), Razorbill (Alca torda), Red-necked Phalarope
(Phalaropus lobatus). Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellate), Sooty Shearwater (Puffinus griseus).
Surf Scoter (Melanittaperspicillata), White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca), Wilson's Storm-
petrel (Oceanites oceanicus).
Mammals
Several species of marine mammals (whales, dolphins, porpoises, and seals) have the potential
to occur in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN. Whale species include humpback whales
(Megapetera novaengliae), right whales (Eubalaena glacialis), fin whales (Balaenoptera
physalus), and minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Dolphin and porpoise species
include harbor porpoise (Phocoenaphocoena), common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), white-
sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus), white-beaked dolphin (L. albirostris), Atlantic pilot
whale (Globicephala melaena), and killer whale (Orcinus orca). Seal species include harbor
seals (Phoca vitulina) and gray seals (.Halichoerus grypus).
Reptiles
The leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is the only reptile species that occurs in the
vicinity of the proposed IOSN. Leatherbacks are widely distributed globally with spawning
occurring in tropical latitudes and adults moving into temperate waters to feed. Leatherback
turtles have been reported in New England waters in July through early November.
6.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
There are a number of species found in Gulf of Maine waters that are currently listed as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. They are summarized below.
Northern Right Whale (Endangered)
The north Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glaciala) is one of the most endangered large whales
in the world. The range of the right whale occurs from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
41
-------
(Sergeant, 1966; Mitchell, 1974; Sutcliffe and Brodie, 1977; Hay, 1985), into the lower Bay of
Fundy (Arnold and Gaskin, 1972; Kraus and Prescott, 1981, 1982; Reeves et al., 1983) and
throughout the Gulf of Maine south of cape Cod Bay and the Great South Channel (Watkins and
Schevill, 1976, 1979, 1982) in the spring and summer. In the winter, right whales occur from
cape Cod Bay (Watkins and Schevill, 1976) south to Georgia and Florida (Moore, 1953; Kraus,
1986) and into the Gulf of Mexico (Moore and Clark, 1963; Schmideley, 1981).
Fin Whale (Endangered)
Fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, are the most abundant and widely distributed whale, both
spatially and temporarily, over the shelf waters of the northwest Atlantic (Leatherwood et al.,
1976) occurring as far south as Cape Lookout, North Carolina and penetrating far inside the
Gulf of St. Lawrence. In the shelf waters of the Gulf of Maine the frequency of fin whale
sightings increases from spring through the fall (Hain et al., 1981; CETAP, 1982; Powers and
Payne, 1982; Payne et al. 1984, Chu, 1986). The areas of Jeffery's Ledge, Stellwagen Bank,
and the Great South Channel have the greatest concentrations of whales during spring through
fall. There is a decrease in on-shelf sightings of fin whales in winter. However, fin whales do
overwinter in the Gulf of Maine.
Leatherback Sea Turtle (Endangered)
Leatherback sea turtles have been reported in New England waters in July through early
November. Inshore seasonal movements may be linked to those of the jellyfish Cyanea
capillata, which periodically occur in the project area, and, therefore, could be used by
Leatherbacks for foraging. They could also pass through the area while migrating or seeking
prey (NMFS, 1991). The population of Leatherbacks has been declining worldwide, but their
specific status in the United States is unknown (Wallace et al 2015).
Shortnose Sturgeon (Endangered)
Shortnose sturgeon occur along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Available information on shortnose
sturgeon indicates that they make coastal migrations with the Gulf of Maine (i.e. between the
Merrimack and Kennebec Rivers) and make at least occasional short visits to Great Bay (New
Hampshire) (NMFS, 2016). Based on patterns of detections by acoustic receivers in Great Bay,
it is thought that shortnose sturgeon visit Great Bay at least during the spring and fall; although
there is no known spawning in the nearby Piscataqua River. Migrating shortnose sturgeon may
be present in the nearshore areas of the Gulf of Maine. However, no tagged shortnose sturgeon
have been detected at a deployed buoy (NERACOOS Western Maine Shelf Buoy #B01) in the
vicinity of the proposed IOSN site. The proposed IOSN site may serve as a migratory corridor
for shortnose sturgeon (Zach Jylkka, NMFS PRD, personal communication).
Atlantic Sturgeon (Threatened)
The marine range for Atlantic sturgeon includes all marine waters, plus coastal bays and
estuaries from Labrador, Canada to Cape Canaveral, Florida. The Gulf of Maine distinct
population segments (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon is currently listed as federally threatened. An
Atlantic sturgeon was detected as recently as June 2012 in Great Bay, New Hampshire, and
acoustic receivers in the vicinity of the Isles of Shoals (GoMOOS buoy E01) have detected
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
42
-------
tagged Atlantic sturgeon. The proposed IOSN site may serve as a migratory corridor for
Atlantic sturgeon (Zach Jylkka, NMFSPRD, personal communication).
Atlantic salmon (Endangered)
Seaward migrating juvenile Gulf of Maine (GOM) DPS Atlantic salmon have been recorded by
acoustic telemetry moving southward toward the vicinity of the proposed IOSN area. Atlantic
salmon have been detected in the vicinity of GoMOOS Buoy E01, however they have not been
detected in the buoy closest to the proposed IOSN (B01) since its deployment in 2005. It is
unlikely that this species would be in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN during winter months.
In addition, once out-migrating Atlantic salmon smolts have transitioned to saltwater, growth is
rapid, and the post-smolts have been reported to move close to the surface in small schools and
loose aggregations (Dutil and Coutu, 1988).
6.5.7 Essential Fish Habitat
The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
strengthened the ability of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and regional Fishery
Management Councils to protect and conserve the habitat of marine, estuarine, and anadromous
finfish, mollusks, and crustaceans. This habitat is termed "essential fish habitat" (EFH) and is
broadly defined to include "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity." The Act establishes measures to protect EFH. Federal
agencies must consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or
undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. The NMFS must coordinate with
other federal agencies to conserve and enhance EFH, and in turn NMFS must provide
recommendations to federal and state agencies on such activities to conserve EFH. These
recommendations may include measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset
adverse effects on EFH resulting from actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or
undertaken by that agency.
Managed species listed for the area that includes the IOSN include: Atlantic wolffish
Anarhichas lupus (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults), little skate Leucoraja erinacea (adults),
ocean pout Macrozoarces americanus (adult, eggs), smooth skate Malacoraja senta (juvenile,
adult), silver hake Merluccius bilinearis (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults), thorny skate
Amblyraja radiata (juvenile, adult), Atlantic cod Gadus morhua (eggs, larvae, juveniles,
adults), haddockMelanogrammus aeglefinus (juveniles, adults), pollock Pollachius virens
(eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults), red hake Urophycis chuss (adults), white hake Urophycis tenuis
(eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults), redfish Sebastes fasciatus (larvae, juveniles), witch flounder
Glyptocephalus cynoglossus (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults), yellowtail flounder Pleuronectes
ferruginea (eggs, larvae), windowpane flounder Scopthalmus aquosus (larvae), American plaice
Hippoglossoidesplatessoides (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults), Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus
hippoglossus (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults), Atlantic sea herring Clupea harengus (larvae,
juveniles, adults), monkfish Lophius americanus (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults), blue shark
Prionace glauca (juvenile, adult, basking shark Cetorhinus maximus (all) , common thresher
shark Alopias vulpinus (all), porbeagle shark Lamna nasus (all), northern shortfin squid Illex
illecebrosus (juvenile, adult), longfin inshore squid Doryteuthispealeii (adult), Atlantic
mackerel Scomber scombrus (larvae), Atlantic butterfish Peprilus triacanthus (juvenile adult),
spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias (juveniles, adults), and bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus (juvenile
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
43
-------
and adults).
6.6 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
General
75*30'Q"W
74*0 C*W 73"00*W 72*00"W 71*0t)*W 70*0tm 69*0fl"W 68*0TI"W 67*0TI-W 66*01W
•OO'N
42°0T)"N"
¦38*0 O'N
•38*30"0"N
¦36'OD'N
¦35*30D"N
75'30'0'W
74*00*W 73*0"0*W 72*0 t)"W 71*0'0,W 70*0 OV/ eg'OtJ-W BS'O'O'W erO'O'W 66*0'0*W
The seven square miles surrounding the proposed IOSN, designated as the Greater Atlantic
Region Statistical Area 513 (Figure 6-6), is a relatively productive fishing area for lobster,
scallop, and various ground fish. The lobster represents the largest active fishery in the area that
encompasses the proposed IOSN (Maine DMR, 2016). In 1984, the US landings reported in Area
513 for all species were approximately 49,069 metric tons (Table 6-5), with a dollar value of
$46,430,897 (USACE, 1989). In 2016, the US landings reported in Area 513 were
approximately 22,674 metric tons (Table 6-5) with a dollar value of approximately $18,797,500
(NMFS, 2017).
Figure 6-6. Greater Atlantic Region Statistical Areas for Fisheries Landings
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
44
-------
Table 6-5. Catch (in metric tons) from NMFS Area 5
3 from 1984 and 2016.
Species
Area 513 - 1984
data (metric tons)
Area 513 - 2016
data (metric tons)
Cod
4,490
36
Haddock
708
187
Redfish
659
52
Silver Hake
2,842
211
Red hake
203
38
Pollock
3,624
191
American Plaice
3,136
178
Witch Flounder
1,564
34
Yellowtail Flounder
235
4
Halibut
74
2
Winter Flounder
458
2
Summer Flounder
4
2
Windowpane Flounder
0
-
Cusk
329
6
Scup
-
2
White Hake
1,717
72
Wolffish
264
-
Herring
5,967
18,436
Mackerel
74
53
Bluefish
43
2
Butterfish
2
3
Menhaden
8,796
1,245
Spiny Dogfish
566
318
Skates
144
1
Short Finned Squid (Illex)
5
-
Long Finned Squid (Loligo)
0
1
Lobster
3,995
1,480
Shrimp
2,511
9
Crab
336
5
Surf Clams
-
-
Quahogs
-
-
Sea Scallops
392
18
Confidential Species
Combined
-
88
Total
49,069
22,674
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
45
-------
Lobster Fishery
While reporting requirements for lobster landings do not specify exact coordinates, the Gulf of
Maine is divided into several lobster zone management areas (Figure 6-7) to document and
interpret lobster catch data. The proposed IOSN is located within the State of Maine Lobster
Management Zone G and can be used as proxy for activity in the region and give a glimpse into
seasonal use of the coastal shelf waters. Maine DMR (2016) extrapolated dealer and harvester
reports for lobster landings for the years 2009 to 2014 for harvesters that reported Zone G
harvesting and dealers who reported a landing port located in Zone G (see Appendix F). The
Zone G lobster fishery represents an average of 16,446 trips completed by 252 active harvesters
annually during the period of 2009 through 2014. Maine DMR (2016) has extrapolated the data
from Zone G to conclude that 36% of the total weight, 25% of trips, and 28% of active
harvesters for the lobster fishery occurred in federal waters.
Figure 6-7. State of Maine Lobster Management Zones
Maine Lobster Management Zones
Lines drawn following Department of Marine Resources
Regulation Chapter 25.94 Lobster Managment Zones
~
Lobster Management Zones
State Waters Boundary
C. Rubicam, 8/9/02, DMR Maine Whale Plan
Atlantic Herring Fishery
The proposed IOSN is in the same general vicinity as significant summer and fall Atlantic herring
fishing grounds and inside the Massachusetts/New Hampshire herring spawn closure area (Maine
DMR, 2016). The bulk of the herring fishing in this area occurs between June and November. As
mandated by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), the MA/NH herring
spawn closure, which prohibits any landings of Atlantic herring, begins by default on September 21,
and remains closed for fishing for approximately 30 days (ASMFC, 2016), or until the herring are
finished spawning. The 2008-2015 average metric tons of Atlantic herring landings per month are
shown in Figure 6-8 for the Massachusetts/New Hampshire herring spawn closure area (in which
the proposed IOSN is located). Herring fishery data taken from the Northeast Ocean Data Portal
(https://www.northeastoceandata.org) show the location of the proposed IOSN site in relation to
herring fishing activities for 2015-2016 (Figure 6-9).
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
46
-------
Figure 6-8. Atlantic herring landings by month for the MA/NH Spawn Closure Area for the
years 2008-2015.
35,000
30,000
K
25,000
/ A
to
/ \
I 20,000
/ y
/ \
15,000
/ \
/ \
10,000
/ \
5,000
_y/\/ \
n
\
u
i i r | i i i i i i i i
123456789 10 11 12
Month
Figure 6-9. Herring fishery activity for 2015-2016
Northeast Ocean Data Portal nittps://www.northeastoceandata.org')
LapcivFaarrK f
fjo
* f
¦K9
_L
^KW*
\ v -jJ|
V' # 4
VMS_Herring2015To2016_LT4
Herring 2015-2016 (<4 knots)
H Very High
~ High
~ Med-Hi
f~1 Med-Low
I Low
Isles of Shoals North
Disposal Site - Areas
[^1 PolyStyle30
lag
*3? York
Scabury
1 )
Kittary
Portsmouth
Plains
Elwyn Park
/ , >
(J
\
i
Smith Colony
Hampton
/ "" lV
$ f
¦ > .
c
Anderson, M. G., Greene, J., Morse, D., Shumway, D. and Clark, M (2010) Benthic Habitats of the Northwest Atlantic in Greene, J.K., M.G. Anderson, J. Odell,
and N. Steinberg, eds. The Northwest Atlantic Marine Ecoregional Assessment: Species, Habitats and Ecosystems. Phase One. The Nature Conservancy,
Eastern U.S. Division, Boston, MA. | Esri, HERE, Garmin, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA | Northeast Ocean Data | NROC, NMFS
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
47
-------
Recreational Fishery
Sport fishing is a popular activity along the southern Maine and New Hampshire coast. Fishing
generally takes place at spots where ledges, holes, or other structure attracts large fish. Charter
vessels and private fishing boats comprise the recreational fishing fleet.
6.7 Historic and Cultural Resources
Prehistoric cultural resources are unlikely to be found within the offshore area since this area was
underwater during the ancient past and would not have provided a location for settlement or
resource procurement. Shipwrecks are the most probable cultural resource expected to exist in
the offshore area. Historical review uncovered no known shipwrecks in the area. As seen in
Figure 6-10, no shipwrecks were noted in a review of the Northeast Ocean Portal shipwreck and
obstruction data (https://www.northeastoceandata.org). A side-scan sonar survey of the
proposed IOSN detected no shipwrecks or other historic remnants. Based on this information, it
is unlikely that any significant cultural resources would be affected by designation of the
disposal site.
Figure 6-10. Shipwrecks in the Gulf of Maine in the vicinity of proposed IOSN.
Northeast Ocean Data Portal (https://www.northeastoceandata.ore)
oraai worns i
MarineTransportation
c ' M
Navigation
Caps Neddick
Wrecks and Obstructions
"XJJ ® ^ \ ¦¦1
York Beach
Isles of Shoals North
Disposal Site - Areas
/ V J 1
o York
PolyStyle30
.r- Seabury
Sj>uth Eliot
Kittory
Portsmouth *** -J* ±
Portsmouth -*¦
Plains
Elwyn Park
" o
s°wa
Smith Colony -*
esri
Hampton ±
Anderson, M. G., Greene, J., Morse, D., Shumway, D. and Clark, M (2010) Benthic Habitats of the Northwest Atlantic in Greene, J.K., M.G. Anderson, 3.
Odell, and N. Steinberg, eds. The Northwest Atlantic Marine Ecoregional Assessment: Species, Habitats and Ecosystems. Phase One. The Nature
Conservancy, Eastern U.S. Division, Boston, MA. | Esri, HERE, Garmin, MET1/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA | Northeast Ocean Data
Environmental Assessment cmdkdPBSA CrUcna l.ivahiationfor Disposal Sites itrME, NfL S: MA
48
-------
6.8 Recreational Uses
The coastal waters off southern Maine and New Hampshire offers a wide variety of recreation
opportunities during all seasons of the year. Peak recreational use tends to occur between
March and November when coastal waters are calm and air temperatures are warm. Coastal
beaches, rivers, and embayment's receive a continual influx of recreationists throughout the
year. As the proposed IOSN is located in federal waters approximately 10 nautical miles
from the closest shore point, the primary recreational uses of the site likely include sightseeing
(in the form of whale watching), fishing, and boating.
6.9 Shipping
Portsmouth, New Hampshire is the closest major commercial shipping port to the proposed
IOSN. In 2011, Portsmouth received approximately 3,047,000 tons of waterborne commerce
(USACE, 2014). Petroleum products comprise the majority of commodities shipped and
received at Portsmouth Harbor, accounting for 62% of all commodities since 1991. In recent
years dry bulk products (e.g., coal, gypsum, and non-metal minerals) have shown a significant
increase at Portsmouth Harbor (USACE, 2014).
Vessels transiting to and from Portsmouth Harbor from the south and southeast follow a route
inshore of the Isles of Shoals, while vessels approaching or departing to and from the east and
northeast (Maine and Canada) do cross the general area of the proposed IOSN disposal site
(personal communication with Mr. Chris Holt of the Portsmouth Pilots, November 2016). A
map of commercial vessels transiting through the area in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN
(Northeast Ocean Portal Marine Transportation data, https://www.northeastoceandata.org) is
shown in Figure 6-11.
Figure 6-11. Marine Transportation in the Gulf of Maine in the vicinity of proposed IOSN.
Northeast Ocean Data Portal (https://www.northeastoceandata.org)
nones
MarineTransportation
Cap* Neddick
Commercial Traffic
Annual Vessel Transit
236 jEj
Counts
/ ' 'rfSI^
2017 All Vessel Transit
Counts
ni > 500
C *+? York mr/'J tfjSA
O 200 - 500
\ \ >Y' fliL MNdHrvlfis / r •
\ -flfl
~ 100 - 200
~ 60 - 100
~ 40-60
d 20-40
^ Portsmouth in«'i Vy £!T* * •'fl m
Q 10-20
¦ 1 - 10
Portsmouth V , J ••
Plains •
Isles of Shoals North
\ :
Disposal Site - Areas
Eiwyn Park
^ PolyStyle30
jMf:' ~ H' .V. ,-JT
WHB, .''tt'vf' mLf -* ,J " ''3
Smith Colon/^^M
Hampton
Anderson, M. G., Greene, J., Morse, D., Shumway, D. and Clark, M (2010) Benthic Habitats of the Northwest Atlantic in Greene, J.K., M.G. Anderson, J.
Odell, and N. Steinberg, eds. The Northwest Atlantic Marine Ecoregional Assessment: Species, Habitats and Ecosystems. Phase One. The Nature
Conservancy, Eastern U.S. Division, Boston, MA. | Esri, HERE, Garmin, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA | Northeast Ocean Data
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
49
-------
6.10 Mineral, Oil, and Gas Exploration
There are no known efforts to mine the area that encompasses the proposed 10SN for minerals,
oil, or gas.
6.11 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste
There are no know sources of hazardous, toxic, or radioactive wastes in the area of the proposed
10 SN.
6.12 Marine Sanctuaries
There are no marine sanctuaries in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN.
6.13 Air Quality
The EPA has established seven criteria pollutants that are of concern with respect to the health
and welfare of the general public. Areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) set by EPA (or state standards that are equal to current or former NAAQS)
are considered to be in non-attainment. The area around the proposed IOSN is currently in
attainment of all NAAQS (source:
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/reports/me_areabypoll.html retrieved May
18, 2017):
Ambient noise levels offshore are generally low, limited to vessels passing through the region.
Recreational boaters may contribute minimally to the amount of noise in the area. There are no
noise-sensitive institutions, structures, or facilities in the area.
7.1 General Effects of Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material
During disposal at unconfined ocean disposal sites, dredged material released from a scow descends
through the water column and then deposits on the seafloor over a limited area. Most of the
sediment falls rapidly to the seafloor, but approximately 1-5% of the discharged sediment remains
suspended in a plume and then settles to the seafloor (Ruggaber and Adams, 2000; Tavolaro, 1984;
USACE, 1986). Field studies have confirmed that these plumes are transient and have short-term
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Lead (Pb)
Nitrogen Dioxide (N02)
Ozone (03)
Particulate Matter <10(am (PM10)
Particulate Matter <2.5(am (PM2.5)
Sulfur Dioxide (S02)
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
6.14 Noise
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
50
-------
(i.e., hours in duration) impacts on water quality (Dragos and Lewis, 1993; Dragos and Peven, 1994;
SAIC, 2004; SAIC, 2005a; SAIC, 2005b; ENSR, 2008).
Dredged material disposed of at ocean sites may result in physical changes to the seafloor, altering
the grain size and/or total organic carbon (TOC) if the sediment properties of the dredged material
are different from the ambient seafloor sediments. Dredged material from the southern Maine, New
Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts region generally consists of both coarse-grained sands (e.g.,
Hampton Harbor (NH) and Wells Harbor (ME)) as well as very fine sand to silts and clays (e.g.,
Rye Harbor (NH) and Cape Porpoise Harbor (ME)).
Dredged material is typically disposed of at target navigation coordinates. The overlap of multiple
dredged material disposal events at a designated location ultimately builds discernible, low-profile
mounds within a disposal site, altering the topography of the area. Multiple disposal events may
result in sediment accumulations several inches to several feet high with a radius of about 70 to 700
feet. The accumulation of dredged material thus has a physical impact by decreasing the relative
water depth above the dredged material disposal site, which has the potential to modify ambient
currents and sediment transport. However, disposal sites are selected in areas, and managed, to
control the number and elevation of mounds created to avoid interferences with shipping and
navigation, as well as to avoid sediment transport and major alterations of bottom currents and
dynamics. Mound formation at disposal sites throughout New England has not been found to
interfere with regional flow patterns and transport or substantially impact bottom currents or other
physical dynamics (ENSR, 2007).
The most prevalent process occurring right after disposal is reconsolidation of the sediment due to
the weight of the material in the mound. As a result of this settling process, a portion of the water
trapped in the dredged material is expelled, reducing the mound's total volume. The amount of
water released, and rate of this process depends on the properties of the sediment, including grain
size and water content. Most consolidation has been found to occur within the first year or two of
disposal (Silva, etal., 1994).
In addition, once deposited on the seafloor, dredged material may potentially physically impact the
surrounding area through potential sediment transport from currents, storm activity, or disturbance
by fishing activity. These impacts have been observed to be minimal at disposal sites studied under
the DAMOS program (Fredette and French, 2004). Studies in New England over the last 35 years,
including those of the DAMOS program, have documented the general stability of dredged material
mounds at various designated disposal sites by recording bathymetry before and after active disposal
operations, and periodically thereafter (EPA, 2004; ENSR, 2007; Carey, et al., 2015). Studies of
sites in Maine coastal waters (Portland Disposal Site in 2007 and 2014, Eastern Passage Site in
2012, Machias Bay Site in 2012, and the Douglas Island Site in 2011) also have yielded similar
results.
7.2 Sediments
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, no changes to sediments at the proposed site would occur.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
51
-------
Preferred Alternative
The majority of material to be dredged from harbors in southern Maine, New Hampshire, and
northern Massachusetts and placed at the proposed IOSN site will be fine-grained silts and clays
(See section 2.2). The site also would likely be used for dredging projects from harbors located
between Cape Ann and Cape Arundel, as these locations would be a shorter haul distance to the
proposed IOSN site than to the alternatives, which are existing EPA-designated ocean disposal sites:
Portland Dredged Material Disposal Site (PDS) and Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS).
Sampling of the surficial sediments at the proposed IOSN site revealed that the sediments are also
fine-grained (See Section 6.2). Therefore, it can be concluded that the physical nature of the
sediments at the proposed IOSN site would remain similar following the majority of disposal events
in which the site is used. The possibility does exist for sediments that are coarse sand, gravel,
cobble and rock to be placed at the site should suitable beneficial uses be unavailable. This would
change the sediment characteristics at the location where material is placed from fine-grained to
sand/gravel/rock, making the site more physically diverse.
Long-term impacts on sediment quality would not be likely at the proposed IOSN. Under the Ocean
Dumping Regulations, dredged sediments suitable for disposal at the site may not contain any
materials listed in Section 227.5 or contain any of the materials listed in Section 227.6 except as
trace contaminants. Determination of trace contaminants is accomplished by USACE and EPA
evaluation of the dredged material employing the procedures of applicable national and regional
testing manuals.
7.3 Oceanographic Circulation and Water Quality
7.3.1 Oceanographic Circulation
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, no changes to oceanographic circulation patterns would occur.
Preferred Alternative
Circulation of coastal waters results from an interaction of regional oceanic circulation,
astronomical tides, local wind-generated surface waves and current, swell, and river flows as
affected by inland meteorological events. Time scales for coastal circulation processes range from
seconds for wind generated waves to months for seasonal weather patterns to years for large-scale
events. The effect of storms and tidally-influenced bottom currents on the bottom sediments
within the proposed IOSN site are expected to be minimal as the site is located in a deep area
(approximately 300 feet deep) and has a nearly uniform layer of fine sediments throughout the site.
It can be inferred from the presence of the fine-grained material at the site, that the proposed IOSN
is located in a depositional area, or an area that accumulates fine-grained sediments due to the lack
of high energy currents or tidal influences. Impacts to circulation at depositional areas have been
observed to be minimal at disposal sites studied under the DAMOS program (Fredette and French,
2004). Therefore, with proper site management, no significant alterations to oceanographic
circulation are expected.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
52
-------
7.3.2 Water Quality
No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the water quality of the proposed IOSN site would remain
unchanged.
Preferred Alternative
The primary impacts to the water quality following dredged material disposal are associated with the
residual particles that remain suspended from minutes to a few hours after the majority of sediment
has reached the seafloor. These impacts may be adverse (light reduction, interference with
biological processes) or beneficial (increased productivity of specific species as the suspended
sediment may serve as a food source). The impacts of suspended solids on dissolved oxygen (DO)
water column concentrations are expected to be minimal. Although DO levels may temporarily
decline following disposal in offshore areas, no major declines or persistent impacts have been
observed for the disposal of general sediment classes found in the northeast region (Fredette and
French, 2004; Johnson, et al., 2008).
Other potential effects on the water column and water quality could include the release of nutrients
from discharged sediments. Nutrients in sediments are generally bound to the sediment and organic
particles and can occur in the pore water (water within the sediments) depending on the physical and
chemical properties of the sediment. In general, offshore coastal waters are nitrogen-limited and not
as biologically sensitive to placement-related nutrients compared to inshore lakes, which are
phosphorus-limited (Johnson, et al., 2008). However, as seen in Long Island Sound (LIS), based on
estimates of the average sediment total nitrogen concentration in sediments in coastal waters in LIS
(Jones and Lee, 1981) and current estimates of the amount of dredged material placed in open-water
sites in LIS to date, the annual disposal of dredged material at the open-water sites in LIS is
estimated to add less than one tenth of one percent of the overall annual nitrogen loading to Long
Island Sound.
Similar to nutrients, water quality may be impacted by the release of contaminants from sediment
during disposal. Sediment testing of dredged material limits the degree of sediment contamination
that is allowed at designated sites and is designed to limit the potential release of contaminants
during disposal. Contaminants may be sediment-bound or in pore water, and the sediment affinity
and release into the water column is influenced by characteristics of the contaminant (several are
hydrophobic), as well as environmental conditions (Jones-Lee and Lee, 2005; Eggleton and
Thomas, 2004). However, as was the case with sediment quality, long-term impacts on water
quality would not be likely at the proposed IOSN site as current sediment testing protocols under
MPRSA do not allow disposal of contaminated sediments at designated ODMDS and the Federal
Navigation Projects in the ZSF generally have low contamination levels within their sediments.
7.4 Geology
No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the geology and surficial sediments of the proposed IOSN site
would remain unchanged.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
-------
Preferred Alternative
Dredged material disposed of at the proposed IOSN site is not expected to move from the area. The
depths at the proposed IOSN site (about 300 feet) and the fine-grained nature of the surficial
material indicate that this site is not subject to significant storm generated waves and currents.
Monitoring of similar deep-water disposal sites such as the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site and the
Portland Disposal Site has not shown significant movement of dredged material away from the
disposal mounds. Since most of material to be dredged from harbors in southern Maine, New
Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts and placed at the proposed IOSN site will be fine-grained
silts and clays, the surficial sediment type should remain similar. Dredged material mounds will be
created raising the elevation of the seafloor in some areas. However, the site will be managed to
avoid impacts to shipping and fishing activities in the area. Therefore, no significant changes to the
geology of the area are expected.
7.5 Biological Resources
7.5.1 PI ankton and Fi sh Larvae
No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative will have no effect on the plankton community of the Gulf of Maine.
Preferred Alternative
There is potential for short-term impacts to plankton from dredged material entrainment and
sediment plumes in the water column during disposal events. Upon disposal in ocean waters, most
of the dredged material quickly falls to the seafloor, which entrains a small volume of planktonic
organisms (e.g., phytoplankton, zooplankton, and larval stages of fish and invertebrates) and
displaces others with the movement of water. Increased turbidity resulting from dredged material
disposal would temporarily alter water quality; this has short-term impacts on plankton which could
be detrimental or beneficial, depending on the species and composition of the dredged material. The
suspended solids may reduce light penetration in limited spatial areas, which may temporarily
reduce photosynthesis (Kraus, 1991; Dragos and Lewis, 1993; Dragos and Peven, 1994). Most
phytoplankton productivity occurs in surface waters above the most turbid portion of the sediment
plumes that typically occur closer to the seafloor at open-water sites (ENSR, 2008). Significant
impacts to the Gulf of Maine plankton community are not expected if the proposed IOSN site is
designated as an ODMDS.
7.5.2 Benthos
No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative will have no effect on the benthic community of the Gulf of Maine.
Preferred Alternative
For over 40 years, studies and monitoring efforts have been conducted in New England to
understand the consequences of dredged material placement to benthic habitats and local food webs
(Wolf, et al., 2012; Fredette and French; 2004; Valente, 2007). The type and extent of impacts
depend on the characteristics of both the dredged material and the habitat at the placement site
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
54
-------
(Bolam, et al., 2006). Although short-term impacts and long-term changes in habitat due to
sediment type and elevation of the seafloor have occurred at studied disposal sites, there is no
evidence of long-term effects on benthic processes or habitat conditions (Germano, et al., 2011;
Lopez, et al., 2014).
One of the key biological impacts is the burial of benthic invertebrates where dredged material is
deposited. Sediment type, sediment depth, burial duration, temperature, and adaptive features such
as an organism's ability to burrow and to survive can affect the ability of organisms to migrate to
normal depths of habitation. Benthic disturbance from dredged material placement at designated
disposal sites has direct, immediate effects on sessile epifauna and infauna (Germano, et al., 1994,
2011). Sediment accumulations greater than 6 inches are expected to smother most benthic infauna
(Lopez, et al., 2014). Large decapod crustaceans (i.e., cancer crabs, shrimp species, lobster) can
penetrate deeply into the sediment, which provides them with mechanisms that enable them to
survive some burial. Other strong deposit feeders can withstand burial of four inches or more
(Jackson and James, 1979; Bell chambers and Richardson, 1995), while 0.4 inch of sediment can kill
attached epifaunal suspension feeders (Kranz, 1974). The greatest impacts from burial occur in the
central mound area, where multiple deposits result in the thickest amounts of placed sediment
(Germano, et al., 1994). The burial on benthic invertebrate populations is typically a short-term
impact, because infauna rapidly recolonize the freshly placed, organic-rich material (when
compared to the disposal site sediments).
Additional short-term impacts of disposal may occur. Small surface-dwelling animals (e.g., some
amphipod and polychaete species) may be dislodged and transported to the outer region of the
deposit with water and sediment movement. The sediment plume may temporarily interfere with
benthic feeding and respiration in the water column.
The physical nature of seafloor sediments defines the type of habitat that is available for benthic
organisms to colonize, and thus the types of organisms and benthic community that can live and
thrive on the mounds. Potential long-term impacts may include changes in benthic community
composition that result from potential alterations in sediment grain size and TOC as well as
alterations in seafloor elevation.
The rate of benthic recolonization and the recovery rate of dredged material placement mounds have
been intensively studied in New England and other marine environments. The DAMOS program
uses a tiered monitoring framework (Germano, et al., 1994) to define the standards against which
the data are evaluated and to determine if additional investigation is required. Explicit Tier 1
criteria for benthic recovery are in the form of a null hypothesis: Stage 2 or 3 assemblages (deposit-
feeding taxa) are present on the disposal mound one year from cessation of disposal operations.
Acceptance of the null hypothesis would provide verification that the evaluation of the sediments
during the permitting process was correct. Rejection of the null hypothesis would lead to the next
level of investigation (Tier 2).
SPI has been used since 1982 to test the model of benthic succession in response to physical
disturbance from dredged material placement (Rhoads, et al., 1978; Germano, et al., 2011)
(additional information is presented in Section 4.8 and Figure 4-30). SPI depicts a vertical cross
section of sediment up to eight inches deep, providing visual evidence of organism-sediment
interactions and the sediment-water interface. A process-based model (Rhoads and Germano, 1982,
1986) has been used to interpret the ecological effects of dredged material in New England
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
55
-------
(Germano, et al., 1994) and minimize the impacts of disturbance through tiered monitoring
(Fredette, 1998; Fredette and French, 2004). Initially, there may be an absence of visible species,
called Stage 0. According to the successional model (Rhoads and Germano, 1986), within a few
days to weeks of physical disturbance or deposition of dredged material, Stage 1 organisms (small,
tube-dwelling surface deposit feeders) settle on the surface sediment. Stage 2 infaunal deposit
feeders gradually replace the Stage 1 organisms, and then larger Stage 3 infaunal deposit feeders
(which feed in a head-down orientation, creating distinctive feeding voids) inhabit the sediment
(Germano, et al., 2011). The dredged material characteristics and the benthic community
composition and structure affect the rate of succession, which typically results in a deepening of the
bioturbated mixed sediment layer and convergence with the surrounding benthic habitat conditions
(Zajac, 2001). The successional model has not been developed for coarse sediments or cohesive
clays (Germano, et al., 2011). The timing of disturbance relative to seasonal pulses of settlement
and growth of larvae also strongly influence the nature and rate of recolonization (Zajac and
Whitlatch, 1982; Wilber, et al., 2007). The establishment of a mature community may take months
to years to complete and depends in part on whether additional physical disturbances interrupt the
successional process.
DAMOS and other programs have repeatedly documented recolonization of mound surfaces with
surface and infaunal assemblages typical of the sediments surrounding the placement site (Germano,
et al., 2011). The outer region of the dredged material mound, known as the apron, can introduce
higher organic sediment content than the ambient sediment, supplying a new food source for deposit
feeders (Lopez, et al., 2014). The apron has been found to extend 300 ft to 1,600 ft beyond the
acoustically detectable margin of the mound (multibeam surveys can reliably detect accumulations
greater than four inches, and single-beam fathometers can detect greater than eight inches of
accumulated sediment (Fredette and French, 2004; Carey, et al., 2012). Within months, high
settlement densities of opportunist species (polychaetes, amphipods, bivalves, and meiofauna)
occur, and rapid bioturbation that mixes the deposit with seafloor sediments usually makes the apron
area indistinguishable (Germano, et al., 2011; Lopez, et al., 2014). These studies also have found
that the recovery of the mound apex, which is generally the most disturbed area, tends to be slower
than at the mound apron, where deposited sediments are thinner and burial impacts are fewer.
Mounds that have been in place for two or more years consistently support mature benthic
assemblages that are similar to reference areas outside of the open-water placement site and are
stable over time.
Benthic community and productivity changes may in turn affect higher trophic levels (a feeding
stratum in the food chain) by providing more or less prey at a given location or prey that is more or
less suitable for a variety of species. Erosion of silts and clays and sediment changes also may
provide positive attributes, such as armoring the surface against further erosion and creating
microhabitats within the placement site that provide greater variability in benthic habitat, leading to
continued, if not greater, utilization of the area by fish and shellfish (SAIC, 2001a).
Abrupt changes in topography or bottom type can create rich habitat for finfish and motile shellfish
like lobster, and artificial structures (artificial reefs) can also provide such typically rich habitat
(Ries and Sisk, 2004; Macreadie, et al., 2010; Macreadie, et al., 2012). Clark and Kasal (1994)
explored the concept of stable dredged material mounds providing substantial fisheries resource
benefits as a long-term management objective for dredged material placement. Anecdotal fishery
reports have indicated that mounds and berms create conditions conducive to enhanced fisheries
production. Few definitive scientific studies have been conducted to support this claim, although
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
56
-------
limited data from the Rockland Disposal Site off the coast of Maine suggest that the placement
mound supports an active population of megafauna (SAIC, 2001b).
As the proposed IOSN area is a physically homogeneous habitat composed of fine-grained
sediments (USACE, 2013) which are inhabited by a benthic invertebrate community that is
predominately Stage 1 on 3 (Guarinello et al, 2016), the periodic disposal of dredged material at the
site should not significantly alter the long-term benthic community profile at the site. The disposal
of dredged material at the site, as noted above, will result in short-term loss of the benthic
communities in discreet areas of the site through the burial of the benthos. However, colonization of
the impacted portions of the proposed IOSN site through recruitment from the surrounding benthic
communities is anticipated to occur and allow the benthic communities in the impacted areas to
return to pre-impact conditions.
7.5.3 Fish
No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative will have no effect on the fish community of the Gulf of Maine.
Preferred Alternative
Potential intermittent, short-term impacts to fish include the direct destruction and burial of bottom-
dwelling species and disturbance of fish throughout the water column within the localized area. Due
to their mobility, most fish would be expected to move out of a dredged material burial area. The
sediment plume following disposal would also have potential short-term water quality impacts that
may also have indirect impacts on fish by temporarily altering certain finfish behaviors, such as
migration, spawning, foraging, schooling, and predator evasion (O'Connor, 1991). Increased
turbidity has also been associated with potential gill abrasion and respiratory damage (Saila, et al.,
1971; Wilber and Clark, 2001). However, fish species may avoid disposal areas during periods of
high turbidity (Packer, et al., 1999).
Sediment characteristics and the life stage of species affect how sensitive species are to suspended
sediment, with egg and larval stages tending to be the most sensitive (Johnson, et al., 2008; Wilber
and Clark, 2001). However, these impacts are limited both in duration and spatially due to the short
time needed for dredged material to reach the bottom (Kraus, 1991; Dragos and Lewis, 1993;
Dragos and Peven, 1994). Saila, et al. (1971) also point out that "aquatic animals are able to tolerate
high concentrations of suspended sediments for short periods." Since the tolerance level for
suspended solids is high in shallow and mid-depth coastal waters, and fish and lobster may
experience major changes in turbidity during storms, Saila, et al. (1971) conclude that mortality due
to elevated sediment concentrations in the water column resulting from ocean disposal of dredged
material is not likely. Following these turbid periods, finfish and shellfish may be drawn back to a
disposal site by irregularities in the substrate and the presence of new material containing infaunal
organisms and other forage (EPA, 2004).
Given the fish communities that have been noted to occur within the area that the proposed IOSN
site encompasses (see Section 6.5.3), negative long-term effects to fish resources at the site are not
expected. The periodic disposal of dredged material at the site may result in the short-term
displacement of mobile fish species from limited areas of the site during disposal activities and
short-term decreases in the forage base (i.e., the burial of the benthic communities). However, those
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
57
-------
impacts are not expected to change the overall fish community structure at the site or present any
long-term impacts to the fish communities present.
Physical changes to sediment characteristics would potentially result in habitat impairment or
enhancement, depending on the type of change and the benthic response. However, as noted above,
the majority of dredged material to be placed at the proposed IOSN is fine-grained silts and clays,
which are compatible with existing sediments at the proposed IOSN.
7.5.4 Shellfish and Lobster
No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative will have no effect on the shellfish and lobster resources of the Gulf of
Maine.
Preferred Alternative
Lobster resources in the footprint of the proposed ODMDS would be affected. Direct impacts to
lobster resources would come from the burial of lobsters and increases in suspended sediments
during active dredged material placement events. As noted in section 6.5.4, lobster catch data in the
vicinity of the proposed site were comparable to other lobster zone G catch data. Therefore, while
impacts to lobster resources would be realized during disposal events, the distribution of lobster
resources throughout the Gulf of Maine and the highly localized areal extent of the proposed site
would not pose a significant impact to overall lobster populations in the vicinity of the site and
therefore, direct impacts are expected to be minimal. As noted in Table 2-1, the projected site usage
for dredged material disposal over a 20-year period is expected to be infrequent, thus allowing
significant intervals of time for lobster resource recovery. In addition, each dredging project's
material would be placed to create discrete mounds within the overall site (as opposed to spreading
material over the entire extent of the site) and be monitored by DAMOS to ensure that direct
impacts to the site are as minimal as possible. As discussed in section 7.5.3, marine organisms such
as lobster have evolved tolerance levels for short-term increases in suspended sediment levels, so
lobster resources outside the direct footprint of a placement should not be significantly affected by
the disposal process. Therefore, only minimal short-term and highly localized effects to lobster
resources are anticipated as a result of designating the site as an ODMDS.
7.5.5 Wildlife
No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative will have no effect on wildlife resources of the Gulf of Maine.
Preferred Alternative
Ocean disposal of dredged material at the proposed IOSN has the potential to impact birds, marine
mammals, and reptiles. Direct impacts would be from vessel strikes, harassment/displacement from
noise during dredged material disposal, and harassment/displacement from the ocean disposal of
dredged material (sediments). Temporary sediment plumes may also cause avoidance of the local
area.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
58
-------
Twelve species of marine mammals, 30 species of birds and one reptile species may occur at the
proposed IOSN site. The potential for vessel strikes is limited by the slow speed of tugboat and
barge operations. Recent ship speed reductions imposed on all vessels 65 feet and greater in length
have been found to be effective in reducing strikes to whales (Conn and Silber, 2013; NOAA,
2013). No strikes to endangered or threatened species or to dolphins and seals are known to have
occurred in the history of the DAMOS program. Potential adverse impacts to wildlife resources
would be limited and of short duration.
7.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative will have no effect on threatened and endangered species of the Gulf of
Maine.
Preferred Alternative
Humpback whales, Northern Right whales, Fin whales, and Leatherback sea turtles have the
potential to use the waters of the proposed IOSN site. Disposal activities may result in harassment,
vessel strikes, exposure of endangered and threatened species to dredged material, and short-term
impacts to prey. To minimize these risks, coordination with NMFS, EPA, and USACE will be
conducted to develop appropriate measures to be implemented to reduce the likelihood of a project
vessel using the proposed IOSN site from interacting with a whale or sea turtle. The
recommendations may include reduced vessel speed, maintaining a safe distance from observed
listed species, and the presence of aNMFS-trained observer on board the disposal vessel.
Additionally, the listed fish species noted in Section 6.5.6 (shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon,
and Atlantic salmon) have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN site. All of
these species are coastal migrants that traverse coastal waters between spawning events that occur in
various river systems of New England. However, all these fish species are generally transient at the
proposed site and the likelihood of their presence is small and impacts are not anticipated to occur.
The conservation recommendations noted above will be incorporated in the SMMP for the proposed
IOSN site. EPA has made the preliminary determination that the proposed designation of the IOSN
is not likely to adversely affect any threatened or endangered species and will be initiating a Section
7 consultation with NMFS as part of this action.
7.5.7 Essential Fish Habitat
No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative will have no effect on essential fish habitat in the Gulf of Maine.
Preferred Alternative
The potential impacts of disposal on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) at the proposed IOSN site were
initially evaluated for the Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River Navigation Improvement
Dredging Project (USACE, 2014) and are reevaluated here for future projects that may use proposed
IOSN (see Appendix H). The evaluation concluded the following: (1) there would be temporary
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
59
-------
impacts to demersal species, or species having demersal eggs or larvae, during disposal activities
that could persist until the benthic habitat recovered; (2) species that have pelagic eggs and larvae
may also be adversely impacted by material released from the scow as it descends through the water
column; and (3) some juveniles and adults may not be able to escape the descending plume and may
be buried or otherwise damaged. Based upon the additional species abundance data and habitat
information documented for the proposed IOSN site (and contained within this EA), the
determination has been made that the potential for impacts to most species with life history stages
present at the proposed IOSN site was low and that only short-term effects to EFH would be
realized. A complete EFH Assessment is included as Appendix H.
7.6 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative will have no effect on commercial and recreational fishing in the Gulf of
Maine.
Preferred Alternative
Commercial and recreational fishing activities occur throughout the Gulf of Maine, including areas
within or near the proposed IOSN site. However, the area encompassed by the proposed site does
not provide unique habitat for the most commonly targeted commercial and recreational species.
Additionally, the proposed site represents a very small areal footprint in the context of similar
habitats available throughout the entire Gulf of Maine.
Commercial and recreational fishing may be affected by dredged material disposal through
interference with fishing methods or site availability. For example, dredged material disposal may
result in a restriction on the amount of time that the site is available for commercial fishing activities
because fishermen do not want to risk loss of gear during times of active disposal. These impacts
would not likely occur during the summer months, as dredging is generally restricted in the ZSF to
late fall and winter for the protection of critical life stages of shellfish and finfish and to avoid
interference with commercial fishing activities. Therefore, it is anticipated that the designation of
the proposed site as an ODMDS will have minimal effects on commercial and recreational fisheries.
As noted in Section 6.6 and Appendix F, the primary fisheries target species in the vicinity of the
proposed site are Atlantic herring and lobster. These two fisheries are specifically discussed below.
Atlantic Herring Fishery
Given the distribution of Atlantic herring and the highly localized extent of the proposed site,
impacts to the Atlantic herring fishery are anticipated to be minimal. As noted above, disposal of
dredged material at the proposed site would generally be restricted temporally to late fall and winter
months, thus reducing potential for impact to the Atlantic herring fishery which is most active in the
summer and early fall (figure 6-7). Additionally, the projected site usage for the ocean disposal of
dredged material (see Table 2-1) is expected to be infrequent. Therefore, no significant effects to
the Atlantic herring fishery are expected as a result of designating the site as an ODMDS.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
60
-------
Lobster Fishery
The lobster fishery may be affected by the designation and use of the proposed site. Impacts to the
lobster fishery would include the burial of some lobster resources and reduced availability of the site
to be fished (to avoid gear loss) during the infrequent disposal events. As noted in section 6.5.4,
lobster catch data at the proposed site are comparable to other lobster zone G catch data. Given the
distribution of lobster resources throughout the Gulf of Maine and the highly localized extent of the
proposed site, impacts to the lobster fishery are expected to be minimal. As noted in Table 2-1, the
projected site usage for dredged material placement over a 20-year period is expected to be
infrequent. In addition, each dredge project's material would be placed within discrete mounds
within the overall site (as opposed to spreading material over the entire extent of the site) and be
monitored by the DAMOS program to ensure that impacts to the site are as minimal as possible.
Therefore, the minimal effects to the lobster fishery as a result of designating the site as an ODMDS
are anticipated to be short-term and highly localized.
7.7 Historic and Cultural Resources
There are no known historic or cultural resources within the proposed IOSN site. It is unlikely that
any significant cultural resources would be affected by designation of the proposed IOSN site as an
ODMDS.
7.8 Recreational Uses
It is not anticipated that marine recreation in the project area will be impacted by either the
Preferred Alternative or the No-Action Alternative.
7.9 Shipping
No-Action Alternative
The no-action alternative would not change the shipping use of the proposed site.
Preferred Alternative
No anticipated conflicts with commercial navigation and the designation of the proposed IOSN site
are anticipated. In personal communication (teleconference) on November 21, 2016, between Mr.
Mark Habel of the USACE-NAE and Mr. Chris Holt of the Portsmouth Pilots, USACE-NAE
discussed the proposed IOSN site location and its anticipated use with respect to navigation transit
impacts. The US ACE stated that for large projects such as the Portsmouth Harbor improvement
project, about three disposal trips per day were anticipated during the fall to winter construction
window. Mr. Holt indicated that vessels transiting to and from Portsmouth Harbor from the south
and southeast follow a route inshore of the Isles of Shoals. Vessels approaching or departing to and
from the east and northeast (Maine and Canada) do cross the general area of the proposed IOSN
disposal site. However, the pilots stated that conflicts between dredge disposal operations and
shipping for large and small projects can be avoided by adequate notice to mariners of disposal
activities and frequent marine communication between the disposal tugs and the Portsmouth Pilots.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
61
-------
7.10 Mineral, Oil, and Gas Exploration
There are no known efforts to mine the proposed IOSN site for minerals, oil, or gas. The use of the
site as a dredged material disposal area would likely preclude future use of the site for mineral
extraction. Oil and gas extraction activities are not common in the Gulf of Maine.
7.11 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste
There are no know sources of hazardous, toxic, or radioactive wastes in the area of the proposed
IOSN. Neither the No-Action Alternative nor the Preferred Alternative would have impacts
associated with hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste.
7.12 Marine Sanctuaries
There are no marine sanctuaries in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN site. Neither the No-Action
Alternative nor the Preferred Alternative would have impacts to marine sanctuaries.
7.13 Air Quality
The designation of the proposed IOSN site in the GOM is not expected to have significant impacts on
air quality. Impacts to air quality at the site would occur only during dredged material disposal
events and would come from air emissions or dust generation associated with the operation of the
marine vessels (e.g., tugs or hopper dredges) transiting to the site. All equipment would be properly
outfitted with air pollution controls, as required by the air quality control regulations (Section
176(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act) and proper controls for minimizing the generation of dust would be
implemented. Some volatile organic compounds may be released from exposed disposal sediments
on barges. The effects on air quality in the ZSF and at the proposed site are described below.
7.13.1 Effects of Dredging Operations in the ZSF
While the area of the proposed IOSN is currently in attainment for all of the National Ambient Air
quality Standards (NAAQS), future authorizations of specific dredging and dredged material disposal
projects by the USACE would be evaluated under the General Conformity Requirements of Section
176(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act in order to determine if the proposed action would cause or contribute
to an exceedance of the NAAQS and to determine if the project conforms to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The primary pollutants of concern with dredging related actions are
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO). It should be noted, however, that some projects
might satisfy the conformity requirements pursuant to one of the specific exemptions outlined in EPA
Regulations at 40 CFR 51.853(c)(ix).
7.13.2 Effects of Disposal at the Proposed ODMDS
During transport of the dredged material from dredging sites to the proposed IOSN site, tugs and
other equipment used in the process would generate minor amounts of air pollutants. As the material
would be disposed under water, dust and volatilization would not occur and there would be no long-
term effects on air quality from disposal operations. The availability of the proposed IOSN site for
ocean disposal of dredged materials from harbors located between Cape Ann and Cape Arundel
would save significant haul miles compared to the alternative of transporting that material to the
more distant Portland Dredged Material Disposal Site or Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site and would
reduce air emissions regionally.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
62
-------
7.14 Noise
No-Action Alternative
The no-action alternative would not change to the noise environment at the proposed site.
Preferred A Iternative
As ambient noise levels offshore are generally low, impacts to the noise environment at the proposed
IOSN site would be limited to noise from tugs/scows and/or hopper dredges transiting to the site for
material disposal. The use of the proposed IOSN site for dredged material disposal is not anticipated
to occur every year, and in the years that it is used, disposal events would only occur in low numbers
of times per day (2-3 at most). Therefore, all noise impacts are expected to be short in duration (i.e.,
minutes) and highly localized to whichever small portion of the overall proposed IOSN site is being
used in a given year. Additionally, the noise generated from transiting vessels would be no greater
than that experienced by other vessels transiting the area. Therefore, no significant effects are
anticipated.
8.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA
require federal agencies to consider the cumulative impacts of a proposal (40 CFR 1508.25(c)). A
cumulative impact to the environment is the impact that results from the incremental impact of an
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of
what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). This
type of an assessment is important because significant cumulative impacts can result from several
smaller actions that by themselves do not have significant impacts.
In general, with respect to the disposal of dredged material at designated sites, cumulative impacts
could occur as a result of multiple disposal events at the same designated site and as a result of other,
unrelated activities such as shipping, recreation, and fishing that occur on or near the Gulf of Maine.
8.1 Cumulative Impacts from the No-Action Alternative
The no-action alternative involves not selecting a site as an ODMDS and therefore has no cumulative
effect to the Gulf of Maine. However, the elimination of the maintenance of Federal Navigation
Projects and private dredging projects (e.g., marinas, commercial berthing areas, and ferry terminals)
in the ZSF would adversely affect regional commerce by reducing maritime trade and fishing
activity.
8.2 Cumulative Impacts from the Preferred Alternative
This EA evaluates the potential impact of the proposed designation of the IOSN as an ODMDS.
Although cumulative impacts could occur, as discussed below, and throughout the EA, the
designation of a disposal site off the coast of southern Maine and New Hampshire is not expected to
result in any significant adverse cumulative impacts. Short-term, temporary impacts such as
topographic change, burial of organisms in the disposal area, changes in the benthic community, and
potential changes to the local food web may occur. However, any short-term temporary impacts can
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
63
-------
be minimized or mitigated through proper site management methods.
Temporary changes from the ocean disposal of dredged material have been ongoing at sites in the
Gulf of Maine for decades. The evaluation conducted in this EA and a review of DAMOS
monitoring data from sites in the GOM did not find evidence that any of these short-term changes
have resulted in significant unacceptable adverse impacts to the GOM. However, potential long-term
impacts of disposal of dredged material at the proposed alternative site is described and analyzed in
Section 7 of this document and below.
The impact of the availability of an ODMDS may increase shipping, recreational boating, and
recreational and commercial fishing activities that occur on or near the Gulf of Maine. The use of an
ODMDS could potentially allow more areas to be dredged, thus increasing the availability of vessel
related activities in the Gulf of Maine.
Topographic Change
The overlap of multiple dredged material disposal events eventually builds discernible mounds
within a disposal site, altering the topography of the area. While changes associated with single
events are likely to be negligible, the cumulative impact can be more substantial. As multiple
disposal events occur, accumulations that range from several inches to several feet in height are built
above the seafloor. These accumulations are not anticipated to cause adverse impacts to resources or
current or future navigational uses of the site as mound height will be restricted to allow the current
activities that occur at the proposed site (fishing and navigation) to continue.
Alteration of Local Bottom Currents
One physical impact due to changes in topography is the potential alteration of local bottom water
currents within a site. However, no alterations to regional flow patterns are expected. Therefore, no
changes to the current or future uses of the site are expected.
Burial of Organisms
One of the key biological impacts due to changes in topography is the burial of organisms in the
disposal area. Those species that are not able to avoid the descending dredged material or burrow
through the deposited material may be eliminated from the site following multiple disposal events.
Burial becomes problematic if the buried organisms constitute a significant shellfishery, are spatially
limited, or are considered a unique community or population within the water body. Because
sediment type greatly influences the ability of buried organisms to migrate through the sediment to
their normal depths of habitation, the type of material deposited can influence the level of survival,
the rate of recovery of the site, and the diversity of the community that recolonizes the area.
Recolonization and the management of mound placement are expected to minimize these impacts.
Therefore, the current and future uses of the site by the commercial fishing and shipping industries
are not anticipated to change.
Changes in Benthic Community and Local Food Web
Biological impacts also include those to the benthic community and local food web caused by
changes in the physical properties of the substrate when deposited dredged material alters the habitat
type. Dredged material disposal over time may result in physical changes to the sediment properties
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
64
-------
of the site. Such changes define the type of habitat that is available for benthic organisms to colonize
and thus the types of organisms and benthic community that can live and thrive on the mounds. This
in turn may influence the use of the disposal site by higher trophic levels (a feeding stratum in the
food chain) and potentially affect the interaction of various species with the mounds, including those
of recreational or commercial importance. The rate at which the benthic community recovers
depends on many factors. The first consideration is the texture of the deposited material. Any
substantial change in texture of the seafloor reduces the ability for similar organisms to recolonize the
impacted area. Physical disturbance to the sea floor by storms would also affect the timing, and
perhaps the nature of recovery. It is a well-documented fact that dredged sediments placed at
disposal sites are quickly recolonized with biological communities that are healthy and able to
support species typically found in the ambient surroundings. Studies of the effects of disturbance
(including dredged material disposal) indicate that it is highly probable that the benthic habitats at a
site will eventually be recolonized by a functioning infaunal community, although it may not be
exactly the same as the one present before disposal. Therefore, the current and future uses of the site
by the commercial fishing and shipping industries are not anticipated to change.
Bioaccumulation
Bioaccumulation is defined as the uptake and retention of contaminants into tissues of organisms
from external sources. While bioaccumulation of a contaminant by an organism may or may not
result in detrimental impacts to that organism, it can be an indicator that the population, similar
organisms, and higher tropic-level organisms that prey on the contaminated organisms may be
potentially at risk of adverse impacts. The cumulative sources of contaminants that may
bioaccumulate include historical disposal of dredged material, new disposal activities, and other
contaminant sources to a region. The disposal of dredged material at an ocean disposal site can alter
the conditions controlling bioaccumulation, resulting in a localized change in the rate of uptake and
possible risks of associated adverse health effects. However, evaluation and management of dredged
material is designed to minimize this effect.
8.3 Conclusion of Cumulative Impacts Analysis
At the proposed IOSN site, disposal of dredged material could result in the release of suspended
sediments into the water column and short-term, temporary impacts to fish and shellfish and their
associated water column and bottom habitats. Other activities in the GOM that could result in the
resuspension of sediments and bottom disturbances include nonpoint source discharges, the use of the
area by ships and recreational watercraft through prop scouring and anchoring activities, and impacts
from fishing gear (e.g., bottom trawls and lobster pots). Thus, the impacts of the disposal of dredged
material in the GOM at the proposed IOSN site, together with those resulting from other unrelated
activities, could result in small incremental impacts. However, the designation of an ODMDS, in
conjunction with past, current, and future uses of the site, is not anticipated to have significant
negative long-term cumulative impacts.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
65
-------
9.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
9.1 Federal Action
The proposed federal action consists of designating an ODMDS to serve the southern Maine, New
Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts region. Site designation does not create or confer rights on
any person to use a designated site upon the effective date of site designation. Persons or entities
who seek to use a site must first obtain all applicable environmental permits and approvals and a
federal permit under the MPRSA, or in the case of the US ACE, meet the substantive permit
requirements, in order to actually use a designated ocean dredged material disposal site. This
process would include meeting the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations. The EPA
recognizes, however, that site designation is intended to have a practical result. When a site is
designated, it is expected that such sites will be used by persons or entities meeting the statutory and
regulatory criteria for ocean disposal of dredged material. Therefore, actual disposal is an indirect
effect of site designation and is included in the evaluation of effects under the below listed statutes.
9.2 Compliance
National Environmental Policy Act
This Draft EA was prepared for public review pursuant to NEPA with EPA in the role of the lead
agency and the USACE as the cooperating agency. The Draft EA will be circulated to the
appropriate local, state and federal agencies, as well as other interested stakeholders and citizens.
Comments received will be addressed in the Final EA. Upon completion of the Final EA, the
project would be in full compliance with NEPA.
Endangered Species Act
This Draft EA concludes that the proposed action is not likely to adversely impact listed species.
Concurrence is being requested with this determination and this project will be fully coordinated
with NMFS.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
This Draft EA concludes that the proposed action would likely have no adverse impact fish or
wildlife. Concurrence is being requested with this determination and this project will be fully
coordinated with NMFS and FWS.
Clean Water Act
As the proposed ODMDS location is located outside the jurisdictional limits of this Act, a Section
404(b)(1) evaluation is not applicable to this project and was not prepared.
Clean Air Act
In general, the short-term impacts from transportation and construction equipment associated with
the disposal of dredged material in the proposed ODMDS does not significantly impact air quality.
As all of Maine is designated as an attainment area for federal air quality standards under the Clean
Air Act, a conformity determination is not required.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
66
-------
Coastal Zone Management Act
Although the project area is outside the defined coastal zone for Maine and New Hampshire,
transportation of dredged material to the site will be through the coastal zone. All projects utilizing
this site will be fully coordinated with the Maine and New Hampshire office's responsible for
Coastal Zone Management and would be in compliance with the Act.
Farmland Protection Policy
No prime or unique farmland would be impacted by designating proposed IOSN as an ODMDS.
This Act is not applicable.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968
No designated wild and scenic river reached would be affected by project related activities. This
Act is not applicable.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
This Draft EA concludes that the proposed action is not likely to adversely impact marine mammals.
Concurrence is being requested with this determination and this project will be fully coordinated
with NMFS and FWS. This project would be in full compliance with this Act.
Estuary Protection Act
No designated estuary would be impacted by project activities. This Act is not applicable.
Submerged Lands Act
This project would not occur on submerged lands of the state of Maine or New Hampshire. This
project would be in compliance with the Act.
Coastal Barrier Resources Act and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act
There are no designated coastal barrier resources in the project area that would be impacted by this
project. These Acts are not applicable.
Rivers and Harbors Act
The proposed action would not obstruct or pollute navigable waters of the United States because the
site is over ten miles outside the boundary of the territorial seas. This project would be in
compliance with the Act.
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act
This Draft EA concludes that the proposed action will unlikely adversely impact anadromous fish.
Concurrence is being requested with this determination and this project will be fully coordinated
with NMFS. This project would be in compliance with the Act.
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
67
-------
The MPRSA regulates the transportation and subsequent disposal of materials, including dredged
materials, into ocean waters. The proposed designation of IOSN site as an ODMDS is being
undertaken pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA. The four general (40 CFR 228.5) and eleven
specific (40 CFR 228.6) criteria for the selection of sites have been discussed and included in
Section 4.0 of this document. The EPA is responsible for MPRSA compliance of all ocean disposal
activities and this designation would be in full compliance with the Act.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
The project area is located within the jurisdiction of the MSFCMA, and an EFH assessment has
been prepared that evaluates potential impacts on NMFS-managed fish species and their essential
fish habitats. This Draft EA concludes that any adverse impact to EFH will be minor and
temporary. This designation will be fully coordinated with NMFS and would be in compliance with
the Act.
Executive Order 11593, Protection & Enhancement of the Cultural Environment
Consultations with appropriate State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) pertaining to the
protection of the cultural environment will be conducted by EPA and the US ACE to ensure
compliance with this order.
Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice
The proposed activity would not result in adverse human health or environmental effects or exclude
persons from participating in, deny persons the benefits of, or subject persons to discrimination
because of their race, color, or natural origin. Further, the proposed activity would not impact
"subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife." This project would be in compliance with this
Executive Order.
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks
The proposed action would not result in adverse environmental health risks or safety risks to
children. The proposed action would be in compliance with this Executive Order.
Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection
There are no coral reefs in or near the project area, therefore, this Executive Order does not apply.
Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species
There are no components in the dredged material or consequences of its disposal that would be
expected to attract or result in recruitment of nuisance species to the area. The proposed action
would be in compliance with this Executive Order.
Executive Order 13158, Marine Protected Areas
EPA considered the location of any marine protected areas during the evaluation of the project
alternatives. The proposed action will avoid harm to natural and cultural resources protected by any
designated marine protected areas. The proposed action would be in compliance with this Executive
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
68
-------
Order.
Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Migratory birds are not expected to be adversely impacted by the proposed action. The proposed
action would be in compliance with this Executive Order.
10.0 COORDINATION AND OUTREACH
Coordination and outreach of this project with the organizations listed in Table 10-1 has been on-
going. An inter-agency kick-off meeting for the project was held on May 5, 2016. A second inter-
agency meeting occurred on December 10, 2018, to present the proposed IOSN preferred
alternative. EPA and US ACE presented the project and preferred alternative at the New Hampshire
State Dredging Team meeting on February 6, 2019 and the Maine State Dredging Team meeting on
March 11, 2019. In addition, periodic project updates have been provided at all New England
Regional Dredging Team meetings as well as at the New Hampshire and Maine State Dredging
Team meetings from 2016- present. Letters of interest in engaging in consultation were sent to all
Federally Recognized Tribes in Maine on July 5, 2019. Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians requested
Government to Government consultation which occurred on August 13, 2019. EPA also presented
the project on a monthly EPA Regional Tribal Operations Committee call, which includes New
England Tribal environmental directors, on August 14, 2019. The project was presented to various
regional stakeholders at the Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership, the local National Estuary
Program, Management Committee meeting on December 18, 2019 and the Gulf of Maine Council
for the Marine Environment meeting on July 10, 2019. EPA and US ACE have begun and will
continue outreach to the lobster fishing industry though organizations such as the Maine Lobster
Zone G Council. The draft EA will have a Public Notice and public review period. Continued
coordination with states, tribes, stakeholders, and the public is being planned throughout the public
review period.
Table 10-1 List of Organizations
Federal Agencies
Tribes
State Agencies
Local Agencies
Other
Stakeholders
National Oceanic
and Atmospheric
Administration
(NOAA)
National Marine
Fisheries Service
Aroostook Band of
Micmacs
ME Dept. of
Enviromnental Protection
NH Port
Authority
New
Hampshire
Dredging Task
Force
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Houlton Band of Maliseet
Indians
ME Coastal Program
Portsmouth
Pilots Inc.
Maine State
Dredging
Team
U.S. Coast Guard
Penobscot Indian Nation
ME Dept Marine
Resources
New England
Regional
Dredge Team
Environmental Assessment andMPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites in ME, NH, &MA
69
-------
U.S. Navy
Passamaquoddy Tribe of
Indians
Indian Township
Reservation
ME State Historic
Preservation Officer
Piscataqua
Region
Estuaries
Partnership
Management
Committee
Passamaquoddy Tribe of
Indians
Pleasant Point
Reservation
ME Geological Service
Gulf of Maine
Council on the
Marine
Environment
NH Dept. of
Environmental Services
Lobster Zone
G Council
NH Fish and Game Dept
NH State Historic
Preservation Officer
NH Coastal Program
MA Coastal Zone
Management
11.0 SELECTION OF OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES FOR FORMAL
DESIGNATION
The EPA has determined that the decision to designate the proposed IOSN site as an ODMDS is
supported by the information contained within this Environmental Assessment, including the
evaluation of the criteria described in 40 CFR Parts 220 through 228. Disposal and site
management will be performed in accordance with the SMMP (Appendix G) that was developed
pursuant to 40 CFR 228.9 and with any use restrictions that may be specified in the final rule for
the designation. The IOSN site is proposed for designation by EPA through formal rulemaking,
and this ODMDS EA and the appendices provide the technical support for this action.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
70
-------
12.0 REFERENCES
Arnold, P.W. and D.E. Gaskin. 1972. Sight records of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and
finback whales (Balaenoptera physalus) from the lower Bay of Fundy. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada
29:1477-1748.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council (ASMFC), 2016:
http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/fr.html
Barnhardt, W.A., D.F. Belknap, A.R. Kelley, J. T. Kelley, and S.M. Dickson. 1996. Surficial
geology of the Maine inner continental shelf; Piscataqua River to Biddeford Pool, Maine.
http://digitalmaine.com/mgs_maps/222/
Bellchambers, L. M. and Richardson, A. M., 1995. The effect of substrate disturbance and burial
depth on the venerid clam, Katelysis scalarina (Lamark, 1818). J Shellfish Res, Volume 14, p.
41-44.
Bigelow, H.B. 1926. Plankton of the offshore waters of the Gulf of Maine. Bulletin of the Bureau
of Fisheries (Government Printing Office, Washington, DC), Vol XL, 509 pp
Bigelow, H.B. 1927. Physical Oceanography of the Gulf of Maine. Bull. U.S. Comm. Bur. 40:511-
1027.
Bolam, S. G. et al., 2006. Ecological consequences of dredged material disposal in the marine
environment: a holistic assessment of activities around the England and Wales coastline. Mar
Poll Bull, 52(6), pp. 415-426.
Bumpus, D.F. 1976. Review of the Physical Oceanography of Georges Bank. Intl. Comm.
Northwest Atl. Fish. Res. Bull. 12:119-134.
Carey, D.A. and E. Bellagamba Fucile. 2015. Data Summary Report of the New London Disposal
Site and Vicinity Sediment-Profile and Plan-View Imaging Survey. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA, 45p. Included as Appendix F in SEIS.
CETAP, 1982. A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and north Atlantic
areas of the U.S. outer continental shelf. Final Report of the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment
Program, Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. AA551-CT-48, U.S. Dept of Interior,
Washington D.C. 450 pp.
Chu, K. 1986. Fin whale {Balaenopteraphysalus). In T. French (ed.), Endangered, Threatened and
Special Concern Vertebrate Species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div. Fish and Wildlife, Non-game
and Endangered Species Program. Boston, MA:\\02202.
Clark, D. and R. Kasal. 1994. Habitat value of offshore dredged material berms for fisheries
resources. In McNair Jr., E.C. (Ed) Dredging, '94. Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Placement. American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, NY. pp. 938-946.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
71
-------
Conn, P.B. and G. K. Silber. 2013. Vessel speed restrictions reduce risk of collision-related
mortality for North Atlantic right whales. Ecosphere: 4(4): 43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES13-
00004.1
Dragos, P. and D. Lewis. 1993. Plume Tracking/Model Verification Project. Report prepared by
Battelle Ocean Sciences for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2. EPA Contract
No. 68-C8-0105. 62p (and Appendix).
Dragos, P. and C. Peven. 1994. Plume Tracking of Dredged Material Containing Dioxin. Draft Final
Report. Prepared by Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York, NY. EPA Contract No. 68-C2-0134.
49p (and Appendix).
Dutil, J. D., and J. M. Coutu. 1988 and early marine life of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, post-
smolts in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence (Fishery Bulletin 86: 197-212)).
Eggleton, J. and Thomas, K. V., 2004. A review of factors affecting the release and bioavailability
of contaminants during sediment disturbance events. Environ Int, 30(7), pp. 973-980.
ENSR, 2007. Baseline Bathymetric Surveys at the Central and Western Long Island Sound Disposal
Sites, July 2005, Concord, Massachusetts: DAMOS Contribution No. 177, 85 pp.
ENSR, 2008. Providence River and Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project Synthesis Report,
Concord, Massachusetts: DAMOS Contribution No. 178, 133 pp.
EPA, 2011. OSV BOLD Survey Report. Coastal nutrient criteria and trend monitoring 2011. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Boston, MA.
Fredette, T. J., 1998. DAMOS: Twenty years of dredged material disposal site monitoring. Isn't that
enough? Chemistry and Ecology, Volume 14, pp. 231-239.
Fredette, T.J. and G.T. French. 2004. Understanding the physical and environmental consequences
of dredged material disposal: history in New England and current perspectives. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 49: 93-102.
Germano, J.D., D.C. Rhoads, and J.D. Lunz. 1994. An integrated, tiered approach to monitoring and
management of dredged material disposal sites in the New England region. DAMOS
Contribution No. 87. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA.
Germano, J.D., D.C. Rhoads, R.M. Valente, D. Carey, and M. Solan. 2011. The use of sediment
profile imaging (SPI) for environmental impact assessments and monitoring studies: lessons
learned from the past four decades. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 49:
247-310.
Guarinello, M. L.; Carey, D. A.; Wright, C. 2016. Data Summary Report for the Monitoring Survey
at the Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North, September 2015. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
England District, Concord, MA, 63 pp.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
72
-------
Hain, J.H., R.K. Edel, H.E. Hays, S.K. Katona, and J.D. Roanowicz, 1981. General distribution of
cetaceans in the continental shelf waters of the northeastern United States. In A characterization
of marine mammals and turtles in the Mid- and North Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continental
shelf. Ann. Rept. 1979, CETAP Program, Univ. of Rhode Island, prepared for Bureau of Land
Mgmt. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C.
Hay, K.A. 1985b. Status of the Right Whale, Eubalaena alacialis in Canada. Can. Field Nat.
99:433-437.
Hickey, K.; Carey, D. A.; Wright, C.; Germano, J. D.; Read, L. B. 2014. Data Summary Report of
the Cape Arundel Disposal Site August 2013 Monitoring Survey. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA, 55 pp.
Jackson, M. J. and James, R., 1979. The influence of bait digging on cockle, Cerastoderma edule,
population in North Norfolk. JAppl Ecol, Volume 16, p. 671-679.
Johnson, M. R. et al., 2008. Chapter Six: Offshore Dredged and Disposal Activities, Impacts to
marine fisheries habitat from nonfishing activities in the Northeastern United States. [Online]
Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm209/pdfs/ch6.pdf.
[Accessed 15 August 2014],
Jones-Lee, A. and Lee, G. F., 2005. Role of Iron Chemistry in Controlling the Release of Pollutants
from Resuspended Sediments. Journ Remediation, 16(1), pp. 33-41.
Johnson, C.L., J. A. Runge, K. A. Curtis, E. G. Durbin, J. A. Hare, L. S. Incze, J. S. Link, G. D.
Melvin, T. D. O'Brien, and L. Van Guelpen. 2011. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function in the
Gulf of Maine: Pattern and Role of Zooplankton and Pelagic Nekton. PLOS ONE 6(1): el6491.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016491
Kranz, P.M. 1974. The anastrophic burial of bivalves and its paleoecological significance. J. of
Geology. 82: 237-265.
Kraus, N., 1991. Mobile, Alabama, Field Data Collection Project, 18 August-2 September 1989.
Report 1: Dredged Material Plume Survey Data Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Dredging Research Program. USACE Technical Report No. DRP-91-3.
Kraus, S.D., and J.H. Prescott. 1981. Distribution, abundance and notes of the large cetaceans of the
Bay of Fundy, summer and fall 1980. Final Report to NMFS/NEFC, Contract No. NA-80-FA-2-
00048.
Kraus, S.D. and J.H. Prescott. 1982. The North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena alacialis) in the
Bay of Fundy, 1981, with notes on distribution, abundance, biology and behavior. Final Report
to NMFS/NEFC Contract No. NA-81-FA-C-00030. 105 pp.
Kraus, S.D., J.H. Prescott, P.V. Turnbull, and R.R. Reeves. 1982. Preliminary notes on the
occurrence of the North Atlantic Right Whale, Eubalaena alacialis, in the Bay of Fundy. Rept.
Int. Whale. Comm. 32:407-411.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
73
-------
Kraus, S.D. and J.H. Prescott. 1983. A summary of 1982 research on the North Atlantic Right
Whale Eubalaena alacialis with notes on seasonal distribution and abundance, and significant
resightings of individuals. Annual Report to NMFS in fulfillment of Contract No. NA-81-FA-C-
00030 and to the World Wildlife Fund-U.S. 39 pp.
Larsen, P. F. 2011. Identification and enumeration of muddy bottom benthic macrofauna from the
Isles of Shoals - North area, Northeast Gulf of Maine. Submitted to the US Army Corps of
Engineers, Concord, MA 01742.
Leatherwood, S., D.K. Caldwell, and H.E. Winn. 1976. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises of the
western North Atlantic. A guide to their identification. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech.
Rept. NMFS Circ. 396. 176 pp.
Lillick. L.C. 1940. Phytoplankton and planktonic protozoa of the offshore waters of the Gulf of
Maine. Part II: Qualitative composition of the planktonic flora. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. 31: 193-
237.
Lopez, G., D. Carey, J.T. Carlton, R. Cerrato, H. Dam, R. DiGiovanni, C. Elphick, M. Frisk, C.
Gobler, L. Hice, P. Howell, A. Jordaan, S. Lin, S. Liu., D. Lonsdale, M. McEnroe, K. McKown,
G. McManus, R. Orson, B. Peterson, C. Pickerel, R. Rozsa, S.E. Shumway, A. Siuda, K. Streich,
S. Talmage, G. Taylor, E. Thomas, M. Van Patten, J. Vaudrey, G. Wikfors, C. Yarish, and R.
Zajac. 2014. Biology and Ecology in Long Island Sound. In: J.S. Latimer et al. (eds.), Long
Island Sound. Prospects for the Urban Sea. Springer Series on Environmental Management (doi:
10.1007/978-1-4614-6126-5_6), p. 285-480.
Macreadie, P. I., Geraldi, N. R. and Peterson, C. H., 2012. Preference for feeding at habitat edges
declines among juvenile blue crabs as oyster reef patchiness increases and predation risk grows.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., Volume 466, pp. 145-153.
Macreadie, P. I. et al., 2010. Resource distribution influences positive edge effects in a seagrass fish.
Ecology, Volume 91, p. 2013-2021.
Maine DMR. 2016. Bureau of Marine Science Comments on the Proposed Isles of Shoals Disposal
Site. 20 pp. ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT AS APPENDIX F
Marshall, H.G. 1984. Phytoplankton distribution along the eastern coast of the U.S.A. Part V.
Seasonal density and cell volume patterns for the northeastern continental shelf. J. Plankt. Res.
6:169-193.
Marshall, H.G. and M.S. Cohn. 1983. Distribution and composition of phytoplankton in
northeastern coastal waters of the United States. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 17: 119-131.
Marshall, H.G. and M.S. Cohn. 1984. Phytoplankton distribution along the eastern coast of the
U.S.A. in relation to abundance, composition, cell volume, seasonal, and regional assemblages.
J. Plankton Res. 6:169-193.
Mitchell, E. 1974a. Present status of northwest Atlantic fin and other whale stocks, p. 108-169. In
W.E. Schevill (ed.), The whale problem, a status report: Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge MA.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
74
-------
Moore, J.C. 1953. Distribution of marine mammals to Florida waters. Am. Midi. Nat. 49:117-158.
Moore, J.C. and E. Clark. .1963. Discovery of right whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Science 141:269.
Morse, W.W., M.P. Fahay, and W.G. Smith. 1987. MARMAP Surveys of the Continental Shelf
from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to Cape Sable, Nova Scotia (1977-1984). Atlas No. 2.
Annual Distribution Patterns of Fish Larvae. NOAA Tech. Memor. NMFS-F/NEC-47.
NERACOOS. 2017. NERACOOS website accessed for buoy data: www.neracoos.org
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. Accessed June- August 2018 and August 2019.
https: // www. northeastoceandata. org
NMFS. 2016. Shortnose sturgeon species webpage. Accesses December 2016.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnose-sturgeon.html
NMFS. 2017. Fishery statistics for GAR Area 513. Obtained through Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office: Office of Fisheries Statistics. September 2017.
Normandeau. 1985. Seabrook Environmental Studies, 1984. A characterization of baseline
conditions in the Hampton-Seabrook Area, 1975-1984. Tech. Rep. XVI-II prep, for New
Hampshire Yankee Division of Public Services Co. of N.H. Seabrook, N.H.
O'Connor, J.M. 1991. Evaluation of Turbidity and Turbidity-Related Effects on the Biota of the San
Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco
District.
Payne, P.M., L.A. Selzer, and A.T. Knowlton. 1984. Distribution and density of cetaceans, marine
turtles and seabirds in the shelf waters of the northeastern United States. June 1980 - Dec. 1983,
from shipboard observations. NMFS/NEFC Contr. No. NA-81-FA-C-00023. 246 pp.
Pequegnat, W.E., L.H. Pequegnat, B.M. James, E.A. Kennedy, R.R. Fay, and A.D. Fredericks.
1981. Procedural Guide for Designation Surveys of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites. 8-
21 Technical Report EL-81-1. Prepared by TerEco Corp. for Office, Chief of Engineers, U.S.
Army, Washington, DC.
Powers, K.D., P.M. Payne, and S.J. Fitch. 1982. Distribution of Cetaceans, Seabirds and Turtles,
Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia, June 1980-December 1981. Final Report to NMFS/NEFC
Contract No. NA-81-FA-C-00023. 163 pp.
Reeves, R.R. and R.L. Brownell. 1982. Baleen Whales Eubalaena alacialis and allies, p 415-444. In
J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer (eds.), Wild Mammals of North America. Biology,
Management and Economics. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Ries, L. and Sisk, T. D., 2004. A predictive model of edge effects. Ecology, Volume 85, p.
2917-2926.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
75
-------
Rhoads, D.C., and J.D. Germano. 1982. Characterization of organism-sediment relations using
sediment profile imaging: an efficient method of remote ecological monitoring of the seafloor
(REMOTS) System. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 8:115-128.
Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germano. 1986. Interpreting long-term in community structure: A new
protocol. Hydrobiologia 142: 291-308.
Rhoads, D.C., P.L. McCall, and J.Y. Yingst. 1978. Disturbance and production on the estuarine
seafloor. Am Sci 66:577-586.
Ruggaber, G.J. and E.E. Adams. 2000. Dynamics of particle clouds related to open-water sediment
disposal. Conference on Dredged Material Management: Options and Environmental
Considerations. MIT Sea Grant College Program, Cambridge, MA December 3-6, 2000. 6p.
SAIC. 1991. Monitoring Cruise at the Cape Arundel Disposal Site, 1990. DAMOS Contribution
82. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District. Waltham, Massachusetts.
SAIC. 1990. Monitoring Cruise at the Cape Arundel Disposal Site, October 1987. DAMOS
Contribution 67. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District. Waltham,
Massachusetts.
SAIC, 2001a. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, 1992-1998, Volume II, Seawolf
Mound, Concord, Massachusetts: DAMOS Contribution 132, (SAIC Report No. 525), U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, New England District.
SAIC, 2001b. Monitoring Cruise at the Rockland Disposal Site, September 2000, Concord,
Massachusetts: DAMOS Contribution No. 131, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England
District, 49 pp.
Saila, S.B., S.D. Pratt, and T.T. Polgar. 1971. Providence Harbor-Improvement Spoil Disposal Site
Evaluation Study - Phase II. Report to Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. 8-25
Department of Interior. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham,MA.
Schimidly, D.J. 1981. Marine mammals of the southeastern United States coast and the Gulf of
Mexico. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Service, Biol. Serv. Progr. FWS/OBS-80/41.
Sergeant, D.E. 1963. Minke Whales, Balaenoptera acutorostrata Lacepede, of the western North
Atlantic. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 20:1489-1504.
Sergeant, D.E. 1966. Populations of large whale species in the western North Atlantic with special
references to the Fin Whale. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., circ. No. 9.
Sergeant, D.E. 1968. Sightings of marine mammals. Int., Comm. North. Atl. Fish. Spec. Publ. No.
7:241-244.
Sergeant, D.E. 1975. An additional food supply for Humpback (Megaptera novaeancrliae) and
Minke Whales {Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Int. Council. Expor. Sea. Mar. Mamm. Comm.
CM 1975/No. 13:1-7.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
76
-------
Sergeant, D.E. 1977. Stocks of Fin Whales Balaenopteraphysalus L. in the North Atlantic Ocean.
Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 27:460-473.
Sergeant, D.E., and H.D. Fisher. 1957. The smaller Cetacea of eastern Canadian waters. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Can. 114:83-115.
Sergeant, D.E., A.W. Mansfield, and B. Beck. 1970. Inshore records of Cetacea for eastern Canada,
1949-1968. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 27:1903-1915.
Sergeant, D.E., D.J. St. Aubin, and J.R. Geraci. 1980. Life history and northwest Atlantic status of
the Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus. Cetology 37:1-12.
Sherman, K. 1968. Seasonal and areal distribution of zooplankton in coastal waters of the Gulf of
Maine, 1965 and 1966. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Special Scientific Report- Fisheries No.
562.
Sherman, K. 1970. Seasonal and areal distribution of zooplankton in coastal waters of the Gulf of
Maine, 1967 and 1968. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Special Scientific Report- Fisheries No.
594.
Sherman, K, M. Grosslein, D. Mountain, D. Busch, J. O'Reilly, and R. Theroux. 1988. The
continental shelf ecosystem off the northeast coast of the United States, p. 279-337. In H.
Postma and JJ Zielstra (eds), Ecosystems of the World no. 27 Continental Shelf. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Sherman, K.C., C. Jones, L. Sullivan, W. Smith, P. Berrein, andL. Ejustment. 1981. Congruent
shifts in sand eel abundance in western and eastern north Atlantic ecosystems. Nature 291:486-
489.
Sherman, K., W. Smith, W. Morse, M. Berman J. Green, and L. Ejustment. 1984. Spawning
strategies/of fishes in relation to circulation, phytoplankton production', and pulses in
zooplankton off the northeastern United States. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 18: 1-19.
Shevenell, T.C. 1974. Distribution and dispersal of particulate matter in a temperate coastal shelf
environment. International Symposium on interrelationships of estuarine and continental shelf
sedimentation. Bordeaux France July 9-14: 87-94.
Silva, A. J. et al., 1994. Geotechnical analysis of capped dredged material mounds. Orlando,
Florida, s.n., pp. 410-419.
Sutcliffe, W.H. and P.F. Brodie. 1977. Whale distributions on Nova Scotia waters. Technical Report
No. 722. Fisheries and Marlene Service, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, Nova
Scotia. 83 pp.
Tavolaro, J. 1984. A sediment budget study of clamshell dredging and ocean disposal activities in
the New York Bight. Environmental Geology 6: 133-140.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
77
-------
TRIGOM. 1974. A Socio-Economic and Environmental Inventory of the North Atlantic Region
(Vol 1, Book 3). South Portland, Maine.
EPA and USACE. 1984. General Approach to Designation Studies for Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army USACE of Engineers,
Washington DC.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Ocean Dumping Site Designation Delegation
Handbook for Dredged Material. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection, Washington, D.C. Prepared by SAIC under contract to Battelle for EPA
OMEP, Washington, DC.
USACE. 1986. Fate of Dredged Material during open water disposal. Environmental Effects of
Dredging Technical Notes. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experimental Station.
EEPD-01-2, September 1986, 12p.
EPA, 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation of Dredged Material
Disposal Sites in Central and Western Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York, s.l.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. April 2004. Report + appendices.
EPA, 2001. OSV BOLD Survey report. Coastal nutrient criteria and trend monitoring, 2011. EPA
Region 1, Boston, MA 32 pp
USACE. 1989. Site Evaluation Studies for Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material. Cape Arundel
Disposal Site. US Army Corps of Engineers, 424 Trapelo Road, Waltham, MA 02254.
USACE. 2014. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, New Hampshire and Maine, Final
Environmental Assessment
Valente, R.M., D.A. Carey, L.B. Read, and C. Wright. 2007. Postdisposal Monitoring of Lobster
Abundance at the Rhode Island Sound Disposal Site in 2005 compared to the 1999 Predisposal
Survey. DAMOS Contribution No. 174. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District,
Concord, MA, 52p.
Wallace, B.P., Tiwari, M. and Girondot, M. 2013. Dermochelys coriacea. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2015.1. . Downloaded on 09 June 2015
Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Schevill. 1976. Right whale feeding and baleen rattle. J. Mamm. 57:58-
66.
Watkins, W.A. and W.E. Schevill. 1979. Aerial observation of feeding behavior in four baleen
whales: Eubalaeha alaciais, Balaenoptera borealis, Magaptera novaeanctliae, and
Balaenopteraphysalus. J. Mamm. 60:155-63.
Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Schevill. 1982. Observations of right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, in Cape
Cod waters. Fish. Bull. 80:875-880.
Watson, L. 1981. Sea guide to whales of the world. E.P. Dutton, New York. 277 pp
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
78
-------
Wilber, D. H. and Clarke, D. G., 2001. Biological effects of suspended sediments: a review of
suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries.
N Am J Fish Manage, 21(4), pp. 855-875.
Wilber, D. H., Clarke, D. G. and Rees, S. I., 2007. Responses of benthic macroinvertebrates to thin-
layer disposal of dredged material in Mississippi Sound, USA. Mar Poll Bull, Volume 54, p. 42-
52.
Wolf, S., Fredette, T. J. and Loyd, R. B., 2012. Thirty-five Years of Dredged Material Disposal
Area Monitoring - Current Work and Perspectives of the DAMOS Program. [Online]
Available at: https://www.westerndredging.org/phocadownload/WEDA-Volume-12-Issue-2-
2012.pdf
Zajac, R. N., 2001. Organism-sediment relations at multiple spatial scales: implications for
community structure and successional dynamics. In: J. Y. Aller, S. A. Woodin & R. C. Aller,
eds. Organism-sediment interactions. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina
Press.
Zajac, R. N. and Whitlatch, R. B., 1982. Responses of estuarine infauna to disturbance. II. Spatial
and temporal variation in succession. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., Volume 10, p. 15-27.
Environmental Assessment and MPRSA Criteria Evaluation for Disposal Sites inME, NH, &MA
79
-------
Environmental Assessment and Evaluation Study
for a Designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site in
Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern
Massachusetts
Appendix A
Sediment Grain Size Data from IOSN
-------
SEDIMENT SEIVE ANALYSIS RESULTS
ISLES OF SHOALS NORTH
ALTERANTIVE OCEAN PLACEMENT SITE
M-29
-------
©©©Testing
IE XPRESS
1145 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
978 635 0424 Tel
978 635 0266 Fax
Transmittal
to:
Richard Heidebrecht
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
696 Virginia Road
Concord, MA 01742
DATE: 12/21/2010
GTX NO; 10463
RE: Isles of Shoals Site N
COPIES
DATE
DESCRIPTION
12/21/2010
December 2010 Laboratory Test Report
REMARKS:
4 X
CC:
SIGNED:
APPROVED BY:
Joe To/nei, Laboratory Manager
=3t
Ndncy Hubbard, Project Manager
M-31
-------
Boston
Atlanta
New York
www.geocomp.com/geotesting
December 21,2010
Richard Heidebrecht
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
696 Virginia Road
Concord, MA 01742
RE: Isles of Shoals Site N, (GTX-10463)
Dear Richard:
Enclosed are the test results you requested for the above referenced project. GeoTesting Express, Inc.
(GTX) received nine samples from you on 12/15/2010. These samples were labeled as follows:
Boring Number
Sample Number
Depth
Site N
A
319 ft
SiteN
B
314 ft
SiteN
C
315 ft
SiteN
D
318 ft
SiteN
E
316 ft
SiteN
F
321 ft
SiteN
G
317 ft
SiteN
H
328 ft
Site N
I
313 ft
GTX performed the following test on each of these samples:
ASTM D 422 - Grain Size Analysis with Hydrometer
A copy of your test request is attached.
The results presented in this report apply only to the items tested. This report shall not be reproduced except in
full, without written approval from GeoTesting Express. The remainder of these samples will be retained for a
period of sixty (60) days and will then be discarded unless otherwise notified by you. Please call me if you have
any questions or require additional information. Thank you for allowing GeoTesting Express the opportunity of
providing you with testing services. We look forward to working with you again in the future.
Respectfully yours,
/Joe T omei
Laboratory Manager
M-32
GeoTesting Express, Inc. | 1145 Massachusetts Ave. | Boxborough, MA 01719 | Toll Free 800 434 1062 | Fax 978 635 0266
GeoTesting
EXPRESS
-------
GeoTestin
E X P R E S S
1145 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough. MA 01719
978 635 0424 Tel
978 635 0266 Fax
Geotechnical Test Report 12/21/2010
GTX-10463
Isles of Shoals Site N
Project
Client Project No.: Call #13
Prepared for:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
M-33
-------
GeoTesting
EXPRESS
Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Isles of Shoals Site N
Location:
Project No:
GTX-10463
Boring ID: Site N
Sample Type: bag
Tested By:
jbr
Sample ID:A
Test Date: 12/17/10
Checked By:
jdt
Depth : 319 ft
Test Id: 201085
Test Comment:
Sample Description:
Sample Comment:
Moist, brown silty clay
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)
o
o o
CO i-H
O
(N
100
90
80"
70
60
s
c
Ll
c
o
k
CD
CL
40
30
20
1000
100
10
1
1
0.01
0.001
Grain Size (mm)
% Cobble
% Gravel
%Sand
% Silt & Clay Size
—
0.0
2.1
97.9
Sieve Name
Sieve Size,
mm
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
#4
4.75
100
#10
2.00
100
#20
0.85
100
#40
0.42
100
#60
0.25
100
#100
0.15
100
#200
0.075
98
—
Particle Size (mm)
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
...
0.0308
86
0.0202
73
...
0.0122
63
—
0.0086
56
—
0.0062
50
...
0.0045
43
—
0.0032
37
...
0.0016
30
m^t
Coefficients
D85 = 0.0 2 95 mm D30 =0.0017 mm
D60 = 0.0 1 03 mm Dis=N/A
Dso=0.0063 mm Dio = N/A
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
ASTM
N/A
Classification
AASHTO Silty Soils (A-4 (0))
Sample/Test Description
Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : —
Sand/Gravel Hardness : —
printed 12/21/2010 11:07:41 AM
-------
GeoTesting
EXPRESS
Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Isles of Shoals Site N
Location:
Project No:
GTX-10463
Boring ID: Site N
Sample Type: bag
Tested By:
jbr
Sample ID:B
Test Date: 12/17/10
Checked By:
jdt
Depth : 314 ft
Test Id: 201086
Test Comment:
Sample Description:
Sample Comment:
Moist, brown silt with sand
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)
o
o
r\l
o
100
90 -
70
60
L—
CD
c
Ll_
c
CL
40"
30"
20 -
10-
1000
100
10
1
0.01
0.001
Grain Size (mm)
% Cobble
% Gravel
%Sand
%Silt & Clay Size
-
0.0
20.2
79.8
Sieve Name
Sieve Size,
mm
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
#4
4.75
100
#10
2.00
99
#20
0.85
99
#40
0.42
97
#60
0.25
96
#100
0.15
93
#200
0.075
80
—
Particle Size (mm)
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
—
0.0328
61
—
0.0209
53
—
0.0121
45
...
0.0087
42
...
0.0062
38
...
0.0044
35
—
0.0032
33
...
0.0016
25
M-35
Coefficients
D85 = 0.09 88 mm D30 =0.0025 mm
D60 = 0.03 07 mm Dis=N/A
D50 =0.0170 mm Dio=N/A
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
Classification
ASTM
N/A
AASHTO Silty Soils (A-4 (0))
Sample/Test Description
Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : ---
Sand/Gravel Hardness : ---
printed 12/21/2010 11:08:37 AM
-------
GeoTesting
EXPRESS
Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Isles of Shoals Site N
Location:
Project No:
GTX-10463
Boring ID: Site N
Sample Type: bag
Tested By:
jbr
Sample ID:C
Test Date: 12/17/10
Checked By:
jdt
Depth : 315 ft
Test Id: 201087
Test Comment:
Sample Description:
Sample Comment:
Moist, brown silty clay
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)
o
o o o
100
90 -
80"
70
c
CD
O
50
CD
CL
40
30
20
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Grain Size (mm)
% Cobble
% Gravel
%Sand
% Silt & Clay Size
-
0.0
2.4
97.6
Sieve Name
Sieve Size,
mm
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
#4
4.75
100
#10
2.00
100
#20
0.85
100
#40
0.42
100
#60
0.25
100
#100
0.15
100
#200
0.075
98
—
Particle Size (mm)
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
...
0.0269
81
...
0.0205
72
—
0.0120
61
—
0.0086
52
...
0.0062
46
—
0.0044
41
...
0.0032
35
...
0.0016
26
M-36
Coefficients
D85 =0.0341 mm D30 =0.0022 mm
D60 =0.0116 mm Dis=N/A
D50 =0.0076 mm Dio=N/A
Cu =N/A Cc_=N/A
Classification
ASTM
N/A
AASHTO Silty Soils (A-4 (0))
Sample/Test Description
Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : —
Sand/Gravel Hardness : ---
printed 12/21/2010 11:09:16 AM
-------
GeoTesting
PRESS
Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Isles of Shoals Site N
Location:
Project No:
GTX-10463
Boring ID: Site N
Sample Type: bag
Tested By:
jbr
Sample ID:D
Test Date: 12/17/10
Checked By:
jdt
Depth : 318 ft
Test Id: 201088
Test Comment:
Sample Description:
Sample Comment:
Moist, brown silty clay
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)
o
o
o
IN
O O
t VO
(N
100
90-
80"
70
60
<5
c
Ll
c
CD
o
50
a)
CL
40"
30"
20"
10"
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Grain Size (mm)
% Cobble
% Gravel
%Sand
% Silt & Clay Size
-
0.0
3.4
96.6
Sieve Name
Sieve Size,
mm
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
#4
4.75
100
#10
2.00
100
#20
0.85
100
#40
0.42
100
#60
0.25
100
#100
0.15
100
#200
0.075
97
—
Particle Size (mm)
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
—
0.0314
76
—
0.0207
67
0.0121
55
—
0.0088
49
...
0.0062
43
...
0.0045
37
...
0.0032
34
...
0.0016
27
M-37
Coefficients
D85 = 0.04 56 mm D30 =0.0022 mm
D60 =0.0152 mm Dis=N/A
D50 =0.0093 mm Dio=N/A
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
ASTM
N/A
Classification
AASHTO Silty Soils (A-4 (0))
Sample/Test Description
Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : —
Sand/Gravel Hardness : —
printed 12/21/2010 11:09:49 AM
-------
GeoTesting
EXPRESS
Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Isles of Shoals Site IM
Location:
Project No:
GTX-10463
Boring ID: Site IM
Sample Type: bag
Tested By:
jbr
Sample ID:E
Test Date: 12/17/10
Checked By:
jdt
Depth : 316 ft
Test Id: 201089
Test Comment:
Sample Description:
Sample Comment:
Moist, brown silty clay
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)
o o
o
o
-------
GeoTesting
EXPRESS
Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Isles of Shoals Site N
Location:
Project No:
GTX-10463
Boring ID: Site l\l
Sample Type: bag
Tested By:
jbr
Sample ID:F
Test Date: 12/17/10
Checked By:
jdt
Depth : 321 ft
Test Id: 201090
Test Comment:
Sample Description:
Sample Comment:
Moist, brown silty clay
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)
o
o
o
o
o
o
r\l
100
90"
80 -
70
60
Ll_
C
0)
o
50
Q.
40"
30"
20-
10-
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Grain Size (mm)
% Cobble
% Gravel
%Sand
%Silt &Clay Size
-
0.0
2.4
97.6
Sieve Name
Sieve Size,
mm
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
#4
4.75
100
#10
2.00
100
#20
0.85
100
#40
0.42
100
#60
0.25
100
#100
0.15
100
#200
0.075
98
—
Particle Size (mm)
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
—
0.0286
76
—
0.0191
68
—
0.0119
56
—
0.0084
51
—
0.0062
42
—
0.0045
37
—
0.0032
34
—
0.0016
28
M-39
Coefficients
~85 = 0.04 2 5 mm D30 =0.0020 mm
D60 = 0.0 1 38 mm Dis=N/A
D50 =0.0082 mm Dio=IM/A
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
Classification
ASTM
N/A
AASHTO Silty Soils (A-4 (0))
Sample/Test Description
Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : —
Sand/Gravel Hardness : —
printed 12/21/2010 11:11:20 AM
-------
GeoTesting
EXPRESS
Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Isles of Shoals Site N
Location:
Project No:
GTX-10463
Boring ID: Site N
Sample Type: bag
Tested By:
jbr
Sample ID:G
Test Date: 12/17/10
Checked By:
jdt
Depth : 317 ft
Test Id: 201091
Test Comment:
Sample Description:
Sample Comment:
Moist, brown silty clay
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)
100
80"
70
CD
C
Ll
c
CD
o
50
CD
EL
40
30
20
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Grain Size (mm)
% Cobble
% Gravel
%Sand
% Silt & Clay Size
-
0.0
3.9
96.1
Sieve Name
Sieve Size,
mm
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
#4
4.75
100
#10
2.00
100
#20
0.85
100
#40
0.42
100
#60
0.25
100
#100
0.15
99
#200
0.075
96
...
Particle Size (mm)
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
—
0.0268
73
...
0.0203
64
—
0.0122
52
...
0.0088
46
...
0.0062
41
...
0.0045
35
...
0.0032
32
...
0.0016
26
M-40
Coefficients
D85 = 0.04 61 mm D30 =0.0026 mm
D60=0.0171mm Dis=IM/A
D50 =0.0107 mm Dio=N/A
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
Classification
ASTM
N/A
AASHTO Silty Soils (A-4 (0))
Sample/Test Description
Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : —
Sand/Gravel Hardness : ---
printed 12/21/2010 11:11:59 AM
-------
GeoTesting
EXPRESS
Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Isles of Shoals Site N
Location:
Project No:
GTX-10463
Boring ID: Site N
Sample Type: bag
Tested By:
jbr
Sample ID:H
Test Date: 12/17/10
Checked By:
jdt
Depth : 328 ft
Test Id: 201092
Test Comment:
Sample Description:
Sample Comment:
Moist, brown silt
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)
o
o
o
(N
r\i
100
90"
80-
70
60
c
Ll
c
Q>
O
50
CD
CL
30
20
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Grain Size (mm)
% Cobble
% Gravel
%Sand
% Silt &Clay Size
—
0.0
7.3
92.7
Sieve Name
Sieve Size,
mm
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
#4
4.75
100
#10
2.00
100
#20
0.85
100
#40
0.42
100
#60
0.25
99
#100
0.15
99
#200
0.075
93
—
Particle Size (mm)
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
—
0.0311
65
...
0.0213
56
...
0.0124
47
—
0.0085
41
—
0.0063
36
...
0.0045
30
...
0.0032
27
...
0.0017
21
M-41
Coefficients
D85 = 0.05 86 mm D30 =0.0046 mm
D60 =0.0250 mm Dis=N/A
D50 =0.0146 mm Dio=N/A
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
ASTM
N/A
Classification
AASHTO Silty Soils (A-4 (0))
Sample/Test Description
Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : —
Sand/Gravel Hardness : —
printed 12/21/2010 11:16:39 AM
-------
GeoTesting
EXPRESS
Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Isles of Shoals Site N
Location:
Project No:
GTX-10463
Boring ID: Site N
Sample Type: bag
Tested By:
jbr
Sample ID:I
Test Date: 12/17/10
Checked By:
jdt
Depth : 313 ft
Test Id: 201093
Test Comment:
Sample Description: Moist, brown silt
Sample Comment:
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)
% Cobble
% Gravel
%Sand
%Silt &Clay Size
—
0.0
2.1
97.9
Sieve Name
Sieve Size,
mm
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
#4
4.75
100
#10
2.00
100
#20
0.85
100
#40
0.42
100
#60
0.25
100
#100
0.15
100
#200
0.075
98
—
Particle Size (mm)
Percent Finer
Spec. Percent
Complies
...
0.0293
80
—
0.0204
70
—
0.0121
60
...
0.0087
54
—
0.0060
47
—
0.0044
44
—
0.0031
37
—
0.0015
24
M-42
Coefficients
D85 = 0.03 83 mm D30 =0.0021 mm
D60=0.0119mm Dis=N/A
D50 =0.0070 mm Dio=N/A
Cu =N/A Cc =N/A
Classification
ASTM
N/A
AASHTO Silty Soils (A-4 (0))
Sample/Test Description
Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : ---
Sand/Gravel Hardness : ---
printed 12/21/2010 11:17:54 AM
-------
ja
u
UJ
fy*
cr
>
-Q
m
€£
JD
>
JD
U
13
"O
m
m
2 ^
uj sA»
vyo
c/s
UJ
JD
J2
"U
CO
XT
cn
O
CT
Ol
cr
CO
-------
WARRANTY and LIABILITY
GeoTesting Express (GTX) warrants that all tests it performs are run in general accordance with the specified test procedures and accepted industry practice. GTX will
correct or repeat any test that does not comply with this warranty. GTX has no specific knowledge as to conditioning, origin, sampling procedure or intended use of the
material.
GTX may report engineering parameters that require us to interpret the test data. Such parameters are determined using accepted engineering procedures. However, GTX
does not warrant that these parameters accurately reflect the true engineering properties of the in situ material. Responsibility for interpretation and use of the test data and
these parameters for engineering and/or construction purposes rests solely with the user and not with GTX or any of its employees.
GTX's liability will be limited to correcting or repeating a test which fails our warranty. GTX's liability for damages to the Purchaser of testing services for any cause
whatsoever shall be limited to the amount GTX received for the testing services. GTX will not be liable for any damages, or for any lost benefits or other consequential
damages resulting from the use of these test results, even if GTX has been advised of the possibility of such damages. GTX will not be responsible for any liability of the
Purchaser to any third party.
Commonly Used Symbols
A pore pressure parameter for A01 - Acj
B pore pressure parameter for Aa?
CIU isotropically consolidated undrained triaxial shear test
CR compression ratio for one dimensional consolidation
Cc coefficient of curvature, (Dj0)2 / (Djo x Deo)
Cu coefficient of uniformity, D«/D]o
Cc compression index for one dimensional consolidation
C. coefficient of secondary compression
cy coefficient of consolidation
c cohesion intercept for total stresses
c' cohesion intercept for effective stresses
D diameter of specimen
Djo diameter at which 10% of soil is finer
D15 diameter at which 15% of soil is finer
Djo diameter at which 30% of soil is finer
Dso diameter at which 50% of soil is finer
D6q diameter at which 60% of soil is finer
Dg; diameter at which 85% of soil is finer
dso displacement for 50% consolidation
d*) displacement for 90% consolidation
dioo displacement for 100% consolidation
E Young's modulus
e void ratio
ec void ratio after consolidation
eo initial void ratio
G shear modulus
G„ specific gravity of soil particles
H height of specimen
PI plasticity index
i gradient
Ko lateral stress ratio for one dimensional strain
k permeability
LI Liquidity Index
mv coefficient of volume change
n porosity
PI plasticity index
Pc preconsolidation pressure
p (01 + o3) / 2 , (gv + Oh) / 2
p' (o'i + c*,)/2, (o'v + trh) /2
p'c p' at consolidation
Q quantity of flow
q (01 - 03) / 2
qf q at failure
q0, qi initial q
qc q at consolidation
S degree of saturation
SL shrinkage limit
s„ undrained shear strength
T time factor for consolidation
T
temperature
t
time
u, uc
unconfined compression test
UU, Q
unconsolidated undrained triaxial test
ua
pore gas pressure
Ue
excess pore water pressure
U, uw
pore water pressure
V
total volume
Vg
volume of gas
vs
volume of solids
Vv
volume of voids
v„
volume of water
V„
initial volume
V
velocity
w
total weight
ws
weight of solids
Ww
weight of water
w
water content
Wc
water content at consolidation
Wf
final water content
W]
liquid limit
w„
natural water content
Wp
plastic limit
Ws
shrinkage limit
Wo, w,
initial water content
a
slope of qr versus pf
a'
slope of qr versus pf"
Tt
total unit weight
Yd
dry unit weight
Ys
unit weight of solids
Yw
unit weight of water
£
strain
Eyol
volume strain
Eb, Ev
horizontal strain, vertical strain
r
Poisson's ratio, also viscosity
0
normal stress
O'
effective normal stress
Oc; ® C
consolidation stress in isotropic stress system
Oh, ® h
horizontal normal stress
Ov, O' ..
vertical normal stress
Ol
major principal stress
02
intermediate principal stress
Oj
minor principal stress
T
shear stress
9
friction angle based on total stresses
¥
friction angle based on effective stresses
-------
Environmental Assessment and Evaluation Study
for a Designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site in
Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern
Massachusetts
Appendix B
Benthic Community Analysis Report
-------
IDENTIFICATION AND ENUMERATION OF MUDDY BOTTOM
BENTHIC MACROFAUNA FROM THE ISLES OF SHOALS-NORTH
AREA, NORTHEAST GULF OF MAINE
Contract No. W912WJ-11-M-0020
SUBMITTED BY:
PETER FOSTER LARSEN, Ph.D.
COASTAL SCIENCES
91 KNICKERBOCKER ROAD
BOOTHBAY, MAINE 04537
This report represents analytical results of benthic samples received by Coastal Sciences on
November 10, 2010 from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Peter F. Larsen, Ph.D.
Coastal Sciences
M-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subject Page Number
Introduction 3
Methods 3
Results 4
Discussion 12
Acknowl edgem ents 13
Literature Cited 14
Appendix - Community Structure Tables 16
M-2
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Gulf of Maine is one of the world's most productive fishing grounds and best-studied
continental seas. Since the last glaciation, the Gulf has undergone a rapid and dynamic
geological and oceanographic evolution that has produced the rich and intricate ecological
system that we witness today (Bousfield and Thomas 1975, Shaw, el al., 2002). Interest the
benthic macrofauna of the Gulf began early and several investigations qualitatively documented
the high invertebrate species richness of the region (Mighels, 1843; Stimpson, 1853; Verrill,
1872, 1874; and Webster and Benedict, 1887; Kinsley, 1901; others). In more recent times, the
rich macrobenthos of the offshore Gulf has been documented quantitatively by Rowe, et al.,
(1975), Theroux and Wigley (1998) and others. Likewise, the coastal embayments and estuarine
bottoms of New England have also been sampled widely (Larsen, 1979; Larsen and Gilfillan,
2004); Hale, 2010; and many others). All these studies confirm the rich and complex
zoogeography described by Bousfield and Thomas (1975).
In spite of the high level of investigative activity, there remain other areas and systems in
the Gulf of Maine that are not adequately described. One of these is the muddy bottoms of the
coastal region (Lewis Incze, Gulf of Maine Area Program, Census of Marine Life, personal
communication). Such areas generally fall between the deeper waters sampled from large
oceanographic vessels and nearshore environments sampled from smaller workboats.
Nevertheless, increased knowledge of these mid-depth soft sediment patches is required by
environmental managers as the proposed uses for the coastal margin are accelerating. In
particular, several demonstration projects for the development of offshore wind power are now
being planned. These projects could potentially disturb these stable depositional areas by the
impact of cable footings to secure the floating turbine platforms and the passage of transmission
lines to the coast. In this communication we describe the benthic community inhabiting a muddy
bottom in 100m water off the coast of southern Maine.
METHODS
Sampling occurred at nine stations on November 1, 2010 within a 780m radius circle
approximately 14 km east northeast of the Isles of Shoals in the northwestern Gulf of Maine
(Fig. 1). This is the proposed Isles of Shoals-North disposal area. The sampling site is in an area
known as the Bigelow Bight and lies between the shallow Jeffreys Ledge and the Maine coast.
At each station, samples for fauna and sediment analyses were retrieved using a 0.04 m
modified Van Veen grab. The faunal samples were sieved on a 0.5 mm screen and fixed in 10%
formalin solution with the vital stain Rose Bengal.
The nine faunal samples were transferred from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
Coastal Sciences on November 10, 2010. In the laboratory, the formalin was removed from the
samples by gentle washing on a 0.5 mm sieve and the samples were preserved in 70% ethanol.
The benthic macrofauna in each sample was separated from the limited inorganic debris and
M-3
-------
sorted to major taxonomic categories. This process was accomplished by trained personnel using
binocular dissecting microscopes. A subsample of the residue of each sample was reexamined to
insure complete removal of the fauna. No problems were detected. Each taxonomic group was
examined by an experienced marine taxonomist who identified each individual to the lowest
practical taxonomic level, usually the species level, and enumerated the number of individuals in
each taxon. Synonymies were made current using the World Register of Marine Species
(www.marinespecies.org/).
Zoogeographic affinities and feeding types were determined using standard references
such as Pettibone (1963), Gosner (1971), Bousfield (1973), Fauchald and Jumars (1979) and
Watling (1979) as well as several websites including using the World Register of Marine Species
(www.marinespecies.org/).
The numerical data were analyzed using the statistical package PRIMER v6 (Clarke and
Gorley, 2006). Univariate community structure analyses performed include density (N), species
richness (S), Shannon diversity (H1, base e) and Pielou's Evenness (J1). The faunal relationships
were also investigated using numerical classification and ordination. Species data were square
root transformed to moderate the influence of abundant species. A hierarchical agglomerative
classification scheme was employed using the Bray-Curtis similarity index. The group-average
linking method was used to produce a dendrogram of sample relatedness and a 2-dimensional
ordination of stations was accomplished using the non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS)
technique found in PRIMER. Multivariate analyses were limited to species that occurred at two
or more stations.
Species accumulation curves were utilized to assess the adequacy of the sampling and to
estimate the unknown biodiversity of the northwestern Gulf of Maine community. The Chao 2
formula was chosen. This is a presence-absence measure that relies on the number of species
that occur in one sample and the number that occur in two samples to calculate an estimate of the
maximum number of species expected (Colwell and Coddington, 1994).
RESULTS
Abiotic Factors
Descriptive details of station location, depth and sediment type are presented in Table 1.
The stations were in close proximity to one another; the maximum distance between any two
stations being about 1.5 km. Depth was rather uniform as all stations occurred at depths between
95 and 100 m. The sediments can be characterized as fine. Seven of the nine stations exhibited
silt/clay content in excess of 96%. Two stations, B and H, were somewhat coarser with silt/clay
contents of 79.8 and 92.7%, respectively. The non-silt/clay fractions of all the samples consisted
of sand. Moist, brown silty clay is the visual description of all of the samples. The Folk
classification of these sediments is silt (Folk, 1968).
M-4
-------
70°25'0"W
1
.
ISLES OF SHOALS DISPOSAL SITE N t
USACE SAMPLE STATIONS
US Army Corps
ol fcr^gnaets
Nww Extend Oi«rCt
AND JULY 2010 SIDE SCAN MOSAIC 1
0 500 1-000
Feet
2000 3 000
*
4 000 5 000
0
1.000
Mstors
1300 2 000
NOAA CHART 13278
1:25,000
GCS NAD 1983
7Q:28'Q"W
I
70°27"0"W
70° 26*0 "W
1
70°26"0"W
I
70° 28*0 "W
Figure 1. Isles of Shoals-North Station Locations with Side Scan Sonar Mosaic
Superimposed. Depths are in Feet.
M-5
-------
Faunal Composition. Abundance and Dominance
A total of 40 taxa from four phyla were identified from the nine samples (Table 2).
Thirty-two taxa were identified to the species level. No colonial species were encountered. The
number of taxa at the stations ranged from seven to 19 with a mean of 10.7 (Table 3). The fauna
was dominated by polychaetes that accounted for 25 of the 40 taxa or 62.5% of the fauna.
Percentage representation of other taxa was 17.5% Arthropoda, 15% Mollusca and 5%
Rhynchocoela.
TABLE 1. Location and Environmental Characteristics of the Nine Benthic Stations from
the Northwestern Gulf of Maine.
Station
Latitude
Longitude
Depth (m)
% Sand
% Silt & Clay
A
43.028412
-70.45389
97.2
2.1
97.9
B
43.028527
-70.43678
95.7
20.2
79.8
C
43.023773
-70.45215
96.0
2.4
97.6
D
43.024674
-70.44097
96.9
3.4
96.6
E
43.021569
-70.44474
96.3
3.7
96.3
F
43.017613
-70.43885
97.8
2.4
97.6
G
43.018689
-70.45004
96.6
3.9
96.1
H
43.014840
-70.43541
100.0
7.3
92.7
I
73.015181
-70.45402
95.4
2.1
97.9
2
Density at the stations ranged from 400 to 1,950 individuals/m with a mean density of
1,055/m2 (Table 3). The numerical dominance of polychaetes was very pronounced.
Polychaetes represented 93.2% of all individuals. Percentage of total individuals of Mollusca,
Arthropoda and Rhynchocoela were 2.6, 2.1 and 2.1 percent, respectively.
Numerical dominance of the most abundant species ranged from moderate to high (Table
3). The percentage of the fauna represented by the dominant species ranged from 14 to 51%. At
eight of the nine stations the dominant species was the deposit feeding polychaete Paraonis
gracilis that accounted for over 40% of the individuals at four of the nine stations. The only
other species obtaining dominant status was another deposit feeder, the polychaete Cossura
longocirrata.
Most of the Shannon informational diversity values (base log e) were constrained within
a rather narrow range with the low species richness (Table 3). Station C was something of an
outlier. Mean diversity was 1.811 and the range was 1.184 -2.367. Evenness also did not vary
widely. Evenness values ranged from 0.6362 to 0.9182 with a mean of 0.8035.
Zoogeographic Affinities and Feeding Guilds
It was possible to assign zoogeographic affinities to 32 of the 40 identified taxa (Table 4).
M-6
-------
Fifteen of the taxa, 47%, could be classified as Boreal in their distribution. Another 34% of the
taxa were considered to have a Boreal-Virginian geographic range. Taxa characterized as being
Arctic or Virginian in their zoogeographic affinities each represented nine per cent of the
identified species.
TABLE 2. List of Taxa Collected During the Isles of Shoals-North Benthic Survey
Phylum
Species
Phylum
Species
Rhynchocoela
Arthropoda
Mi crura sp. (Ehrenberg, 1971)
Cvclaspis varians Caiman, 1912
Nemertean
Eudorellapusilla Sars, 1871
Mollusca
Harpinia propinqua Sars, 1891
Astarte undata (Gould, 1841)
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Shoemaker, 1932
Bivavle juv.
Leptostylis longimana (Sars,
1865) '
Parvicardium pinnulatum
(Conrad, 1831)
Paracaprella tenuis Mayer, 1903
Chaetoderma nitidulum (Loven,
1844)
Photis sp. Kroyer, 1842
Thvasira goirfdi (Philippi, 1845)
Thyasira sp. (Lamarck, 1818)
Annelida
Aglaophamus neotenus (Noyes,
1980)
Ampharete arctica (Malmgrem,
1866)
Aricidea suecica (Eliason, 1920)
Ceratocephale loveni (Malmgren,
1867)
Chaetozone setosa (Malmgren,
1867)
Cossura longocirrata (Webster &
Benedict, 1887)
Harmothoe extenuata (Grube,
1840)
Lepidonotus squamatus (Linnaeus,
1758)
Lumbrineris latreilli Audouin &
Milne Edwards, 1834
Scoletoma tenuis Nqrrill, 1873
Maldane sarsi Malmgren, 1865
Mediomastus ambiseta (Hartman,
1947)
Nephtys incisa Malmgren, 1865
Ninoe nigripes Verrill, 1973
Owenia fitsiformis Delle Chiaje,
1844
M-7
-------
Pcircimphinome pulchella Sars,
1869
Pcircionis gracilis (Tauber, 1879)
Praxillella gracilis (M. Sars, 1861)
Praxillella praetermissa
(Malmgren, 1865)
Prionospio sp Malmgren, 1867.
Sabaco elongatus (Verrill, 1873)
Scalibregma inflatum Ratlike,
1843
Syllid juvenile
Tharyx aciitus Webster &
Benedict, 1887
Unknown
TABLE 3. Community Parameters and Numerical Dominance
Station
Species
Richness
Density
(m2)
Evenness
(J1)
Diversity
(H1)
Numerical Dominance
A
11
775
0.8561
2.053
Paraonis gracilis 26%
B
7
400
0.9182
1.787
Paraonis gracilis 14%
C
6
825
0.6609
1.184
Paraonis gracilis 61%
D
14
825
0.875
2.309
Cossura longocirrata 31%
E
10
1,425
0.7059
1.625
Paraonis gracilis 37%
F
10
950
0.7556
1.740
Paraonis gracilis 42%
G
8
475
0.8195
1.704
Paraonis gracilis 42%
H
19
1,875
0.8039
2.367
Paraonis gracilis 26%
I
11
1,950
0.6362
1.526
Paraonis gracilis 60%
On the basis of abundance, the distribution among the zoogeographic provinces was
much more skewed. A full 71% of the individuals encountered could be defined as Boreal in
character. The remaining individuals were divided rather evenly between Arctic, Boreal-
Virginian and Virginian affinities.
The taxa encountered were assigned to one of four feeding guilds for the purposes of
analysis. Surface deposit feeders, subsurface deposit feeders and omnivores were grouped
together as deposit feeders in this analysis. Deposit feeders were the most prevalent of the
feeding guilds. Twenty-three of the 40 species, 59%, were classified as deposit feeders.
Carnivores accounted for 23% of the taxa while only 18% were considered suspension
feeders. A different pattern emerged when the analysis was done on the basis of individuals.
Here 88% of the community consisted of deposit feeders, nine per cent were carnivores and
suspension feeders represented only three per cent of the fauna.
M-8
-------
Multivariate Analyses
The dendrogram based on group-average sorting classification using the Bray-Curtis
similarity measure on square-root transformed data did not present a clear-cut spatial pattern
(Fig. 2). Only four stations were linked in pair-groupings. Stations C and F and stations H and I
formed the two pair-groupings at a very high level of similarity. Station E was then linked to the
C/F grouping and the five stations were joined at nearly 60% similarity. The remaining stations
then were chain-linked to the five-station cluster, i.e. individual stations were sequentially added
to the dendrogram singly. They were no higher level dichotomies indicating basic dissimilarities
in the station array. The SIMPROF routine of PRIMER was run to test the null hypothesis that
the set of samples do not differ from each other in the dendrogram structure. Groupings that do
not reject the null hypothesis are connected with red lines in the test output. As indicated in Fig.
2, all samples are connected by red lines and, hence, it can be concluded that all of the samples
came from the same community.
The biological relationships among the nine samples were further investigated using a
two dimensional non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) ordination also with the Bray-
Curtis similarity measure calculated on square root transformed abundance data. Similar to the
cluster analysis, the MDS did not reveal any segregation of groups of stations (Fig. 3). Stations
C, E, F, H and I were grouped towards the center while Stations A, B, D and G were spaced
around the periphery. The stress level of 0.07 indicates that the MDS is "a good ordination with
no real prospect of misleading interpretation; 3- or higher dimensional solutions will not add any
additional information" (Clarke and Warwick, 2001).
M-9
-------
TABLE 4. Zoogeographic Affinities and Feeding Guilds of Taxa Collected in a Mud
Habitat, Northwestern Gulf of Maine.
Phylum and Species
Zoogeographic
Affinity
Feeding Guild
Phylum Rhynchocoela
Micrura sp. Ehrenberg, 1971
BV
Carnivorous
Nemertean
Carnivorous
Phylum Mollusca
Astarte undata Gould, 1841
B
Suspension
Bivavle juv.
Suspension
Parvicardium pinnulatum (Conrad, 1831)
BV
Suspension
Chaetoderma nitidulum (Loven, 1844)
B
Omnivorous
Thyasira gouldi (Philippi, 1845)
B+
Suspension
Thyasira sp. Lamarck, 1818
Suspension
Phylum Annelida
Aglaophamus neotenus Noyes, 1980
B
Deposit
Ampharete arctica Malmgrem, 1866
A+
Deposit
Aricidea suecica (Eliason, 1920)
A+
Deposit
Ceratocephale loveni Malmgren, 1867
B
Deposit
Chaetozone setosa Malmgren, 1867
B
Surface deposit
Cossura longocirrata Webster & Benedict,
1887
B
Surface deposit
Harmothoe extenuata (Grube, 1840
B
Carnivorous
Lepidonotus squamatus (Linnaeus, 1758)
B
Carnivorous
Lumbrineris latreilli Audouin & Milne
BV
Carnivorous
Edwards, 1834
Scoletoma tenuis Verrill, 1873
BV
Carnivorous
Maldane sarsi Malmgren, 1865
B
Subsurface deposit
Mediomastus ambiseta (Hartman, 1947)
Deposit
Nephtys incisa Malmgren, 1865
B
Deposit
Ninoe nigripes Verrill, 1973
BV
Carnivorous
Owenia fusiformis Delle Chiaje, 1844
BV
Surface deposit
Paramphinome pulchella Sars, 1869
BV
Carnivorous
Paraonis gracilis (Tauber, 1879)
B
Deposit
Praxillella gracilis {M. Sars, 1861)
Subsurface deposit
Praxillellapraetermissa (Malmgren, 1865)
B
Subsurface deposit
Prionospio sp Malmgren, 1867.
Surface deposit
Sabaco elongaius (Verrill, 1873)
V
Subsurface deposit
Scalibregma inflatum Rathke, 1843
BV
Subsurface deposit
Syllid juvenile
Carnivorous
Tharyx acutus Webster & Benedict, 1887
B+
Surface deposit
Unknown
M-10
-------
Phylum Arthropoda
Cyc/aspis vcirians Caiman, 1912
V
Deposit
Eudorellapusilla Sars, 1871
BV
Deposit
Harpinia propinqua Sars, 1891
B
Surface deposit
Leptocheirus plumulosus Shoemaker, 1932
V
Suspension
Leptostylis longimanci (Sars, 1865)
A+
Deposit
Paracaprella tenuis Mayer, 1903
BV
Suspen sion/carnivorous
Photis sp. Kroyer, 1842
BV
Deposit
Species Accumulation Analysis
The observed species accumulation curve (Sobs) and the calculated Chao 2 values are
plotted in Figure 4. Tabulated values are presented in Table 5. The values are the product of
999 permutations at each step as the sample size is increased by adding samples randomly. The
figure and table indicate that, while the Sobs curve continued to incline smoothly, the Chao 2
curve reached an asymptote when approximately six samples were accumulated. The Chao 2
estimator predicted that the number of species in this community is expected to be about 75 with
a standard deviation of 20 under conditions of infinite sampling. The survey recovered slightly
more than 50% of the theoretical total species number.
loS data
Group average
Transfer Sqjre'xt
5^'5-8, CjliiT 3 V
20-r
Samples
Figure 2. Dendrogram Based on a Group-Average Sorting Classification using the Bray-
Curtis Similarity Measure on Square Root Transformed Data.
M-ll
-------
loS data
t n'j r i i?.
51" 5 3; l/iiT 3::
sr^ii ; r
E
C
G
A
Figure 3. MDS Ordination of the Nine Samples Based on Square Root Transformed
Species Abundances and Bray-Curtis Similarities (stress = 0.07).
80-r
60--
o
» 40-.
20--
0-1-
ioS data
'¦ Sobs
T Chaoi
4 6
Sampies
10
Figure 4. Plot of Observed Species Accumulation Curve (Sobs) and the Curve Predicted by
the Chao 2 Extrapolator.
M-12
-------
TABLE 5. Number of Observed Species (Sobs) and True Total Number of Species
Predicted to be Found (Chao 2) with Infinite Sampling Following the Same Sampling
Protocol
Station
Sobs
Sobs(SD)
Chao2
Chao2(SD)
1
10.62
3.66
10.62
12.69
2
16.65
3.91
36.05
15.56
3
21.42
3.91
50.39
24.20
4
25.43
3.54
60.79
28.43
5
28.89
3.28
70.93
33.98
6
32.07
2.85
76.53
33.15
7
34.85
2.31
75.54
27.57
8
37.54
1.56
76.50
24.95
9
40.00
0.00
74.57
20.56
DISCUSSION
The salient result of this benthic survey in the northwest Gulf of Maine is the uniformity
of the environment both physically and biologically. The stations occur over a very narrow
depth range and the sediments have a very high silt/clay content that can be described as silt
(Table 1). In the limited area covered by the survey, there is no reason to suspect that
temperatures and currents are not equally uniform.
The macroinvertebrate fauna at the site is limited. The benthic community consists of
only 40 species representing just four phyla (Table 2). The assemblage is noteworthy for its lack
of oligochaetes, nearly ubiquitous elsewhere, and the absence of echinoderms and colonial
species. Polychaetes are the characteristic taxa overwhelmingly dominating the community in
terms of numbers of species and individuals. Density is relatively low while the univariate
statistics, species richness, diversity and evenness, are also at low to modest levels. One species,
the polychaeteParaonis gracilis, is the numerical dominant at eight of the nine stations.
The zoogeographic affinities of the species that could be characterized range from Arctic
to Virginian (Table 4). The largest group has a Boreal affinity followed by the Boreal-Virginian
group accounting for about a third of the taxa. Fewer than one in ten of the taxa are considered
to be either Arctic or Virginian. Numerically, however, individuals of the Boreal species make
up nearly three-quarters of the community.
The functional group in this fine-grained habitat is overwhelmingly deposit feeders as
would be expected. Species in this generalized feeding guild partition the environment by
practicing several variations of obtaining nutrition from the sediments. Some, such as the four
maldanid polychaete species, feed relatively deeply within the subsurface sediments. Other
subsurface feeders, Scalibregnia inflatam, feed higher in the sediment column while several
other species, Cossura longocirrata and Tharyx aciitus, feed on the very sediment surface.
M-13
-------
Hence, a large number of deposit-feeders can be supported.
The biological homogeneity is confirmed by multivariate analyses of the community
data. Cluster analysis does not dissect the stations into any discernible pattern. SIMPROF
indicates that there are no statistically significant differences among the branches of the
dendrogram (Figure 2). MDS analysis, likewise, shows no separation of samples that would
indicate any coherent underlying biological divisions (Figure 3). It can be concluded that the
samples were drawn from the same faunal community.
The species accumulation analyses are revealing. While the observed species curve
climbs smoothly, the Chao 2 curve reaches an asymptote rather quickly (Figure 4, Table 5). This
suggests that the true species complement would be reached with a finite amount of additional
sampling. The Chao 2 estimate of the true species number is less than twice the number of
species actually observed (Table 5) indicating that further sampling would add rare species to the
species list while not affecting the numerical dominance observed (Appendix).
In summary, the study area is physically homogeneous and inhabited by a limited benthic
invertebrate community. Richness, at the species and higher taxonomic levels, and density are
low relative to both more inshore and more offshore habitats. Deposit-feeding polychaetes
dominate the fauna qualitatively and quantitatively. The community can be considered Boreal in
its zoogeographic affinity. Further sampling would undoubtedly add to the species total but
would probably not modify the characterization of the community significantly. This
communication helps to fill an identified gap in our knowledge of the Gulf of Maine ecosystem.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to Hannah Proctor of Normandeau Associates for the confirmation of
several polychaete identifications.
M-14
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Bousfield, E.L. 1973. Shallow-water Gammaridean Amphipoda of New England. Cornell
University Press Ltd., London, UK. 312 pp.
Bousfield, E.L., and M.L.H. Thomas. 1975. Postglacial changes in the distribution of littoral
marine invertebrates in the Canadian Atlantic region. Proc. Nova Scotia Inst. Sci. 27:47-
60.
Clarke, K.R. and R.N. Gorley. 2006. Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research,
vol. 6. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, UK.
Clarke, K.R. and R.M. Warwick. 2001. Changes in marine communities: an approach to
statistical analysis and interpretation. 2n edition PRIMER-E: Plymouth.
Colwell, R.K. and J. A. Coddington. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through
extrapolation. Phil. Trans.: Biol. Sci. 345: 101-118.
Gosner, K.L. 1971. Guide to the identification of marine and estuarine invertebrates. John
Wiley & Sons, New York. 693 pp.
Fauchald, K, and P. A. Jumars. 1979. The diet of worms: a study of polychaete feeding guilds.
Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 17:193-284.
Folk, R.L. 1968. Petrology of sedimentary rocks. Hempills, Austin, Texas.
Hale, S.S. 2010. Biogeographical patterns of marine benthic macroinvertebrates along the
Atlantic coast of the northeastern USA. Estuaries and Coasts 33:1039-1053.
Kingsley, J.S. 1901. Preliminary catalogue of marine invertebrata of Casco Bay, Maine. Proc.
Portland Soc. Nat. Hist. 2: 159-183.
Larsen, P.F. 1979. The shallow water macrobenthos of a northern New England estuary. Mar.
Biol. 55: 69-78.
Larsen, P.F. and E.S. Gilfillan. 2004. A preliminary survey of subtidal macrobenthic
invertebrates of Cobscook Bay, Maine. Northeastern Naturalist 11 (Special Issue 2):
243-260.
Mighels, J.W. 1843. Catalogue of the marine, fluviatele, and terrestrial shells of the State of
Maine and adjacent ocean. J. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. 4: 308-345.
Pettibone, M.H. 1963. Marine polychaete worms of the New England region. 1, Aphroditidae
through Trochochaetidae. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. No.227, Part 1.
Rowe, G.T., P.T. Polloni and R.L. Haedrich. 1975. Quantitative biological assessment of the
M-15
-------
benthic fauna in deep basins of the Gulf of Maine. J. Res. Board Can. 32:1805-1812.
Shaw, J., P. Gareau and R.C. Courtney. 2002. Palaeogeography of Atlantic Canada 13-0 kyr.
Quaternary Sci. Rev. 21:1861-1878.
Stimpson, W. 1853. Synopsis of the marine Invertebrata of Grand Manan or the region about
the mouth of the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick. Smithsonian Contributions to
Knowledge 6:1-66.
Theroux, Roger B., and Roland L. Wigley. 1998. Quantitative composition and distribution of
the macrobenthic invertebrate fauna of the continental shelf ecosystems of the
northeastern United States. U.S. Dep. Commer.,NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 140, 240 p.
Watling, L. 1979. Maine Flora and Fauna of the Northeastern United States, Crustacea:
Cumacea. NOAA Tech. Report NMFS Circ. 423. Washington, D.C.
Verrill, A.E. 1872. Marine fauna of Eastport, Me. Essex Inst., Salem, Mass. Bull 3: 2-6.
Verrill, A.E. 1874. Explorations of Casco Bay in 1873. Proc. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. (Portland
Meeting) 22(2): 340-395.
M-16
-------
A
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE TABLES
M-17
-------
M-18
-------
TABLE 1A. Isles of Shoals-North Benthic Sample A
Species
Total
Cum. Tot.
%
Cum. %
Higher Taxon
Paraonis gracilis
8
8
25.8
25.8
Annelida
Lepidonotus squamatus
6
14
19.4
45.2
Annelida
Ampharete arctica
6
20
19.4
64.5
Annelida
Nemertean
3
23
9.7
74.2
Rhynchocoela
Cossura longocirrata
2
25
6.5
80.6
Annelida
Scoletoma tenuis
1
26
3.2
83.9
Annelida
Ceratocephale loveni
1
27
3.2
87.1
Annelida
Tharyx aciitus
1
28
3.2
90.3
Annelida
Unknown
1
29
3.2
93.5
Annelida
Harpinia propinqua
1
30
3.2
96.8
Arthropoda
Eudorella pusilla
1
31
3.2
100.0
Arthropoda
Number of Species:
11
Density (m 2):
775
Diversity (IT):
2.053
M-19
-------
TABLE 2A. Isles of Shoals-North Benthic Sample B
Species
Total
Cum. Tot.
%
Cum. %
Higher Taxon
Paraonis gracilis
4
4
13.8
13.8
Annelida
Ampharete arctica
4
8
13.8
27.6
Annelida
Ninoe nigripes
3
11
10.3
37.9
Annelida
Cossura longocirrata
2
13
6.9
44.8
Annelida
Sabaco elongatus
2
15
6.9
51.7
Annelida
Mediomastus ambiseta
1
16
3.4
55.2
Annelida
Maldcme sarsi
1
17
3.4
58.6
Annelida
Aglaophamus neotenus
1
18
3.4
62.1
Annelida
Paraonis gracilis
4
22
13.8
75.9
Annelida
Ampharete arctica
4
26
13.8
89.7
Annelida
Ninoe nigripes
3
29
10.3
100.0
Annelida
Number of Species:
11
Density (m 2):
725
Diversity (IT):
1.787
M-20
-------
TABLE 3A. Isles of Shoals-North Benthic Sample C
Species
Total
Cum. Tot.
%
Cum. %
Higher Taxon
Paraonis gracilis
20
20
60.6
60.6
Annelida
Cossura longocirrata
7
27
21.2
81.8
Annelida
Ampharete arctica
2
29
6.1
87.9
Annelida
Owenia fusiformis
2
31
6.1
93.9
Annelida
Ceratocephale loveni
1
32
3.0
97.0
Annelida
Paracaprella tenuis
1
33
3.0
100.0
Annelida
Number of Species:
6
Density (m 2):
825
Diversity (IT):
1.184
M-21
-------
TABLE 4A. Isles of Shoals-North Benthic Sample D
Species
Total
Cum. Tot.
%
Cum. %
Higher Taxon
Cossura longocirrata
9
9
31.0
31.0
Annelida
Sabaco elongatus
4
13
44.8
44.8
Annelida
Mediomastus ambiseta
4
17
58.6
58.6
Annelida
Prionospio sp.
2
19
65.5
65.5
Annelida
Ceratocephale loveni
2
21
72.4
72.4
Annelida
Paramphinome pulchella
1
22
75.9
75.9
Annelida
Syllidjuvenile
1
23
79.3
79.3
Annelida
Paraonis gracilis
1
24
82.8
82.8
Annelida
Owenia fusiformis
1
25
86.2
86.2
Annelida
Nephtys incisa
1
26
89.7
89.7
Annelida
Chaetozone setosa
1
27
93.1
93.1
Annelida
Leptocheirus phmndosus
1
28
96.6
96.6
Arthropoda
Astarte imdata
1
29
100.0
100.0
Mollusca
Number of Species:
13
Density (m 2):
725
Diversity (IT):
2.309
M-22
-------
TABLE 5A. Isles of Shoals-North Benthic Sample E
Species
Total
Cum. Tot.
%
Cum. %
Higher Taxon
Paraonis gracilis
22
22
38.6
38.6
Annelida
Cossura longocirrata
19
41
33.3
71.9
Annelida
Ampharete arctica
4
45
7.0
78.9
Annelida
Prionospio sp.
4
49
7.0
86.0
Annelida
Ceratocephale loveni
2
51
3.5
89.5
Annelida
Sabaco elongatus
2
53
3.5
93.0
Annelida
Ninoe nigripes
1
54
1.8
94.7
Annelida
Praxillella gracilis
1
55
1.8
96.5
Annelida
Thyasira sp.
1
56
1.8
98.2
Mollusca
Bivavle juv.
1
57
1.8
100.0
Mollusca
Number of Species:
10
Density (m 2):
1425
Diversity (IT):
1.625
M-23
-------
TABLE 6A. Isles of Shoals-North Benthic Sample F
Species
Total
Cum. Tot.
%
Cum. %
Higher Taxon
Paraonis gracilis
16
16
42.1
42.1
Annelida
Cossura longocirrata
9
25
23.7
65.8
Annelida
Ampharete arctica
3
28
7.9
73.7
Annelida
Mediomastus ambiseta
3
31
7.9
81.6
Annelida
Ceratocephale loveni
2
33
5.3
86.8
Annelida
Praxillella gracilis
1
34
2.6
89.5
Annelida
Owenia fusiformis
1
35
2.6
92.1
Annelida
Mi crura sp.
1
36
2.6
94.7
Rhynchocoela
Paracaprella tenuis
1
37
2.6
97.4
Arthropoda
Astarte imdata
1
38
2.6
100.0
Mollusca
Number of Species:
10
Density (m 2):
950
Diversity (IT):
1.740
M-24
-------
TABLE 7A. Isles of Shoals-North Benthic Sample G
Species
Total
Cum. Tot.
%
Cum. %
Higher Taxon
Paraonis gracilis
8
8
42.1
42.1
Annelida
Cossura longocirrata
4
12
21.1
63.2
Annelida
Owenia fusiformis
2
14
10.5
73.7
Annelida
Sabaco elongatus
1
15
5.3
78.9
Annelida
Aricidea suecica
1
16
5.3
84.2
Annelida
Prionospio sp.
1
17
5.3
89.5
Annelida
Chaetoderma nitididum
1
18
5.3
94.7
Mollusca
Mi crura sp.
1
19
5.3
100.0
Rhynchocoela
Number of Species:
8
Density (m 2):
475
Diversity (IT):
1.704
M-25
-------
TABLE 8A. Isles of Shoals-North Benthic Sample H
Species
Total
Cum. Tot.
%
Cum. %
Higher Taxon
Paraonis gracilis
20
20
26.3
26.3
Annelida
Sabaco elongatus
15
35
19.7
46.1
Annelida
Ampharete arctica
7
42
9.2
55.3
Annelida
Praxillella gracilis
5
47
6.6
61.8
Annelida
Cossura longocirrata
4
51
5.3
67.1
Annelida
Prionospio sp.
4
55
5.3
72.4
Annelida
Scoletoma tenuis
3
58
3.9
76.3
Annelida
Mediomastus ambiseta
3
61
3.9
80.3
Annelida
Owenia fusiformis
2
63
2.6
82.9
Annelida
Ninoe nigripes
2
65
2.6
85.5
Annelida
Scalibregma inflatum
1
66
1.3
86.8
Annelida
Paramphinome pulchella
2
68
2.6
89.5
Annelida
Ceratocephale loveni
1
69
1.3
90.8
Annelida
Tharyx aciitus
1
70
1.3
92.1
Annelida
Harmothoe extemiata
1
71
1.3
93.4
Annelida
Astarte imdata
1
72
1.3
94.7
Mollusca
Thyasira gouldi
1
73
1.3
96.1
Mollusca
Parvicardium pinmrfatam
1
74
1.3
97.4
Mollusca
Cyclaspis varians
1
75
1.3
98.7
Arthropoda
Leptostylis longimana
1
76
1.3
100.0
Arthropoda
Number of Species:
20
Density (m 2):
1900
Diversity (IT):
2.367
M-26
-------
TABLE 9A. Isles of Shoals-North Benthic Sample I
Species
Total
Cum. Tot.
%
Cum. %
Higher Taxon
Paraonis gracilis
47
47
59.5
59.5
Annelida
Sabaco elongatus
7
54
8.9
68.4
Annelida
Cossura longocirrata
5
59
6.3
74.7
Annelida
Ampharete arctica
4
63
5.1
79.7
Annelida
Ninoe nigripes
3
66
3.8
83.5
Annelida
Mediomastus ambiseta
3
69
3.8
87.3
Annelida
Nemertean
3
72
3.8
91.1
Rhynchocoela
Praxillella praetermissa
2
74
2.5
93.7
Annelida
Owenia fusiformis
2
76
2.5
96.2
Annelida
Lumbrineris latreilli
1
77
1.3
97.5
Annelida
Lepidonotus squamatus
1
78
1.3
98.7
Annelida
Photis sp.
1
79
1.3
100.0
Arthropoda
Number of Species:
12
Density (m 2):
1975
Diversity (IT):
1.526
M-27
-------
Environmental Assessment and Evaluation Study
for a Designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site in
Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern
Massachusetts
Appendix C
DAMOS Summary Report for Monitoring Survey at IOSN
-------
Data Summary Report for the Monitoring Survey at the Isles of
Shoals Disposal Site North - September 2015
70°30'0"W
Maine
Portsmouth
Isles of Shoals
Tubes
NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West Fl
Oxidized voids
DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING SYSTEM
Data Summary Report
2016-D-01
June 2016
m
US Army Corps
of Engineers ®
New England District
Disposal Area Monitoring System
DAMOS
New Hampshire
Projected Coordinate System:
Massachusetts
-------
This report should be cited as:
Guarinello, M. L.; Carey, D. A.; Wright, C. 2016. Data Summary Report for the Monitoring Survey at
the Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North, September 2015. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
England District, Concord, MA, 63 pp.
Note on units of this report. As a scientific data summary, information and data are presented in the metric
system. However, given the prevalence of English units in the dredging industry of the United States,
conversions to English units are provided for general information in Section 1. A table of common conversions
can be found in Appendix A.
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
of Engineers?8 September 2015
New England District
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iii
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Overview of the DAMOS Program 1
1.2 Introduction to the Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North 2
1.3 2015 Survey Obj ectives 2
2.0 METHODS 5
2.1 Navigation and On-Board Data Acquisition 5
2.2 Acoustic Survey 5
2.2.1 Acoustic Survey Planning 5
2.2.2 Acoustic Data Collection 6
2.2.3 Bathymetric Data Processing 6
2.2.4 Backscatter Data Processing 7
2.2.5 Side-Scan Sonar Data Processing 8
2.2.6 Acoustic Data Analysis 8
2.3 Sediment-Profile and Plan-View Imaging Survey 8
2.3.1 SPI and PV Survey Planning 8
2.3.2 Sediment-Profile Imaging 8
2.3.3 Plan-View Imaging 9
2.3.4 SPI and PV Data Collection 10
2.3.5 Image Conversion and Calibration 10
2.3.6 SPI and PV Data Analysis 11
2.3.7 Statistical Methods 12
3.0 RESULTS 23
3.1 Acoustic Survey 23
3.1.1 Bathymetry 23
3.1.2 Acoustic Backscatter and Side-Scan Sonar 23
3.1.3 Comparison with Previous Bathymetry 24
3.2 Sediment-Profile and Plan-View Imaging 24
3.2.1 Reference Areas 24
3.2.2 Proposed Disposal Site 25
3.2.3 Comparison to Reference Areas 27
4.0 SUMMARY 60
5.0 REFERENCES 61
6.0 DATA TRANSMITTAL 63
/'
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
of Engineers?8 September 2015
New England District
APPENDICES
A Table of Common Conversions
B ISDSN 2015 Survey Actual SPI/PV Replicate Locations
C Sediment-Profile and Plan-View Image Analysis Results for ISDSN Survey, September
2015
D Grain Size Scale for Sediments
ii
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2-1. Accuracy and Uncertainty Analysis of Bathymetric Data 16
Table 2-2. ISDSN 2015 Survey Target SPI/PV Station Locations 17
Table 3-1. Summary of ISDSN Reference Stations Sediment-Profile Imaging Results
(station means), September 2015 28
Table 3-2. Summary of ISDSN Site Stations Sediment-Profile Imaging Results
(station means), September 2015 29
Table 3-3. Summary of Station Means for aRPD and Successional Stage by
Sampling Location 31
Table 3-4. Summary Statistics and Results of Inequivalence Hypothesis Testing for
aRPD Values 31
/'/'/'
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
of Engineers?8 September 2015
New England District
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1-1. Location of Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North (ISDSN) 3
Figure 1-2. ISDSN site boundary and reference areas on existing bathymetry from an
NOS 1947 data set 4
Figure 2-1. ISDSN acoustic survey area and tracklines 19
Figure 2-2. ISDSN proposed disposal site and reference areas with target SPI/PV
stations 20
Figure 2-3. Schematic diagram of the SPI/PV camera deployment 21
Figure 2-4. The stages of infaunal succession as a response of soft-bottom benthic
communities to (A) physical disturbance or (B) organic enrichment; from
Rhoads and Germano (1982) 22
Figure 3-1. Bathymetric contour map of ISDSN - September 2015 32
Figure 3-2. Bathymetric depth data over acoustic relief model of ISDSN - September
2015 33
Figure 3-3. Mosaic of unfiltered backscatter data of ISDSN - September 2015 34
Figure 3-4. Filtered backscatter over acoustic relief model of ISDSN - September
2015 35
Figure 3-5. Side-scan mosaic of ISDSN - September 2015 36
Figure 3-6. Bathymetric depth data at ISDSN proposed reference areas with SPI/PV
stations indicated 37
Figure 3-7. Sediment grain size major mode (phi units) at the ISDSN reference areas 38
Figure 3-8. Mean station camera prism penetration depths (cm) at the ISDSN
reference areas 39
Figure 3-9. Sediment-profile images from (A) Station REF-B-2 and (B) Station REF-
C-4 where camera penetration depths were shallower and where there was
evidence of possible dredged material at depth 40
Figure 3-10. Mean station small-scale boundary roughness values (cm) at the ISDSN
reference areas 41
iv
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
of Engineers?8 September 2015
New England District
Figure 3-11. Sediment-profile images depicting small-scale boundary roughness
created by biological activity of surface and subsurface dwelling infauna
at (A) Station REF-B-4 and (B) Station ISDSN-18 42
Figure 3-12. Mean station aRPD depths (cm) at the ISDSN reference areas 43
Figure 3-13. Mean aRPD depths (cm) were shallower at (A) Station REF-C-2,
compared to the other reference areas, e.g., (B) Station REF-A-1. Note:
The sloughing of sediment particles near the surface of (A) is an
occasional artifact of the camera action 44
Figure 3-14. Infaunal successional stages found at stations at the ISDSN reference areas 45
Figure 3-15. Infaunal successional stages found at the ISDSN reference areas: Stage 1
on 3 at (A) Station REF-B-4 with small tubes at surface and oxidized
voids at depth; (B) Station REF-A-1 with fecal pellets, small tubes at
surface, clear subsurface burrows, polychaetes (worm), and a large void 46
Figure 3-16. Maximum subsurface feeding void depth at ISDSN reference areas 47
Figure 3-17. Plan-view images depicting small to medium burrows and small tubes at
(A) Station REF-C-3 and (B) ISDSN-29 48
Figure 3-18. Plan-view images depicting tracks indicative of a mobile epifauna
community at (A) Station REF-B-3-A and (B) ISDSN-24-A 49
Figure 3-19. ISDSN with SPI/PV stations indicated 50
Figure 3-20. Sediment grain size major mode (phi) at ISDSN 51
Figure 3-21. Mean station camera prism penetration depth (cm) at ISDSN 52
Figure 3-22. Sediment-profile images with evidence of possible dredged material at (A)
Station ISDSN-5 and (B) Station ISDSN-12 53
Figure 3-23. Mean station small-scale boundary roughness values (cm) at ISDSN 54
Figure 3-24. Mean station aRPD depth (cm) at ISDSN 55
Figure 3-25. Mean aRPD depths (cm) and infaunal successional stages found at
ISDSN: Stage 1 on 3 at (A) Station ISDSN-22 with small tubes at surface,
shallow burrowing, and oxidized voids at depth; (B) Station ISDSN-3 with
small tubes at surface, shallow burrowing, and subsurface void; and (C)
Station ISDSN-14 with small to medium tubes at surface, shallow
burrowing, in-filled voids at depth 56
Figure 3-26. Infaunal successional stages found at ISDSN 57
V
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
of Engineers?8 September 2015
New England District
Figure 3-27. Maximum subsurface feeding void depth at ISDSN reference areas 58
Figure 3-28. Boxplot showing distribution of station mean aRPD depths (cm) for 2015
ISDSN and each of the reference areas 59
vi
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
of Engineers?8 September 2015
New England District
LIST OF ACRONYMS
aRPD Apparent redox potential discontinuity
ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange
CCOM Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping
CI Confidence interval
CTD Conductivity-temperature-depth
DAMOS Disposal Area Monitoring System
DGPS Differential global positioning system
GIS Graphic information system
GPS Global positioning system
ISDSN Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
JHC Joint Hydrographic Center
JPEG Joint Photographic Experts Group
MBES Multibeam echosounder
MLLW Mean lower low water
MPRSA Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
NAE New England District
NEF Nikon Electronic Format
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS National Ocean Service
NTRIP Network transport of RTCM data over IP
PV Plan-view
RGB Red green blue (file format)
RTCM Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services
RTK Real time kinematic GPS
SHP Shapefile or geospatial data file
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
SPI Sediment-profile imaging
TVG time-varied gain
TIF Tagged image file
US ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
vii
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A monitoring survey was conducted at a potential new open water dredged material disposal site,
the Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North (ISDSN), in September 2015 as part of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) New England District (NAE) Disposal Area Monitoring System
(DAMOS) Program. DAMOS is a comprehensive monitoring and management program
designed and conducted to address environmental concerns surrounding the placement of
dredged material at aquatic disposal sites throughout the New England region. An overview of
the DAMOS Program and ISDSN is provided below.
1.1 Overview of the DAMOS Program
The DAMOS Program features a tiered management protocol designed to ensure that any
potential adverse environmental impacts associated with dredged material disposal are promptly
identified and addressed (Germano et al. 1994). For over 35 years, the DAMOS Program has
collected and evaluated disposal site data throughout New England. Based on these data,
patterns of physical, chemical, and biological responses of seafloor environments to dredged
material disposal activity have been documented (Fredette and French 2004).
DAMOS monitoring surveys fall into two general categories: confirmatory studies and focused
studies. The data collected and evaluated during these studies provide answers to strategic
management questions in determining the next step in the disposal site management process to
guide the management of disposal activities at existing sites, plan for use of future sites, and
evaluate the long-term status of historic sites.
Confirmatory studies are designed to test hypotheses related to expected physical and ecological
response patterns following placement of dredged material on the seafloor at established, active
disposal sites. Two primary goals of DAMOS confirmatory monitoring surveys are to document
the physical location and stability of dredged material placed into the aquatic environment and to
evaluate the biological recovery of the benthic community following placement of dredged
material. Several survey techniques are employed in order to characterize these responses to
dredged material placement. Sequential acoustic monitoring surveys (including bathymetric,
acoustic backscatter, and side-scan sonar data collection) are performed to characterize the
height and spread of discrete dredged material deposits or mounds created at open water sites as
well as the accumulation/consolidation of dredged material into confined aquatic disposal cells.
Sediment-profile (SPI) and plan-view (PV) imaging surveys are often performed in both
confirmatory and focused studies to provide further physical characterization of the material and
to support evaluation of seafloor (benthic) habitat conditions and recovery over time. Each type
of data collection activity is conducted periodically at disposal sites and the conditions found
after a defined period of disposal activity are compared with the long-term data set at specific
sites to determine the next step in the disposal site management process (Germano et al. 1994).
Focused studies are periodically undertaken within the DAMOS Program to evaluate inactive or
historical disposal sites and contribute to the development of dredged material placement and
management techniques. Focused DAMOS monitoring surveys may also feature additional
1
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
types of data collection activities as deemed appropriate to achieve specific survey objectives,
such as subbottom profiling, towed video, sediment coring, or grab sampling. The 2015 ISDSN
investigation was considered a confirmatory/reconnaissance study for possible designation of the
site as a formal disposal site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under
Section 103 of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). This survey
included a baseline acoustic survey and a SPI/PV imaging survey.
1.2 Introduction to the Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
ISDSN is located in the Gulf of Maine, approximately 20 km (10.8 nmi) east of Portsmouth,
New Hampshire (Figure 1-1). ISDSN is being considered by NAE for selection as a dredged
material disposal site and for possible designation by USEPA under Section 103 of MPRSA.
This potential disposal site is currently defined as a 3000-m (9840-ft) diameter circle on the
seafloor with its center located at 70° 26.680' W and 43° 1.309' N. Three potential reference
areas (REF-A, REF-B, and REF-C) were defined as 250-m radius circles located at 70° 25.165'
W, 42° 59.282' N; 70° 28.039' W, 43° 0.257' N; and 70° 27.895' W, 43° 2.280' N, respectively
(Figure 1-2). Reference areas were selected based on a review of existing data prior to the
survey to represent areas of the seafloor with similar bathymetric characteristics. Previous work
at the site has included side-scan sonar performed by USEPA from their ocean survey vessel
BOLD and grab sampling for grain size and benthic biology analysis performed by NAE (all
unpublished data).
Water depths at ISDSN vary from 78 m (255 ft) to 104 m (340 ft) and gradually slope from
approximately 90 m (295 ft) on the western boundary to 100 m (328 ft) in the southeastern
portion of the site (Figure 1-2). Topographic highs are present in the northwest, southeast, and
northeast corners of the site (Figure 1-2). In 2015 the Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping
Joint Hydrographic Center at the University of New Hampshire (UNH/NOAA CCOM)
published composite bathymetric and backscatter data for the Western Gulf of Maine, an area
that includes ISDSN (UNH/NOAA CCOM 2015). These data were used for comparison
purposes.
1.3 2015 Survey Objectives
An acoustic survey was conducted at ISDSN to characterize the seafloor topography and surface
features. Additionally, a sediment-profile/plan-view (SPI/PV) imaging survey was conducted to
further define the physical characteristics of surface sediment and to assess the benthic status
over the proposed site and potential reference areas (Figure 1-2).
2
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Maine
New Hampshire
Portsmouth
V&
Isles of Shoals
Massachusetts
o
.o
CM
5 Isles of Shoals
2015
~ 2015 Survey Area
o ISDSN Boundary
o Reference Area
Data: ESRI Oceans
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN_2015_Location Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802 February 2016
Figure 1-1. Location of Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North (ISDSN)
3
-------
111 III
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Depth (m)
70
80
90
¦
100
*
O
REF-B
O
REF-C
Isles of Shoals
2015
] 2015 Survey Area
C 1? ISDSN Boundary
C ^ Reference Area
o
REF-A
3 Feet
1,000 2,000
Meters
250 500
zData: 1947 NOS Bathymetric depth
p data over acoustic relief model 7x
^vertical exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN 2015 Overview
Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 1-2. ISDSN site boundary and reference areas on existing bathymetry from an NOS 1947 data set
February 2016
4
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
2.0 METHODS
The September 2015 survey at ISDSN was conducted by a team of investigators from
DAMOSVision (CoastalVision, CR Environmental, and Germano & Associates) aboard the 55-
foot R/V Jamie Hanna. The acoustic survey was conducted 15-16 September 2015 and the
SPI/PV survey was conducted 25-27 September 2015. An overview of the methods used to
collect, process, and analyze the survey data is provided below. Detailed Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) for data collection and processing are available in Carey et al. (2013).
2.1 Navigation and On-Board Data Acquisition
Navigation for the acoustic survey was accomplished using a Hemisphere VS-330 Real-time
kinematic Global Positioning System (RTK GPS) which received base station correction through
the Keynet NTRIP broadcast. Horizontal position accuracy in fixed RTK mode was
approximately 2 cm. A dual-antennae Hemisphere VS110 differential GPS (DGPS) was
available if necessary as a backup. The GPS system was interfaced to a desktop computer
running HYPACK MAX® hydrographic survey software. HYPACK MAX® continually
recorded vessel position and GPS satellite quality and provided a steering display for the vessel
captain to accurately maintain the position of the vessel along pre-established survey transects
and targets. Vessel heading measurements were provided by an IxBlue Octans III fiber optic
gyrocompass.
Navigation for the SPI survey was accomplished using a Hemisphere R110 sub-meter DGPS.
2.2 Acoustic Survey
The acoustic survey included bathymetric, backscatter, and side-scan sonar data collection. The
bathymetric data provided measurements of water depth that, when processed, were used to map
the seafloor topography. Backscatter and side-scan sonar data provided images that supported
the characterization of surface sediment texture and roughness. Each of these acoustic data types
is useful for assessing dredged material placement and surface sediment features.
2.2.1 Acoustic Survey Planning
The acoustic survey featured a high spatial resolution survey of ISDSN. DAMOSVision
hydrographers coordinated with USACE NAE scientists and reviewed alternative survey
designs. For ISDSN, a 3500 x 3500 m area was selected. Hydrographers obtained site
coordinates, imported them to graphic information system (GIS) software, and created maps to
aid planning. Base bathymetric data were obtained from the National Ocean Service
Hydrographic Data Base to estimate the transect separation required to obtain full bottom
coverage using an assumed beam angle limit of 90-degrees (45 degrees to port, 45 degrees to
starboard). Transects spaced 150 m apart and cross-lines spaced 500 m apart were created to
meet conservative beam angle constraints (Figure 2-1). The proposed survey area and design
were then reviewed and approved by NAE scientists. Additional transects were added to the
southwest and northeast of the primary survey area to characterize potential reference areas.
5
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
2.2.2 Acoustic Data Collection
The 2015 multibeam bathymetric survey of ISDSN was conducted 15-16 September 2015. Data
layers generated by the survey included bathymetric, acoustic backscatter, and side-scan sonar
and were collected using an R2Sonic 2022 broadband multibeam echosounder (MBES). This
200-400 kHz system forms up to 256 1-2° beams (frequency dependent) distributed
equiangularly or equidistantly across a 10-160° swath. The MBES transducer was mounted
amidships to the port rail of the survey vessel using a high strength adjustable boom. The
primary GPS antenna was mounted on the transducer boom. The transducer depth below the
water surface (draft) and antenna height were checked and recorded at the beginning and end of
data acquisition, and the draft was confirmed using the "bar check" method.
An IxBlue Octans III motion reference unit (MRU) was interfaced to the MBES topside
processor and to the acquisition computer. Precise linear offsets between the MRU and MBES
were recorded and applied during acquisition. Depth and backscatter data were synchronized
using pulse-per-second timing and transmitted to the HYPACK MAX® acquisition computer via
Ethernet communications. Several patch tests were conducted during the survey to allow
computation of angular offsets between the MBES system components.
The system was calibrated for local water mass speed of sound by performing sound velocity
profile (SVP) casts at frequent intervals throughout the survey day using a Seabird, Inc. SBE-19
CTD.
2.2.3 Bathymetric Data Processing
Bathymetric data were processed using HYPACK HYSWEEP® software. Processing
components are described below and included:
• Adjustment of data for tidal elevation fluctuations
• Correction of ray bending (refraction) due to density variation in the water column
• Removal of spurious points associated with water column interference or system errors
• Development of a grid surface representing depth solutions
• Statistical estimation of sounding solution uncertainty
• Generation of data visualization products
Tidal adjustments were accomplished using RTK GPS. Water surface elevations derived using
RTK were adjusted to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) elevations using NOAA's VDATUM
Model. Processed RTK tide data were successfully ground-truthed against a data series acquired
at NOAA's Fort Point Tide Station (#8423898). While tidal amplitudes from RTK data and
NOAA data were similar, the comparison documented a high tide time offset of approximately -
15 minutes between the NOAA Station and the survey area.
Correction of sounding depth and position (range and azimuth) for refraction due to water
column stratification was conducted using a series of fourteen sound-velocity profiles acquired
6
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
by the survey team. Data artifacts associated with refraction remain in the bathymetric surface
model at a relatively fine scale (generally less than 5 to 10 cm) relative to the survey depth.
Data acquired in the disposal site portion of the survey area were filtered to accept only beams
falling within an angular limit of 45° to minimize refraction artifacts. Spurious sounding
solutions were rejected based on the careful examination of data on a sweep-specific basis.
The R2Sonics 2022 MBES system was operated at 200 kHz. At this frequency the system has a
published beam width of 2.0°. Assuming an average depth of 94 m and a maximum beam angle
of 45°, the average diameter of the beam footprint was calculated at approximately 3.8 x 3.6 m
(13.7 m2). Data were reduced to a cell (grid) size of 5.0 x 5.0 m, acknowledging the system's
fine range resolution while accommodating beam position uncertainty. This data reduction was
accomplished by calculating and exporting the average elevation for each cell in accordance with
USACE recommendations (USACE 2013).
Statistical analysis of data as summarized on Table 2-1 showed negligible tide bias and vertical
uncertainty substantially lower than values recommended by USACE (2013) or NOAA (2015).
Note that the most stringent National Ocean Service (NOS) standard for this project depth
(Special Order 1 A) would call for a 95th percentile confidence interval (95% CI) of 0.82 m at the
maximum site depth (103.8 m) and 0.75 m at the average site depth (94.1 m).
Reduced data were exported in ASCII text format with fields for Easting, Northing, and MLLW
Elevation (meters). All data were projected to the Maine State Plane (West), NAD83 (metric).
A variety of data visualizations were generated using a combination of ESRI ArcMap (V.10.1)
and Golden Software Surfer (V.13). Visualizations and data products included:
• ASCII data files of all processed soundings including MLLW depths and elevations
• Contours of seabed elevation (50-cm and 1.0-m intervals) in a geospatial data file (SHP)
format suitable for plotting using GIS and computer-aided design software
• 3-dimensional surface maps of the seabed created using 5/ vertical exaggeration and
artificial illumination to highlight fine-scale features not visible on contour layers
delivered in grid and tagged image file (TIF) formats, and
• An acoustic relief map of the survey area created using 2x vertical exaggeration,
delivered in georeferenced TIF format.
2.2.4 Backscatter Data Processing
Backscatter data were extracted from cleaned MBES TruePix formatted files then used to
provide an estimation of surface sediment texture based on seabed surface roughness. Mosaics
of backscatter data were created using HYPACK®'s implementation of GeoCoder software
developed by scientists at the University of New Hampshire's NOAA Center for Coastal and
Ocean Mapping (UNH/NOAA CCOM). A seamless mosaic of unfiltered backscatter data was
developed and exported in grayscale TIF format. Backscatter data were also exported in ASCII
format with fields for Easting, Northing, and backscatter (dB). A Gaussian filter was applied to
backscatter data to minimize nadir artifacts and the filtered data were used to develop backscatter
7
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
values on a 2-m grid. The grid was exported as an ESRI binary GRD format to facilitate
comparison with other data layers.
2.2.5 Side-Scan Sonar Data Processing
Side-scan sonar data were processed using both Chesapeake Technology, Inc. Sonar Wiz
software and HYPACK®'s implementation of GeoCoder software to generate a database of
images that maximized both textural information and structural detail.
A seamless mosaic of side-scan sonar data was developed using GeoCoder and exported in
grayscale TIF format using a resolution of 0.35 m per pixel. This mosaic optimized textural
information but is less well suited for analysis of fine seabed structures due to blending of
overlapping data. Three additional mosaics of side-scan data were created using SonarWiz to
facilitate detailed inspection of sonar imagery. Mosaic versions included raw swath data, data
with a customized time-varied gain (TVG) curve developed to normalize across-track signal
attenuation, and a version that utilized an automatic gain adjustment algorithm.
2.2.6 Acoustic Data Analysis
The processed bathymetric grids were converted to rasters, and bathymetric contour lines and
acoustic relief models were generated and displayed using GIS. The backscatter mosaics and
filtered backscatter grid were combined with acoustic relief models in GIS to facilitate
visualization of relationships between acoustic datasets. This is done by rendering images and
color-coded grids with sufficient transparency to allow three-dimensional acoustic relief model
to be visible underneath.
2.3 Sediment-Profile and Plan-View Imaging Survey
SPI/PV imaging are monitoring techniques used to provide data on the physical characteristics of
the seafloor and the status of the benthic biological community (Germano et al. 2011).
2.3.1 SPI and PV Survey Planning
For the ISDSN survey, a total of 45 SPI/PV stations were planned with 30 stations located in the
proposed disposal site, and 5 stations in each of the three proposed reference areas (REF-A,
REF-B, and REF-C). A random location generator was used to select the locations of all the
SPI/PV stations (Figure 2-2). SPI/PV station locations are provided in Table 2-1 and actual
SPI/PV station replicate locations are provided in Appendix B.
2.3.2 Sediment-Profile Imaging
The SPI technique involves deploying an underwater camera system to photograph a cross-
section of the sediment-water interface. In the 2015 survey at ISDSN, high-resolution SPI
images were acquired using a Nikon® D7100 digital single-lens reflex camera mounted inside an
Ocean Imaging® Model 3731 pressure housing. The pressure housing sat atop a wedge-shaped
steel prism with a glass front faceplate and a back mirror. The mirror was mounted at a 45°
angle to reflect the profile of the sediment-water interface. As the prism penetrated the seafloor,
8
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
a trigger activated a time-delay circuit that fired an internal strobe to obtain a cross-sectional
image of the upper 15-20 cm of the sediment column (Figure 2-3).
The camera remained on the seafloor for approximately 20 seconds to ensure that a successful
image had been obtained. Details of the camera settings for each digital image are available in
the associated parameters file embedded in each electronic image file. For this survey, the ISO-
equivalent was set at 640, shutter speed was 1/250, f-stop was f9, and storage was in compressed
raw Nikon Electronic Format (NEF) files (approximately 30 MB each).
Test exposures of the X-Rite Color Checker Classic Color Calibration Target were made on deck
at the beginning of the survey to verify that all internal electronic systems were working to
design specifications and to provide a color standard against which final images could be
checked for proper color balance. After deployment of the camera at each station, the frame
counter was checked to ensure that the requisite number of replicates had been obtained. In
addition, a prism penetration depth indicator on the camera frame was checked to verify that the
optical prism had actually penetrated the bottom to a sufficient depth. If images were missed or
the penetration depth was insufficient, the camera frame stop collars were adjusted and/or
weights were added or removed, and additional replicate images were taken. Changes in prism
weight amounts, the presence or absence of mud doors, and frame stop collar positions were
recorded for each replicate image.
Each image was assigned a unique time stamp in the digital file attributes by the camera's data
logger and cross-checked with the time stamp in the navigational system's computer data file. In
addition, the field crew kept redundant written sample logs. Images were downloaded
periodically to verify successful sample acquisition and/or to assess what type of
sediment/depositional layer was present at a particular station. Digital image files were renamed
with the appropriate station names immediately after downloading as a further quality assurance
step.
2.3.3 Plan-View Imaging
An Ocean Imaging® Model DSC24000 plan-view underwater camera (PV) system with two
Ocean Imaging® Model 400-37 Deep Sea Scaling lasers was attached to the sediment-profile
camera frame and used to collect plan-view photographs of the seafloor surface; both SPI and
PV images were collected during each "drop" of the system. The PV system consisted of a
Nikon D-7100 encased in an aluminum housing, a 24 VDC autonomous power pack, a 500 W
strobe, and a bounce trigger. A weight was attached to the bounce trigger with a stainless steel
cable so that the weight hung below the camera frame; the scaling lasers projected two red dots
that are separated by a constant distance (26 cm) regardless of the field-of-view of the PV
system. The field-of-view can be varied by increasing or decreasing the length of the trigger
wire and thereby the camera height above the bottom when the picture is taken. As the camera
apparatus was lowered to the seafloor, the weight attached to the bounce trigger contacted the
seafloor prior to the camera frame hitting the bottom and triggered the PV camera (Figure 2-3).
Details of the camera settings for each digital image are available in the associated parameters
file embedded in each electronic image file; for this survey, the ISO-equivalent was set at 640.
The additional camera settings used were as follows: shutter speed 1/250, fl4, white balance set
9
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
to flash, color mode set to Adobe RGB, sharpening set to none, noise reduction off, and storage
in compressed rawNEF files (approximately 30 MB each).
Prior to field operations, the internal clock in the digital PV system was synchronized with the
GPS navigation system and the SPI camera. Each PV image acquired was assigned a time stamp
in the digital file and redundant notations in the field and navigation logs. Throughout the
survey, PV images were downloaded at the same time as the SPI images after collection and
evaluated for successful image acquisition and image clarity.
The ability of the PV system to collect usable images was dependent on the clarity of the water
column. Water conditions at ISDSN allowed use of a 0.9-m trigger wire, resulting in an area of
bottom visualization approximately 1.0 m x 0.5 m in size.
2.3.4 SPI and PV Data Collection
The SPI/PV survey was conducted at ISDSN from 25-27 September 2015 aboard the R/V Jamie
Hanna. At each station, the vessel was positioned at the target coordinates and the camera was
deployed within a defined station tolerance of 10 m. Four replicate SPI and PV images were
collected at each of the stations (Appendix B). The three replicates with the best quality images
from each station were chosen for analysis (Appendix C).
The DGPS described above was interfaced to HYPACK® software via laptop serial ports to
provide a method to locate and record sampling locations. Throughout the survey, the
HYPACK® data acquisition system received DGPS data. The incoming data stream was
digitally integrated and stored on the PC's hard drive. The system provided a steering display to
enable the vessel captain to navigate to the pre-established survey target locations. The
navigator electronically recorded the vessel's position when the equipment contacted the seafloor
and the winch wire went slack. Each replicate SPI/PV position was recorded and time stamped.
Actual SPI/PV sampling locations were recorded using this system.
2.3.5 Image Conversion and Calibration
Following completion of the field operations, the raw image files were color calibrated in Adobe
Camera Raw® by synchronizing the raw color profiles to an X-Rite Color Checker Classic Color
Calibration Target that was photographed on-site with the SPI camera. The raw images were
then converted to high-resolution Photoshop Document (PSD) format files, using a lossless
conversion file process, maintaining an Adobe RGB (1998) color profile. The PSD images were
then calibrated and analyzed in Adobe Photoshop®. Image calibration was achieved by
measuring the pixel length of a 5 cm scale bar printed on the X-Rite Color Checker Target,
providing a pixel per centimeter calibration. This calibration information was applied to all SPI
images analyzed. Linear and area measurements were recorded as the number of pixels and
converted to scientific units using the calibration information.
Measured parameters were recorded on a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet. Germano and
Associates' senior scientist Dr. Joseph D. Germano subsequently checked these data as an
independent quality assurance/quality control review of the measurements before final
10
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
interpretation was performed. Spatial distributions of SPI parameters from stations within the
study area were mapped using ArcGIS.
2.3.6 SPI and PV Data Analysis
Computer-aided analysis of the resulting images provided a set of standard measurements to
allow comparisons between different locations and different surveys. The DAMOS Program has
successfully used this technique for over 30 years to map the distribution of disposed dredged
material and to monitor benthic recolonization at disposal sites.
2.3.6.1 SPI Data Analysis
Analysis of each SPI image was performed to provide measurement of the following standard set
of parameters:
Sediment Type- The sediment grain size major mode and range were estimated visually from the
images using a grain size comparator at a similar scale. Results were reported using the phi
scale. Conversion to other grain size scales is provided in Appendix D. The presence and
thickness of disposed dredged material were also assessed by inspection of the images.
Penetration Depth- The depth to which the camera penetrated into the seafloor was measured to
provide an indication of the sediment density or bearing capacity. The penetration depth can
range from a minimum of 0 cm (i.e., no penetration on hard substrata) to a maximum of 20 cm
(full penetration on very soft substrata).
Surface Boundary Roughness- Surface boundary roughness is a measure of the vertical relief of
features at the sediment-water interface in the sediment-profile image. Surface boundary
roughness was determined by measuring the vertical distance between the highest and lowest
points of the sediment-water interface. The surface boundary roughness measured over the
width of sediment-profile images typically ranges from 0 to 4 cm and may be related to physical
structures (e.g., ripples, rip-up structures, mud clasts) or biogenic features (e.g., burrow
openings, fecal mounds, foraging depressions).
Apparent Redox Potential Discontinuity (aRPD) Depth- The aRPD depth provides a measure of
the integrated time history of the balance between near-surface oxygen conditions and biological
reworking of sediments. Sediment particles exposed to oxygenated waters oxidize and lighten in
color to brown or light gray. As the particles are buried or moved down by biological activity,
they are exposed to reduced oxygen concentrations in subsurface pore waters and their oxic
coating slowly reduces, changing color to dark gray or black. When biological activity is high,
the aRPD depth increases; when it is low or absent, the aRPD depth decreases. The aRPD depth
was measured by visually assessing color and reflectance boundaries within the images, and for
each image a mean aRPD was calculated.
Infaunal Successional Stage- Infaunal successional stage is a measure of the biological
community inhabiting the seafloor. Current theory holds that organism-sediment interactions in
fine-grained sediments follow a predictable sequence of development after a major disturbance
(such as dredged material disposal) and this sequence has been divided subjectively into four
11
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
stages (Rhoads and Germano 1982, 1986). Successional stage was assigned by assessing which
types of species or organism-related activities were apparent in the images (Figure 2-4).
Additional components of the SPI analysis included calculation of means and ranges for the
parameters listed above and mapping of means of replicate values from each station. Station
means were calculated from three replicates from each station and used in statistical analysis.
2.3.6.2 PV Data Analysis
The PV images provided a much larger field-of-view than the SPI images and provided valuable
information about the landscape ecology and sediment topography in the area where the pinpoint
"optical core" of the sediment profile was taken. Unusual surface sediment layers, textures, or
structures detected in any of the sediment-profile images can be interpreted in light of the larger
context of surface sediment features; i.e., is a surface layer or topographic feature a regularly
occurring feature and typical of the seafloor in this general vicinity or just an isolated anomaly?
The scale information provided by the underwater lasers allows for accurate density counts
(number per square meter) of attached epifaunal colonies, sediment burrow openings, or larger
macrofauna or fish which may have been missed in the sediment-profile cross section.
Information on sediment transport dynamics and bedform wavelength were also available from
PV image analysis. Analysts calculated the image size and field-of-view and noted sediment
type; recorded the presence of bedforms, burrows, tubes, tracks, trails, epifauna, mud clasts, and
debris; and included descriptive comments (Appendix C).
2.3.7 Statistical Methods
In order to meet the objective of this survey to assess the baseline status of benthic community at
the proposed disposal site relative to reference area conditions, statistical analyses were
conducted to compare key SPI variables between the proposed disposal site and reference areas
(REF-A, REF-B, REF-C). The aRPD depth and successional stage measured in each image are
the best indicators of infaunal activity measured by SPI and were, therefore, used in this
comparative analysis. Standard boxplots were generated for visual assessment of the central
tendency and variation in each of these variables within the proposed disposal site and each
reference area. Tests rejecting the inequivalence between the reference areas and disposal site
were conducted, as described in detail below.
The objective to look for differences is conventionally addressed using a point null hypothesis of
the form, "There is no significant difference in benthic conditions between the reference area and
the disposal site." However, there is always some difference (perhaps only to a very small
decimal place) between groups, but the statistical significance of this difference may or may not
be ecologically meaningful. On the other hand, differences may not be detected due to
insufficient statistical power. Without a power analysis and specification of what constitutes an
ecologically meaningful difference, the results of conventional point null hypothesis testing often
provide inadequate information for ecological assessments (Germano 1999). An approach using
an inequivalence null hypothesis will identify when groups are statistically similar, within a
specified interval, which is more suited to the objectives of the DAMOS monitoring program.
12
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
For an inequivalence test, the null hypothesis presumes the difference is great; this is recognized
as a "proof of safety" approach because rejection of the inequivalence null hypothesis requires
sufficient proof that the difference was actually small (e.g., McBride 1999). The null and
alternative hypotheses for the inequivalence hypothesis test are:
where d is the difference between a reference mean and a site mean. If the inequivalence null
hypothesis is rejected, then it is concluded that the two means are equivalent to one another
within ±5 units. The size of 8 should be determined from historical data, and/or best professional
judgment, to identify a maximum difference that is within background variability and is therefore
not ecologically meaningful. Primarily differences greater than 8 are of ecological interest.
Previously established 8 values of 1 cm for aRPD depth, and 0.5 for successional stage rank (on
the 0-3 scale) were used.
The test of this inequivalence (interval) hypothesis can be broken down into two one-sided tests,
TOST (McBride 1999, Schuirmann 1987). Assuming a symmetric distribution, the
inequivalence hypothesis is rejected at a of 0.05 if the 90% confidence interval for the measured
difference (or, equivalently, the 95% upper limit and the 95% lower limit for the difference) is
wholly contained within the equivalence interval [-8, +8], The statistics used to test the interval
hypotheses shown here are based on the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) and basic statistical
properties of random variables. A simplification of the CLT states that the mean of any random
variable is normally distributed. Linear combinations of normal random variables are also
normal so a linear function of means is also normally distributed. When a linear function of
means is divided by its standard error the ratio follows a t-distribution with degrees of freedom
associated with the variance estimate. Hence, the t-distribution can be used to construct a
confidence interval around any linear function of means.
In this survey, four distinct locations were sampled, three were categorized as reference areas
(REF-A, REF-B, REF-C) and one was the proposed disposal location. The difference equation
of interest was the linear contrast of the average of the three reference means minus the disposal
site mean, or
d = [1/3 x (MeanREF-A + MeanREF-B + MeanREF-c) - (MeanDisposai)] [Eq. 1]
where MeanDisposai was the mean for all samples within the proposed disposal site. The three
reference areas collectively represented ambient conditions, but if the means were different
among these three areas, then pooling them into a single reference group would inflate the
variance estimate because it would include the variability between areas, rather than only the
variability between stations within each single homogeneous area. The effect of keeping the
three reference areas separate has no effect on the grand reference mean when sample size is
equal among these areas, but it ensures that the variance is truly the residual variance within a
single population with a constant mean.
Ho: d < -8 or d > 8 (presumes the difference is great)
Ha: -8 < d < 8 (requires proof that the difference is small)
13
-------
us Army corps DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
of Engineers® September 2015
New England District jeflCffWCT 4V±J
The difference equation, d , for the comparison of interest was specified in Eq. 1 and the
standard error of this difference equation uses the fact that the variance of a sum is the sum
of the variances for independent variables, or:
SE(d) = JX
[Eq. 2]
where:
/v
Cj = coefficients for the j means in the difference equation, d [Eq. 1] (i.e., for
equation 1 shown above, the coefficients were 1/3 for each of the 3 reference areas,
and -1 for the proposed disposal site).
S2j = variance for they'th area. If equal variances are assumed, the pooled residual
variance estimate equal to the mean square error from an ANOVA based on all
groups involved, can be used for each Sj.
rij = number of stations for they'th area.
The inequivalence null hypothesis is rejected (and equivalence concluded) if the
confidence interval on the difference of means, d , is fully contained within the interval
[-8 , + 8], Thus the decision rule was to reject Ho (the two groups are inequivalent) if:
Di=d- tavSE{d) > -8 and Du=d + tavSE(d) <5 [Eq. 3]
where:
d = observed difference in means between the reference areas and disposal site.
t
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
Validity of normality and equal variance assumptions was tested using Shapiro-Wilk's test for
normality on the area residuals (a = 0.05) and Levene's test for equality of variances among the
4 areas (a =0.05). If normality was not rejected but equality of variances was, then normal
parametric confidence bounds were calculated, using separate variance estimates for each group.
If normality was rejected, then non-parametric bootstrapped estimates of the confidence bounds
were calculated.
15
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Table 2-1.
Accuracy and Uncertainty Analysis of Bathymetric Data
Results (m)
Survey
Date(s)
Quality Control Metric
Mean
95%
Uncertainty
Range
9/15-
16/2015
Cross-Line Swath Comparisons
0.01
Within Cell Uncertainty 0.05
Beam Angle Uncertainty (0 - 45d) 0.01
0.22
0.11
0.24
0.00
0.18
2.76
0.34
Notes:
1. The mean of cross-line nadir and full swath comparisons are indicators of tide bias.
2. 95% uncertainty values were calculated using the sums of mean differences and standard deviations
expressed at the 2-sigma level.
3. Within cell uncertainty values include biases and random errors.
4. Beam angle uncertainty was assessed by comparing cross-line data (45-degree swath limit) with a
reference surface created using mainstay transect data.
5. Swath and cell based comparisons were conducted using 5 m x 5 m cell averages. These analyses do
not exclude sounding variability associated with terrain slopes. Uncertainties associated with slope
are depicted on maps within the report.
16
-------
us Army corps DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
of Engineers® September 2015
New England District jeflCffWCT 4V±J
Table 2-2.
ISDSN 2015 Survey Target SPI/PV Station Locations
Station Name
Easting
Northing
Latitude (N)
Longitude (W)
1
875912.3
22183.2
43° 1.958'
70° 27.734'
2
876412.2
22524.9
43° 2.144'
70° 27.367'
3
877234.2
22130.5
43° 1.933'
70° 26.761'
4
877545.5
22478.6
43° 2.121'
70° 26.533'
5
877941.7
22565.0
43° 2.168'
70° 26.241'
6
878791.4
22387.7
43° 2.074'
70° 25.615'
7
875969.1
21497.3
43° 1.588'
70° 27.691'
8
876584.5
21520.4
43° 1.602'
70° 27.238'
9
877339.6
21411.6
43° 1.544'
70° 26.681'
10
877728.6
21485.9
43° 1.585'
70° 26.396'
11
877985.3
21553.2
43° 1.622'
70° 26.207'
12
879052.3
21994.4
43° 1.862'
70° 25.422'
13
875832.2
20694.7
43° 1.154'
70° 27.790'
14
876554.8
21230.5
43° 1.445'
70° 27.259'
15
877289.0
20785.4
43° 1.206'
70° 26.717'
16
877801.4
21117.6
43° 1.387'
70° 26.341'
17
878404.0
21208.7
43° 1.437'
70° 25.898'
18
878830.8
20720.2
43° 1.174'
70° 25.582'
19
875797.3
20486.5
43° 1.042'
70° 27.815'
20
876498.9
20371.9
43° 0.982'
70° 27.298'
21
876919.1
20552.2
43° 1.079'
70° 26.989'
22
877888.8
20380.9
43° 0.989'
70° 26.275'
23
878195.8
20359.4
43° 0.977'
70° 26.049'
24
878642.4
20506.2
43° 1.058'
70° 25.721'
25
876075.3
19586.3
43° 0.556'
70° 27.608'
26
876515.2
19306.1
43° 0.406'
70° 27.283'
27
877318.7
19706.0
43° 0.623'
70° 26.693'
28
877533.2
19591.3
43° 0.562'
70° 26.535'
29
878431.0
19305.2
43° 0.409'
70° 25.873'
30
878971.3
19320.4
43° 0.418'
70° 25.476'
REF-A-01
875836.9
17199.6
43° -0.733'
70° 27.777'
REF-A-02
875624.1
17210.3
43° -0.728'
70° 27.934'
REF-A-03
875561.9
17012.4
43° -0.835'
70° 27.979'
REF-A-04
875537.4
17332.6
43° -0.662'
70° 27.998'
REF-A-05
875605.9
17165.6
43° -0.752'
70° 27.947'
REF-B-01
875644.3
18929.2
43° 0.200'
70° 27.923'
17
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Station Name
Easting
Northing
Latitude (N)
Longitude (W)
REF-B-02
875339.8
19183.8
43° 0.337'
70° 28.148'
REF-B-03
875391.3
18874.4
43° 0.170'
70° 28.109'
REF-B-04
875358.0
19172.3
43° 0.331'
70° 28.135'
REF-B-05
875543.7
19033.2
43° 0.257'
70° 27.997'
REF-C-01
879365.9
22613.4
43° 2.197'
70° 25.193'
REF-C-02
879444.2
22982.5
43° 2.396'
70° 25.136'
REF-C-03
879499.2
22702.5
43° 2.245'
70° 25.095'
REF-C-04
879216.8
22819.3
43° 2.308'
70° 25.303'
REF-C-05
879286.3
22806.2
43° 2.301'
70° 25.252'
Notes
1. Grid coordinates are State Plane Maine West FIPS 1802 (NAD83), metric
2. Geographic coordinates are NAD83 degrees decimal minute
-------
111 III
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Depth (m)
70
80
90
100
4
70°25'0"W
D
F E--Z
Isles of Shoals
2015
2015 Acoustic Survey
Transects
2015 Survey Area
Reference Area
3 Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Meters
0 250 500
Data: 1947 NOS Bathymetric depth
b data over acoustic relief model 7x
'^vertical exaggeration
' Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN 2015 Transects
Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 2-1. ISDSN acoustic survey area and tracklines
February 2016
19
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
70 26 0 W
E
REF-A
Isles of Shoals
2015
2015 Target SPI Station
2015 Target Reference
SPI Station
2015 Survey Area
Reference Area
3 Feet
1,000 2,000
Meters
0 250 500
z Data: 1947 NOS Bathymetric depth
bdata over acoustic relief model 7x
spvertical exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN_2015_Targets
Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802
February 2016
Figure 2-2. ISDSN proposed disposal site and reference areas with target SPI/PV stations
20
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Acoustic Signal
to the Surface
"--nN
I Acoustic Signal
, Rate Doubles
plan-view
camera
SPI image
Plan-view image
"Down" position
transecting the sediment-
water interface
Figure 2-3. Schematic diagram of the SPI/PV camera deployment
1-2 meters On the
Deployed from seafloor seafloor
21
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers,
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Oxidized
Sediment
Reduced
Sediment
Water
Fiber Blanket
Reduced
Sediment
Oxidized
Sediment
Physical Disturbance
Time
Normal
Stage 3
Grossly Polluted
Stage 2
Distance
Normal
Figure 2-4. The stages of infaunal succession as a response of soft-bottom benthic communities to (A) physical disturbance or (B)
organic enrichment; from Rhoads and Germano (1982)
22
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Acoustic Survey
An acoustic survey was conducted in September 2015 to characterize seafloor topography and
surface features over the entire ISDSN site and reference areas.
3.1.1 Bathymetry
Water depths at ISDSN varied from 77.7 m to 103.8 m and gradually sloped from approximately
90 m on the western boundary to 100 m in the southeastern portion of the site (Figure 3-1).
Depths ranged from 90 to 95 m in the northeast portion of the site. The shallowest depths were
on two distinct topographic highs in the southeast corner and northwest corners of ISDSN, rising
from 10 to 20 m off the surrounding seafloor. The northeast quadrant of the site also had a
noticeable topographic high, rising from 3 to 10 m from the surrounding seafloor (Figure 3-1).
Multibeam bathymetric data rendered as a color scale by depth over an acoustic relief model
(grayscale with hill-shading) provided a more detailed representation of these topographic highs
and of the entire site (Figure 3-2). These data also revealed several depressions near the center
of the site, as well as a group of circular features in the northeast quadrant of the site (Figure 3-
2). The small craters in the northeast quadrant are consistent with dredged material disposal
features seen at other disposal sites and may indicate the presence of historical dredged material
placement (Carey et al. 2013). Stations in this region and to the northeast in REF-C also had
evidence of possible dredged material in SPI images (discussed below in section 3.2).
3.1.2 Acoustic Backscatter and Side-Scan Sonar
Acoustic backscatter data provided an estimate of surface sediment texture (hard, soft, rough,
and smooth). Side-scan sonar data are higher resolution and more responsive to minor surface
textural features and slope than backscatter results and can reveal additional information about
topographic and textural properties of the seafloor.
A mosaic of unfiltered backscatter data for ISDSN (Figure 3-3) generally revealed the shallower
areas as harder surfaces having a stronger acoustic return (lighter gray in Figure 3-3) and deeper
areas as soft sediment having a weaker acoustic return (darker gray). Filtered backscatter results
were processed into a grid file and presented in a quantitative form where backscatter intensity
values were assigned a color (Figure 3-4). In this filtered and gridded display, the finer-scale
details were less visible, but the relative intensity of backscatter returns were easier to discern.
Areas with stronger returns (-37 to -28 db) were the topographic highs in the northwest,
southeast, and northeast corners of the site (Figure 3-3). Those in the northwest and southeast
may be glacial outcrops based on their sharp topographic profiles, hard backscatter returns, and
the textural differences evident in the side-scan sonar data (Figure 3-5).
Filtered backscatter data showed the larger depressions toward the center of the site clearly
(Figure 3-4). These depressions had weaker return signals than surrounding sediments indicating
softer sediments and the potential to serve as depositional areas for fine-grained sediments. The
23
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
circular features in the northeast quadrant were also clearly visible in both the unfiltered
backscatter (Figure 3-3) and side-scan sonar data (Figure 3-5). These results indicated that the
small craters that make up the circular features were both softer than surrounding sediments
(based on backscatter) and had different surface topographical/textural properties compared to
surrounding sediments (based on side-scan sonar).
3.1.3 Comparison with Previous Bathymetry
The bathymetry data of ISDSN as surveyed in 2015 were consistent with existing bathymetric
data, which were collected and aggregated at a regional scale (UNH/NOAA CCOM 2015).
These data reveal the same topographic highs and lows as the 2015 survey data, as well as the
area of circular features in the northeastern quadrant of the site.
3.2 Sediment-Profile and Plan-View Imaging
The primary purposes of the SPI/PV survey at ISDSN were to characterize the physical features
of the surface sediment throughout the study area and to assess the status of benthic communities
within the proposed disposal site. A station summary of some measured parameters can be
found in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 with a complete set of results in Appendix C.
3.2.1 Reference Areas
There are three areas proposed as reference areas, REF-A located 2 km south of the southwest
corner of the 2015 survey area, REF-B located at the southwest corner of the 2015 survey area,
and REF-C located just outside the 2015 survey area at the northeast corner (Figure 3-6).
Physical Sediment Characteristics
Depth of reference area stations ranged from 92.7 m to 97.5 m with a mean of 95.2 m. All
stations were characterized by soft muds (e.g., silt/clay) with a major grain size mode of >4 phi
(Table 3-1, Figure 3-7). Camera penetration depths also indicated soft sediments with a mean
penetration depth of 14.3 cm and a range from 8.9 to 16.9 cm (Table 3-1, Figure 3-8). The
shallowest camera penetration depths were in REF-C, just to the northeast of the topographic rise
found in the northeast corner of the survey area (Figure 2-2). Camera penetrations at REF-C
were all shallower than 12.2 cm; in contrast, the minimum penetration depth at the other
reference areas was 15.2 cm (Table 3-1, Figure 3-9).
Possible dredged material was visible at all stations in REF-C (Figure 3-9). Neither of the other
references areas showed signs of dredged material. There was no evidence of low dissolved
oxygen or sedimentary methane in the reference areas.
Boundary roughness ranged from 0.9 to 1.5 cm, with a mean of 1.2 cm (Figure 3-10). All of this
small-scale topography can be attributed to the surface and subsurface activity of benthic
organisms evidenced as small burrowing openings, pits, mounds, etc. (e.g., Figure 3-11).
24
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
Biological Conditions
The average station aRPD depths ranged from 4.6 to 8.2 cm with an overall mean of 7.0 cm
(SD±1.1) across all reference stations (Table 3-1, Figure 3-12 and Appendix C). Mean aRPD
depths at REF-C were all shallower than 6.7 cm; in contrast the minimum aRPD depth at the
other reference areas was 7.2 cm (Figure 3-13). This is consistent with the shallower penetration
depths observed at REF-C (Table 3-1). Overall the aRPD depths at the reference area stations
were relatively deep, indicative of a healthy seafloor and were biologically modified by infaunal
reworking.
Stage 3 infauna were present across all three reference areas with the predominant stage at all
three reference areas being Stage 1 on 3 (Table 3-1, Figure 3-14). Evidence for the presence of
Stage 3 fauna included large-bodied infauna, deep subsurface burrows, and/or deep feeding voids
(Figure 3-15); opportunistic Stage 1 taxa were indicated by the presence of small tubes at the
sediment water interface (Figure 3-15). Subsurface feeding voids, indicating Stage 3 fauna, were
present in at least 1 replicate of all but 1 station surveyed (Table 3-1). The mean of maximum
subsurface feeding void depth ranged from 2.5 to 12.0 cm with an overall mean of 8.7 cm
(SD±2.7) (Table 3-1; Figures 3-16).
Plan-View Imaging
The plan-view area of seafloor imaged ranged from 0.44 to 0.67 m2. Oxidized silt/clay surface
sediments with varying degrees of biological activity were seen in all PV images taken at the
reference areas. Many images included small tubes and small to medium burrows, indicating the
presence of deposit-feeding infauna (Figure 3-17). Tubes were generally sparse in their
frequency, as were medium to large burrows, whereas small burrows were more frequent.
Small shrimp were seen at the seafloor surface in approximately half of the images. Anemones
were seen at two locations in Reference Area C (CI-A, C2-D). All stations had tracks indicative
of mobile epifauna (e.g., crab, shrimp, gastropods). These tracks often covered much of the
visible seafloor in the images, indicating an active mobile epifaunal community at the reference
areas (Figure 3-18). At the reference areas, plan-view images confirmed the physical and
biological observations from the acoustic and SPI surveys.
3.2.2 Proposed Disposal Site
Physical Sediment Characteristics
Depth of the proposed disposal site stations ranged from 93.9 m to 103.6 m with a mean of 96.9
m (Figure 3-19). All stations were characterized by soft muds (e.g., silt/clay) with a major grain
size mode of >4 phi (Table 3-2; Figure 3-20). Camera penetration depths throughout the site
also indicated soft sediments with a mean penetration depth of 15.2 cm and a range from 9.3 to
18.7 cm (Table 3-2; Figure 3-21). The shallowest camera penetration depths were seen in
stations along the north boundary and in the northeast and southeast corners of the proposed
disposal site, in the vicinity of topographic rises in this portion of the proposed disposal site
(Figure 3-21).
25
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
Possible dredged material was visible at Stations 5, 6, 12, 28, 29, 30, stations in the northeast and
southeast corners of the survey area (Figure 3-22). There was no evidence of low dissolved
oxygen or sedimentary methane within the proposed disposal site.
Boundary roughness ranged from 0.6 to 2.4 cm, with a mean of 1.1 cm (Figure 3-23). All of this
small-scale topography can be attributed to the surface and subsurface activity of benthic
organisms evidenced as small burrowing openings, pits, mounds, etc. (e.g., Figure 3-11).
Biological Conditions
The average station aRPD depths ranged from 4.8 to 9.5 cm with an overall mean of 7.3 cm
(SD±1.1) across all the proposed disposal site stations (Table 3-2; Figure 3-24 and Appendix C).
Only Station 6, in the northeast corner of the site was less than 5.0 cm (Figure 3-24). Overall the
aRPD depths at the proposed disposal site stations were relatively deep, indicative of a healthy
seafloor and were biologically modified by infaunal reworking (Figure 3-25).
Stage 3 infauna were present across the proposed disposal site with the predominant stage at all
stations being Stage 1 on 3 (Table 3-2, Figure 3-26). Evidence for the presence of Stage 3 fauna
included large-bodied infauna, deep subsurface burrows, and/or deep feeding voids (Figure 3-
25); opportunistic Stage 1 taxa were indicated by the presence of small tubes at the sediment
water interface (Figure 3-25). Subsurface feeding voids, indicating Stage 3 fauna, were present
in at least 1 replicate of all but 2 stations surveyed (Table 3-2). The mean of maximum
subsurface feeding void depth ranged from 5.7 to 15.9 cm with an overall mean of 9.9 cm
(SD±2.6) (Table 3-2; Figure 3-27).
Plan-View Imaging
The plan-view area of seafloor imaged ranged from 0.42 to 0.72 m2. Oxidized silt/clay surface
sediments with varying degrees of biological activity were seen in all PV images taken at the
proposed disposal site. Many images included small tubes and small to medium burrows,
indicating the presence of deposit-feeding infauna (Figure 3-17). Tubes were generally sparse in
their frequency, as were medium to large burrows. Small burrows were more frequent across
much of the site.
Small shrimp were seen at the seafloor surface at 19 of the stations. Other epifauna were rarely
seen (crab at 17-A, gastropod at 7-A, and anemone at 30-A), however, all but one station (1) had
tracks indicative of these and other mobile epifauna. These tracks often covered much of the
visible seafloor in the images, indicating an active mobile epifaunal community at ISDSN
(Figure 3-18). A small fish was seen at Station 15. Within ISDSN, plan-view images confirmed
both the physical and biological observations from the acoustic and SPI surveys.
26
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
3.2.3 Comparison to Reference Areas
3.2.3.1 Mean aRPD Variable
The mean aRPD depth for the proposed disposal site was 7.29 cm, comparable to the grand mean
of the reference areas (7.01 cm). Area mean aRPD depths in the reference area ranged from 5.72
to 7.82 cm and were the shallowest at reference area C (Table 3-3; Figure 3-28). The standard
deviation among stations for aRPD depths across all sampling areas ranged from 0.28 to 1.07 cm
(Table 3-3).
A statistical inequivalence test was performed to determine whether or not the difference
observed in mean aRPD values between the three reference areas and the proposed disposal site
was statistically significant. The station mean aRPD data from all four locations were combined
to assess normality and estimate pooled variance. Results for the normality test indicated that the
area residuals (i.e., each observation minus the area mean) were not significantly different from a
normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk's test p-value = 0.53, with alpha = 0.05). Levene's test for
equality for variances could not be rejected (p-value = 0.08, with alpha = 0.05). These results
indicate that normally distributed data with equal variances can be assumed. Therefore, normal
equations and a pooled variance estimate were used to construct the confidence interval for the
difference equation.
The confidence region for the difference between the reference areas versus the proposed
disposal site mean was contained within the interval [-1, +1] (Table 3-4). The conclusion was
that the three reference areas and proposed disposal site did have significantly equivalent aRPD
values in the 2015 survey, with a difference in means of approximately -0.28 cm, with reference
areas having shallower aRPD values than proposed disposal locations (Table 3-4).
3.2.3.2 Successional Stage Rank Variable
Across the reference and disposal areas, Stage 3 fauna were consistently found, often along with
Stage 1 fauna (Table 3-1, 3-2). To evaluate these successional stages numerically, a successional
stage rank variable was applied to each image. A value of 3 was assigned to Stage 3, 2 on 3, or 1
on 3 designations, a value of 2 was applied to Stage 2 or 1 on 2, a value of 1 was applied to Stage
1, and images from which the stage could not be determined were excluded from calculations.
The maximum successional stage rank among replicates was used to represent the station value.
The successional stage rank variable was uniformly 3 across all three reference areas and the
proposed disposal site (Table 3-3). Therefore, no statistics were required to conclude that these
areas were statistically equivalent.
27
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Table 3-1.
Summary of ISDSN Reference Stations Sediment-Profile Imaging Results (station means), September 2015
Water
Grain
Size
Mean Prism
Mean
Boundary
Roughness
(cm)
Predominant
Type of
Boundary
Roughness
Mean
Dredged
Mean # of
Subsurface
Feeding
Voids
Mean of
Maximum Predominant
Station
Depth
(m)
Major
Mode
(phi)a
Penetration
Depth (cm)
aRPD
(cm)
Material
Present
Subsurface Successional
Feeding Void Stage b
Depth (cm)
REF-A-01
95.7
>4
16.2
1.0
Biological
8.2
No
1.3
10.2
1 on 3
REF-A-02
96.0
>4
16.9
1.0
Biological
7.9
No
1.3
8.3
1 on 3
REF-A-03
94.5
>4
15.9
1.4
Biological
7.6
No
3.7
12.0
1 on 3
REF-A-04
94.8
>4
15.5
1.5
Biological
7.9
No
2.3
12.0
1 on 3
REF-A-05
95.1
>4
16.9
1.3
Biological
7.5
No
2.0
11.9
1 on 3
REF-B-01
92.7
>4
15.7
1.2
Biological
8.1
No
0.3
2.5
1 on 3
REF-B-02
93.3
>4
15.2
1.1
Biological
7.6
No
1.7
10.3
1 on 3
REF-B-03
93.0
>4
16.6
0.9
Biological
7.4
No
1.7
9.4
1 on 3
REF-B-04
94.5
>4
15.5
1.1
Biological
7.2
No
2.0
8.8
1 on 3
REF-B-05
93.3
>4
16.0
1.4
Biological
7.2
No
2.0
9.0
1 on 3
REF-C-01
96.9
>4
10.5
1.2
Biological
6.1
Possible
1.7
7.5
1 on 3
REF-C-02
96.9
>4
8.9
1.0
Biological
4.6
Possible
0.0
--
1 on 3
REF-C-03
97.5
>4
10.8
1.0
Biological
5.8
Possible
2.3
8.8
1 on 3
REF-C-04
96.9
>4
12.0
1.2
Biological
5.4
Possible
0.3
5.8
1 on 3
REF-C-05
96.9
>4
12.2
1.2
Biological
6.7
Possible
0.3
5.2
1 on 3
Max
97.5
16.9
1.5
8.2
3.7
12.0
Min
92.7
8.9
0.9
4.6
0.0
2.5
Mean
95.2
14.3
1.2
7.0
1.5
8.7
Ind = Indeterminate
a Grain Size: "/" indicates layer of one phi size range over another (see Appendix D)
b Successional Stage: "on" indicates one Stage is found on top of another Stage (i.e., 1 on 3);"—»" indicates one Stage is progressing to another Stage (i.e., 2—>3)
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Table 3-2.
Summary of ISDSN Site Stations Sediment-Profile Imaging Results (station means), September 2015
Water
Grain
Size
Mean Prism
Mean
Boundary
Roughness
(cm)
Predominant
Type of
Boundary
Roughness
Mean
Dredged
Mean # of
Subsurface
Feeding
Voids
Mean of
Maximum Predominant
Station
Depth
(m)
Major
Mode
(phi)a
Penetration
Depth (cm)
aRPD
(cm)
Material
Present
Subsurface Successional
Feeding Void Stage b
Depth (cm)
01
94.5
>4
17.3
0.8
Biological
7.1
No
2.0
8.9
1 on 3
02
93.9
>4
14.0
1.8
Biological
6.2
No
0.7
7.1
1 on 3
03
97.2
>4
15.9
0.6
Biological
7.4
No
1.0
9.1
1 on 3
04
96.3
>4
14.2
0.7
Biological
5.7
No
1.3
6.8
1 on 3
05
96.0
>4
12.9
1.3
Biological
6.3
Possible
0.3
12.4
1 on 3
06
96.6
>4
11.9
2.4
Biological
4.8
Possible
4.0
8.7
1 on 3
07
94.5
>4
15.9
0.9
Biological
6.4
No
1.7
9.7
1 on 3
08
95.1
>4
17.6
1.0
Biological
7.9
No
2.3
15.9
1 on 3
09
98.1
>4
16.8
0.7
Biological
6.8
No
2.0
11.4
1 on 3
10
98.1
>4
14.9
0.9
Biological
6.6
No
0.0
--
1 on 3
11
98.1
>4
16.3
1.3
Biological
6.1
No
0.7
9.1
1 on 3
12
95.1
>4
9.4
0.9
Biological
7.1
Possible
0.7
9.2
1 on 3
13
93.9
>4
15.3
1.5
Biological
7.4
No
2.3
6.3
1 on 3
14
95.1
>4
15.3
1.4
Biological
7.3
No
1.3
9.5
1 on 3
15
97.5
>4
16.5
1.2
Biological
8.0
No
1.3
12.3
1 on 3
16
99.1
>4
15.9
1.3
Biological
9.5
No
0.7
7.6
1 on 3
17
101.2
>4
17.1
1.1
Biological
8.8
No
2.0
14.0
1 on 3
18
103.6
>4
17.9
0.8
Biological
8.0
No
2.3
11.6
1 on 3
19
94.5
>4
18.7
0.7
Biological
9.0
No
2.3
13.5
1 on 3
20
96.0
>4
16.1
1.3
Biological
8.1
No
1.3
11.8
1 on 3
Ind = Indeterminate
a Grain Size: "/" indicates layer of one phi size range over another (see Appendix D)
b Successional Stage: "on" indicates one Stage is found on top of another Stage (i.e., 1 on 3);"—»" indicates one Stage is progressing to another Stage (i.e., 2—>3)
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Table 3-2. (continued)
Summary of ISDSN Site Stations Sediment-Profile Imaging Results (station means), September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
Water
Grain
Size
Mean Prism
Mean
Boundary
Roughness
(cm)
Predominant
Type of
Boundary
Roughness
Mean
Dredged
Mean # of
Subsurface
Feeding
Voids
Mean of
Maximum
Predominant
Station
Depth
(m)
Major
Mode
(phi)a
Penetration
Depth (cm)
aRPD
(cm)
Material
Present
Subsurface
Feeding Void
Depth (cm)
Successional
Stage b
21
96.6
>4
16.4
1.4
Biological
7.8
No
0.7
7.4
1 on 3
22
99.1
>4
17.2
0.8
Biological
8.2
No
2.3
7.5
1 on 3
23
100.9
>4
16.4
1.3
Biological
7.8
No
0.7
13.0
1 on 3
24
99.4
>4
15.5
0.8
Biological
7.3
No
2.7
11.1
1 on 3
25
93.9
>4
15.4
0.7
Biological
7.2
No
3.3
11.1
1 on 3
26
94.8
>4
15.9
0.8
Biological
9.0
No
1.7
10.2
1 on 3
27
96.0
>4
16.1
0.6
Biological
7.4
No
0.0
--
1 on 3
28
95.7
>4
11.1
1.1
Biological
6.3
Possible
1.3
6.7
1 on 3
29
98.1
>4
12.6
1.1
Biological
7.3
Possible
2.3
8.3
1 on 3
30
98.1
>4
9.3
1.5
Biological
6.0
Possible
0.3
5.7
1 on 3
Max
103.6
18.7
2.4
9.5
4.0
15.9
Min
93.9
9.3
0.6
4.8
0.0
5.7
Mean
96.9
15.2
1.1
7.3
1.5
9.8
Ind = Indeterminate
a Grain Size: "/" indicates layer of one phi size range over another (see Appendix D)
b Successional Stage: "on" indicates one Stage is found on top of another Stage (i.e., 1 on 3);"—»" indicates one Stage is progressing to another Stage (i.e., 2—>3)
30
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Table 3-3.
Summary of Station Means for aRPD and Successional Stage by Sampling Location
Location
Mean aRPD (cm)
Mean Standard Deviation
Successional Stage Rank
Standard
Mean Deviation
Disposal
7.29
1.07
3.0
0.00
REF-A
7.82
0.28
3.0
0.00
REF-B
7.50
0.37
3.0
0.00
REF-C
5.72
0.79
3.0
0.00
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
Table 3-4.
Summary Statistics and Results of Inequivalence Hypothesis Testing for aRPD Values
Difference Equation
Observed
Difference
(d)
SE(d)
df for SE
Confidence
Bounds
(Dl to Du)1
Results2
MeanREF - MeanisDSN
-0.28
0.30
41
-0.78 to +0.22
s
1 Dl and Du as defined in [Eq. 3]
2 s = Reject the null hypothesis of inequivalence: the two group means are significantly equivalent, within ± 1 cm.
d = Fail to reject the null hypothesis of inequivalence between the two group means, the two group means are different.
31
-------
111 III
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
£
i
1 / ' Q
Isles of Shoals
2015
2015 Survey Area
1,000 2,000
250 500
Data: 2015 Acoustic relief model 2x
vertical exaggeration with 1m contours
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN 2015 Site Relief contours
Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802
February 2016
Figure 3-1. Bathymetric contour map of ISDSN - September 2015
32
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
70°28'0"W
I
Depth (m)
—
-74.0
-76.0
-78.0
-80.0
=
-82.0
=
-84.0
-86.0
-88.0
=
-90.0
—
-92.0
-94.0
-96.0
-98.0
-100.0
-102.0
-104.0
i-
¦ t
Isles of Shoals
2015
2015 Survey Area
Data: 2015 Bathymetric depth data
over acoustic relief model 5x
vertical exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN_2015_Site_Bathy Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 3-2. Bathymetric depth data over acoustic relief model of ISDSN - September 2015
February 2016
33
-------
111 III
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
70°28'0"W
70°27'0"W
70°26'0"W
Backscatter
Return
Strong
Return
Weak
Return
Isles of Shoals
2015
2015 Survey Area
1,000 2,000
~ Meters
250 500
Data: 2015 Backscatter mosaic
(unfiltered)
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN 2015 Site BS
Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 3-3. Mosaic of unfiltered backscatter data of ISDSN - September 2015
February 2016
34
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Backscatter
Return (dB)
Isles of Shoals
2015
~ Meters
250 500
Data: 2015 Backscatter data (filtered)
over acoustic relief model 5x vertical
exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
I I 2015 Survey Area
Document Name: ISDSN_2015_Site_BS_filt Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802 February 2016
Figure 3-4. Filtered backscatter over acoustic relief model of ISDSN - September 2015
35
-------
111 III
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
New England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
\s\es of Shoals
2015
2015 Survey Area
3 Feet
1,000 2,000
~ Meters
250 500
Data: 2015 Side-scan sonar mosaic
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN 2015 Site SS
Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 3-5. Side-scan mosaic of ISDSN - September 2015
February 2016
36
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
• " •
taiMKDa
GS?©(©
m
mm
J 2015 Survey Area
~ Reference Area
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983 Datum: NAD83
Document Name: ISDSN_2015_SPI_ref_Locs Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane Maine West FIPS 1802 March 2016
Figure 3-6. Bathymetric depth data at ISDSN proposed reference areas with SPI/PV stations indicated
Kilometers
Depth (m)
77
2015 SPI Station
~ Meters
200
37
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
0I3QS3
Es?©sa
Kilometers
70 30 0 W 70 28 0 W 70°26'0"W 70°24'0"W
Depth (m)
I
_| 2015 Survey Area
~ Reference Area
Grain Size Major Mode (phi)
silt/clay (>4)
] Meters,
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
REF-A
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Datum: NAD83
Document Name: ISDSN 2015 SPI ref GSMM
Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane Maine West FIPS 1802
March 2016
Figure 3-7. Sediment grain size major mode (phi units) at the ISDSN reference areas
38
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Mean Prism Penetration (cm)
•
o
o
o
o
4.1 -6.0
o
o
o
CD
•
O
Ui
O
•
>15.0
0
Indeterminate
] 2015 Survey Area
~ Reference Area
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
~ Meters f
100 200
70°30'0"W 70°28'0"W 70°26'0"W 70°24'0"W
¦ i Kilometers
1 2
70°26'0"W 70°24'0"W
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983 Datum: NAD83
Document Name: ISDSN_2015_SPI_ref_PP Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane Maine West FIPS 1802 March 2016
Figure 3-8. Mean station camera prism penetration depths (cm) at the ISDSN reference areas
39
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Max prism penetration = 17.7 cm
n
RE -B 2-B
Max prism penetration = 12.6 cm
& w
•'"•¦s? : Y" t V "•
Possible dredged materia!
\
REF-C-4-C
(B)
2 cm
n
Figure 3-9. Sediment-profile images from (A) Station REF-B-2 and (B) Station REF-C-4 where camera penetration depths were
shallower and where there was evidence of possible dredged material at depth
40
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
70°30'0"W 70°28'0"W 70°26'0"W 70°24'0"W
1313©®]
Kilometers
rttH
[aHP=94Da
70°30'0"W 70°28'0'W 70°26'0"W 70°24'0"W
REF-C
Depth (m)
Mean Boundary Roughness (cm)
0.0 - 1.5
1.51 -2.50
2.51 -3.50
3.51 - 5.0
>5.0
Indeterminate
(hswkSb
BSfflSl
REF-A-01
I Meters
REF-A
_| 2015 Survey Area
~ Reference Area
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Datum: NAD83
Document Name: ISDSN 2015 SPI ref BR
Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane Maine West FIPS 1802
March 2016
Figure 3-10. Mean station small-scale boundary roughness values (cm) at the ISDSN reference areas
41
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Boundary roughness = 0,90 cm
IS DSN-18-A
(A) (B)
Figure 3-11. Sediment-profile images depicting small-scale boundary roughness created by biological activity of surface and
subsurface dwelling infauna at (A) Station REF-B-4 and (B) Station ISDSN-18
42
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Depth (m)
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
87
88
-90
91
92
93
95
97
99
100
101
102
103
Mean aRPD (cm)
•
0.0-0.5
Q
LO
CD
O
O
O
CO
CD
Q
3.1 -5.0
•
>5.0
0
Indeterminate
] 2015 Survey Area
~ Reference Area
70°30'0"W 70°28'0"W 70°26'0"W 70°24'0"W
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
~ Meters f
100 200
¦ i Kilometers
1 2
70°26'0"W 70°24'0"W
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983 Datum: NAD83
Document Name: ISDSN_2015_SPI_ref_aRPD Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane Maine West FIPS 1802 March 2016
Figure 3-12. Mean station aRPD depths (cm) at the ISDSN reference areas
43
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers,
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Mean aRPD depth = 7.64 cm
^^7i^!nTTiW
w ; _ pjsggSr >
j
2 cm
REF-C-2-A
n
(A)
HI
REF-A-1-A
(B)
2 cm
n
Figure 3-13. Mean aRPD depths (cm) were shallower at (A) Station REF-C-2, compared to the other reference areas, e.g., (B)
Station REF-A-1. Note: The sloughing of sediment particles near the surface of (A) is an occasional artifact of the
camera action.
44
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers,
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
] 2015 Survey Area
~ Reference Area
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
70°30'0"W 70°28'0"W
* '
70°26'0"W 70°24'0"W
i i
70°26'0"W 70°24'0"W
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Depth (m)
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
87
88
-90
-91
92
93
95
97
99
100
101
102
103
Successional Stage
• Stage 1
O Stage 2
O Stage 3
O Indeterminate
I
rep 3
rep 1
rep 2
100
~ Meters
200
Datum: NAD83
Document Name: ISDSN 2015 SPI ref SS Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 3-14. Infaunal successional stages found at stations at the ISDSN reference areas
March 2016
45
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers,
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Tubes
Oxidized voids
Burrows
REF-A-1-A
(B)
Worms
2 cm
Figure 3-15. Infaunal successional stages found at the ISDSN reference areas: Stage 1 on 3 at (A) Station REF-B-4 with small tubes
at surface and oxidized voids at depth; (B) Station REF-A-1 with fecal pellets, small tubes at surface, clear subsurface
burrows, polychaetes (worm), and a large void
46
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
70°30'0"W 70°28'0"W 70°26'0"W 70°24'0"W
1313©®]
essoso
Kilometers
70°30'0"W 70°28'0 'W 70°26'0"W 70°24'0"W
Depth (m)
77
REF-A-01
REF-A
^ 2015 Survey Area
~ Reference Area
Mean of Maximum Subsurface
Feeding Void Depth (cm)
•
p
o
o
o
Oi
o
•
5.1 - 10.0
•
>10.0
(R)
Indeterminate
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
] Meters,
Datum: NAD83
Document Name: ISDSN_2015_SPI_ref_voids Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 3-16. Maximum subsurface feeding void depth at ISDSN reference areas
March 2016
47
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
(A)
PV-REF-C-3-A1
t — •
-* , % '• "S '
Burrows
Image width ~ 1.0 m
\ \
\
Tubes
(B)
PV-ISDSN-29-A
Image width ~ 0.9 m
Figure 3-17. Plan-view images depicting small to medium burrows and small tubes at (A)
Station REF-C-3 and (B) ISDSN-29
48
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
,
Tracks
Tracks
PV-REF-B-3-A
Image width ~ 1.0 m
i ..
-v
\
\
. ¦ *-*.
\
\
Tracks
(B)
PV-ISDSN-24-A
Image width ~ 0.9 m
Figure 3-18. Plan-view images depicting tracks indicative of a mobile epifauna community at
(A) Station REF-B-3-A and (B) ISDSN-24-A
49
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Depth (m)
Isles of Shoals
2015
• 2015 SPI Station
] 2015 Survey Area
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN 2015 SPI Locs
Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 3-19. ISDSN with SPI/PV stations indicated
February 2016
50
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Isles of Shoals
2015
Grain Size Major Mode
(phi)
© silt/clay (>4)
2015 Survey Area
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN 2015 SPI GSMM
Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 3-20. Sediment grain size major mode (phi) at ISDSN
February 2016
51
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Isles of Shoals
2015
Mean Prism
Penetration (cm)
O
0.0-4.0
4.1 -6.0
6.1 - 10.0
10.1 - 15.0
>15.0
Indeterminate
2015 Survey Area
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN 2015 SPI PP
Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 3-21. Mean station camera prism penetration depth (cm) at ISDSN
February 2016
52
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers,
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Possible dredged material
ISDSN-5-D
Possible dredged material
ISDSN-12-C
(B)
2 cm
Figure 3-22. Sediment-profile images with evidence of possible dredged material at (A) Station ISDSN-5 and (B) Station ISDSN-12
53
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Depth (m)
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
-87
88
89
_
90
91
92
-93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
- 101
102
103
Isles of Shoals
2015
o
Mean Boundary
Roughness (cm)
• 0.0-1.5
1.51 -2.50
2.51 -3.50
3.51 -5.0
> 5.0
Indeterminate
2015 Survey Area
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN_2015_SPI_BR Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 3-23. Mean station small-scale boundary roughness values (cm) at ISDSN
February 2016
54
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
70 27 0 W
Isles of Shoals
2015
Mean aRPD (cm)
O
0.0-0.5
0.6 - 1.5
1.6-3.0
3.1 -5.0
>5.0
Indeterminate
2015 Survey Area
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN_2015_SPI_aRPD Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 3-24. Mean station aRPD depth (cm) at ISDSN
February 2016
55
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers,
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Tubes
aRPD depth = 6,51 cm
Tubes
Burrowing
Oxidized voids
2 cm
;¦ i 1
-> |.* ~
ISDSN-22-A
2 cm
ISDSN-03-B
z cm
~i
ISDSN-14-B
!n-filied void
\
2 cm
n
(A)
(B)
Figure 3-25. Mean aRPD depths (cm) and infaunal successional stages found at ISDSN: Stage 1 on 3 at (A) Station ISDSN-22 with
small tubes at surface, shallow burrowing, and oxidized voids at depth; (B) Station ISDSN-3 with small tubes at
surface, shallow burrowing, and subsurface void; and (C) Station ISDSN-14 with small to medium tubes at surface,
shallow burrowing, in-filled voids at depth
56
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
Depth (m)
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
-87
Aft
oo
89
90
91
92
-93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
- 101
102
103
Isles of Shoals
2015
Successional Stage
• Stage 1
O Stage 2
O Stage 3
O Indeterminate
I
rep 3 Q
rep 1
rep 2
2015 Survey Area
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
Document Name: ISDSN 2015 SPI SS
Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 3-26. Infaunal successional stages found at ISDSN
February 2016
57
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
70°30'0"W 70°28'0"W 70°26'0"W 70°24'0"W
1313©®]
essoso
Kilometers
70°30'0"W 70°28'0 'W 70°26'0"W 70°24'0"W
Depth (m)
77
REF-A-01
REF-A
^ 2015 Survey Area
~ Reference Area
Mean of Maximum Subsurface
Feeding Void Depth (cm)
•
p
o
o
o
Oi
o
•
5.1 - 10.0
•
>10.0
(R)
Indeterminate
Data: 2015 and 1947 Bathymetric
depth data over acoustic relief
model 5x vertical exaggeration
Geographic Coordinates: NAD 1983
] Meters,
Datum: NAD83
Document Name: ISDSN_2015_SPI_ref_voids Projected Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane Maine West FIPS 1802
Figure 3-27. Maximum subsurface feeding void depth at ISDSN reference areas
March 2016
58
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers*
Mew England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
aRPD Depth by Location
c
03
0
Q
CL
Ql
03
Inter- f
quartile J
range S
(IOR) [
Maximum or 3rc^ Quartile + 1.5*IQR
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
Minimum or 1st Quartile - 1.5*IQR
Extreme value
Disposal
REF-A REF-B
Location
REF-C
Figure 3-28. Boxplot showing distribution of station mean aRPD depths (cm) for 2015 ISDSN
and each of the reference areas
59
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
of Engineers?8 September 2015
New England District
4.0 SUMMARY
The objectives of the 2015 survey at ISDSN were to:
Objective 1: Characterize the seafloor topography and surface features of the potential site
and reference areas by completing a multibeam bathymetric survey.
Objective 2: Use SPI and PV to further define the physical characteristics of surface
sediment and to assess the benthic status over the proposed site and potential
reference areas.
The 2015 survey revealed that ISDSN and the proposed reference areas can generally be
characterized as low energy depositional environments dominated by fine-grained soft sediments
and robust, mature benthic communities. Acoustic data, camera penetration depth, and grain size
determinations indicated the physical nature of the sediments was predominantly soft and fine-
grained. The consistently deep aRPD values and Stage 1 on 3 successional stages found in SPI
images across the reference areas and the proposed disposal site are characteristic of a healthy,
soft-bottom benthic ecosystem. Statistical tests revealed the reference areas and proposed
disposal site were statistically equivalent in terms of aRPD depths, a SPI variable that is a
reliable indicator of infaunal activity. Further, the ubiquitous presence of epifaunal tracks in PV
images signified an active mobile epifaunal community across both the reference areas and at the
ISDSN.
Topographic highs in the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of the survey area,
including REF-C, were shallower and harder than sediments in other part of the survey area.
However, all SPI stations sampled in these regions had grain size and camera prism penetration
depths consistent with soft-bottom habitats. It is important to note that no SPI/PV stations were
located on the topographic highs in the northwest and southeast, which appear to be glacial
outcrops based on their sharp topographic relief, hard backscatter returns, and textural properties
evident in side-scan sonar data.
The results of the 2015 survey point to the possibility that dredged material was previously
placed in the vicinity of ISDSN. There was evidence of potential dredged material in SPI images
from the northeast and southeast sections of ISDSN and from REF-C. These results should be
viewed cautiously as it is possible for the camera to carry cohesive clays, often indicative of
dredged materials, from one station to another and create smearing artifacts in images at stations
subsequent to where the clay was initially encountered. Acoustic data also revealed an area of
small craters in the northeast portion of the survey area, a pattern that is often associated with
dredged material placement. The possible presence of dredged material at ISDSN and REF-C
should be considered when evaluating the potential designation of ISDSN as a formal disposal
site and when finalizing reference areas to be used for future surveys.
The 2015 survey established baseline conditions of seafloor topography as well as physical and
biological characteristics of the surface sediment at ISDSN. The results from this survey can be
used as a temporal reference point should ISDSN be designated as a formal disposal site and
require monitoring as part of the DAMOS Program.
60
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
of Engineers?8 September 2015
New England District
5.0 REFERENCES
Carey, D. A.; Hickey, K.; Germano, J. D.; Read, L. B.; Esten, M. E. 2013. Monitoring Survey at
the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site September/October 2012. DAMOS Contribution
No. 195. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA, 87 pp.
Fredette, T. J.; French, G. T. 2004. Understanding the physical and environmental consequences
of dredged material disposal: history in New England and current perspectives. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 49:93-102.
Germano, J. D. 1999. Ecology, statistics, and the art of misdiagnosis: The need for a paradigm
shift. Environmental Reviews 7(4): 167 - 190.
Germano, J. D.; Rhoads, D. C.; Lunz, J. D. 1994. An Integrated, Tiered Approach to Monitoring
and Management of Dredged Material Disposal Sites in the New England Regions.
DAMOS Contribution No. 87. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division,
Waltham, MA, 67 pp.
Germano, J. D.; Rhoads, D. C.; Valente, R. M.; Carey, D. A.; Solan, M. 2011. The use of
sediment-profile imaging (SPI) for environmental impact assessments and monitoring
studies: lessons learned from the past four decades. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev.
49:235-285.
McBride, G. B. 1999. Equivalence tests can enhance environmental science and management.
Aust. New Zeal. J. Stat. 41(1): 19-29.
NOAA. 2015. NOS Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables. May 2015.
Rhoads, D. C.; Germano, J. D. 1982. Characterization of organism-sediment relations using
sediment profile imaging: An efficient method of remote ecological monitoring of the
seafloor (REMOTS System). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 8:115-128.
Rhoads, D. C.; Germano, J. D. 1986. Interpreting long-term changes in benthic community
structure: A new protocol. Hydrobiologia 142:291-308.
Satterthwaite, F. E. 1946. "An Approximate Distribution of Estimates of Variance Components",
Biometrics Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 110-114.
Schuirmann, D. J. 1987. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power
approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J. Pharmacokinet.
Biopharm. 15:657-680.
USACE. 2013. Engineering and Design Hydrographic Surveying. EMI 110-2-1003.
University of New Hampshire, Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping/Joint Hydrographic
Center. 2015. Seafloor bathymetry with hillshade for Western Gulf of Maine.
61
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
of Engineers?8 September 2015
New England District
Welch, B. L. 1947. The Generalization of'Student's' Problem when Several Different
Population Variances are Involved. Biometrika, Volume 34, Issue 1/2, pp. 28-35
Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical analysis. Third edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
62
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
6.0 DATA TRANSMITTAL
Data transmittal to support this data report will be provided as a separate deliverable for
inclusion in a Technical Support Notebook. The data submittal will include:
• Scope of Work
• Raw and processed acoustic survey data
• Report figures and associated files, including an ArcGIS geo-database
• Survey field logs
• Raw and adjusted SPI/PV images (raw NEF images have been converted to JPEG files
for ease of use in report and general use by client; image size approximately 1200 x 1800
pixels).
• Report figures and associated files, including an ArcGIS geo-database
• Popup: interactive SPI data map
• Electronic copies of all final report products
63
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
Engineers?8 September 2015
New England District
APPENDIX A
TABLE OF COMMON CONVERSIONS
Metric Unit Conversion to English Unit
English Unit Conversion to Metric Unit
1 meter
1 m
3.2808 ft
1 foot
1 ft
0.3048 m
1 square meter
1 m2
10.7639 ft2
1 square foot
1 ft2
0.0929 m2
1 kilometer
1 km
0.6214 mi
1 mile
1 mi
1.6093 km
1 cubic meter
1 m3
1.3080 yd3
1 cubic yard
1 yd3
0.7646 m3
1 centimeter
1 cm
0.3937 in
1 inch
1 in
2.54 cm
Appendix A
Page 1 of 1
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
Engineers?8 September 2015
New England District
APPENDIX B
ISDSN ACTUAL SPI/PV REPLICATE LOCATIONS
September 2015
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report -
Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
ISDSN September 2015 SPI/PV Replicate Locations
Replicate
Latitude (N)
Longitude (W)
Replicate
Latitude (N)
Longitude (W)
ISDSN-01-A
43° 1.959'
70° 27.735'
ISDSN-08-A
43°
1.600'
70° 27.239'
ISDSN-01-B
43° 1.959'
70° 27.735'
ISDSN-08-B
43°
1.600'
70° 27.238'
ISDSN-01-C
43° 1.958'
70° 27.734'
ISDSN-08-C
43°
1.600'
70° 27.237'
ISDSN-01-D
43° 1.957'
70° 27.732'
ISDSN-08-D
43°
1.600'
70° 27.237'
ISDSN-02-A
43° 2.147'
70° 27.366'
ISDSN-09-A
43°
1.544'
70° 26.686'
ISDSN-02-B
43° 2.144'
70° 27.364'
ISDSN-09-B
43°
1.544'
70° 26.685'
ISDSN-02-C
43° 2.146'
70° 27.366'
ISDSN-09-C
43°
1.543'
70° 26.686'
ISDSN-02-D
43° 2.148'
70° 27.365'
ISDSN-09-D
43°
1.542'
70° 26.682'
ISDSN-03-A
43° 1.929'
70° 26.760'
ISDSN-10-A
43°
1.583'
70° 26.398'
ISDSN-03-B
43° 1.932'
70° 26.764'
ISDSN-10-B
43°
1.584'
70° 26.399'
ISDSN-03-C
43° 1.931'
70° 26.765'
ISDSN-10-C
43°
1.583'
70° 26.400'
ISDSN-03-D
43° 1.932'
70° 26.762'
ISDSN-10-D
43°
1.585'
70° 26.403'
ISDSN-04-A
43° 2.121'
70° 26.533'
ISDSN-11-A
43°
1.619'
70° 26.209'
ISDSN-04-B
43° 2.120'
70° 26.532'
ISDSN-11-B
43°
1.618'
70° 26.205'
ISDSN-04-C
43° 2.122'
70° 26.534'
ISDSN-11-C
43°
1.617'
70° 26.212'
ISDSN-04-D
43° 2.120'
70° 26.535'
ISDSN-11-D
43°
1.623'
70° 26.212'
ISDSN-05-A
43° 2.166'
70° 26.240'
ISDSN-12-A
43°
1.862'
70° 25.424'
ISDSN-05-B
43° 2.167'
70° 26.243'
ISDSN- 12-B
43°
1.859'
70° 25.424'
ISDSN-05-C
43° 2.167'
70° 26.241'
ISDSN- 12-C
43°
1.863'
70° 25.424'
ISDSN-05-D
43° 2.167'
70° 26.241'
ISDSN-12-D
43°
1.861'
70° 25.425'
ISDSN-06-A
43° 2.072'
70° 25.621'
ISDSN-13-A
43°
1.155'
70° 27.790'
ISDSN-06-B
43° 2.076'
70° 25.617'
ISDSN-13-B
43°
1.155'
70° 27.790'
ISDSN-06-C
43° 2.075'
70° 25.618'
ISDSN-13-C
43°
1.154'
70° 27.791'
ISDSN-06-D
43° 2.072'
70° 25.620'
ISDSN-13-D
43°
1.153'
70° 27.791'
ISDSN-07-A
43° 1.588'
70° 27.695'
ISDSN-14-A
43°
1.445'
70° 27.259'
ISDSN-07-B
43° 1.590'
70° 27.697'
ISDSN- 14-B
43°
1.444'
70° 27.258'
ISDSN-07-C
43° 1.589'
70° 27.694'
ISDSN- 14-C
43°
1.444'
70° 27.258'
ISDSN-07-D
43° 1.590'
70° 27.692'
ISDSN-14-D
43°
1.442'
70° 27.258'
Notes: 1) Coordinate system NAD83
2) This table reflects all attempts to collect SPI/PV replicates at each target station. The three replicates
with the best quality images were used for analysis.
Appendix B
Page 1 of 4
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report -
Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
ISDSN September 2015 SPI/PV Replicate Locations
Replicate
Latitude (N)
Longitude (W)
Replicate
Latitude (N)
Longitude (W)
ISDSN-15-A
43° 1.203'
70° 26.720'
ISDSN-22-A
43° 0.986'
70° 26.274'
ISDSN-15-B
43° 1.206'
70° 26.719'
ISDSN-22-B
43° 0.986'
70° 26.278'
ISDSN-15-C
43° 1.205'
70° 26.718'
ISDSN-22-C
43° 0.987'
70° 26.279'
ISDSN-15-D
43° 1.203'
70° 26.716'
ISDSN-22-D
43° 0.987'
70° 26.277'
ISDSN-16-A
43° 1.385'
70° 26.340'
ISDSN-23-A
43° 0.979'
70° 26.050'
ISDSN-16-B
43° 1.384'
70° 26.339'
ISDSN-23-B
43° 0.973'
70° 26.048'
ISDSN-16-C
43° 1.384'
70° 26.340'
ISDSN-23-C
43° 0.977'
70° 26.052'
ISDSN- 16-D
43° 1.384'
70° 26.340'
ISDSN-23-D
43° 0.980'
70° 26.048'
ISDSN-17-A
43° 1.434'
70° 25.894'
ISDSN-24-A
43° 1.056'
70° 25.718'
ISDSN-17-B
43° 1.437'
70° 25.898'
ISDSN-24-B
43° 1.057'
70° 25.719'
ISDSN-17-C
43° 1.434'
70° 25.899'
ISDSN-24-C
43° 1.056'
70° 25.718'
ISDSN-17-D
43° 1.432'
70° 25.898'
ISDSN-24-D
43° 1.054'
70° 25.718'
ISDSN-18-A
43° 1.174'
70° 25.580'
ISDSN-25-A
43° 0.557'
70° 27.605'
ISDSN-18-B
43° 1.173'
70° 25.579'
ISDSN-25-B
43° 0.559'
70° 27.608'
ISDSN-18-C
43° 1.175'
70° 25.580'
ISDSN-25-C
43° 0.560'
70° 27.609'
ISDSN-18-D
43° 1.172'
70° 25.579'
ISDSN-25-D
43° 0.560'
70° 27.607'
ISDSN- 19-A
43° 1.043'
70° 27.816'
ISDSN-26-A
43° 0.408'
70° 27.283'
ISDSN- 19-B
43° 1.044'
70° 27.817'
ISDSN-26-B
43° 0.408'
70° 27.281'
ISDSN-19-C
43° 1.043'
70° 27.817'
ISDSN-26-C
43° 0.406'
70° 27.282'
ISDSN- 19-D
43° 1.042'
70° 27.816'
ISDSN-26-D
43° 0.408'
70° 27.280'
ISDSN-20-A
43° 0.980'
70° 27.297'
ISDSN-27-A
43° 0.623'
70° 26.686'
ISDSN-20-B
43° 0.980'
70° 27.297'
ISDSN-27-B
43° 0.625'
70° 26.696'
ISDSN-20-C
43° 0.981'
70° 27.295'
ISDSN-27-C
43° 0.625'
70° 26.690'
ISDSN-20-D
43° 0.980'
70° 27.295'
ISDSN-27-D
43° 0.625'
70° 26.693'
ISDSN-21-A
43° 1.079'
70° 26.989'
ISDSN-28-A
43° 0.563'
70° 26.536'
ISDSN-21-B
43° 1.077'
70° 26.987'
ISDSN-28-B
43° 0.562'
70° 26.535'
ISDSN-21-C
43° 1.079'
70° 26.988'
ISDSN-28-C
43° 0.564'
70° 26.538'
ISDSN-21-D
43° 1.077'
70° 26.986'
ISDSN-28-D
43° 0.565'
70° 26.536'
Notes: 1) Coordinate system NAD83
2) This table reflects all attempts to collect SPI/PV replicates at each target station. The three replicates
with the best quality images were used for analysis.
Appendix B
Page 2 of 4
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report -
Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
ISDSN September 2015 SPI/PV Replicate Locations
Replicate
Latitude (N)
Longitude (W)
Replicate
Latitude (N)
Longitude (W)
ISDSN-29-A
43° 0.408'
70° 25.874'
REF-B-01-A
43° 0.201'
70° 27.926'
ISDSN-29-B
43° 0.408'
70° 25.871'
REF-B-01-B
43° 0.204'
70° 27.925'
ISDSN-29-C
43° 0.409'
70° 25.872'
REF-B-01-C
43° 0.203'
70° 27.924'
ISDSN-29-D
43° 0.410'
70° 25.875'
REF-B-01-D
43° 0.205'
70° 27.925'
ISDSN-30-A
43° 0.417'
70° 25.475'
REF-B-02-A
43° 0.259'
70° 28.133'
ISDSN-30-B
43° 0.417'
70° 25.476'
REF-B-02-B
43° 0.261'
70° 28.133'
ISDSN-30-C
43° 0.417'
70° 25.473'
REF-B-02-C
43° 0.260'
70° 28.131'
ISDSN-30-D
43° 0.417'
70° 25.475'
REF-B-02-D
43° 0.259'
70° 28.134'
REF-A-01-A
43° -0.729'
70° 27.776'
REF-B-03-A
43° 0.174'
70° 28.106'
REF-A-01-B
43° -0.731'
70° 27.780'
REF-B-03-B
43° 0.172'
70° 28.108'
REF-A-01-C
43° -0.731'
70° 27.776'
REF-B-03-C
43° 0.173'
70° 28.109'
REF-A-01-D
43° -0.730'
70° 27.776'
REF-B-03-D
43° 0.172'
70° 28.107'
REF-A-02-A
43° -0.730'
70° 27.931'
REF-B-04-A
43° 0.334'
70° 28.135'
REF-A-02-B
43° -0.725'
70° 27.931'
REF-B-04-B
43° 0.334'
70° 28.136'
REF-A-02-C
43° -0.727'
70° 27.931'
REF-B-04-C
43° 0.333'
70° 28.139'
REF-A-02-D
43° -0.730'
70° 27.931'
REF-B-04-D
43° 0.333'
70° 28.135'
REF-A-03-A
43° -0.831'
70° 27.981'
REF-B-05-A
43° 0.260'
70° 27.999'
REF-A-03-B
43° -0.834'
70° 27.975'
REF-B-05-B
43° 0.257'
70° 27.994'
REF-A-03-C
43° -0.832'
70° 27.977'
REF-B-05-C
43° 0.256'
70° 27.995'
REF-A-03-D
43° -0.831'
70° 27.979'
REF-B-05-D
43° 0.256'
70° 27.993'
REF-A-04-A
43° -0.660'
70° 27.996'
REF-C-01-A
43° 2.194'
70° 25.190'
REF-A-04-B
43° -0.662'
70° 27.996'
REF-C-01-B
43° 2.197'
70° 25.196'
REF-A-04-C
43° -0.659'
70° 27.996'
REF-C-01-C
43° 2.195'
70° 25.194'
REF-A-04-D
43° -0.660'
70° 27.995'
REF-C-01-D
43° 2.195'
70° 25.193'
REF-A-05-A
43° -0.749'
70° 27.949'
REF-C-02-A
43° 2.393'
70° 25.136'
REF-A-05-B
43° -0.752'
70° 27.942'
REF-C-02-B
43° 2.395'
70° 25.136'
REF-A-05-C
43° -0.752'
70° 27.948'
REF-C-02-C
43° 2.394'
70° 25.138'
REF-A-05-D
43° -0.748'
70° 27.945'
REF-C-02-D
43° 2.396'
70° 25.141'
Notes: 1) Coordinate system NAD83
2) This table reflects all attempts to collect SPI/PV replicates at each target station. The three replicates
with the best quality images were used for analysis.
Appendix B
Page 3 of 4
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report -
Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
ISDSN September 2015 SPI/PV Replicate Locations
Replicate
Latitude (N)
Longitude (W)
Replicate Latitude (N) Longitude (W)
REF-C-03-A
43° 2.241'
70° 25.097'
REF-C-03-B
43° 2.246'
70° 25.096'
REF-C-03-C
43° 2.243'
70° 25.099'
REF-C-03-D
43° 2.244'
70° 25.099'
REF-C-04-A
43° 2.306'
70° 25.300'
REF-C-04-B
43° 2.306'
70° 25.301'
REF-C-04-C
43° 2.307'
70° 25.303'
REF-C-04-D
43° 2.305'
70° 25.303'
REF-C-05-A
43° 2.301'
70° 25.253'
REF-C-05-B
43° 2.299'
70° 25.255'
REF-C-05-C
43° 2.301'
70° 25.255'
REF-C-05-D
43° 2.300'
70° 25.257'
Notes: 1) Coordinate system NAD83
2) This table reflects all attempts to collect SPI/PV replicates at each target station. The three replicates
with the best quality images were used for analysis.
Appendix B
Page 4 of 4
-------
DAMOS Data Summary Report - Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
Engineers?8 September 2015
New England District
APPENDIX C
SEDIMENT-PROFILE AND PLAN-VIEW IMAGE ANALYSIS RESULTS
FOR ISDSN SURVEY, SEPTEMBER 2015
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Depth (ft)
Stop Collar Setting
(in)
# of Weights (per
side)
Grain Size Major
Mode (phi)
Grain Size Minimum
(phi)
Grain Size Maximum
(phi)
Grain Size Range
Penetration Area (sq
cm)
Penetration Mean
(cm)
Penetration
Minimum (cm)
Penetration
Maximum (cm)
Boundary Roughness
(cm)
Boundary Roughness
Type
aRPD > Pen
aRPD Area (sq cm)
Mean aRPD (cm)
Site
1
A
09/27/15
7:28:10
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
250.4
17.3
17.0
17.9
0.9
Biological
FALSE
80.6
5.6
Site
1
B
09/27/15
7:28:59
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
242.2
16.7
16.3
17.0
0.7
Biological
FALSE
92.1
6.4
Site
1
C
09/27/15
7:29:53
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
261.4
18.0
17.5
18.3
0.8
Biological
FALSE
135.9
9.4
Site
2
A
09/27/15
17:08:59
308
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
209.2
14.4
12.6
15.0
2.4
Biological
FALSE
104.3
7.2
Site
2
B
09/27/15
17:09:44
308
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
229.0
15.8
15.3
16.0
0.7
Biological
FALSE
92.1
6.4
Site
2
D
09/27/15
17:11:09
308
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
173.2
11.9
10.7
13.1
2.4
Physical
FALSE
75.0
5.2
Site
3
A
09/27/15
10:31:27
319
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
246.9
17.0
16.7
17.3
0.6
Biological
FALSE
114.7
7.9
Site
3
B
09/27/15
10:32:39
319
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
228.3
15.7
15.5
15.9
0.5
Biological
FALSE
94.4
6.5
Site
3
D
09/27/15
10:34:11
319
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
215.5
14.9
14.5
15.0
0.6
Biological
FALSE
112.2
7.7
Site
4
A
09/27/15
10:44:18
316
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
223.8
15.4
15.3
15.6
0.2
Biological
FALSE
74.2
5.1
Site
4
C
09/27/15
10:45:52
316
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
189.9
13.1
12.6
13.6
0.9
Biological
FALSE
86.9
6.0
Site
4
D
09/27/15
10:46:35
316
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
204.4
14.1
13.6
14.7
1.0
Biological
FALSE
87.8
6.1
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 1 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Depth (ft)
Stop Collar Setting
(in)
# of Weights (per
side)
Grain Size Major
Mode (phi)
Grain Size Minimum
(phi)
Grain Size Maximum
(phi)
Grain Size Range
Penetration Area (sq
cm)
Penetration Mean
(cm)
Penetration
Minimum (cm)
Penetration
Maximum (cm)
Boundary Roughness
(cm)
Boundary Roughness
Type
aRPD > Pen
aRPD Area (sq cm)
Mean aRPD (cm)
Site
5
A
09/27/15
10:55:54
315
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
171.6
11.8
10.6
12.3
1.7
Biological
FALSE
88.6
6.1
Site
5
B
09/27/15
10:56:43
315
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
201.2
13.9
13.4
14.4
1.0
Biological
FALSE
95.5
6.6
Site
5
D
09/27/15
10:58:26
315
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
190.6
13.1
12.5
13.6
1.1
Biological
FALSE
88.4
6.1
Site
6
A
09/27/15
11:09:44
317
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
191.9
13.2
11.5
14.7
3.2
Biological
FALSE
82.3
5.7
Site
6
B
09/27/15
11:10:30
317
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
169.1
11.7
10.0
12.6
2.7
Biological
FALSE
77.2
5.3
Site
6
D
09/27/15
11:12:04
317
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
155.2
10.7
10.2
11.5
1.4
Biological
FALSE
47.7
3.3
Site
7
A
09/27/15
7:52:41
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
249.8
17.2
16.7
17.7
1.0
Biological
FALSE
98.7
6.8
Site
7
B
09/27/15
7:53:26
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
234.4
16.2
15.5
16.6
1.1
Biological
FALSE
78.7
5.4
Site
7
C
09/27/15
7:54:08
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
208.3
14.4
14.0
14.8
0.8
Biological
FALSE
101.3
7.0
Site
8
A
09/27/15
8:04:46
312
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
272.5
18.8
18.5
19.1
0.6
Biological
FALSE
107.5
7.4
Site
8
B
09/27/15
8:05:28
312
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
233.3
16.1
15.7
16.9
1.3
Biological
FALSE
108.7
7.5
Site
8
C
09/27/15
8:06:17
312
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
259.3
17.9
17.1
18.2
1.1
Biological
FALSE
129.7
8.9
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 2 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Depth (ft)
Stop Collar Setting
(in)
# of Weights (per
side)
Grain Size Major
Mode (phi)
Grain Size Minimum
(phi)
Grain Size Maximum
(phi)
Grain Size Range
Penetration Area (sq
cm)
Penetration Mean
(cm)
Penetration
Minimum (cm)
Penetration
Maximum (cm)
Boundary Roughness
(cm)
Boundary Roughness
Type
aRPD > Pen
aRPD Area (sq cm)
Mean aRPD (cm)
Site
9
A
09/27/15
9:37:28
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
249.5
17.2
16.7
17.5
0.8
Biological
FALSE
105.2
7.2
Site
9
C
09/27/15
9:38:57
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
239.2
16.5
16.2
16.7
0.5
Biological
FALSE
94.9
6.5
Site
9
D
09/27/15
9:39:51
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
242.0
16.7
16.3
16.9
0.6
Biological
FALSE
96.4
6.6
Site
10
A
09/27/15
10:08:47
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
218.6
15.1
14.5
15.8
1.3
Biological
FALSE
99.5
6.9
Site
10
B
09/27/15
10:09:30
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
239.7
16.5
16.1
17.0
0.8
Biological
FALSE
92.2
6.4
Site
10
C
09/27/15
10:10:18
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
189.2
13.0
12.8
13.2
0.4
Biological
FALSE
93.5
6.4
Site
11
A
09/27/15
10:15:29
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
234.5
16.2
14.5
16.9
2.3
Biological
FALSE
76.2
5.3
Site
11
B
09/27/15
10:16:20
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
217.0
15.0
14.5
15.5
1.0
Biological
FALSE
73.2
5.0
Site
11
D
09/27/15
10:18:13
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
259.6
17.9
17.6
18.2
0.7
Biological
FALSE
116.8
8.1
Site
12
A
09/27/15
12:42:29
312
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
102.0
7.0
6.6
7.5
0.9
Biological
TRUE
102.0
7.0
Site
12
B
09/27/15
12:43:15
312
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
143.9
9.9
9.6
10.4
0.8
Biological
FALSE
117.0
8.1
Site
12
C
09/27/15
12:44:14
312
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
163.4
11.3
10.9
11.9
1.0
Biological
FALSE
91.0
6.3
Site
13
A
09/27/15
8:29:09
308
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
211.1
14.6
12.9
16.2
3.4
Physical
FALSE
103.0
7.1
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 3 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Depth (ft)
Stop Collar Setting
(in)
# of Weights (per
side)
Grain Size Major
Mode (phi)
Grain Size Minimum
(phi)
Grain Size Maximum
(phi)
Grain Size Range
Penetration Area (sq
cm)
Penetration Mean
(cm)
Penetration
Minimum (cm)
Penetration
Maximum (cm)
Boundary Roughness
(cm)
Boundary Roughness
Type
aRPD > Pen
aRPD Area (sq cm)
Mean aRPD (cm)
Site
13
B
09/27/15
8:29:52
308
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
229.7
15.8
15.4
16.2
0.8
Biological
FALSE
95.1
6.6
Site
13
C
09/27/15
8:30:39
308
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
226.7
15.6
15.5
15.9
0.4
Biological
FALSE
124.1
8.6
Site
14
A
09/27/15
8:16:05
312
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
192.0
13.2
11.6
14.5
2.9
Biological
FALSE
105.1
7.2
Site
14
B
09/27/15
8:16:46
312
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
209.8
14.5
13.8
14.8
0.9
Biological
FALSE
107.9
7.4
Site
14
C
09/27/15
8:17:27
312
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
265.2
18.3
18.1
18.5
0.4
Biological
FALSE
105.4
7.3
Site
15
A
09/27/15
9:12:09
320
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
245.9
17.0
16.5
17.3
0.8
Biological
FALSE
130.3
9.0
Site
15
B
09/27/15
9:12:53
320
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
219.5
15.1
13.9
16.0
2.1
Biological
FALSE
114.5
7.9
Site
15
C
09/27/15
9:13:38
320
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
254.0
17.5
17.1
17.8
0.7
Biological
FALSE
103.9
7.2
Site
16
A
09/27/15
9:25:14
325
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
248.9
17.2
16.5
17.5
1.0
Biological
FALSE
171.9
11.9
Site
16
C
09/27/15
9:26:52
325
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
215.1
14.8
14.0
16.2
2.2
Biological
FALSE
130.3
9.0
Site
16
D
09/27/15
9:27:41
325
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
228.6
15.8
15.4
16.0
0.6
Biological
FALSE
110.8
7.6
Site
17
A
09/27/15
12:57:07
332
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
228.4
15.7
14.8
16.5
1.7
Biological
FALSE
115.5
8.0
Site
17
B
09/27/15
12:58:13
332
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
247.7
17.1
16.9
17.2
0.3
Biological
FALSE
124.5
8.6
Site
17
C
09/27/15
12:59:02
332
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
267.1
18.4
17.7
19.0
1.3
Biological
FALSE
143.4
9.9
Site
18
A
09/27/15
13:11:18
340
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
245.1
16.9
16.4
17.3
0.9
Biological
FALSE
119.0
8.2
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 4 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Depth (ft)
Stop Collar Setting
(in)
# of Weights (per
side)
Grain Size Major
Mode (phi)
Grain Size Minimum
(phi)
Grain Size Maximum
(phi)
Grain Size Range
Penetration Area (sq
cm)
Penetration Mean
(cm)
Penetration
Minimum (cm)
Penetration
Maximum (cm)
Boundary Roughness
(cm)
Boundary Roughness
Type
aRPD > Pen
aRPD Area (sq cm)
Mean aRPD (cm)
Site
18
B
09/27/15
13:12:11
340
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
277.6
19.1
18.6
19.5
0.9
Biological
FALSE
115.2
7.9
Site
18
D
09/27/15
13:13:56
340
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
258.0
17.8
17.6
18.3
0.8
Biological
FALSE
114.8
7.9
Site
19
A
09/27/15
8:35:26
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
256.6
17.7
17.3
18.1
0.7
Biological
FALSE
154.9
10.7
Site
19
B
09/27/15
8:36:16
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
278.7
19.2
19.0
19.6
0.6
Biological
FALSE
130.7
9.0
Site
19
D
09/27/15
8:37:47
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
276.9
19.1
18.8
19.7
0.9
Biological
FALSE
107.9
7.4
Site
20
A
09/27/15
8:47:38
315
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
224.3
15.5
14.8
16.2
1.3
Biological
FALSE
117.6
8.1
Site
20
B
09/27/15
8:48:29
315
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
227.8
15.7
14.7
16.5
1.8
Biological
FALSE
117.3
8.1
Site
20
C
09/27/15
8:49:16
315
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
248.5
17.1
16.6
17.4
0.8
Biological
FALSE
117.7
8.1
Site
21
A
09/27/15
9:00:33
317
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
224.2
15.5
14.8
15.9
1.1
Biological
FALSE
106.7
7.4
Site
21
B
09/27/15
9:01:13
317
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
248.4
17.1
15.8
18.0
2.2
Biological
FALSE
125.9
8.7
Site
21
D
09/27/15
9:02:43
317
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
242.6
16.7
16.2
17.0
0.8
Biological
FALSE
108.7
7.5
Site
22
A
09/27/15
13:44:28
325
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
233.1
16.1
15.7
16.5
0.8
Biological
FALSE
116.6
8.0
Site
22
B
09/27/15
13:45:17
325
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
260.1
17.9
17.5
18.3
0.7
Biological
FALSE
121.9
8.4
Site
22
C
09/27/15
13:46:20
325
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
255.4
17.6
17.3
18.1
0.7
Biological
FALSE
117.3
8.1
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 5 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Depth (ft)
Stop Collar Setting
(in)
# of Weights (per
side)
Grain Size Major
Mode (phi)
Grain Size Minimum
(phi)
Grain Size Maximum
(phi)
Grain Size Range
Penetration Area (sq
cm)
Penetration Mean
(cm)
Penetration
Minimum (cm)
Penetration
Maximum (cm)
Boundary Roughness
(cm)
Boundary Roughness
Type
aRPD > Pen
aRPD Area (sq cm)
Mean aRPD (cm)
Site
23
A
09/27/15
13:36:47
331
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
228.5
15.7
14.8
16.4
1.6
Biological
FALSE
108.6
7.5
Site
23
C
09/27/15
13:38:34
331
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
256.5
17.7
17.0
18.2
1.2
Biological
FALSE
133.1
9.2
Site
23
D
09/27/15
13:39:35
331
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
227.9
15.7
15.2
16.1
1.0
Biological
FALSE
96.8
6.7
Site
24
A
09/27/15
13:23:19
326
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
218.4
15.1
14.5
15.8
1.3
Biological
FALSE
114.5
7.9
Site
24
B
09/27/15
13:24:32
326
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
213.8
14.7
14.5
14.9
0.5
Biological
FALSE
86.6
6.0
Site
24
C
09/27/15
13:25:19
326
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
241.4
16.6
16.3
17.0
0.7
Biological
FALSE
116.4
8.0
Site
25
A
09/27/15
15:01:18
308
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
181.6
12.5
12.2
12.8
0.6
Biological
FALSE
109.8
7.6
Site
25
B
09/27/15
15:02:15
308
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
230.5
15.9
15.5
16.3
0.8
Biological
FALSE
100.7
6.9
Site
25
C
09/27/15
15:03:03
308
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
259.0
17.9
17.4
18.1
0.7
Biological
FALSE
102.5
7.1
Site
26
A
09/27/15
14:52:28
311
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
239.3
16.5
16.2
16.9
0.7
Biological
FALSE
125.2
8.6
Site
26
C
09/27/15
14:54:18
311
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
230.4
15.9
15.4
16.1
0.7
Biological
FALSE
138.0
9.5
Site
26
D
09/27/15
14:55:05
311
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
222.3
15.3
14.8
15.9
1.1
Biological
FALSE
127.2
8.8
Site
27
A
09/27/15
14:37:46
315
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
241.3
16.6
16.1
16.8
0.7
Biological
FALSE
119.2
8.2
Site
27
B
09/27/15
14:38:51
315
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
227.7
15.7
15.2
16.0
0.8
Biological
FALSE
92.8
6.4
Site
27
C
09/27/15
14:39:35
315
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
233.1
16.1
15.8
16.3
0.5
Biological
FALSE
110.2
7.6
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 6 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Depth (ft)
Stop Collar Setting
(in)
# of Weights (per
side)
Grain Size Major
Mode (phi)
Grain Size Minimum
(phi)
Grain Size Maximum
(phi)
Grain Size Range
Penetration Area (sq
cm)
Penetration Mean
(cm)
Penetration
Minimum (cm)
Penetration
Maximum (cm)
Boundary Roughness
(cm)
Boundary Roughness
Type
aRPD > Pen
aRPD Area (sq cm)
Mean aRPD (cm)
Site
28
A
09/27/15
14:31:22
314
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
157.5
10.9
9.8
11.8
2.0
Biological
FALSE
86.3
5.9
Site
28
B
09/27/15
14:32:08
314
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
185.6
12.8
12.3
13.2
0.9
Biological
FALSE
100.0
6.9
Site
28
C
09/27/15
14:32:57
314
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
138.6
9.6
9.3
9.7
0.4
Biological
FALSE
88.1
6.1
Site
29
A
09/27/15
14:16:32
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
201.8
13.9
13.2
14.4
1.2
Biological
FALSE
133.0
9.2
Site
29
B
09/27/15
14:17:19
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
168.1
11.6
11.3
11.9
0.6
Biological
FALSE
101.0
7.0
Site
29
C
09/27/15
14:18:18
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
179.0
12.3
11.7
13.1
1.4
Biological
FALSE
81.7
5.6
Site
30
B
09/27/15
14:04:15
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
148.6
10.2
9.5
10.7
1.2
Biological
FALSE
100.0
6.9
Site
30
C
09/27/15
14:05:12
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
143.6
9.9
9.3
10.3
1.0
Biological
FALSE
84.8
5.8
Site
30
D
09/27/15
14:06:07
322
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
112.3
7.7
6.4
8.8
2.4
Physical
FALSE
76.7
5.3
REF-A
1
A
09/27/15
16:23:17
314
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
243.8
16.8
16.6
17.0
0.4
Biological
FALSE
110.8
7.6
REF-A
1
B
09/27/15
16:24:09
314
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
231.8
16.0
15.2
16.9
1.7
Biological
FALSE
96.8
6.7
REF-A
1
C
09/27/15
16:25:09
314
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
230.0
15.9
15.4
16.2
0.8
Biological
FALSE
149.4
10.3
REF-A
2
A
09/27/15
16:11:34
315
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
267.5
18.4
17.9
18.7
0.9
Biological
FALSE
100.6
6.9
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 7 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Depth (ft)
Stop Collar Setting
(in)
# of Weights (per
side)
Grain Size Major
Mode (phi)
Grain Size Minimum
(phi)
Grain Size Maximum
(phi)
Grain Size Range
Penetration Area (sq
cm)
Penetration Mean
(cm)
Penetration
Minimum (cm)
Penetration
Maximum (cm)
Boundary Roughness
(cm)
Boundary Roughness
Type
aRPD > Pen
aRPD Area (sq cm)
Mean aRPD (cm)
REF-A
2
B
09/27/15
16:12:27
315
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
254.3
17.5
16.9
18.3
1.4
Biological
FALSE
137.4
9.5
REF-A
2
C
09/27/15
16:13:17
315
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
212.9
14.7
14.4
15.0
0.7
Biological
FALSE
104.8
7.2
REF-A
3
A
09/27/15
16:31:31
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
251.1
17.3
17.0
17.6
0.7
Biological
FALSE
122.6
8.4
REF-A
3
B
09/27/15
16:32:48
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
215.0
14.8
14.2
16.0
1.7
Biological
FALSE
103.0
7.1
REF-A
3
C
09/27/15
16:33:38
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
224.5
15.5
14.3
16.2
1.9
Biological
FALSE
105.6
7.3
REF-A
4
A
09/27/15
16:02:40
311
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
244.1
16.8
16.3
17.1
0.8
Biological
FALSE
137.9
9.5
REF-A
4
C
09/27/15
16:04:16
311
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
217.4
15.0
15.4
18.0
2.6
Biological
FALSE
107.1
7.4
REF-A
4
D
09/27/15
16:05:06
311
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
213.5
14.7
14.4
15.3
0.9
Biological
FALSE
100.1
6.9
REF-A
5
A
09/27/15
16:16:41
312
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
252.3
17.4
16.6
17.9
1.2
Biological
FALSE
140.2
9.7
REF-A
5
B
09/27/15
16:17:34
312
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
248.3
17.1
16.6
17.9
1.3
Biological
FALSE
88.1
6.1
REF-A
5
D
09/27/15
16:19:26
312
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
235.0
16.2
15.8
17.2
1.4
Biological
FALSE
98.1
6.8
REF-B
1
A
09/27/15
15:36:35
304
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
218.1
15.0
13.8
15.8
2.0
Biological
FALSE
113.5
7.8
REF-B
1
B
09/27/15
15:37:23
304
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
233.1
16.1
15.8
16.4
0.6
Biological
FALSE
118.9
8.2
REF-B
1
C
09/27/15
15:38:10
304
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
232.1
16.0
15.4
16.4
1.0
Biological
FALSE
120.3
8.3
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 8 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Depth (ft)
Stop Collar Setting
(in)
# of Weights (per
side)
Grain Size Major
Mode (phi)
Grain Size Minimum
(phi)
Grain Size Maximum
(phi)
Grain Size Range
Penetration Area (sq
cm)
Penetration Mean
(cm)
Penetration
Minimum (cm)
Penetration
Maximum (cm)
Boundary Roughness
(cm)
Boundary Roughness
Type
aRPD > Pen
aRPD Area (sq cm)
Mean aRPD (cm)
REF-B
2
A
09/27/15
15:21:55
306
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
221.5
15.3
15.0
15.6
0.6
Biological
FALSE
119.1
8.2
REF-B
2
B
09/27/15
15:23:12
306
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
253.4
17.5
17.1
17.7
0.7
Biological
FALSE
108.4
7.5
REF-B
2
C
09/27/15
15:24:14
306
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
185.5
12.8
11.9
13.8
1.9
Biological
FALSE
103.9
7.2
REF-B
3
A
09/27/15
15:44:16
305
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
243.2
16.8
16.1
17.2
1.1
Biological
FALSE
103.7
7.1
REF-B
3
B
09/27/15
15:45:10
305
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
216.0
14.9
14.4
15.3
0.9
Biological
FALSE
103.7
7.1
REF-B
3
C
09/27/15
15:46:00
305
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
264.6
18.2
17.8
18.6
0.8
Biological
FALSE
112.8
7.8
REF-B
4
B
09/27/15
15:16:27
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
201.1
13.9
13.7
14.1
0.3
Biological
FALSE
97.3
6.7
REF-B
4
C
09/27/15
15:17:19
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
248.3
17.1
16.6
17.6
1.1
Biological
FALSE
119.8
8.3
REF-B
4
D
09/27/15
15:18:05
310
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
223.6
15.4
14.6
16.4
1.8
Biological
FALSE
97.4
6.7
REF-B
5
A
09/27/15
15:29:06
306
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
262.6
18.1
16.8
18.9
2.1
Biological
FALSE
111.7
7.7
REF-B
5
B
09/27/15
15:30:13
306
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
237.6
16.4
16.2
16.7
0.5
Biological
FALSE
101.2
7.0
REF-B
5
C
09/27/15
15:31:07
306
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
196.7
13.6
12.6
14.3
1.6
Biological
FALSE
101.1
7.0
REF-C
1
A
09/27/15
11:23:16
318
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
172.6
11.9
11.5
12.3
0.7
Biological
FALSE
96.2
6.6
REF-C
1
B
09/27/15
11:24:00
318
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
151.4
10.4
9.6
11.3
1.7
Physical
FALSE
82.3
5.7
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 9 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Depth (ft)
Stop Collar Setting
(in)
# of Weights (per
side)
Grain Size Major
Mode (phi)
Grain Size Minimum
(phi)
Grain Size Maximum
(phi)
Grain Size Range
Penetration Area (sq
cm)
Penetration Mean
(cm)
Penetration
Minimum (cm)
Penetration
Maximum (cm)
Boundary Roughness
(cm)
Boundary Roughness
Type
aRPD > Pen
aRPD Area (sq cm)
Mean aRPD (cm)
REF-C
1
C
09/27/15
11:24:49
318
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
132.1
9.1
8.3
9.5
1.2
Biological
FALSE
85.1
5.9
REF-C
2
A
09/27/15
11:39:53
318
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
85.1
5.9
9.8
10.4
0.6
Biological
FALSE
70.6
4.9
REF-C
2
B
09/27/15
11:40:46
318
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
148.1
10.2
10.0
10.4
0.5
Biological
FALSE
63.5
4.4
REF-C
2
C
09/27/15
11:41:38
318
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
156.1
10.8
9.6
11.5
1.9
Biological
FALSE
64.7
4.5
REF-C
3
A
09/27/15
11:30:04
320
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
155.3
10.7
9.6
11.3
1.7
Biological
FALSE
91.6
6.3
REF-C
3
B
09/27/15
11:31:12
320
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
166.5
11.5
11.3
11.7
0.4
Biological
FALSE
91.8
6.3
REF-C
3
D
09/27/15
11:33:09
320
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
147.2
10.1
9.8
10.5
0.7
Biological
FALSE
67.2
4.6
REF-C
4
A
09/27/15
11:56:13
318
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
178.2
12.3
11.3
12.9
1.7
Biological
FALSE
76.1
5.2
REF-C
4
B
09/27/15
11:57:17
318
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
170.0
11.7
11.3
12.0
0.7
Biological
FALSE
65.4
4.5
REF-C
4
C
09/27/15
11:58:12
318
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
173.6
12.0
11.3
12.6
1.3
Biological
FALSE
93.8
6.5
REF-C
5
A
09/27/15
11:49:01
318
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
175.9
12.1
11.7
12.8
1.1
Biological
FALSE
94.5
6.5
REF-C
5
B
09/27/15
11:49:52
318
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
185.3
12.8
12.3
13.0
0.7
Biological
FALSE
101.8
7.0
REF-C
5
C
09/27/15
11:50:47
318
12.5
1
>4
>4
2
>4 to 2
171.7
11.8
10.7
12.6
1.9
Biological
FALSE
97.1
6.7
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 10 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Dredged Material
Dredged Material Comments
Mud Clast Number
Mud Clast State
Methane?
Low DO?
Sediment Oxygen
Demand
Beggiatoa Present?
Beggiatoa
Type/Extent SPI
# of Feeding Voids
Void Minimum Depth
(cm)
Void Maximum
Depth (cm)
Void Average Depth
(cm)
Successional Stage
Site
1
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
2.7
9.0
5.9
1 on 3
Site
1
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
4.1
6.3
5.2
1 on 3
Site
1
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
3.2
11.3
7.2
1 on 3
Site
2
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
5.2
6.2
5.7
1 on 3
Site
2
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
6.3
8.0
7.1
1 on 3
Site
2
D
No
10
Ox
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
3
A
No
5
Mix
No
No
Low
No
-
1
10.9
12.3
11.6
1 on 3
Site
3
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
6.2
7.5
6.9
1 on 3
Site
3
D
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
6.4
7.4
6.9
1 on 3
Site
4
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
4.8
8.7
6.8
1 on 3
Site
4
C
No
10
Mix
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
4
D
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
3.7
4.8
4.3
1 on 3
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 11 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Dredged Material
Dredged Material Comments
Mud Clast Number
Mud Clast State
Methane?
Low DO?
Sediment Oxygen
Demand
Beggiatoa Present?
Beggiatoa
Type/Extent SPI
# of Feeding Voids
Void Minimum Depth
(cm)
Void Maximum
Depth (cm)
Void Average Depth
(cm)
Successional Stage
Site
5
A
Possible
Dark gray sediment streaked with
white clay.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
5
B
Possible
Dark gray sediment streaked with
white clay.
1
Reduced
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
5
D
Possible
White fines at depth.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
10.9
12.4
11.6
1 on 3
Site
6
A
Possible
Mottled gray and white clay beneath
ambient sediment.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
2.8
6.8
4.8
1 on 3
Site
6
B
Possible
Mottled gray and white clay beneath
ambient sediment.
1
Red
No
No
Low
No
-
3
4.2
8.7
6.5
1 on 3
Site
6
D
Possible
Mottled gray and white clay beneath
ambient sediment.
6
Mix
No
No
Low
No
-
7
1.6
10.4
6.0
1 on 3
Site
7
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
6.0
7.1
6.5
1 on 3
Site
7
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
3.6
14.6
9.1
1 on 3
Site
7
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
6.5
7.3
6.9
1 on 3
Site
8
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
6
4.5
16.4
10.5
1 on 3
Site
8
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
14.3
15.4
14.8
1 on 3
Site
8
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 12 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Dredged Material
Dredged Material Comments
Mud Clast Number
Mud Clast State
Methane?
Low DO?
Sediment Oxygen
Demand
Beggiatoa Present?
Beggiatoa
Type/Extent SPI
# of Feeding Voids
Void Minimum Depth
(cm)
Void Maximum
Depth (cm)
Void Average Depth
(cm)
Successional Stage
Site
9
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
7.5
8.4
8.0
1 on 3
Site
9
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
9.1
11.8
10.4
1 on 3
Site
9
D
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
4
8.4
14.1
11.2
1 on 3
Site
10
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
10
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
10
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
11
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
12.5
12.8
12.6
1 on 3
Site
11
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
11
D
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
5.0
5.5
5.3
1 on 3
Site
12
A
Possible
Small white and green clay deposits in
SWI.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
12
B
Possible
Small white and green clay deposits in
SWI.
2
Mix
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
12
C
Possible
Clay inclusions at depth.
5
Mix
No
No
Low
No
-
2
2.4
9.2
5.8
1 on 3
Site
13
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
6.8
7.1
7.0
1 on 3
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 13 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Dredged Material
Dredged Material Comments
Mud Clast Number
Mud Clast State
Methane?
Low DO?
Sediment Oxygen
Demand
Beggiatoa Present?
Beggiatoa
Type/Extent SPI
# of Feeding Voids
Void Minimum Depth
(cm)
Void Maximum
Depth (cm)
Void Average Depth
(cm)
Successional Stage
Site
13
B
No
2
Red
No
No
Low
No
-
5
4.3
8.8
6.5
1 on 3
Site
13
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
2.3
2.9
2.6
1 on 3
Site
14
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
4.4
13.6
9.0
1 on 3
Site
14
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
4.2
5.4
4.8
1 on 3
Site
14
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
15
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
15
B
No
2
Red
No
No
Low
No
-
2
3.7
7.4
5.5
1 on 3
Site
15
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
10.3
17.2
13.7
1 on 3
Site
16
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
3.7
4.7
4.2
1 on 3
Site
16
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
16
D
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
9.9
10.5
10.2
1 on 3
Site
17
A
No
2
Red
No
No
Low
No
-
2
5.1
9.9
7.5
1 on 3
Site
17
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
15.9
17.2
16.6
1 on 3
Site
17
C
No
1
Red
No
No
Low
No
-
2
6.3
14.9
10.6
1 on 3
Site
18
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
4.9
5.6
5.3
1 on 3
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 14 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Dredged Material
Dredged Material Comments
Mud Clast Number
Mud Clast State
Methane?
Low DO?
Sediment Oxygen
Demand
Beggiatoa Present?
Beggiatoa
Type/Extent SPI
# of Feeding Voids
Void Minimum Depth
(cm)
Void Maximum
Depth (cm)
Void Average Depth
(cm)
Successional Stage
Site
18
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
18
D
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
6
8.5
17.6
13.0
1 on 3
Site
19
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
4.4
6.6
5.5
1 on 3
Site
19
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
4
2.3
15.5
8.9
1 on 3
Site
19
D
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
6.4
18.5
12.4
1 on 3
Site
20
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
20
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
9.9
10.3
10.1
1 on 3
Site
20
C
No
4
Mix
No
No
Low
No
-
3
3.4
13.3
8.4
1 on 3
Site
21
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
2.4
3.4
2.9
1 on 3
Site
21
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
8.8
11.5
10.1
1 on 3
Site
21
D
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
22
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
3.2
7.9
5.5
1 on 3
Site
22
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
1.9
8.0
4.9
1 on 3
Site
22
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
4.5
6.7
5.6
3
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 15 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Dredged Material
Dredged Material Comments
Mud Clast Number
Mud Clast State
Methane?
Low DO?
Sediment Oxygen
Demand
Beggiatoa Present?
Beggiatoa
Type/Extent SPI
# of Feeding Voids
Void Minimum Depth
(cm)
Void Maximum
Depth (cm)
Void Average Depth
(cm)
Successional Stage
Site
23
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
23
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
3.0
11.2
7.1
1 on 3
Site
23
D
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
12.6
14.7
13.6
1 on 3
Site
24
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
4.4
8.6
6.5
1 on 3
Site
24
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
8.7
9.1
8.9
1 on 3
Site
24
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
6
4.0
15.4
9.7
1 on 3
Site
25
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
2.7
10.5
6.6
1 on 3
Site
25
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
5.1
10.3
7.7
1 on 3
Site
25
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
4
3.0
12.5
7.7
1 on 3
Site
26
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
6.3
7.2
6.8
1 on 3
Site
26
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
9.1
10.4
9.8
1 on 3
Site
26
D
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
5.4
13.0
9.2
1 on 3
Site
27
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
27
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
27
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 16 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Dredged Material
Dredged Material Comments
Mud Clast Number
Mud Clast State
Methane?
Low DO?
Sediment Oxygen
Demand
Beggiatoa Present?
Beggiatoa
Type/Extent SPI
# of Feeding Voids
Void Minimum Depth
(cm)
Void Maximum
Depth (cm)
Void Average Depth
(cm)
Successional Stage
Site
28
A
Possible
Dark mottled sediment under aRPD.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
5.0
6.2
5.6
1 on 3
Site
28
B
Possible
Dark mottled sediment under aRPD.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
28
C
Possible
Dark mottled sediment under aRPD.
3
Mix
No
No
Low
No
-
2
4.8
7.2
6.0
1 on 3
Site
29
A
Possible
Dark mottled sediment under aRPD.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
4
4.5
11.6
8.1
1 on 3
Site
29
B
Possible
White sediment is irregularly
distributed in lower layers of
sediment.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
4.5
8.2
6.3
1 on 3
Site
29
C
Possible
White sediment is irregularly
distributed in lower layers of
sediment.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
4.3
5.2
4.7
1 on 3
Site
30
B
Possible
Dark gray and white mottled sediment
to pen maximum.
4
Red
No
No
Low
No
-
1
5.7
5.7
5.7
1 on 3
Site
30
C
Possible
Dark gray and white mottled sediment
to pen maximum.
3
Red
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Site
30
D
Possible
Dark gray and white mottled sediment
to pen maximum.
10
Mix
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
REF-A
1
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
6.9
8.6
7.8
1 on 3
REF-A
1
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
10.3
15.3
12.8
1 on 3
REF-A
1
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
5.7
6.7
6.2
1 on 3
REF-A
2
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 17 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Dredged Material
Dredged Material Comments
Mud Clast Number
Mud Clast State
Methane?
Low DO?
Sediment Oxygen
Demand
Beggiatoa Present?
Beggiatoa
Type/Extent SPI
# of Feeding Voids
Void Minimum Depth
(cm)
Void Maximum
Depth (cm)
Void Average Depth
(cm)
Successional Stage
REF-A
2
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
4.6
7.1
5.9
1 on 3
REF-A
2
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
9.3
9.4
9.4
1 on 3
REF-A
3
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
4
5.0
17.1
11.1
1 on 3
REF-A
3
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
3.3
8.4
5.9
1 on 3
REF-A
3
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
5
4.2
10.3
7.2
1 on 3
REF-A
4
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
1.8
8.1
4.9
1 on 3
REF-A
4
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
3.2
13.0
8.1
1 on 3
REF-A
4
D
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
1.9
14.9
8.4
1 on 3
REF-A
5
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
REF-A
5
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
6.7
11.9
9.3
1 on 3
REF-A
5
D
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
2.4
11.9
7.1
1 on 3
REF-B
1
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
REF-B
1
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
2.1
2.5
2.3
1 on 3
REF-B
1
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 18 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Dredged Material
Dredged Material Comments
Mud Clast Number
Mud Clast State
Methane?
Low DO?
Sediment Oxygen
Demand
Beggiatoa Present?
Beggiatoa
Type/Extent SPI
# of Feeding Voids
Void Minimum Depth
(cm)
Void Maximum
Depth (cm)
Void Average Depth
(cm)
Successional Stage
REF-B
2
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
5.1
6.8
6.0
1 on 3
REF-B
2
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
12.3
12.6
12.5
1 on 3
REF-B
2
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
5.7
11.3
8.5
1 on 3
REF-B
3
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
3.7
6.0
4.8
1 on 3
REF-B
3
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
2
5.9
12.8
9.3
1 on 3
REF-B
3
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
REF-B
4
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
11.1
11.7
11.4
1 on 3
REF-B
4
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
4
4.8
10.4
7.6
1 on 3
REF-B
4
D
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
3.1
4.2
3.6
1 on 3
REF-B
5
A
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
3.0
3.7
3.4
1 on 3
REF-B
5
B
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
5
2.3
14.3
8.3
1 on 3
REF-B
5
C
No
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
REF-C
1
A
Possible
Large inclusions of white clay near
penetration maximum.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
4
5.5
11.2
8.3
1 on 3
REF-C
1
B
Possible
White clay near penetration maximum.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 19 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Dredged Material
Dredged Material Comments
Mud Clast Number
Mud Clast State
Methane?
Low DO?
Sediment Oxygen
Demand
Beggiatoa Present?
Beggiatoa
Type/Extent SPI
# of Feeding Voids
Void Minimum Depth
(cm)
Void Maximum
Depth (cm)
Void Average Depth
(cm)
Successional Stage
REF-C
1
C
Possible
White clay near penetration maximum.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
3.3
3.9
3.6
1 on 3
REF-C
2
A
Possible
Mottled white clay near penetration
maximum.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
REF-C
2
B
Possible
Mottled white clay near penetration
maximum.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
REF-C
2
C
Possible
Mottled white clay near penetration
maximum.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
REF-C
3
A
Possible
Mottled white clay near penetration
maximum.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
3
3.4
7.3
5.4
1 on 3
REF-C
3
B
Possible
Mottled white clay near penetration
maximum.
1
Ox
No
No
Low
No
-
4
3.5
10.2
6.8
1 on 3
REF-C
3
D
Possible
Mottled white clay near penetration
maximum.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
REF-C
4
A
Possible
Very dark black and gray clay.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
3.3
5.8
4.5
1 on 3
REF-C
4
B
Possible
Very dark black and gray clay.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
REF-C
4
C
Possible
Mottled white clay near penetration
maximum.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
REF-C
5
A
Possible
Mottled white clay near penetration
maximum.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
REF-C
5
B
Possible
Mottled white clay near penetration
maximum.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
0
1 on 3
REF-C
5
C
Possible
Very dark black and gray and white
clay.
0
-
No
No
Low
No
-
1
4.2
5.2
4.7
1 on 3
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 20 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Comment
Site
1
A
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at S WI. Reddish tan in upper layer, becoming streaked with gray and black material deeper below S WI. Few tubes visible at
SWI. Large void at ~6 cm below SWI. Long burrow opening transected to far right. Small brittle star dragged into sediment. Thin burrow halos abundant in upper
10 cm of sediment column. Corymorpha in background
Site
1
B
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted surface and cohesive reduced material deposited by prism. Pullback from prism causing material to fall between prism sediment
interface. Sediment is reddish tan, streaked with pale tan in upper portion of sediment column, transitions to darker streaked material deep in column. Large void at 5
cm below SWI. Burrowing organism transected with crushed shell dragged from position.
Site
1
C
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer, becoming gray and black material deep in sediment column. Few tubes visible at SWI.
Three large voids in sediment column. Very thick aRPD. Infauna visible.
Site
2
A
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted surface with large transected burrow opening to far right. Pullback from prism causing material to fall between prism sediment
interface. Sediment is reddish tan, streaked with pale tan in upper portion of sediment column, transitions to slightly darker material deep in column. Large void at 5
cm below SWI. Small tubes at SWI and dragged into sediment column.
Site
2
B
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer, becoming slightly less luminous past aRPD. Thin streaks of gray begin at 7 cm below SI.
Single small void. Two burrowing textures in upper 6 cm of sediment. Small stage 1 tubes at SWI.
Site
2
D
Fine sediment at SWI with many clasts and rough boundary. SWI was physically disturbed by camera (previous reps). Distinct transition at aRPD from bright tan to
pale gray-tan. Abundant burrowing textures in sediment. Small shell crushed at lower right corner. Large tubes at SWI.
Site
3
A
Fine sediment at SWI is heavily pelleted and loose. Small clasts of mixed state and small tubes present. Long red burrows visible extending from SWI. Large void at
12 cm below SWI. Sediment in upper portion of sediment column is bright tan and red hued transitions to pale gray with patches of near black at depth. Infauna
abundant.
Site
3
B
Fine sediment at SWI is heavily pelleted and loose. Stage 1 tubes present. Large void in sediment column contains oxidized material Infauna near small black patch
near bottom edge of image.
Site
3
D
Fine sediment at SWI is heavily pelleted and loose. Sediment column is mostly pale tan with dark streaks deep in sediment column. Long oxidized halos stemming
from SWI. Small streak of white clay near penetration maximum. Stage 1 tubes present. Large infilled void in sediment column.
Site
4
A
Fine sediment at SWI is heavily pelleted and loose. Sediment column is mostly pale tan becoming darker and streaked deep in sediment column. Long oxidized halos
stemming from SWI. Stage 1 tubes present. Few large voids in sediment column.
Site
4
C
Fine sediment at SWI is heavily pelleted and loose. Sediment column is mostly pale tan becoming slightly darker and streaked deep in sediment column. Long
oxidized halos stemming from SWI. Stage 1 tubes present, large tubes also visible. Small patch of white fines near pen maximum. Burrow opening transected at
SWI. Small burrows transected in sediment column.
Site
4
D
Fine sediment at SWI is heavily pelleted and loose. Sediment column is mostly pale tan becoming slightly darker and streaked deep in sediment column. Long
oxidized halos stemming from SWI. Stage 1 tubes present. Large oxidized void in sediment column.
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 21 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Comment
Site
5
A
Fine sediment at SWI is heavily pelleted and loose, burrow opening transected at SWI. Sediment column is mostly pale tan transitioning to what appears to be
historical DM, slightly darker and streaked deep in sediment column. Long oxidized halos stemming from SWI. Stage 1 tubes present. White fines are streaked
throughout sediment column.
Site
5
B
Fine sediment at SWI is heavily pelleted and loose. Sediment column is mostly pale tan transitioning to what appears to be historical DM, slightly darker and streaked
deep in sediment column. Long oxidized halos stemming from SWI. Stage 1 tubes present, transected burrows at depth
Site
5
D
Fine sediment at SWI is heavily pelleted and loose. Sediment column is mostly pale tan transitioning to what appears to be historical DM, slightly darker and streaked
deep in sediment column with large mass of white fines near penetration maximum. Long oxidized halos stemming from SWI. Stage 1 tubes present. Small network
of voids in lower left.
Site
6
A
Fine sediment at SWI is heavily pelleted and loose. Upper layer of sediment column is pale and rusty orange with small inclusions of white fines. Underlying layer is
streaked and mottled white and gray with what appears to be historical DM. SWI is slightly disturbed by prism pullback. Tubes visible at SWI. Few large voids in
sediment.
Site
6
B
Fine sediment at SWI is heavily pelleted and loose. Upper layer of sediment column is pale and rusty orange with small inclusions of white fines. Underlying layer is
streaked and mottled white and gray with what appears to be historical DM. SWI is disturbed by large burrow opening to far left and smaller opening to far right.
Few large voids visible in sediment column.
Site
6
D
Fine sediment at SWI is heavily pelleted and loose. Upper layer of sediment column is pale and rusty orange with small inclusions of white fines. Underlying layer is
streaked and mottled white and gray with what appears to be historical DM. Large object in far field is encrusted with organisms. Many small clasts near prism.
Abundant voids in sediment column.
Site
7
A
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer, becoming slightly less luminous past aRPD. Single infilled void in upper 7 cm of
sediment column. Burrowing evident as oxidized halos stemming from SWI.
Site
7
B
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer, becoming slightly less luminous past aRPD. Several small voids are infilled. Polychaete
visible in sediment. Camera artifacts deposited at SWI. Burrowing evident as oxidized halos stemming from SWI.
Site
7
C
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer, becoming slightly less luminous past aRPD. Single small void. Burrowing evident as
oxidized halos stemming from SWI.
Site
8
A
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer, becoming slightly less luminous past aRPD. Burrowing evident as oxidized halos
stemming from SWI. Cluster of small voids in sediment column. Burrowing evident as oxidized halos stemming from SWI.
Site
8
B
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer, becoming slightly less luminous past aRPD. Burrowing evident as oxidized halos
stemming from SWI. Small void deep in sediment column. Small tubes at SWI, dragged into sediment column. Large red polychaete visible.
Site
8
C
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to a streaked and mottled pale tan sediment. Burrowing evident as oxidized
halos stemming from SWI. Evidence of subsurface burrowing. Small tubes at SWI, dragged into sediment column.
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 22 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Comment
Site
9
A
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at S Wl. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to a streaked and mottled pale tan sediment. Burrowing evident as oxidized
halos stemming from SW1. Void to far right. Polychaete visible in sediment. Sediment is especially mottled and dark surrounding void.
Site
9
C
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at S Wl. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller gray-tan sediment. Burrowing evident as oxidized halos
stemming from SWI. Large, deep void in sediment column. Additional burrowing textures near penetration maximum. Material deposited on SWI by prism. Few
tubes dragged into sediment column.
Site
9
D
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller gray-tan sediment. Burrowing evident as oxidized halos
stemming from SWI. Several large infilled voids in sediment. Infaunal appendages visible throughout sediment column.
Site
10
A
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller gray-tan sediment. Burrowing evident as oxidized halos
stemming from SWI. Burrowing textures visible deep in sediment column. Small patch of darker sediment near center of image, ~5 cm below SWI. Tubes visible at
SWI.
Site
10
B
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller gray-tan sediment. Burrowing evident as oxidized halos
stemming from SWI. Burrowing textures visible deep in sediment column. Small tubes at SWI. Reduced sediment at SWI deposited by prism faceplate.
Site
10
C
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller gray-tan sediment. Burrowing evident as oxidized halos
stemming from SWI. Very small red sea star dragged into sediment.. Small tubes at SWI. Reduced sediment at SWI deposited by prism faceplate.
Site
11
A
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller, streaky, gray-tan sediment. Burrowing evident as oxidized
halos stemming from SWI. Abundant tubes at SWI.
Site
11
B
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller, streaky, gray-tan sediment. Burrowing evident as oxidized
halos stemming from SWI. Abundant burrowing textures in sediment column. SWI dips to far left where burrow was transected.
Site
11
D
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller, streaky, gray-tan sediment. Burrowing evident as oxidized
halos stemming from SWI. Abundant burrowing textures in sediment column. Single small void at 5 cm below SWI. Reduced material at SWI deposited by prism.
Site
12
A
Reddish tan fine sediment with large burrow in center of SWI. Many tubes at SWI. Traces of white and green clay in sediment column suggest historical DM.
Shallow penetration. aRPD > Pen.
Site
12
B
Reddish tan fine sediment with large burrow in center of SWI. Many tubes at SWI. Traces of white and green clay in sediment column suggest historical DM.
Shallow penetration. Large clast at SWI. Large red worm at depth to far right.
Site
12
C
Reddish tan fine sediment with large burrow in center of SWI. Many tubes at SWI. Traces of white and green clay in sediment column and mass of white clay in
lower half of image suggest historical DM. Shallow penetration.
Site
13
A
Fine sediment with fluffy pelleted layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller, gray tan sediment. Burrow structures evident in textural
changes throughout sediment column. SPI camera appears to have contact on slight slope.
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 23 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Comment
Site
13
B
Fine sediment with loose layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller, gray tan sediment. Burrow structures evident in textural changes
throughout sediment column. Small tubes at surface. Cluster of small voids in sediment column.
Site
13
C
Fine sediment with loose layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller, gray tan sediment. Burrow structures evident in textural changes
throughout sediment column. Few tubes visible at SWI. Large void 2 cm below SWI, transected burrows at depth.
Site
14
A
Fine sediment with loose layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller, gray tan sediment. Burrow structures evident in textural changes
throughout sediment column. Small tubes at SWI. SWI depresses to left, ridge is visible in far field.
Site
14
B
Fine sediment with loose layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller, gray tan sediment. Burrow structures evident in textural changes
throughout sediment column. Small tubes at SWI. Infilled voids and burrows visible throughout sediment column.
Site
14
C
Fine sediment with loose layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller, gray tan sediment. Burrow structures evident in textural changes
throughout sediment column. Small tubes at SWI. Infilled voids and burrows visible throughout sediment column.
Site
15
A
Fine sediment with loose layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller, gray tan sediment. Burrow structures evident in textural changes
throughout sediment column. Small tubes at SWI.
Site
15
B
Fine sediment with loose layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller, gray tan sediment. Burrow structures evident in textural changes
throughout sediment column. Large tubes at SWI Large burrow to right side of SWI terminating in two voids.
Site
15
C
Fine sediment with loose layer at SWI. Reddish tan in upper layer transitions to slightly duller, gray tan sediment. Burrow structures evident in textural changes
throughout sediment column. Small tubes at SWI. Large burrow in lower left corner of image. Infilled burrow in right side of sediment column.
Site
16
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled gray sed to penetration maximum. Small tubes recolonizing SWI. Sediment column has been
extensively reworked, very thick aRPD. Infilled void just under SWI. Prism pullback has caused slight slumping under SWI.
Site
16
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled gray sed to penetration maximum. Small tubes recolonizing SWI. Sediment column has been
extensively reworked, very thick aRPD. Mud clasts artifacts from wiper blade on SWI; transected burrows at depth
Site
16
D
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled gray sed to penetration maximum. Small tubes dragged into sediment.. Sediment column has been
extensively reworked, very thick aRPD. Small void along left edge. Burrow visible at right edge.
Site
17
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled gray sed to penetration maximum. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment column has been extensively
reworked. Two partially infilled voids along left edge of image. Large polychaete near penetration maximum.
Site
17
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled gray sed to penetration maximum. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment column has been extensively
reworked. Large void cut off by bottom of image. Mud clast artifact on SWI deposited by prism.
Site
17
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled gray sed to penetration maximum. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment column is mottled and streaked at
depth. Dark gray material present in lower few cm of column. Camera deposited mud clast artifacts at SWI.
Site
18
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray material at depth. aRPD is very thick, extensive reworking is apparent. Stage 1 tubes have
recolonized and pelletized SWI. Infilled voids, partially infilled void, and infaunal bodies visible in sediment column.
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 24 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Comment
Site
18
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled gray sed with white and black streaks to penetration maximum. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment
column is mottled and streaked at depth. Long burrow visible in center of image with infilled reduced void. Camera deposited mud clast artifacts at SWI. Prism
pullback causing slumping of upper few cm.
Site
18
D
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled gray sed to penetration maximum. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment column is mottled and streaked at
depth. Many open and infilled relic voids in sediment column. Prism pullback creating slumping in upper few centimeters.
Site
19
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled gray sed to penetration maximum. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment column is mottled and streaked at
depth. Infilled void to center right. Material is much darker and streaked in lower portion of image.
Site
19
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled gray sed to penetration maximum. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment column is mottled and streaked at
depth, black patch near penetration maximum. Several small void networks have been transected.
Site
19
D
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled gray sed to penetration maximum. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment column is light colored to
penetration maximum, with streaks of gray under aRPD. Two large voids.
Site
20
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray material at depth. aRPD is very thick, extensive reworking is apparent. Stage 1 tubes have
recolonized and pelletized SWI. Few infilled voids and burrow structures visible in sediment column.
Site
20
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with gray material at depth. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment column is extensively reworked. Polychaetes and small
voids visible in sediment column.
Site
20
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with gray material at depth. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment column is extensively reworked. Many small infilled
void structures. Three open voids. Cluster of clasts of mixed redox state at SWI.
Site
21
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled dark gray sed to penetration maximum. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment column is extensively
reworked. Pelleted depression at SWI is vertical transport from void and burrow below.
Site
21
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Sediment is mottled from SWI to pen maximum. Large void to right edge of image. SWI is mounded in center. Camera artifacts at SWI.
Few small tubes.
Site
21
D
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled dark gray sed to near penetration maximum. Many tubes recolonizing SWI, few quite large. Mud
clast artifacts from prism at SWI. Slight pullback slumping at SWI.
Site
22
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled gray material at depth. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment column is extensively reworked. Two large
voids, single infilled void. Small red brittle star dragged into sediment.
Site
22
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray material at depth. aRPD is very thick, extensive reworking is apparent. Stage 1 tubes have
recolonized and pelletized SWI. Reduced mud clasts artifacts have fallen from prism. Very large void just under SWI.
Site
22
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray material at depth. aRPD is very thick, extensive reworking is apparent. Polychaetes visible in
sediment column. Very large infilled void near SWI. Several reduced mud clast artifacts have fallen from wiper blade.
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 25 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Comment
Site
23
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly mottled sed to penetration maximum. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment column is extensively reworked.
Polychaete visible along left edge. Gastropod at SWI.
Site
23
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer. aRPD is very thick, extensive reworking is apparent. Stage 1 tubes have recolonized and pelletized SWI. Large
burrow opening transected at SWI, ejecting reduced material. Large void network below opening. Black material to far left edge.
Site
23
D
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer. aRPD is very thick, extensive reworking is apparent. Stage 1 tubes have recolonized and pelletized SWI. Burrow
opening transected at SWI. Void near penetration max, directly below opening.
Site
24
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray material at depth. aRPD is very thick, extensive reworking is apparent. Abundant tubes at
heavily pelleted SWI.. Large void is mostly infilled.
Site
24
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Very mottled tan, orange, and gray sediment, streaking downward. Few tubes at SWI. Large mud clast artifacts deposited by prism. Small
polychaete visible. Small void to far right.
Site
24
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Very mottled tan, orange, and gray sediment, streaking downward. Few tubes at SWI. Large mud clast artifacts deposited by prism. Many
small voids in sediment column. Burrow opening at SWI. Prism pullback slumping in first few cm of sediment column.
Site
25
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray material to penetration maximum. Several voids in sediment column. Reworking of sediment is
obvious. SWI is colonized by small tubes and heavily pelleted.
Site
25
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray material to penetration maximum. Several small voids in sediment column. Light mottling in
center of image. Few small tubes at SWI.
Site
25
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray material to penetration maximum. Several small voids in sediment column. Small tubes at SWI.
Prism pullback causing slumping in upper few cm of sediment column.
Site
26
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray material at depth. aRPD is very thick, extensive reworking is apparent. Abundant tubes at
heavily pelleted SWI. Small void to left edge. Burrowing textures abundant.
Site
26
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with some reduced organics at depth. Mud clast artifacts from prism at SWI. Black deposit deep in sediment
column. Abundant burrow textures.
Site
26
D
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with some reduced organics at depth. Mud clast artifacts from prism at SWI. Black deposit deep in sediment
column. Burrow and mound transected at surface, terminating in large void in center of image.
Site
27
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray sed to penetration maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes present. Small polychaete
visible in sediment column. Deep burrow halo transected extends from SWI to pen maximum. Black sediment near penetration maximum.
Site
27
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray sed to penetration maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes present. Small polychaete
visible in sediment column. Deep aRPD.
Site
27
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray sed to penetration maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes present. Few polychaetes
visible in sediment column.
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 26 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Comment
Site
28
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with what appears to be dark gray and white historical DM to penetration maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted.
Small tubes present. Small voids in sediment column, polychaetes visible.
Site
28
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with what appears to be dark gray and white historical DM to penetration maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted.
Small tubes present. Large areas of burrowing textures at aRPD. Small organisms visible in sediment column. Reduced mud clast artifacts from camera deposited at
SWI. Transected burrows at depth
Site
28
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with what appears to be dark gray and white historical DM to penetration maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted.
Small tubes present. Few small voids and burrow textures in sediment. Sediment column is heavily streaked. Few small clasts at SWI.
Site
29
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with what appears to be dark gray and white historical DM to penetration maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted.
Small tubes present. Few small voids and burrow textures in sediment. Pullback slumping at SWI. Long oxic halo transected.
Site
29
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan sediment becomes slightly less saturated at aRPD. White clay inclusions abundant in lower portion of sediment column. SWI is
heavily pelleted. Small tubes present. Large burrow opening transected, terminating in pair of large voids. Reduced mud clast artifacts deposited by prism at SWI.
Site
29
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan sediment becomes slightly less saturated at aRPD. White clay inclusions abundant in lower portion of sediment column. SWI is
heavily pelleted. Small tubes present. Single void near transected burrow at SWI. Mud clast artifacts at SWI deposited by prism.
Site
30
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with what appears to be slightly gray and white mottled historical DM to penetration maximum. SWI is heavily
pelleted. Small tubes present. Void to far left edge of image. Polychaetes visible.
Site
30
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with what appears to be slightly gray and white mottled historical DM to penetration maximum. SWI is heavily
pelleted. Small tubes present. Clasts at SWI from camera wiper blade.
Site
30
D
Silt clay to penetration. SWI is disturbed. Clasts of different redox states at SWI. Abundant tubes. What appears to be historical DM to penetration. Shallow
penetration.
REF-A
1
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray sed to penetration maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes present. Few polychaetes
visible in sediment column. Long burrow halo to penetration max.
REF-A
1
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray sed to penetration maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes present. Very small voids
near pen maximum.
REF-A
1
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray sed to penetration maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes present. Small void under
transected burrowing opening.
REF-A
2
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly mottled gray and white sed to penetration maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes present.
Burrow halos and infilled voids suggest reworking.
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 27 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Comment
REF-A
2
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with slightly gray sediment underneath. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes present. Small voids below SWI.
REF-A
2
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled black and tan sed to pen maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Few small tubes at SWI and dragged
into sediment. Very small void to left side of image.
REF-A
3
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled dark gray and tan sed to pen maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Few small tubes at SWI. Large
network of voids in sediment column.
REF-A
3
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled dark gray and tan sed to pen maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Large void 3
cm below SWI. Abundant burrow textures throughout sediment column.
REF-A
3
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled light gray to pen maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Network of large voids in
sediment column,
REF-A
4
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled light gray to pen maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Large void and polychaete
in sediment column.
REF-A
4
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled light gray to pen maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Several voids in sediment
column. Reduced mud clast artifacts deposited by prism at SWI.
REF-A
4
D
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled light gray to pen maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Large transected burrow in
lower left corner.
REF-A
5
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled light gray to pen maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Large infilled burrows
transected near penetration depth.
REF-A
5
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with mottled light gray to pen maximum. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Three partially infilled
burrows in sediment column. Large gray mud clast artifacts deposited by prism at SWI.
REF-A
5
D
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan in upper layer with patches of reduced sediment at depth. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Three partially infilled
burrows in sediment column. Small gray mud clast artifacts deposited by prism at SWI.
REF-B
1
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to pale gray at depth. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Burrowing evident in textures throughout
sediment column.
REF-B
1
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to pale gray at depth. SWI is heavily pelleted. Few small tubes at SWI. Large mud clast artifacts deposited by prism.
Reworking is evident by deep aRPD and small voids.
REF-B
1
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to mottled gray at depth. SWI is heavily pelleted. Large mud clast artifacts deposited by prism. Reworking is evident
by deep aRPD and burrowing textures.
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 28 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Comment
REF-B
2
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to mottled gray and black sed at depth. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. :Large void in sediment column.
Infauna visible near penetration maximum.
REF-B
2
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to mottled gray with few black streaks at depth. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Small void. Long
burrow halo extends in patches to penetration maximum.
REF-B
2
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to mottled gray compact clay sed to penetration. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Long burrow
terminating in two voids.
REF-B
3
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to mottled gray with few black streaks at depth. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Few small voids in
upper portion of sediment column.
REF-B
3
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to mottled gray and black sed at depth. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Mostly infilled oxidized voids
visible in sediment column. Infaunal body in sediment. Streaking and oxidized halos suggest extensive reworking.
REF-B
3
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to mottled gray and black sed at depth. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Mostly infilled oxidized voids
visible in sediment column. Infaunal body in sediment. Long burrow halos in sediment. Mud clasts artifacts deposited at SWI by prism.
REF-B
4
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to pale gray at depth. SWI is heavily pelleted. Few very small tubes at SWI. Void near penetration maximum.
REF-B
4
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to pale gray at depth. SWI is heavily pelleted. Dense assemblage of small tubes at SWI. Several small oxidized voids
in sediment column. Very slight color change under aRPD.
REF-B
4
D
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to mottled gray with few black streaks at depth. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Small mud clast
artifacts deposited by prism at SWI. Oxidized void in upper 3 cm of sediment. Large oxidized burrow texture near penetration maximum.
REF-B
5
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to mottled gray sed with few black streaks at depth. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Small near SWI.
REF-B
5
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to pale gray at depth with slight mottling. SWI is heavily pelleted. Small tubes at SWI. Sediment column has been
extensively reworked. Abundant a small voids and burrows visible.
REF-B
5
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to pale gray at depth with slight mottling. SWI is heavily pelleted. Abundant small tubes at SWI. Small black
inclusions in sediment column. Long oxidized halos extending from SWI.
REF-C
1
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to what appears to be white clay DM near penetration maximum. Transition at aRPD is very slight. Infilled burrows
and voids throughout sediment. Large anemone visible at SWI. SWI is heavily pelletized with few small tubes.
REF-C
1
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to what appears to be mottled white clay DM near penetration maximum. Transition at aRPD is very slight. Infilled
burrows and voids throughout sediment. Firm object in midfield may be contributing to boundary roughness. Tubes at SWI.
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 29 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Sediment-Profile Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Comment
REF-C
1
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Dark orange-tan transitions to what appears to be mottled white clay DM near penetration maximum. Transition at aRPD is very slight. Mall
void at right edge of image. Few tubes at SWI. Mud clast artifacts deposited at SWI by prism.
REF-C
2
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Dark orange-tan transitions to what appears to be very mottled white clay DM near penetration maximum. Few tube sat SWI/ Small reduced
mud clast artifacts at Swig, deposited by prism. Infilled burrow opening three cm below SWI.
REF-C
2
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Dark orange-tan transitions to what appears to be very mottled white clay DM near penetration maximum. Few tube sat SWI/ Small reduced
mud clast artifacts at SWI, deposited by prism. Infilled burrow Along far left edge of image as well as below white clay to mid right. Small infauna visible to far
right.
REF-C
2
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Dark orange-tan transitions to what appears to be very mottled white clay DM near penetration maximum. Few tube sat SWI/ Small reduced
mud clast artifacts at SWI, deposited by prism. Large burrow opening transected at SWI.
REF-C
3
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Dark orange-tan transitions to what appears to be very mottled white clay DM near penetration maximum. Tubes at SWI. SWI is heavily
pelleted. Several large voids in sediment column. Burrow transected to far left. Shell dragdown near center of image causing circular feature in sediment.
REF-C
3
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to what appears to be very mottled white and dark gray DM near penetration maximum. Tubes at SWI. SWI is
heavily pelleted. Small voids and transected burrows in sediment column. Reduced sediment at depth. Polychaete near pen maximum.
REF-C
3
D
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to what appears to be very mottled white and dark gray DM near penetration maximum. Tubes at SWI. SWI is
heavily pelleted. Transected burrows at depth; PV image at this station shows large burrow openings. Mud clast artifacts deposited at SWI by prism.
REF-C
4
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to what appears to be very mottled black and dark gray DM near penetration maximum. Tubes at SWI. SWI is
heavily pelleted. Large void to far right of image. Polychaete visible near image center.
REF-C
4
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to what appears to be very mottled black and dark gray DM near penetration maximum. Tubes at SWI. SWI is
heavily pelleted. Long oxidized halos extending from SWI. Possible burrow transected near penetration maximum.
REF-C
4
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to what appears to be very mottled white historical DM near penetration maximum. Tubes at SWI. SWI is heavily
pelleted. Long oxidized halos extending from SWI, transected burrows at depth.
REF-C
5
A
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to what appears to be very mottled white historical DM near penetration maximum. Tubes at SWI. SWI is heavily
pelleted. Large polychaete visible in sediment column. Pullback fro prism causing slumping between sediment and prism interface.
REF-C
5
B
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to what appears to be very mottled white historical DM near penetration maximum. Small organism transected.
Large animal in far field (crab).
REF-C
5
C
Silt-clay to penetration. Orange-tan transitions to what appears to be very mottled white and gray historical DM near penetration maximum. Small void with
surrounding burrow halo extending to penetration maximum.
Appendix C - Sediment-Profile Image Analysis
Page 30 of 30
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Image Width (cm)
Image Height (cm)
Field of View imaged (m2)
Sediment Type
Surface Ox
Debris
Bedforms
Tubes
Burrows
Tracks
Epifauna
Flora
Number of Fish
Site
1
A
09/27/15
7:27:57
88.9
59.3
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Sparse
None
None
None
0
Site
1
C
09/27/15
7:29:39
79.1
52.8
0.4
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Sparse
None
None
None
0
Site
1
D
09/27/15
7:30:29
85.3
56.9
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
None
Shrimp
None
0
Site
2
A
09/27/15
17:08:46
89.2
59.5
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
Site
3
A
09/27/15
10:31:15
85.9
57.3
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Sparse
Shrimp
None
0
Site
3
C
09/27/15
10:33:08
88.2
58.8
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
IND
None
IND
Site
4
A
09/27/15
10:44:05
96.4
64.2
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Sparse
Present
Present
Shrimp
None
0
Site
5
A
09/27/15
10:55:42
91.0
60.6
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
None
None
0
Site
6
A
09/27/15
11:09:29
95.5
63.6
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
Shell fragments
and small clasts
None
Present
Present
Sparse
Shrimp
None
0
Site
7
A
09/27/15
7:52:29
89.1
59.4
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
None
None
0
Site
7
D
09/27/15
7:54:42
89.0
59.4
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Abundant
Present
Present
Gastropod;
Shrimp
None
0
Site
8
A
09/27/15
8:04:34
91.6
61.1
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Abundant
Present
Shrimp
None
0
Site
8
C
09/27/15
8:06:04
83.4
55.6
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Abundant
Abundant
None
None
0
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis
Page 1 of 14
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Image Width (cm)
Image Height (cm)
Field of View imaged (m2)
Sediment Type
Surface Ox
Debris
Bedforms
Tubes
Burrows
Tracks
Epifauna
Flora
Number of Fish
Site
9
A
09/27/15
9:37:16
84.4
56.3
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Abundant
Abundant
None
None
0
Site
10
A
09/27/15
10:08:34
91.5
61.0
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Abundant
Present
Shrimp
None
0
Site
10
B
09/27/15
10:09:18
IND
IND
IND
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Sparse
Sparse
Shrimp
None
0
Site
11
A
09/27/15
10:15:16
103.4
68.9
0.7
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Sparse
None
None
0
Site
11
B
09/27/15
10:16:05
95.5
63.6
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Sparse
Present
Sparse
None
None
0
Site
11
D
09/27/15
10:18:00
98.5
65.7
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Sparse
Present
Sparse
Shrimp
None
0
Site
12
A
09/27/15
12:42:18
91.0
60.6
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
Small shell
fragments
None
Present
Sparse
Sparse
Shrimp
None
0
Site
12
B
09/27/15
12:43:02
IND
IND
IND
Silt/Clay
Ox
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
0
Site
12
D
09/27/15
12:44:49
IND
IND
IND
Silt/Clay
Ox
Shell fragments
None
IND
Sparse
IND
IND
IND
0
Site
13
A
09/27/15
8:28:56
86.7
57.8
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Dense
None
None
0
Site
13
C
09/27/15
8:30:27
95.4
63.6
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
Small mud clasts
None
Sparse
Present
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
Site
13
D
09/27/15
8:31:16
93.7
62.5
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
Small to large
mud clasts
None
Sparse
Sparse
None
None
None
0
Site
14
A
09/27/15
8:15:51
94.8
63.2
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Sparse
Present
Present
Shrimp
None
0
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis
Page 2 of 14
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Image Width (cm)
Image Height (cm)
Field of View imaged (m2)
Sediment Type
Surface Ox
Debris
Bedforms
Tubes
Burrows
Tracks
Epifauna
Flora
Number of Fish
Site
15
A
09/27/15
9:11:57
84.8
56.5
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Sparse
Present
Shrimp
None
1
Site
15
D
09/27/15
9:14:09
87.8
58.6
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
Site
16
A
09/27/15
9:25:02
87.2
58.1
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
None
None
0
Site
17
A
09/27/15
12:56:54
90.6
60.4
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
Crab
None
0
Site
17
B
09/27/15
12:57:57
85.9
57.3
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Sparse
Present
Abundant
None
None
0
Site
18
A
09/27/15
13:11:06
83.6
55.8
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
Site
18
B
09/27/15
13:11:57
81.5
54.3
0.4
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Sparse
Abundant
None
None
0
Site
19
A
09/27/15
8:35:14
92.5
61.6
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Sparse
Sparse
Abundant
None
None
0
Site
19
B
09/27/15
8:36:04
94.6
63.1
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
None
None
0
Site
19
D
09/27/15
8:37:34
92.9
61.9
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
None
None
0
Site
20
A
09/27/15
8:47:25
88.9
59.3
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
Shrimp
None
0
Site
21
A
09/27/15
9:00:18
98.2
65.5
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
Site
22
A
09/27/15
13:44:15
97.3
64.8
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
None
None
0
Site
22
C
09/27/15
13:46:08
86.1
57.4
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
None
None
0
Site
23
A
09/27/15
13:36:34
89.6
59.7
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis
Page 3 of 14
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Image Width (cm)
Image Height (cm)
Field of View imaged (m2)
Sediment Type
Surface Ox
Debris
Bedforms
Tubes
Burrows
Tracks
Epifauna
Flora
Number of Fish
Site
23
B
09/27/15
13:37:24
90.0
60.0
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
Shrimp
None
0
Site
23
C
09/27/15
13:38:21
97.7
65.1
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
Shrimp
None
0
Site
24
A
09/27/15
13:23:07
86.7
57.8
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Sparse
Present
Present
Shrimp
None
0
Site
24
B
09/27/15
13:24:17
86.4
57.6
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Sparse
None
Shrimp
None
0
Site
24
C
09/27/15
13:25:05
86.9
57.9
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Sparse
Sparse
Present
None
None
0
Site
25
A
09/27/15
15:01:05
90.2
60.1
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
None
None
0
Site
26
A
09/27/15
14:52:14
89.1
59.4
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Sparse
Present
Present
Shrimp
Algae
0
Site
26
B
09/27/15
14:53:17
98.4
65.6
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Abundant
Present
Present
None
None
0
Site
26
C
09/27/15
14:54:05
96.6
64.4
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Sparse
Sparse
Sparse
None
None
0
Site
27
A
09/27/15
14:37:33
103.9
69.2
0.7
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
Shrimp
None
0
Site
27
B
09/27/15
14:38:39
92.5
61.7
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Sparse
Present
Shrimp
Algae
0
Site
27
C
09/27/15
14:39:23
93.8
62.5
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
Shrimp
None
0
Site
28
A
09/27/15
14:31:10
98.0
65.3
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
None
None
0
Site
29
A
09/27/15
14:16:20
87.2
58.1
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
Large mud clast
None
Present
Present
Present
None
None
0
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis
Page 4 of 14
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Image Width (cm)
Image Height (cm)
Field of View imaged (m2)
Sediment Type
Surface Ox
Debris
Bedforms
Tubes
Burrows
Tracks
Epifauna
Flora
Number of Fish
Site
30
A
09/27/15
14:03:05
85.4
57.0
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Sparse
Sparse
Present
Anemone
None
0
REF-A
1
A
09/27/15
16:23:05
96.3
64.2
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Sparse
Abundant
None
None
0
REF-A
1
B
09/27/15
16:23:57
93.0
62.0
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Sparse
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
REF-A
1
C
09/27/15
16:24:57
90.2
60.2
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Abundant
Sparse
Sparse
Shrimp
None
0
REF-A
2
A
09/27/15
16:11:20
92.9
61.9
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
Shrimp
None
0
REF-A
2
B
09/27/15
16:12:15
90.2
60.2
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
Shrimp
None
0
REF-A
3
A
09/27/15
16:31:18
96.7
64.4
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
Shrimp
None
0
REF-A
3
B
09/27/15
16:32:36
85.4
56.9
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Abundant
Present
None
None
0
REF-A
3
C
09/27/15
16:33:26
87.4
58.3
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
None
None
0
REF-A
4
A
09/27/15
16:02:28
91.7
61.1
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Sparse
Present
None
None
0
REF-A
5
A
09/27/15
16:16:27
94.2
62.8
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Sparse
None
None
0
REF-B
1
A
09/27/15
15:36:22
100.1
66.7
0.7
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
REF-B
1
B
09/27/15
15:37:09
94.1
62.7
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Sparse
Abundant
None
None
0
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis
Page 5 of 14
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Image Width (cm)
Image Height (cm)
Field of View imaged (m2)
Sediment Type
Surface Ox
Debris
Bedforms
Tubes
Burrows
Tracks
Epifauna
Flora
Number of Fish
REF-B
1
C
09/27/15
15:37:58
92.1
61.4
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
None
None
0
REF-B
2
A
09/27/15
15:21:42
83.9
55.9
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Abundant
Present
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
REF-B
2
B
09/27/15
15:23:00
91.8
61.2
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Abundant
Present
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
REF-B
2
D
09/27/15
15:24:47
88.2
58.8
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Sparse
Present
Shrimp
None
0
REF-B
3
A
09/27/15
15:44:04
84.6
56.4
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Sparse
Abundant
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
REF-B
3
B
09/27/15
15:44:57
80.8
53.9
0.4
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
REF-B
3
C
09/27/15
15:45:48
92.4
61.6
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Present
Shrimp
None
0
REF-B
4
A
09/27/15
15:15:30
88.3
58.9
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
None
None
0
REF-B
4
C
09/27/15
15:17:08
92.3
61.5
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
None
None
0
REF-B
5
A
09/27/15
15:28:55
98.0
65.3
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Present
Present
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
REF-B
5
B
09/27/15
15:30:00
100.5
67.0
0.7
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Abundant
Sparse
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
REF-B
5
C
09/27/15
15:30:55
90.3
60.2
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Abundant
Present
Abundant
Shrimp
None
0
REF-C
1
A
09/27/15
11:23:02
95.1
63.4
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
Sparse
Present
Present
Anemone
None
0
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis
Page 6 of 14
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Date
Time
Image Width (cm)
Image Height (cm)
Field of View imaged (m2)
Sediment Type
Surface Ox
Debris
Bedforms
Tubes
Burrows
Tracks
Epifauna
Flora
Number of Fish
REF-C
1
B
09/27/15
11:23:47
90.6
60.4
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
Small mud clasts
None
Sparse
Sparse
Sparse
None
None
0
REF-C
2
A
09/27/15
11:39:41
85.7
57.1
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
Small mud clasts
None
Sparse
Present
Sparse
Shrimp
None
0
REF-C
2
D
09/27/15
11:42:38
IND
IND
IND
Silt/Clay
Ox
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
Anemone
IND
IND
REF-C
3
A
09/27/15
11:29:48
96.4
64.2
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
Small mud clasts
None
Sparse
Present
Abundant
None
None
0
REF-C
4
A
09/27/15
11:55:59
96.1
64.1
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
Small mud clasts
None
Present
Sparse
Abundant
None
None
0
REF-C
4
B
09/27/15
11:57:05
86.3
57.6
0.5
Silt/Clay
Ox
Rope
None
Present
Present
Abundant
None
None
0
REF-C
5
A
09/27/15
11:48:46
93.5
62.3
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
Anthropogenic
Debris
None
Present
Sparse
Present
Shrimp
None
0
REF-C
5
B
09/27/15
11:49:39
91.6
61.1
0.6
Silt/Clay
Ox
None
None
IND
IND
IND
IND
None
0
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis
Page 7 of 14
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Other Salient Features/Comment
Site
1
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. SWI is pocked with small irregularities and low accumulations of
sediment. Small tubes are barely visible on surface.
Site
1
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Some medium length tubes lying on surface. Large masses of sediment
have fallen from prism onto SWI.
Site
1
D
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. SWI is pocked with small irregularities and low accumulations of
sediment. Large tubes visible against sediment surface. Large burrow near lasers.
Site
2
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. SWI marked with shallow burrow depressions and long track marks.
Site
3
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Burrow openings apparent in SWI. Large shrimp between lasers.
Site
3
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Burrow openings apparent in SWI. Fauna just above lasers- small fish
or shrimp. Tracks and small irregularities in sediment. Weak resuspension of material.
Site
4
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Burrow openings apparent in SWI, few are large. Shrimp at SWI. Many
side by side paired tracks in sediment. Large tubes are visible, smaller tubes may not be visible at distance.
Site
5
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Burrow openings apparent in SWI, few are large. Side by side paired
tracks in sediment. Large tubes are visible, smaller tubes may not be visible at distance.
Site
6
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Large burrow opening visible. Several shrimp at SWI. Large shell
fragments are scant on SWI. Many small clasts, white and gray in color, scattered across SWI.
Site
7
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Burrow openings visible in SWI, one is moderately large. Many tracks
visible. Shallow depression near center of image. Small tubes cover sediment surface.
Site
7
D
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Burrow openings visible in SWI, one is moderately large. Small
gastropod above left laser. Shrimp at SWI. Small tubes cover sediment surface.
Site
8
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many small burrow openings visible. Small tubes are visible throughout
image in low density. Few small shrimp.
Site
8
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many small burrow openings visible. Small tubes are visible throughout
image in low density. SWI is heavily marked by small sets of tracks.
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis
Page 8 of 14
-------
ISDSN - September 2015 Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Other Salient Features/Comment
Site
9
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many small burrow openings visible. Small tubes are visible throughout
image in low density. SWI is heavily marked by small sets of tracks.
Site
10
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many small burrow openings visible. Small tubes are visible throughout
image in low density. SWI is heavily marked by small sets of tracks. Small shrimp at SWI. Organisms blurry in water column.
Site
10
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Small tubes visible. Water column is cloudy with resuspended sediment.
Single shrimp visible.
Site
11
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Small tubes visible. Large burrow in upper right. Water column is
cloudy with resuspended sediment.
Site
11
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Small tubes visible. Water column is cloudy with resuspended sediment.
Burrows visible in SWI.
Site
11
D
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Small tubes visible. Water column is cloudy with resuspended sediment.
Few burrows visible in SWI. Shrimp.
Site
12
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Clusters of growth in patches. Small shrimp. Small shell fragments and
rocks scattered across SWI.
Site
12
B
Very turbid water column. Lasers/benthic features are not visible.
Site
12
D
Very turbid water column. Lasers are not visible. Shell fragments and small tubes visible in upper right.
Site
13
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Dense tracks across SWI. Several medium burrows. Large burrow in
upper right. Few tubes.
Site
13
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Small tracks across SWI. Small burrows visible. Single shrimp. Few
tubes.
Site
13
D
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Large mud clasts in upper 1/3 of image from camera base sled. Small
mud clasts across SWI. Many tubes in upper portion of image, fewer in lower half.
Site
14
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Small tracks across SWI. Small burrows visible. Small shrimp in lower
left corner. Few tubes.
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis Page 9 of 14
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Other Salient Features/Comment
Site
15
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many tracks across SWI. Small burrows visible. Fish swimming in
water column. Very small tubes visible on SWI. Shrimp in lower right.
Site
15
D
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many tracks across SWI. Small burrows visible. Several shrimp visible
in image. Very small tubes visible on SWI.
Site
16
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Abundant tracks cover SWI. Small tubes visible against SWI.
Site
17
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Abundant tracks cover SWI. Small tubes visible against SWI. Few
reduced burrow mounds visible. Crab in lower right corner.
Site
17
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Abundant tracks cover SWI. Small tubes visible against SWI.
Site
18
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Abundant tracks cover SWI. Small tubes visible against SWI. Shrimp.
Site
18
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Abundant tracks cover SWI. Small tubes visible against SWI.
Site
19
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Abundant tracks cover SWI. Image is not in focus. Few small tubes
visible
Site
19
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Abundant tracks cover SWI. Image is not in focus. Small tubes visible
Site
19
D
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many tracks cover SWI. Image is not in focus. Small tubes visible.
Several large burrow openings in SWI.
Site
20
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many tracks cover SWI. Large burrow in center of image. Shrimp to far
right.
Site
21
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many tracks cover SWI. Small tubes and burrows visible.. Single small
shell fragment at SWI.
Site
22
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many thin tracks cover SWI. Small tubes and burrows visible. Large
burrow in lower right.
Site
22
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many tracks cover SWI. Small tubes and burrows visible.
Site
23
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many tracks cover SWI. Small tubes and burrows visible. Small
shrimp.
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis
Page 10 of 14
-------
ISDSN - September 2015 Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Other Salient Features/Comment
Site
23
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many tracks cover SWI. Small tubes and burrows visible. Small
shrimp.
Site
23
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many tracks cover SWI. Small tubes and burrows visible. Many shrimp
at SWI.
Site
24
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Few burrow openings visible. SWI appears slightly slumped. Small
clasts cover SWI. Shrimp.
Site
24
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Clusters of small mud clasts on surface. One large burrow on left. Small
tubes, cluster lying on surface near right laser. Shrimp.
Site
24
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Visible portion of SWI is covered with a dense network of tracks. Tubes
at SWI. Few burrows visible.
Site
25
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. SWI is covered with a dense network of tracks. Tubes at SWI. Few
burrows visible.
Site
26
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. SWI is covered with a dense network of tracks. Tubes at SWI. Few
burrows visible. Small bit of yellow algae visible, partially buried on surface. Few small shrimp at SWI.
Site
26
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Tracks and tubes at SWI. Few medium burrows visible at upper right.
Site
26
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Few tubes, tracks, and burrows visible. Turbid water column.
Site
27
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Tubes at SWI. Large burrow in lower portion of image. Shrimp at SWI.
Site
27
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Tubes at SWI. Shrimp at SWI. Yellow algae in lower right.
Site
27
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Set of tracks diagonally across image. Tubes at SWI. Shrimp at SWI.
Site
28
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many tracks across SWI. Small shell fragment. Few medium burrows
Site
29
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Large clast in top right corner of image.
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis
Page 11 of 14
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Other Salient Features/Comment
Site
30
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Tracks at SWI. Large clast in top left corner of image. Large anemone at
SWI.
REF-A
1
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Abundant tracks at SWI. Large burrow opening in upper right with tubes
surrounding rim of burrow. Tubes visible at SWI.
REF-A
1
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Abundant tracks at SWI. Tubes visible at SWI. Several large burrows
visible. Shrimp.
REF-A
1
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Tracks at SWI. Tubes visible at SWI. Several large burrows visible.
Shrimp in upper right.
REF-A
2
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Tracks at SWI. Tubes visible at SWI. Three large burrows.
REF-A
2
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Tracks at SWI. Tubes visible at SWI. Shrimp in center of lasers.
REF-A
3
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Tracks at SWI. Tubes visible at SWI. Couple shrimp at SWI.
REF-A
3
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many small burrow openings at SWI. Tubes visible at SWI. Tracks at
SWI.
REF-A
3
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Few small burrow openings at SWI. Tubes visible at SWI. Series of
tracks running diagonally from lower left to upper right of image.
REF-A
4
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Few small burrow openings at SWI. Tubes visible at SWI.
REF-A
5
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Few small burrow openings at SWI. Tubes visible at SWI. Few tracks.
REF-B
1
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Large burrow opening in top left corner of image. Small tubes visible
against SWI. Small fecal coils. SWI is studded with many tracks.
REF-B
1
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Small tubes visible against SWI. Small tracks cross SWI.
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis
Page 12 of 14
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Other Salient Features/Comment
REF-B
1
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Burrows visible.. Small tubes visible against SWI. Small tracks cross
SWI.
REF-B
2
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Burrows visible. Abundant small tubes. Few shrimp visible.
REF-B
2
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Many small burrows. Abundant small tubes. Few shrimp visible.
REF-B
2
D
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Few small burrows. Water column is clouded with resuspended sediment.
Few shrimp visible.
REF-B
3
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Few tubes visible from distance. Many small burrows. Dense network of
tracks. Few shrimp visible.
REF-B
3
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Small burrows in upper right, large burrow in lower right corner of
image. Dense network of tracks. Few shrimp visible.
REF-B
3
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Few tracks. Single shrimp visible.
REF-B
4
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Rough uneven SWI with many small tracks. Large burrow opening to
far left.
REF-B
4
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Rough uneven SWI with many small tracks. Large burrows to right half
of image.
REF-B
5
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Rough uneven SWI with many small tracks. Small shrimp at SWI,
REF-B
5
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Rough uneven SWI with many small tracks. Small shrimp at SWI, large
burrow on lower left corner.
REF-B
5
C
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Rough uneven SWI with many small tracks. Small shrimp at SWI.
REF-C
1
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. SWI is very smooth, interrupted by tracks, small burrows. Large
anemone visible in image.
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis
Page 13 of 14
-------
ISDSN - September 2015
Plan-View Image Analysis Results
Location
Station
Replicate
Other Salient Features/Comment
REF-C
1
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Small clasts deposited at SWI. Hydroid growth.
REF-C
2
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Small clasts deposited at SWI. Shrimp in center of image.
REF-C
2
D
Image is very cloudy. SWI is oxidized but no features visible. Large anemone visible.
REF-C
3
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Small clasts deposited at SWI. Abundant tracks cross SWI. Few large
burrow openings visible.
REF-C
4
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Small clasts deposited at SWI. Abundant tracks cross SWI. Few large
burrow openings visible.
REF-C
4
B
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Small clasts deposited at SWI. Abundant tracks cross SWI. Large rope
crosses upper left corner of image.
REF-C
5
A
Loosely packed fine sediment is oxidized, light tan in color. Shrimp in image. Large square objected covered with mud drape in
center of image.
REF-C
5
B
Image is very cloudy. SWI is oxidized but no features visible.
Appendix C - Plan-View Image Analysis
Page 14 of 14
-------
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
New England District
DAMOS Data Summary Report — Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North
September 2015
APPENDIX D
GRAIN SIZE SCALE FOR SEDIMENTS
Phi (2
Gravel
0 to -1
1 to 2
Very coarse sand
1 to 0
0.5 to 1
Coarse sand
2 to 1
0.25 to 0.5
Medium sand
3 to 2
0.125 to 0.25
Fine sand
4 to 3
0.0625 to 0.125
Very fine sand
>4
<0.0625
Silt/clay
Appendix D
Page 1 of 1
-------
Environmental Assessment and Evaluation Study
for a Designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site in
Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern
Massachusetts
Appendix D
Fish Trawl and Lobster Pot Trawl Survey report of IOSN
-------
-------
Contract Number: W912WJ-12-D-0004
Delivery Order Number: 33
Final Report for Isles of Shoals
North Site
Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Submitted to:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
North Atlantic Division
New England District
Prepared by:
Battelle
141 Longwater Place
Norwell, MA 02061
March 2017
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project March 2017
Draft Project Report
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 Project Description and Technical Approach 3
1.2 Scope of Work 3
1.3 Organization of this Report 3
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 4
2.1 Spring Collection of Fish Abundance Data 4
2.2 Winter Collection of Fish Abundance Data 6
2.3 Winter Collection of Lobster Abundance Data 8
3. RESULTS 10
3.1 Spring Collection of Fish Abundance Data 10
3.2 Winter Collection of Fish Abundance Data 10
3.3 Winter Collection of Lobster Abundance Data 10
4. REFERENCES 13
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Start and End Coordinates, Time and Depth for IOSN Spring Fish Trawls 4
Table 2-2. Start and End Coordinates, Time and Depth for IOSN Winter Fish Trawls 6
Table 3-1. Summary of Fish Abundance Data from IOSN Spring Fish Trawls 11
Table 3-2. Summary of Fish Abundance Data from IOSN Winter Fish Trawls 11
Table 3-3. Summary of Lobster Abundance Data from IOSN 12
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Map Showing the IOSN Spring Trawl Lines 5
Figure 2-2. Map Showing the IOSN Winter Trawl Lines 7
Figure 2-3. Isles of Shoals North Lobster Trawl Lines 9
List of Attachments
Attachment A: Spring Fish Abundance Data Collected May 24, 2016 14
Attachment B: Winter Fish Abundance Data Collected February 20, 2017 17
Attachment C: Fish Abundance Field Log Sheets 19
Attachment D: Fish Abundance Field Photos 33
Attachment E: Lobster Abundance Field Log Sheets 43
1
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Pro ject Report
March 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
2
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Pro ject Report
March 2017
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description and Technical Approach
The United States Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic Division, New England District
needs to assess the potential impacts to fisheries resources at a potential disposal site off the
coast of Maine and New Hampshire to be used for the Portsmouth River navigation improvement
project. The Corps requires baseline information on the fish community in the project area. The
work described in this report was assembled to support the New England District in gathering
fish and lobster abundance data.
1.2 Scope of Work
The project scope of work consisted of fish and lobster abundance measurements at the Isles of
Shoals North Site (IOSN) in the spring of 2016 and the winter of 2016/2017.
1.3 Organization of this Report
This report was prepared in accordance with the requirements outlined in the New England
District (NAE) Statement of Work (SOW) for Boston Harbor and Portsmouth Harbor Fisheries
Monitoring dated February 29, 2016. Following this introduction, the materials and methods
used in support of this study are presented in Section 2.0. Section 3.0 presents the results of the
data gathered. Attachments A and B contain the fish abundance data for the spring and winter
sampling events. Attachment C contain the fish field log sheets and photos are included in
Attachment D. Attachment E contains the lobster field log sheets.
3
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Pro ject Report
March 2017
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Spring Collection of Fish Abundance Data
For the spring sampling effort, Battelle and its subcontractor CR Environmental collected fish
abundance data at the IOSN. The sampling occurred May 24, 2016, and was performed using
the F/V Nicole Leigh.
Sampling activities were performed according to the Field Sampling Plan (FSP) (Battelle, 2016).
At the Isles of Shoals site, 6 otter trawls were conducted using a commercial otter trawl with a
liner sewn into the net and cod end to reduce the mesh size to 0.25 inch to enable the capture of
juvenile fish along with larger individuals. The net employed had a sweep of 55 feet with a total
distance of 85 feet between the doors. Each trawl was conducted for 15 minutes at speed of
approximately 2.6 knots. Figure 2-1 shows the locations of the trawls at the Isles of Shoals, and
Table 2-1 provides the start and end coordinates, time, and water depth for each trawl.
Table 2-1. Start and End Coordinates, Time and Depth for IOSN Spring Fish Trawls
Start
End
Station ID
DATE
LAT
LONG
TIME
Depth (ft)
LAT
LONG
TIME
Depth
(m)
ISO
5/24/2016
43.02712788
-70.45885956
15:27
52.5
43.0326187
-70.4465
15:42
52.5
IS-1
5/24/2016
43.01431638
-70.4594692
13:23:
52.5
43.0204651
-70.4467
13:39
53.1
IS-2
5/24/2016
43.02080519
-70.42572132
14:17
56.9
43.015199
-70.4401
14:34
54.1
IS-3
5/24/2016
43.01995392
-70.42847991
10:16:
55.6
43.0285307
-70.4391
10:32
52.5
IS-4
5/24/2016
43.03061571
-70.44935621
11:25:
52.5
43.0236862
-70.4442
11:38
53.1
IS-5
5/24/2016
43.01535966
-70.44630492
12:29:
53.1
43.0237056
-70.4553
12:44
52.5
^ Coordinates in North American Datum 83
4
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
Port» mouth
Amesbur
Peatiody
1
Of <
Area
Hampton
Isles of Shoals
Explanation
# Trawl Line End
O Trawl Line Start
Trawl Line
J~~ j North Disposal Site
Batreiie
The Busi ness of Innovation
Isles of Shoals
Trawl Lines
2,000
Isles of Shoals
Monitoring Project
DATE: 6/9/2016
ANALYST; HICKSJ
APPROVED: SOKOLOFF
Ipswich
Gloucester
Miles
Figure 2-1. Map Showing the IOSN Spring Trawl Lines
5
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Pro ject Report
March 2017
2.2 Winter Collection of Fish Abundance Data
For the winter sampling effort, Battelle and its subcontractor CR Environmental collected fish
abundance data at the Isles of Shoals Harbor. The sampling occurred on February 20, 2017, and
was performed using the F/V Nicole Leigh.
Isles of Shoals sampling activities were performed per the Field Sampling Plan (FSP) (Battelle,
2016). At the Isles of Shoals site, 6 otter trawls were conducted using a commercial otter trawl
with a liner sewn into the net and cod end to reduce the mesh size to 0.25 inch to enable the
capture of juvenile fish along with larger individuals. The net employed had a sweep of 55 feet
with a total distance of 85 feet between the doors. Each trawl was conducted for approximately
20 minutes at speed of approximately 2.4 - 2.8 knots. Figure 2-2 shows the locations of the
trawls at the Isles of Shoals, and Table 2-2 provides the start and end coordinates, time and water
depth for each trawl.
Table 2-2. Start and End Coordinates, Time and Depth for IOSN Winter Fish Trawls
Station
ID
DATE
Start
End
LAT
LONG
TIME
Depth
(ft)
LAT
LONG
TIME
Depth
(m)
ISO
02/20/2017
43.03559744
70.44844499
10:20
48.0
43.02539072
70.46121523
10:41
51.0
IS-1
02/20/2017
43.01754018
70.45400075
17:22
52.5
43.02717493
70.44183696
17:43
53.8
IS-2
02/20/2017
43.01994712
70.42767681
16:33
56.3
43.00992203
70.44212129
16:54
53.8
IS-3
02/20/2017
43.03122547
70.44208684
15:17
51.9
43.02202677
70.43031723
15:36
55.3
IS-4
02/20/2017
43.02931055
70.44712052
13:40
52.8
43.01573919
70.43685407
14:03
53.8
IS-5
02/20/2017
43.02635373
70.45662874
12:02
51.3
43.01500299
70.45312078
12:23
51.9
^ Coordinates in North American Datum 83
6
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
Explanation
# Trawl Line End
O Trawl Line Start
Trawl Line
CI3 North Disposal Site
2.000
Isles of Shoals
Trawl Lines
(February 20, 2017)
Isles of Shoals
Monitoring Project
batsmmatr anmvsthicksj
0 APPROVG& SOKOLOPE
Isles of Shoals
Area
N»wbiayporr
Figure 2-2. Map Showing the IOSN Winter Trawl Lines
7
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Pro ject Report
March 2017
2.3 Winter Collection of Lobster Abundance Data
Battelle collected lobster abundance data in and around the Isles of Sholes Site North (IOSN) in
December 2016 and January 2017 to assess the winter lobster community in the area. Catch
sampling of lobsters was conducted over a total of 6 deployment events. For the first
deployment event (Dec. 4-7, 2016) three trawls, each containing 20 vented traps were deployed
from a commercial lobster vessel. The next three deployment events (Dec.7-13; Dec. 20-28; Dec.
28- Jan. 2, 2017) six trawls were deployed, each containing 20 vented traps. For the fifth
deployment event (Jan. 7-20, 2017) six trawls of 16 vented traps were used, and for the sixth
deployment event (Jan. 20-31, 2017) eight trawls of 16 vented traps were used. The placement
of the lobster trawls in and around IOSN was conducted with input from the captains of both the
F/V Rolling Stone and F/V Jacquie and Nicole (local lobstermen). Figure 2-3 shows the
locations of the lobster trawl lines at the IOSN site.
8
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2016
0 1,600 3.200
/
o
ifcury/
SM* m
/s/es of Shoals
Area
Explanation
^ Trawl Line End
o Trawl Line Start
Trawl Line
December 7
December 13
December 28
January 2
January 20
January 31
North Disposal Site
0
BATTELLE
Isles of Shoals
Trawl Lines
Isles of Shoals
Monitoring Project
aire 7/won
ANALYST HICkSJ
approved sokoloff
Figure 2-3. Isles of Shoals North Site Lobster Trawl Lines (the northwestern most trawl
from 28-Dec overlaps with the northwestern most trawl from 13-Dec.)
9
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Pro ject Report
March 2016
3. RESULTS
3.1 Spring Collection of Fish Abundance Data
A summary of the fish abundance data collected in May 2016 is provided in Table 3-1 of this
section. In the spring the number of individuals at a station ranged from 1226 individuals at IS-
4, to 3,846 at individuals at IS-2. The total number of individuals caught during the spring
sampling was 12,218 across a total of 24 species. The mean species per station was 15, with 13
different species being caught at IS-0, IS4, and IS-5, and maximum species diversity of 18 at IS-
2. The dominant species collected were silver hake, dab, alewife, and haddock.
3.2 Winter Collection of Fish Abundance Data
A summary of the fish abundance data collected in February of 2017 is provided in Table 3-2. In
the winter the number of individuals at a station ranged from 3,546 individuals at IS-5, to 5,027
at individuals at IS-1. The total number of individuals caught during the winter sampling was
26,131 across a total of 28 species. The mean species per station was 15, with 11 different
species being caught at IS-0, and maximum species diversity of 18 at IS-1. The dominant species
collected were the alewife/blueback herring complex, silver hake, lobster and winter flounder.
3.3 Winter Collection of Lobster Abundance Data
A summary of lobster abundance data collected in December 2016 to January 2017 is
summarized in Table 3-3. A total of 2,161 lobsters were collected during the study: 1,475 (68%)
lobsters were shorts (i.e., lobsters under the legal size) and 686 (32%) lobsters were of legal size.
For each deployed trap, an average of 3.7 lobsters were caught: 2.5 shorts and 1.2 legal sized.
The mean catch ranged from 2.2 to 5.9 lobsters per trap, with a mean of 0.7 to 2.2 legal lobsters
per trap and 1.1 to 4.9 shorts per trap.
10
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Pro ject Report
March 2016
Table 3-1. Summary of Fish Abundance Data from IOSN Spring Fish Trawls
STATION
Sampling Event
# of Individuals
# of Species
1741
13
IS1
Spring 2016
1722
IS 2
Spring 2016
3846
18
IS3
Spring 2016
2267
15
IS4
Spring 2016
1226
13
IS5
Spring2016
1416
13
Spring 2016
1226 (IS4)
13 (ISO, IS4, &IS5)
Maximum
Spring 2016
3846 (IS2)
18 (IS2)
Total
Spring 2016
12218
24
Table 3-2. Summary of Fish Abundance Data from IOSN Winter Fish Trawls
STATION
Sampling Event
# of Individuals
# of Species
IS1
Winter 2017
5027
18
IS2
Winter 2017
4815
14
IS3
Winter 2017
4906
14
IS4
Winter 2017
4052
17
IS5
Winter 2017
3546
15
Minimum
Winter 2017
3546 (IS5)
11 (ISO)
Maximum
Winter 2017
5027 (IS1)
18 (IS1)
Mean
Winter 2017
4355
15
Total
Winter 2017
26131
28
11
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Pro ject Report
March 2016
Table 3-3. Summary of Lobster Abundance Data Collected From IOSN.
Deployment Date
Retrieval Date
# of Traps(Vented)
# of Shorts Caught
# of Legal Lobsters Caught
Total Lobsters Caught
4-Dec-16
7-Dec-16
93
4-Dec-16
7-Dec-16
20
58
29
87
^ 4-Dec-16
7-Dec-16 .
38
112 }
7-Dec-16
13-Dec-16
20
98
20
118
. 7-Dec-16
13-Dec-16
39
¦ «2 V
7-Dec-16
13-Dec-16
20
36
30
66
7-Dec-16
13-Dec-16
?.;i
7-Dec-16
13-Dec-16
20
41
29
70
20-Dec-16
28-Dec-17
90 1
20-Dec-16
28-Dec-16
20
45
17
62
2.MV. i„
,38-Dec-16
¦HHRHHHI
20-Dec-16
28-Dec-16
20
58
17
75
,;20
r 36
15
1 !
28-Dec-16
2-Jan-:i.
2(1
40
18
20
^56
201
28-Dec-16
2-Jan-:i.
2(1
n
21
;ie
'¦-68
IS,
28-Dec-16
2-Jan-:
2(1
S9
13
1(.
>!
if'
8-Jan-16
20-Jan-17
16
27
18
45
7-Jan-16
20-Jan-17
7-Jan-16
20-Jan-
31-Jan-
31-Jan-17
31-Jan-17
20-Jan-17
31-Jan-17
12
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
4. REFERENCES
Battelle. 2016. Field Sampling Plan for Boston Harbor and Portsmouth Harbor Fisheries
Monitoring Boston, MA and Portsmouth, NH. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
North Atlantic Division New England District under Contract W912WJ-12-D-0004.
Battelle. 2016. Final Field Sampling Plan for Boston Harbor and Portsmouth Harbor Fisheries
Monitoring Boston, MA and Portsmouth, NH Addendum #1. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers North Atlantic Division New England District under Contract W912WJ-12-D-0004.
13
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Pro ject Report
March 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
14
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Pro ject Report
March 2017
Attachment A: Spring Fish Abundance Data Collected May 24, 2016.
Trawl Name
Scientific Name
Common Name
#of Individuals
ISO
Merluccius bilinearis
Silver Hake
1512
ISO
Hippoglossoides platessoides
Dab
93
ISO
Alosa pseudoharengus
Alewife
61
ISO
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Haddock
23
ISO
Homarus americanus
Lobster
22
ISO
Sebastes norvegicus
Redfish
12
ISO
Limanda ferruginea
Yellowtail Flounder
6
ISO
Pollachius virens
Pollock
4
ISO
Urophycis chuss
Red Hake
3
ISO
Pleuronectes putnami
Gray Sole
2
ISO
Clupea harengus
Atlantic Herring
1
ISO
Leucoraja erinacea
Little Skate
1
ISO
Lophius americanus
Monkfish
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
h- h-»l— M M h- h- H* M h- H» h- h- h- 1— H» H»
Merluccius bilinearis
Alosa pseudoharengus
Hippoglossoides platessoides
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Homarus americanus
Urophycis chuss
Limanda ferruginea
Pleuronectes putnami
Alosa mediocris
Clupea harengus
Paralichthys oblongus
Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Enchelyopus cimbrius
Lophius americanus
Pollachius virens
Sebastes norvegicus
lllex illecebrosus, Doryteuthis pealeil
Silver Hake
Alewife
Dab
Haddock
Lobster
Red Hake
Yellowtail Flounder
Gray Sole
Spotted Shad
Atlantic Herring
Four Spot Flounder
Blackback Flounder
Fourbeard Rockling
Monkfish
Pollock
Redfish
Short Fin Squid, Long Fin Squid
H
IS-2
Merluccius bilinearis
Silver Hake
3487
IS-2
Hippoglossoides platessoides
Dab
88
IS-2
Sebastes norvegicus
Redfish
75
IS-2
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Haddock
73
IS-2
Alosa pseudoharengus
Alewife
42
IS-2
Homarus americanus
Lobster
37
IS-2
Urophycis chuss
Red Hake
15
IS-2
Limanda ferruginea
Yellowtail Flounder
8
IS-2
Pleuronectes putnami
Gray Sole
6
IS-2
Alosa mediocris
Hickory Shad
3
IS-2
Clupea harengus
Atlantic Herring
2
IS-2
Enchelyopus cimbrius
Fourbeard Rockling
2
15
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Pro ject Report
March 2017
IS-2
Leucoraja erinacea
Little Skate
2
IS-2
Pollachius virens
Pollock
2
IS-2
Alosa aestivalis
Blueback Herring
1
IS-2
Lophius americanus
Monkfish
1
IS-2
Squalus acanthias
Spiny Dogfish
1
IS-2
Cryptacanthodes maculatus
Wrymouth Blenny
1
IS-3
Merluccius bilineaiis
Silver Hake
2100
IS-3
Hippoglossoides platessoides
Dab
47
IS-3
Alosa pseudohaiengus
Alewife
46
IS-3
Homaius ameiicanus
Lobster
25
IS-3
Melanogiammus aeglefinus
Haddock
16
IS-3
Sebastes not vegicus
Redfish
9
IS-3
Ui ophycis chtiss
Red Hake
8
IS-3
Pleuronectes putnami
Gray Sole
3
IS-3
Lophius americanus
Monkfish
3
IS-3
Limanda feriuginea
Yellowtail Flounder
3
IS-3
Pollachius virens
Pollock
2
IS-3
lllex illecebiosus, Doryteuthis pealeil
Short Fin Squid, Long Fin Squid
2
IS-3
Aspidophoroides monoptei ygius
Alligator Fish
1
IS-3
Pseudopleuionectes ameiicanus
Blackback Flounder
1
IS-3
Enchelyopus cimbrius
Fourbeard Rockling
1
IS-4
Merluccius bilinearis
Silver Hake
948
IS-4
Alosa pseudoharengus
Alewife
99
IS-4
Hippoglossoides platessoides
Dab
86
IS-4
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Haddock
41
IS-4
Homarus americanus
Lobster
28
IS-4
Pleuronectes putnami
Gray Sole
9
IS-4
Limanda ferruginea
Yellowtail Flounder
5
IS-4
Urophycis chuss
Red Hake
4
IS-4
Sebastes norvegicus
Redfish
2
IS-4
Myoxocephalus scorpius
Longhorn Scuplin
1
IS-4
Lophius americanus
Monkfish
1
IS-4
Clupea harengus
Sea Herring
1
IS-4
Cryptacanthodes maculatus
Wrymouth Blenny
1
IS-5
Merluccius bilineaiis
Silver Hake
1065
IS-5
Alosa pseudohaiengus
Alewife
177
IS-5
Melanogiammus aeglefinus
Haddock
42
IS-5
Homaius ameiicanus
Lobster
30
IS-5
Sebastes norvegicus
Redfish
7
IS-5
Pleuronectes putnami
Gray Sole
6
IS-5
Limanda fen uginea
Yellowtail Flounder
4
IS-5
Ui ophycis chuss
Red Hake
3
IS-5
Oadus morhua
Cod
2
IS-5
Alosa mediociis
Spotted Shad
2
IS-5
Paialichthys oblongus
Four Spot Flounder
1
IS-5
Clupea haiengus
Sea Herring
1
16
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Pro ject Report
March 2017
Attachment B: Winter Fish Abundance Data Collected February 20, 2017.
Trawl Name
Scientific Name
Common Name
# of Individuals
ISO
Alosa pseudoharengus, Alosa aestivalis
Alewife, Blueback Herring
2082
ISO
Scomber colias
Atlantic Mackerel
68
ISO
Homarus americanus
Lobster
38
ISO
Clupea harengus
Atlantic Herring
26
ISO
Hippoglossoides platessoides
Dab
5
ISO
Urophycis chuss
Red Hake
2
ISO
Lophius americanus
Monkfish
2
ISO
///ex illecebrosus, Doryteuthis pealeil
Short Fin Squid, Long Fin Squid
1
ISO
Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Winter Flounder
1
ISO
Limanda ferruginea
Yellowtail Flounder
1
IS-1
Merluccius bilinearis
Silver Hake
4315
IS-1
Alosa pseudoharengus, Alosa aestivalis
Alewife, Blueback Herring
557 §g
IS-1
Homarus americanus
Lobster
44 H
IS-1
Scomber colias
Atlantic Mackerel
37
IS-1
Clupea harengus
Atlantic Herring
27
IS-1
Hippoglossoides platessoides
Dab
'.'14' H
IS-1
Urophycis chuss
Red Hake
10
IS-1
Lophius americanus
Monkfish
'6 t§3
IS-1
Scophthalmus aquosus
Windowpane Flounder
' 3 ¦ H
IS-1
Myoxocephalus scorpius
Longhorn Scuplin
3 H
IS-1
Pleuronectes putnami
Gray Sole
3 • 11
IS-1
///ex illecebrosus, Doryteuthis pealeil
Short Fin Squid, Long Fin Squid
2 HI
IS-1
Pollachius virens
Pollock
1 IS
IS-1
Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Winter Flounder
1
IS-1
Tautogolabrus adspersus
Cunner
1
IS-1
Prionotus alatus
Spiny Searobin
1
IS-1
Paralichthys oblongus
Four Spot Flounder
1
IS-1
Limanda ferruginea
Yellowtail Flounder
1 .
IS-2
Merluccius bilinearis
Silver Hake
3194
IS-2
Alosa pseudoharengus, Alosa aestivalis
Alewife, Blueback Herring
1342
IS-2
Clupea harengus
Atlantic Herring
163
IS-2
Scomber colias
Atlantic Mackerel
46
IS-2
Homarus americanus
Lobster
46
IS-2
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Haddock
5
IS-2
Hippoglossoides platessoides
Dab
5
IS-2
Lophius americanus
Monkfish
3
IS-2
Pleuronectes putnami
Gray Sole
3
IS-2
Urophycis chuss
Red Hake
3
IS-2
Myoxocephalus scorpius
Longhorn Scuplin
2
IS-2
Sebastes norvegicus
Redfish
1
17
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Pro ject Report
March 2017
IS-2
Scophthalmus aquosus
Windowpane Flounder
1
IS-2
Prionotus carolinus
Northern Searobin
1
IS-3
Alosa pseudoharengus, Alosa aestivalis
Alewife, Blueback Herring
3660
IS-3
Merluccius bilinearis
Silver Hake
1112
IS-3
Homarus americanus
Lobster
61
IS-3
Clupea harengus
Atlantic Herring
. .46 . jg
IS-3
Hippoglossoides platessoides
Dab
8 H
IS-3
Scomber colias
Atlantic Mackerel
7
IS-3
Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Winter Flounder
• 3 H
IS-3
Cryptacanthodes maculatus
Wrymouth Blenny
2 fj
IS-3
Alosa mediocris
Hickory Shad
2 §§
IS-3
Myoxocephalus scorpius
Longhorn Scuplin
1
IS-3
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Haddock
1
IS-3
Placopecten magellanicus
Sea Scallop
i 8
IS-3
Pleuronectes putnami
Gray Sole
"'¦i n
IS-3
Limanda ferruginea
Yellowtail Flounder
1 IS
IS-4
Merluccius bilinearis
Silver Hake
2062
IS-4
Alosa pseudoharengus, Alosa aestivalis
Alewife, Blueback Herring
1552
IS-4
Clupea harengus
Atlantic Herring
369
IS-4
Homarus americanus
Lobster
36
IS-4
Hippoglossoides platessoides
Dab
12
IS-4
Scomber colias
Atlantic Mackerel
5
IS-4
///ex illecebrosus, Doryteuthis pealeil
Short Fin Squid, Long Fin Squid
3
IS-4
Urophycis chuss
Red Hake
3
IS-4
Alosa mediocris
Hickory Shad
2
IS-4
Pleuronectes putnami
Gray Sole
1
IS-4
Paralichthys oblongus
Four Spot Flounder
1
IS-4
Cryptacanthodes maculatus
Wrymouth Blenny
1
IS-4
Lophius americanus
Monkfish
1
IS-4
Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Winter Flounder
1
IS-4
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Haddock
1
IS-4
Centropristis striata
Black Sea Bass
1
IS-4
Prionotus alatus
Spiny Searobin
1
IS-5
Alosa pseudoharengus, Alosa aestivalis
Alewife, Blueback Herring
2055
IS-5
Homarus americanus
Lobster
38 . H
IS-5
Hippoglossoides platessoides
Dab
10
IS-5
Scomber colias
Atlantic Mackerel
5 , H
IS-5
Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Winter Flounder
4 H
IS-5
Alosa mediocris
Hickory Shad
2 H
IS-5
Cryptacanthodes maculatus
Wrymouth Blenny
1
IS-5
Myxine glutinosa
Atlantic Hagfish
¦1 ft
IS-5
///ex illecebrosus, Doryteuthis pealeil
Short Fin Squid, Long Fin Squid
1
* Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis) were combined in the enumeration process and are presented within
this document as the "Alosa complex."
"Some values are estimations of abundance calculated by enumerating one fish tote worth of a single species and multiplying by the total
number of fish totes filled for that species. Estimations were used to minimize mortality to the catch.
18
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project March 2017
Dra ft Pro ject Report
Attachment C: Fish Abundance Field Log Sheets
19
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project March 2017
Dra ft Pro ject Report
20
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project March 2017
Dra ft Pro ject Report
21
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project March 2017
Dra ft Pro ject Report
22
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project March 2017
Dra ft Pro ject Report
23
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project March 2017
Dra ft Pro ject Report
24
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project March 2017
Dra ft Pro ject Report
25
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project March 2017
Dra ft Pro ject Report
26
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
STATION id noa - 1 0 2 O
Date: 2-/ 7 a / (7 Pa2e 1 of 1
Tow Start time: /D~L£>
Tow End time: \C;Q-l
Tow Start position X:
Tow End position X: ^7<^*?Z. 7/
V: ?^01
Y: 7./ 577 SI
Depth Start (m): ^ f
Depth End (in): ^ j p-
Tow Speed (knots): '2., ^
General weather conditions: rw , . ^ (V^A-fckwHiC,
5-2-+'? -+£> -V1 +"54-3-r
+-1
^>V\r*v^\p
T>
\
\
Meroiiaoi
3o+ VO+ ificH- /5V-
HSi 9.94-10
Un4 )oo4-
J
im + i+ I 004- I0O4-
l oo-v ion i-iao+
1 00+ \£ + T5 V55-K3
ioov 3n+-)oo -h too
S»\v/ er UaW.
\oo\~n+si-we*
°i o kuo V5o -wo-o +
,-3 0 \-3 O ¦i-'fO-f- (nO~i—
f 10+ 130 ir 1 0O+
ioo4~ siz-r + ?d,
\iOO
VrcV *KKr
i j. i
V;, K|tcr
i .
tocb
JP'vH +-H
¦O^onVs ? *t>V\
»+• »
H «rr(rt
2, +9^3-/-v- ^ 1
FiounAf r
I
cooniecX
27
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
STATION ID'X5 - S~
Date: £/£
Depth End (m): £7 , ^
1 ow Speed (knots): . l|
ueneral weather conditions: Recorded hy »?n WX , VNxC Kfsr .j
1 4-1
y- A+tanw W«gP.svi
\
in
Sftui D
\
VeWouJ W,\
1
W.okr ^onA? c
<3^4- \ "+-\
ferOiOci
3D+ma + lOO^lon
0
f lOo-j-inn-h tc)-h/od+
loo V \oo4-lOOf
IOO -hlOO-4- innte-iT
~\~IOo -h 3j-/0O
Iff Of- ICO-b 10 / +•/
S.Wr ftaK*3..
A,OC)-\- 1OO +5T
in 0 a- 7n 4- / <3/7 +10 0
\ssh- r&+.fflJ£U
100-t-mof inn-t-iii+i
stop
1
Al
PQfriG: (tV.nKacXc-o)
1
ftwcK 5f-o,eas3
1
28
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
.
STATION ID LS- H f;w p/W 07 ~l 5 J '
Y:
Y:
Depth Start (m): ^ 1. % Y
Depth End (m): ^ ¥ f-
Tow Speed (knots): J/) . <-j
General weather conditions: Recorded by:
Species
Total number
Notes
")/0 Co vi
3 A
•VJ lAAou'pntV f+OUfV-l?
i reo-i +
\ V \ H
sn\e,
\ '
fooc-scn^ de-T
I
OrW
+ \ 4-^ t3
tOCH- l4- 3 <5^
/o0-b /oo^c^i-i-
too +fo0 4toc Hoo
loo i /(10-h loot
ino f55 f/oo +IO&+
<(T) + TO t 100 -t
mn-t-1 tv- /vi"
Wfrv^<\
100-h \(?0~KT5V
"~J-! O' -
"75" 4//^ 4/cc?
OoC-f- ion-bloat
ion-h 100+ /onf-
loo t-.WrS'Of/da
a.y
s ?c\ Hprr.vla
IOO+ \00+7(2^ + i5+
G~1 +3^ +' / •/"c2'
V\ \a
\+~
SV~\qA . H.f.knfVJ
\+\
ec< ^ ^
i
iV^ i iijo\OV/
i
29
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Studv
STATION ID Tl -> "Z,
Date: -~-43—v4—** 2C-& b-l ~1 ' Page 1 of I
Tow Start time: ( C, \ |
Tow End time: 2 Cj
Tow Start position X: 0^
Tow End position X: 'fj'7$C/O >Ol
Y: -7.^0^0.7,0
Y: ?.^ly
Depth Start (m): C; ( , ^ p
Depth End (m): £ , *t p
Tow Speed (knots): -7 cj
General weather conditions: Recorded bv: V l") <
Species
Total number
Notes
Lnba^er
I 2>i" c2-£ +- li-/ + S—f- / +
^oAr^oro, Srp\p,o
\
.Afek/W.;^
"7
V^Cm ^VA( AVA
a.
S\c*cX iW.f.korVJ
1 +1
tXb
i 4-7
w*v\W ^ouncXfP
v-h+ ^-/
S>"C<\ Ur^./U
oL/4-^ t3-""-{- 1-i / f~ / /
*
c
"C
-6
:x
5
f
VWri"\t* Chs <1 A 0 0
100 J-/ao ±106+100
OAf.. ( ^rioi/W\t\
100+ U5~+lOC)-\-IOOh
1 oo f- /0O+- loo-f-ro
-K>2? +IOO+ IOO-+ iOO
t-lQO+MO + Sn-b
s-r^so vz.
f
S.wjtr Vvv^tU'bf.vA on
1DO -Hflrt +"70-fV£
fy\e, ) (-^rieubid)
<£/ +1+1001-1) +>)
\o\•, Hl,K f dufV\
QM
30
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
STATION ID
Date:
\lu tp'U-flatOQt ~.177JL
9.C-fal>-)7 Page I of
Tow Start time:
Y:
Tow Start position X: g, ^ 77 'TV
I
ft 3 IV,
Depth Start (m): / ^7 p
Tow Speed (knots):
Tow End time:
Tow End position X: ft 7 7 C? 7 , *fYt
Depth End (m):
[c)l0 ¦ lb ~
Oeneral weather conditions:
LC?bS4cT
Species
TViUoe i> \ ic ru; o
vv\Kc
W ,vHrr ^!o0Lb
,S.\vcr
_S_tWe r wse.
H<.rr ^
*
Vc\lc?UH;\ fbun
)oo^,IOQvioaf /cx?
4\ O 6>t" M—
lOfl-HOQ-t-1004 lOOihOOi- I ° °r
<00-t- /oo-
IQo-HOQ tin n-t lon-f- ino +/o o +¦
\np +-IOQ+too + Joo+jsp-rtsr
\ffoV ] cH,? + i+/cp
IfiOWO -hSStA5~-/-/J
UQ±_
31
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
*05
USAGE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
station id ncz |l*^
Date: \"7 Page 1 of 1
Tow Start lime:
Tow End time:
Tow Start position X: 3 7& 7 2. ^ ^ 7
Tow End position X: *<3 7 7 5 '/'? 'n?
Y: Zc
Y: I^LKKL?
Depth Start (m): y-
Depth End (m): e{z ?, 'f
Tow Speed (knots): "J-. L/
General weather conditions: Recorded bv: P5 D
Species
Total number
Notes
Uo\s2> W> C
V\«,r,Kcr-c\ ,G,-V\r,.OA.,r_,
I+- # +-/ + /2-A/£-//>-
I +-/¦*£-/
?+*/ /-/
SecL tk.ro,i'U
ifin+a.i
\
LoOc\\orr\ S.c.0\-/- j-14-100
\on V100~h 160\-1h
+i
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
Attachment D: Fish Abundance Field Photos
Spring Photos
March 2017
Sample Trawl at IS5 including American Plaice, Lobster, Cod, Silver Hake
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
Winter photos
Sample Trawl at IS-0 including Yellowtail Flounder, Atlantic Herring, Blueback Herring, Alewife, Shrimp,
Atlantic Mackerel
35
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
Haddock IS-4
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
Winter Flounder at IS-4
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
Monkfish with Silver Hake in its mouth IS-4
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
Hagfish at IS-5
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
Wrymouth and Black Sea Bass IS-5
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
Atlantic Mackerel and Atlantic Herring IS-5
41
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Draft Project Report
March 2017
Squid IS-5
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project March 2017
Dra ft Project Report
Attachment E: Lobster Abundance Field Log Sheets
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study_
Isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Trawl 0:
Retrieval
Deployment
toate
Start tsme: v.
End time
End Position X* w/
Start Position X:
End Position Y: J{j
Start Position Y
End Depth (m):
Start Depth (m):
General weather conditions Deployment
Recorded By:
Pot # Vented Trap
(V) or
Unvented Trap
(UJ
Legal (L) or
Short (S)
Vented
Trap (V)
or
Unvented
Trap f U}
Short
5
>¦ -i
43
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Trawl ID
| Pate 7 - Qe y, -
| Start time:
["start Position X
Start Position Y
(Retrieval'
Deployment
End time
End Position X
End Position Y. 7 C
End Depth (m)
Legal (L) or
Vented
[Start Depth (m):
'General weather conditions Deployment:
'Jki
Recorded By V Pi
t Sex
. Vented Trap
(V) or
Short
1
v{_
) i
V
S
V
lL'L-
-
V
H «
5* . _
7
Trap (V)
Short (S) I
or i
Unvented
Trap (U)
V l
35~*H
rl-L
\f t 1
V 1
i L
V 1
J3 __1
*./ I
v 1
—
\f 1
i L-
\f j
V j
C .
V i
-13
n/
¦;i~
^c\c\ft:
i
44
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Trawl ID
MJetneval
Deployment
End time
Start time:
End Position X
End Position Y:
End Depth (m)
Start Position X: HI
I Start Position V: 7
[ start Depth (m):
j Genera! weather conditions Deployment: _
O'v'CiV.'it ' "> * •
Recorded By:
-f
Vented Trap
{V)or
Unvented Trap
(U)
Short
Pot
*
Vented
Trap (V)
or
Unvented
Trap (U)
Legal (L) or
Short (S)
\1
(7
V
_Li.
_h'_
11
If
V
rv
,3 c"
V
JU1
v'.
3~S
1 L
I a 3 I
•gL.
I ipfe
BtrHe/ie, >„> i k c
¦ |c V
ek ^
45
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
)cL" \L —<*—
£7.t]1
Trawl ID*.
Date: \t
Start time:
Start Position X: H -*>
Start Position Y: 7(V M
. Start Depth (tn): SO —.
; General weather conditions Deployment:
1
{ Recorded By: r_
Pot# Vented Trap , Sex , legal
' (V) or (U or
Unvented Trap ¦ Short I
End time
Deployment
_
End PositionX- H -a C Q AL.
End Position Y: [C_ V.1 it" tU<_
End Depth"(m): •>/. 1 C-i
S±f.
v t
Pot "' Vented ; Sex
Trap {V)
or
Unvented
Trap (U)
Legal (L) or
Short (S)
mi
46
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USAGE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Trawl ID:
I Date I
Start time: Q f T 1
Start Position X: *| 3 Q6__ N if K»
Start Position Y: It j."7 O5 - j 1tii
"Start Depth (m): Sltl V-
" General weather conditions Deployment:
|
[Recorded By: PP"'
Pot# Vented Trap
. (V) or
I j Unvented Trap
1 (")
Deployment Metric?
|r5¥n^T~'?^rjH"77
End Position X ~> C" | C »
End Position Y: ]Q
End Depth (m): .',1, I
Pot
ft
! Vented
Trap (V)
i or
X S I M\.V A t*l^4*J")
Sex legal (L) or
Short ISj
1 -Dec
47
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USAGE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Trawl ID:
Date:
13
Start time:
NJ
Start Position X:_ C C ii' 1 .- _r
Start Position Y: 7G i.jC_I_ ^
Start Depth (m[:
, General weather conditions Deployment:
_S.i_ 0.O4 ; I
End time:
Deployment (Retri
0^"
"S o
End PositionX. *1 5 Or
End Position Y: 7C T.£l L 7«
End Depth (m): 3.1- A ''ll >_
(fieHjviJ)
Recorded
(U)
r
i
Vented Trap
{Vj or
Unvented Trap
Sex
Pot Vented
# Trap (V)
| or
Unvented
Trap (U)
Sex Legal (L) or
Short (S)
•it
.XU--
M
t
..
- 1
1
1
48
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Trawl ID
1 13 _
Start time: C' S
Start Position X:
Start Position Y: XJLil-Ilu
Start Depth (m): f*""?. •->
Deployment
End time: C'SM
End Position X: 3 C C
End Position Y: 7 t
End Depth (m): % y \
General weather conditions Deployment: r .
_ V, _
1 Recorded By: f fV •> _ .
Pnf # Vented Trao 5ex Legal
Vented Trap
: (V) or
Legal (L) or
Short (S)
Vented
Trap {V)
or
Unvented
Trap
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Trawl ID:
Date: I'Vfkt -I f.
Start time: O'j "¥¦!
Start Position X: H 71 CO I N»
Start Position Y: 7LL—4S—' j ^ .
Start Depth (m):
General weather conditions Deployment
"Deployment (Retrieval^.
End time: (Jj i~*>
End Position X: 4 "S (" C X"' . //fIZJ
End Position Y: ^7C 1 ? %C, .1 C j I
End Depth (m): 57-' I frt *!<• >
Recorded By:
Pot # Vented Trap
(V) or
Sex Legal (L) or
Short (Sj
Vented
Trap (V)
or
Unvented
Trap (UI
Unvented Trap
(U)
Short
sr
)Veo\ 1-bee-16
50
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
Trawl ID
Date: ? _1L
Start time v ~T.*
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Deployment
I Start Position X: ('•'
Start Position Y: "j(y ^
Start Depth (m): ._'Tj_ /' fj */-)>
End time: t 7-/^-/
End Position X: *4 ;
End Position Y: 7<
J 5
X:
End Depth (m|:
Dr.
General weather conditions Deployment;
„ 1A-JL.V 1 -it- /
.uv
Recorded By: f Q
Pot# Vented Trap
Legal
(V) or
(L) or ,
Unvented Trap s
Short
(U)
» r
ir*r
-
3l ^
j.kr...,
r~
V
H'~> i
_£l- .
I
i*
v
« 7 * > :
*•>
-3 1
V
11™ !
•1
V
*-r%
V
" u
CS
V/
5b
V
it
r£~
¦ V
\i
1 \u ..
[" 7
V
ks
v-
jL<-
V
rir^
V
(vj=_ .
Oj
,11
1
V
t. U
1 c
\/
;
I iC
V
_SiJ~
1 1 1
V
[ 4^—
*06 .Si-
¦ #'£.
t x
r
Cl.
i 2
V
n S
i 1
>Tm_
\T
55
j \ ">
\f
J't.
\f
> M
„uL
II' 1
¦¦
I l:,tV L " K 4 f 9^.
>1ot
Vented
Sex
Legal {I) or
ft 1
Trap (V)
Short (S)
or
Unvented
1
Trap (US
5"
V
M S
V
V
C
V
4 :> I
\f>
V
-J L 1
y
...
u , 1
\1
\/
C L_ j
if
~
J
18 / _
C \-
n
V
"3
V
.
1
A .,...
"1 /->
jf 5
V
>
V
t L I
i
Il
51
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Trawl ID:
DateU,
Deployment
Start time:_ C7
art Positio
nd time.
End Position X: 4 >
End Position Y:/v
Start Position Y: ji
ll wi
End Depth (ml
Start Depth (m)
General weather conditions Deployment,
'."uVy ^
Recorded By
Vented Trap
(V) or
Unvented Trap
(U)
Ct
Pot
#
Vented
Trap (¥1
or
Unvented
Trap (U)
Sex
jj
AL I
II
JL
ji.
S*f
V
Legal (L) or
Short (S)
_i^L_
C f~
r,
jLi-
,XS_
^ S\^\r'Y^c^ ;lr |v!? ^ '"S,v
' -vklA V \ ^v) 1 \t. ^ U > ) ' ^
,Ac_ £
52
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
Trawi ID:
Date:
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals lobster Monitoring
Start time:
C s ^ \
Start Position X: M.
Start Position Y: 7,"
Start Depth (m): t,"
>i'
General weather conditions Deployment:
. _k_. y r r
Recorded By
Pot#
Vented Trap
(V) or
Unvented Trap
(U)
Sex
Legal
(L) or
Short
(S)
s
V
| l:>
. .A..
VL
" V
0- u
_ i_..
/ .
V
| \ "J>
/\
,T\
1/
1L
*-*4
V
IS
V
Ol_
V
. *
"1t_
t
\7
i
V'
it-
7
v'
os
1
ca.
'?
v.
IS
I K
/
fiL
2 y
V
Vt-
7
!S
1,
1/
\L.
,
V
2 >
i i
V
C L,
i'}
M/
MS
i \X
V
\ L_
in 1 v'
os
I >
V
L.
V
~5 -)
H
V
-i'L
- -y
E
~ Deployment (Retrieval^
End time: _Q-
End Position X:
4 „s
End Position Y: ]C'
End Depth (m): "j
fl
n
- ^ •_
Pot
#
Vented
Trap (V)
i or
Unvented
Trap jU)
•4h
Sex
Legal (L) or
Short (S)
jt
r/
|7
V
v
zz:
1L
J.;
Ci
C L_
I'i
I in-*
QX
.0€C~fc.> • V H'r'fJc
^ v.\t C » j At ^OY
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Trawl !D
Deployment
Retrieva
End time
i
Start time
End Position X- -f <.
End Position Y: \ 7
Start Position X: H >
* ¦" p i *** J**! ^ I
'c - 2 i nLc ,;i
Start Depth (m); s S±illh
Start Posi
End Depth (m)
General weather conditions Deployment:
Recorded By:
Sex legal (L) or
Short (S)
Vented
Legal
(L) or
Short
(S>
Vented Trap
(V) or
Unvented Trap
(U)
Trap (V)
Unvented
Trap (U)
^ \V^\cyeO\
C i }£L
, I-. i t'
Auf.r
dev-'\cv f'v1«
54
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USAGE New England District - Boston Harbor fish Study
TrawilD: . .......
Date: ^ /> f"< «. "i
Deployment
Start time: 0 • 1 7
End time: t .< j
Start Position X: 4 V ('{*/'
End Position X: h' \ CC"
Start Position Y I 7 -t 7 ^ ''
End Position V: ]-~i 7'
|| Start Depth (m): •» 2,.7 *.,t» >. " >
1 End Depth (m):
Retrieva
General weather conditions Deployment:
Recorded
V-
a t
V
\W
\
Pot#
Vented Trap
Sex
Legal
(V}or
(I) or
U invented Trap
Short
s
(u)
(S)
t
V
O. »
t
y
("'• L
V
M >
v'
5U
V«»
*'3
¥
Qb
\ i—
1 5
V
H
V
1-"'
1
V
C.< L.
S
V
¦> '>
V'
i;u
i
v'
A ;i
L
V 1
S L
I 7
v. ;
H'>
1-
\ L
L.
-Li
Jl
jcl
V I
..X™ ' v.-
1 i I V
Lit,
i U i v/ -
IT"' v 1
S^.
«>," 5
! i '« i V
11 V
L_
rCLt
C,>
w
v _ ..
! 1-1
v !
|L
!
u- 1
Vented
Trap {V)
or
Un vented
Trap (U)
Sex
Legal (L) or
Short (S)
M .VV £V--\'Ovt
,0i,-VV". -U , 'V~-
c.Xu \N «n ^ s-.V^\c y>v?tV t""
,/k L
55
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USftCE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Istes of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
'.i 1
!
Trawl ID1. _ _ _
Date:
Start time: C'7H%
Start Position X: »-| (> j '_0 ^('" AJ
j| Start Position Y: fc"'- L'lL"'
( StartDeptMmk . 1 _t_vW,
j Gertei al weather conditions o
" Schh y, v ^ ii
| Recorded By _\> f> > '
Pot # ! Vented Trap Sex Legal
j (V) or (U or ,
Unvented Trap Short |->v
(U) (S|
I Deployment ^Retrieval-,1
l End time. _ C' AJ U1 — —
Qnd Position X. 4 V (K'
EndPobition Y. ^
| End Depth inp: | ,'**7 _
in
.12^
V
V_
/
_*L
-V
V
V
ji4-
V
M-
V
„\L
V
"V
v
01-
f
A
..a
Pot
Veined Sex
1 legal (t) or i
if
Trap (V) |
or I
Unvented 1
Short (S) j
If
Trap (U) _j
_ - T
his"" 1
i
:k:
|iW-
fl I'8) .
\/
-
l
j.L.
-O
—
oy-et
V oH-Dec:~l£>
56
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Trawl 10: _ __ _____
Pate: ~y\C\
Stait time: (*! 7 I ^
Start Position X: -4 V OG'_i • hJ
Start Position Y. ~j c ' 4.7 ' >/, lj>
Start Depth (m): ^ HjtVJ¦»
Deployment ijtetfleya1~^j
End time: C
End Position X <-j , K >' A
End Position Y: "f 0'" 37!1 < 0 '* l\J
^ , "iT^End Depth (m) V *£_ \ t -- hit >,'tl 5
General woathei i ondtro-r, l^toyrrwt^^ C-k v,*--v
__ *:^py/.
,'i i..\-
1
Pot# | Vented Trap
i (V) or
[ Unvented Trap
(U)
Sex
L
J J
i
1-%,-
F
i
' 7_ .
13 '
_>/
A'
-V"
_ ^
Tiv
V..
_ V
V . -
~Vr;
t r ^
i: i :
| legal
| (L) or
Short
j (S)
T4iT
"T" U. ~
' lo
-£L-
s
. e."
T>:
' Hi
1 S
1 it.
' .?6_
i jc
I)
II
SL
n.
IW
V
V
hMr- -
. t »_
)U--
_JJkl
iLfs_
\ L
jQL
sliS
SKI
<2&'0ec-l£>
Pot
#
Verrted ,
Trap (V) 1
or
Unvented
Trap (U)
sex
|
Legal |L) ot !
Short (5) j
V
'-i S
5"
V
stl~
6
V
os
V
3 u
\/
1 —)
7
V
OL
7>
" V
OS
V
r>t
\ 7
if
V
S ->
11
yj
d.L !
3/)
\/
05
,3j2_
V .
1 L
1
... - -
57
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
" USAGE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study __ _
Isles of Shoals lobster Monitoring _
Trawl ID: __j
rDate: / - -\T_ ' I Deploymont _ (Retneval
.Start time. G %^bO ^ End time C'j MS — —,—:
Start Position X: M> OV_iL>T'K i| End Position X>; =j -S.$ 1
"start Position Y, ] {*c 2 1' 1 J , Fttri Position V i, I 7' 3 I >_?*. ' *V -
Start Depth fm); 6" 1."t »11 '" "1 1 Lnd Dc>Plh ^ 1 ' ^ U,...'|A _ I
6eneral weather conditions 0«pfe#«i»b
SonOV, Hfc _ 1
Recorded By: f 0 S '' , _ , —1
Pot#
Vented Trap
(V) or
Unwonted Trap
(U)
Sex
Legal
(l) or
Short
(S)
m
Pot
#
vtesst ;<=
Vented [
Trap {V}
or
Unvented
Trap (li)
St-x
tegal (L) or
Short (S)
i
>/ ^
5>s
[5*
V _
a«s.
1
V
OL
IS?SiSi| IS"
V
j oi/L-
a.
M
?§$k
lit
H
IBSt
V
[
si 1
\i
<0,L
1 .
V 1
1 I L-
1 3
V
MS
lllSfjit P
\/
5 1
3
r>\
^palf \i
V
r l.
LJ
V
aftsSts? 1
\ 5
H
V
5L
ilsapfl If
v n
5/L.
S
V
IS
iSSiiil n
OS |
¦5"
V
V
1111111 IT
V
\ i -i
Co
\/
4s>
tSJ
8
M
tt
iC _
j£ J
12/S
&
IfsJis/i
V
OL 1
1 1
\/ 1
^5
' 7
V
Ik
\/
"V
PL
i
V
Li
__ vr—
1 L
lo
i 1/
fO
\j
a
11
\L
4S
1 \
~ \7
ll
| i£
V '
14 .S
1,1
ax
Ell
PS
Wm0^
\/S v/
\iS
WiilVSfc'i
.
m,
1_ - J
\T
-tew
^ 1
|q
n
|
—„ ¥— ——
1
-e ck ~)
58
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
[ USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
I ~ ~ Isles of Shoals lobster Monitoring
I Trawl IP:
[ Pate. -,T' f' IrJ 7
j Start time: (,J,.. - _ _
' Start Position X- -j }) Q V i 'U i I'Al
J Start Position Y* V, '' 3c,
I Start Depth (m); 5 7 ''V
I Deployment (ffctnev^, 1
i1 End time. C' 1 \ "S , „ .. J
j tridJPoMtion v ^ Ul_j. Vfvj j
; Cnd Position Y. \ ^1 Vj v I
j Did Depth (m)' ( it t |
Recoidcd By f O >
Pot ff Vented!'.ip
1 (V) or
! Unvented Trap
I (U)
T Sex
!s
I 1
7~
V _
legal
(l)or
Short
(S)
-
A
I! V
pL_
i x
L £.' -
Li
fc
VT
1
J_L
10
Li
it
IK-
...Ji
\H-
M
Y_
v'
7 V
kn -
. _v
¦v-
V '
-+•—
3* X
IV fef
AJ&h—m$
mkM
"Hi
+'\V,
rS"
; : V.
V
_4_hs_S
L3fx Jl
ZyLlBS
dli&dll
IJL
:±£ij|
" ^ Jf
WM
o- Kgi
r>ot r Vented
» Trap (V)
or
Un vented
Trap {0}
srr
n
ii.
A?C*:? h,_>
-12.
V
V
I'd ....
Ill
Mm
ic
V
V
JL
v
V
L_
Av-
Sex : Legal (I) or
Short (S)
H S
r u
"as
"o\-
A5
C L
f)L,
¦"u
»¦
C i—
59
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
' USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
^ of Sh0a|s Lobster Monitoring
Trawl ID:
~Dater~ 3~3rlt;-LjL
1 Start time: L
Start Position X:
Deployment ¦ trievaT)
Tndtime H
0
00* M.7»A/
Start Position Y: ~JQ_
End Position X: q Q£l 2
End Position Y: i()° A 4. A " W
Start DepthJm)j_
.i> 1. t rtfa/•> >'H *
End Depth (m): Slt% f
General weather conditions Bepteymecrtf-r. / \zu
Pps 1,
"RecordedBy: QQ <,
Pot#
Vented Trap
(V) or
Unvonted 1'rap
(US
So*
V Pt
A
/?/
L:
:Jot
#
Vented
Trap (V)
or
Urwerrted
Trap (U)
Sex '
Legal (I) or
Short (S)
1
K
V
. 1 j
IS
v'
_4
1 U |
r.»
\X
\t
V
_ j
n
sj-
C
17
V
1L
ii_
n
V
! >
V
I£ 1
H
V
*, J
ii
"V
| Lb |
V
'-LS .. J
V
f)L
[
I
1
~
.J
1
|
4 - ~
i
60
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District -
Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals Lobster Monitorin
Trawl ID:
Date: ,ZC
Deployment Retrieval''
Start time: \ ) 'j •
End time: | 'x, > ,
Start Position X: 4 t~ , -»"7
End Position X: i-f -J > t . V f
Start Position Y: 7„_ a;. -
End Position Y: ?<'- •„ / <
Start Depth (m): >>., (>. s
End Depth (m): , "•> j
General weather conditions Deployment: {
] ,C i-
1 . \ V I-
Pot#
Vented Trap
(V) or
Unvented Trap
(U)
Sex
Legal
(L) or
Short
(S)
l||||||
¦WHI
¦¦¦Mi
Pot
# '
Vented
Trap IV)
or
Unvented
Trap (U)
Sex
Legal (L) or
Short (SJ
. 1
1
Ho
H ,
V
* v.*>
V
C L
mmm
f *.f
>/
, . v..**— L
O
.
J ^
MISMM
'-r i
i'
ol^> 1
1 ...
\
'S.U p
. 4
I L- ]
V
is
k.
v
¦Tl ,<•¦
-J w->
V'
11_
I.-
V
C -J L-—"r
zs mmmm i
1 L~ ¦
'-T
v'
! '">
V
V
•1L-
i
V
'
1 <
V
ajl
!
i
V
5 y
1
V
C-l.
UB
MmMNBR
h
\/
a
V
r'tl
i
i i ¦/
H.'1*
¦¦i
u_
"i
\i
V
to
1 i
1 i 1
1. K
V
(%.-
¦¦¦fi
v'
c. >
¦¦HBik
WPPWBPR,
i JQ-
\J
1 L~
.
HflSHMB
x/
:^u ¦¦¦¦¦
¦¦¦¦Pi
I ! ;
1 1 1
7 ¦ n
t don
- M, A.
Q
d^€,<
f,«:n J. . f
\: "u;^
V" )
- r 1, |H^^»
61
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project March 2017
Dra ft Project Report
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals lobster Monitoring
Trawl ID:
Date.
Deployment ( Retrieval
Start time: jQ.% s
End time:
Start Position X: <-j
End Position X:
End Position Y:
End Depth (m): y7. ^ r. i a
Sex Legal
; Short (S)
Start Position Y: ? r. _ j.j'L
Start Depth (m): ^ ' i f If
General weather conditions Deployment:
Recorded By:
Pot a
Vented Trap Sex
(V) or j
Unvented Trap
(U)
Legai
(l) or
Short
(S)
'¦ \ ' v |
I I M
Cj L
i /">
V I
0 -
1
V
il.
1 y
) •->
V ...
\ L
' »
i
V
S t
JT
........
Si
- u
. k"
V i
V
l
V
i -
7 V
i .
_2__
v'
V
II..
) 1 \I
*} 1 si
1L
i * i t,
V
1 , i \'
i t 1 V
IT
V
rTj
\/
\/
1 t—
r~T\
V
1 *1.
\J
I
l
1
l__ i—
| Vented
Trap (V)
or
Unvested
Trap (U)
i';- -A
1 l'\ - ' >'V' "\
•O'
\1
\s
•4- 4 f3
U
nf
62
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
JJSACE New England District - Boston Harbor fish Study
isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Trawi ID:
Date:
. u I I
Start time.
t IT O
Start Position X: I
Start Position Y: "* ,
Deployment
End time:
JS!
Retrieval
JV
End Position X: i -
:LJLL
End Position V: JC
Start Depth (m):
r> 3,
\ ¦ \ \_-
6enera[weather conditions Deployment:
<*-\r ¦ r : Vc i; i •
JL
.V,
V
_y
)L
.*L
I I 1 ^ -
V
I v
1 '***
I * 5
¦J
Pot#
Vented Trap
(V) or
Unwented Trap
M
Sex
Legal
ft) or
Short
(S)
\
V
^ i
V
OS
1
V
IL
> i v
;:i : V
;' L.
I : V
tS
Lj j v<
¦:
i* i V*
IS
c" ¦ V 1
IL
_iS_
it
3 L
OS
.. -L. >
OL
i
5...
End Depth (m):
1 £
Pot
#
Vented
Trap (V)
or
Un vented
Trap (U)
Sex
Lj
/,' i !
I
iil
..X
Legat (L) or
Short (S)
\V^ \c\i-A 7- Tun -i7, Mo ¦"
0" *P"v V* ^ Ol V „ v> Pi~. ' ,\l'
63
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
Trawl ID;
Date:
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals lobster Monitoring
Staittime:
Start Position X: ~t
Start Position Y: ~j(
Start Depth (m):
l-V iJ
General weather conditions Deployment:
. £ ; - .
H
Pot if
Vented Trap Sex
|V) or I
Unvented Trap
(U)
Legal
(L) or
Short
V 1
1 u
v 1
•4 j
i,
V
&JL-
i>
\f i
1
' 5
J
it
!
1
1
Deployment vjtetrievaT
End time.
End Position X: •
End Position Y: JC
End Depth {m}:
11
Vented
Trap (V)
or
Unvented
Trap.(U). .
' Sex
' Legal (L) or II
Short (S)
,
V
0
V
Ju 1
V
1> I
_
\/
It
, \
¦"¦-Lii v" 1
"> I
. V
;i, <— 1
f
¦Ml
J
1
¦Mr
1
I
_L _
r
l i
¦ i
¦L _ L
p
I i
-
¦jg
BjjB
r
7-'.v.p-i7,/u^k
V>i •<'\ s V
C J Cw
u r:
64
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Trawl 1D^_
"Odtg y—-
Start time: n ¦; }
2x
Deployment
^Retrieval ^
End time: |
End Position X: '• <¦ C. 1 jr -
Start Position Y, 1C
:u7 7
Start Depth (m): •>2,
End Position Y: "J, "
End Depth (m):
3ms
i 'f t'\.-
General weather conditions Deployment:
^'¦2 V't
Recorded By: pQ
L. V L'
Pot# \ Vented Trap Sex
{V) or
Unvented Trap
(U)
1_L. V
Oet A-Ap 7-' 1 'v-
c$or\on
Pot
#
Vented
Trap (V)
or
Unvented
Trap (U)
Sex J legal (L) or
Short (S)
l"t
| 'T"
_V_
v.
2 L
_
V
5j
> i f f <
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
Trawl ID:
Date
Start time1
Deployment
Retrieva
End time
Start Position X
End Position X
Start Position Y
End Position Y
Start Depth (m)
End Depth (m
General weather conditions Deployment*
I--':
Pot#
' Recorded By. \ ^
Vented Trap
(V) or
i {invented Trap
{US
iL
Pot
#
N
i •)
JC™*
¦-
Vented j Sex | Legal (L) or
Trap fV) 1 I Short (S)
or
Unvented
Trap {U)
_kL
Jd
OL
Q.
j!s_
..
jJx.
* l\^\c\j v\\ 7- v\n-i7; h;c ^:'
u
*
" A < D\ ^r, (n u dv;-:,^\c • v f•"«¦> t~"
\ . j \ I
66
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project March 2017
Draft Project Report
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Trawl ID
\Retrieval
Deployment
End time
Start time:
End Position X
Start Position X:
V
End Position Y
\ Start Position Y:
End Depth (m):
J Start Depth (m): ^ \ rr U r. ^ s
Genera! weather conditions Deployment
jteco_rded By,
Pot# Vented Trap
Sex - legal (I) or
Short (S)
Vented
Trap (V)
: (V) or
Unvented Trap
(US
Short
Unvented
Trap (U)
67
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals lobster Monitoring
Trawl ID:
Date-
llri
Start time:
Start Position X: 4 ^
-;q
XI
Start Position Y: 7 C_
Start Depth (mj:
n, ^
> /- 1 hjJzL
! General weather conditions Deployment:
"V
i
Recorded By:
Pot # > Vented Trap
I (V) or
Unvented Trap
; (u)
1
-fj ~
y.
Sex
ML.
v
&¦
V
V
I
legal
(L)or
Short
(S)
J >
1. L
I L
1 3
a.
k
•X.
ik
W
^ \ »*¦
\
Deployment
fcnd time:
'?V7
(Retrieval'
End Position X
1 End Position Y
f End Depth (in]
jH
rf
i,i-) i
j. ••.
tA ^ t' W) I
Pot Vented
# ¦ Trap (V)
or
; Unvented
1 Trap (U)
Sex
H
JiL
1.0
JjL
V
legal (L) or
Short (S)
i -
01-
68
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
"
' Trawl ID:
Date:
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
- 1"7 „
Start time:
Start Position X: ', i • ~T~
Start Position Y: 7 1 . "
Deployment
fcnd time: C
^ }C\
End Position X- ' /
t\ /» I',
Start Depth (m).
±L
End Position Y, 7^
SiJ<-f ¦ -)_ End Depth (m) kit _>
General weather conditions Deployment:
- - \ t\Q \ : .3, - j£t:
Recorded By f
Pot if
Vented Trap Sex
Legal
(V) or ii
(L) or
Unvented Trap |
Short
' (U) I
_J
IS)
V
V
i L-
JL
•f
Ail
JL.
:Xi
a >
1 i._
a*
TD.,L
V
i,
I L
# i \f i
1 L
q - ¦ -. / ¦ |
t v >
5 S
*
UL
14-
„v' . .
V , L
_il J
\ 5
it
v"" -
T.
j
V
i ^ \«
, 1/
1 i.
i >
V
—_
it
i
0viO\CMr\V
Pot
Vented
Sex 1 Legal (L) or
#
Trap (V)
Short (S)
or
Unvented
Trap (U)
V
I • >
+<¦>.
I L,
"¦4
.V. 1
"-M—
69
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project March 2017
Dra ft Project Report
I ;
, Trawi ID:
I Date:
[Start time 1
I Start Position X:
Start Position Y: 7l
_USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals lobster Monitoring
Start Depth (m):
> C'i '»¦ i" *~l
.A. \.tL'
General weather conditions Deployment:
v i I -r t:
Recorded By. " ^
Pot#"
Vented Trap
(V) or
Unvented Trap |
(U)
Sex
\
i
V
>
>¦/
' / i
>
/
4
f ' ¦
n _
J L
Short
JL£_
01
15
\ u
'.>L
JlJL
!«_
J_L.
: 3,
3
«
:Yi>
ML.
f L
srr j ,
Pot Vented
« I Trap (V)
or
i Unvented
Trap (U)
l7V
Sex Legal (L) or
Short (S)
LI
I -r
V
: Zin
16
I*
r\
v"1 Lj
l-U
a, v iv-> -I "7
-V1 "Y )- I 7
1
1
t
I 1
1
1
——
—
1
1
J
70
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
Trawl 10;
feO L^}
J Start time,
I" Start Position X
[start Position Y; 7C
MgACE New England District - Bostonjarbor Fish Study "
Isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
_ u. "
v' ,«i,i
•J.C. •re-
start Depth (m): '7.2 1 vi i'-t -i
General weather conditions Deployment:
Recorded By \
Pot#
Vented Trap
(V) or
Unvented Trap
(U)
Sex
i
!
s.
V
Legal
. (!¦) or
| Short
(S)
.0.1-
\
1}
i
n
• v;
1 ,s
0 L
_J/
1/
V
'
-—|_V.L
"1L
v~>
V
\ f
V
IL
Deployment (RetrigvaP- '
, End time:_jV\J 1 *~~~
1 End PositionX:_H j v j, v X» ~
EndJcfsitionY: X_
End Depth (m) z f , /; -j
\ Pot I Vented
1 Trap (V)
or
I Unvented
Trap (U)
>/
Sex Legal (L) or
Short (SJ
\\ ^Ac\pi\ (Q..C ~Y\v] -1 7
71
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
Trawl ID:
Date:
USACE New Engjand District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
End Position X: '
Start time: ; *'
f Start Position X: *-< J
; Start Position Y: 7c { r >j \
Start Depth (m): t t hu : >
General weather conditions Deployment: _
> v , 1. • V -fc
Recorded By C p \
Pot# Vented Trap
(V) or
Unvented Trap
fU)
Deployment ?trieyaJ
End time, 1't>
mi o, ,u. 1
7 -v-7^ ,
r End Position Y: ^
| End Depth (m): ¦> ~j > \
Short
u
~ A
v- in
17
Vented
Sex Legal (l) or
Short (S)
Trap (V)
Unvented
Trap (U)
72
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
USftCE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Trawl ID:
Isles of Shoals lobster Monitoring
Start time:
Date: ;^\
life
Start Position X: «-| "S DU") *3
" K&r
Start Position Y:
- Start Depth (m); *-f pnJliefH.
General weather conditions Deployment:
Recorded By n r\ -c* »
Deployment
etrievaf
End time:
End Position X: Li
End Position Y: ID
End Depth (m):
Vented Trap
(V) or
Unvented Trap
(U)
V>7 r' »
Pot
#
N
if
Vented
Trap (V)
or
Unvented
Trap (U)
V
V
s/
\1 ' ¦* »\ * W i 1" 4 7
\>^'\f\^A \ 1 /
Legal (L) or
Short (S)
TV
*
jSMss.
7>
Oi-
73
-------
ISDS-N Fisheries and Lobster Monitoring Project
Dra ft Project Report
March 2017
Trawl ID:
Date "-I j -
Start time: ~Q
Start Position X.
USACE New England District - Boston Harbor Fish Study
Isles of Shoals Lobster Monitoring
#1
hi _
-t *•)
T
3Z. ~
i End time: O
Deployment
^
Start Position ¥:_"7Cl
Start Depth (m): t ^ LHP,, .„l]
General weather conditions Deployment:
.. .dj. ""> JLt"
Recorded By: f Q " • '
Pot#
8 End Position X^_
' End Position Y,
! fcrtd Depth (m):
(seWe'vaT
J
TIT
Vented Trap
{V) or
Unventec! Trap
fU]
Vented
Trap (V]
or
Unvented
Trap (U)
Legal (L) or
Short (S)
Short
U
1
74
-------
Environmental Assessment and Evaluation Study
for a Designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site in
Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern
Massachusetts
Appendix E
Bureau of Marine Science Comments on the Proposed IOSN
-------
-------
Bureau of Marine Science Comments On The Proposed Isle of Shoals Disposal Site
Submitted:
January 21, 2016
Compiled by:
Carl Wilson, Director Bureau of Marine Science
Maine Department of Marine Resources
Contributions from:
Robert Watts (Lobster Fishery Landings)
Kathleen Reardon, Katherine Thomson and Erin Summers (Lobster Biology, Spatial Distribution,
Large Whale)
James Becker, Matt Cieri (Atlantic herring)
Sally Sherman (Inshore Trawl Survey, Groundfish Characterization)
-------
SUMMARY
Bureau of Marine Science staff were queried for input on the proposed disposal area
immediately north of Isle of Shoals, Maine, in Federal Waters. Comments are focused on the
location of the disposal site, the timing of likely disposal activity, and likely impacts of transit to
and from the disposal area. Key issues that were brought forward include; the activity and
significance of lobster fishing in Federal waters during likely disposal time period; the timing of
herring spawning and importance of the early Fall herring fishery; the presence of a hotspot of
historic sightings for Humpback and Right whales associated with Jeffreys Ledge southeast of
the proposed disposal site; and the direct observations that several commercially important
groundfish species are seen in the proposed area. Observations made while conducting these
surveys indicate that the area is utilized by commercial lobster, groundfish trawlers and
gillnetters as well as by herring trawlers.
AMERICAN LOBSTER
Landings
Lobster represents the largest active fishery in the area. We are unable to evaluate direct
impact as reporting requirements do not specify exact coordinates. However, Lobster
Management Zone G, relative to State and Federal waters gives a proxy for activity in the region
and a glimpse into seasonal use.
Dealer and harvester reports for lobster landings were exptrapolated for years 2008 to 2014 for
harvesters that reported zone G and dealers who reported a landing port located in zone G.
Data were queried from both Federal and State dealers from ACCSP's SAFIS database and ME
DMR's MARVIN database. Harvester data were queried from ME DMR's MARVIN database and
NMFS NERO database. Only those harvesters that were selected as part of ME DMR's 10%
lobster harvester reporting requirement were queried from the harvester data. Data were
grouped by year (and then into quarters) and distance from shore. If an individual grouping
would not meet our confidentiality provision they were removed from the data set.
The Zone G lobster fishery represents an average of 16,446 trips completed by 252 active
harvesters annually during the period of 2009 through 2014 (Table 1). The proposed disposal
area is in entirely federal waters, we extrapolate over this period that 36% of the total pounds,
25% of trips and 28% of active harvesters occurred in Federal waters (Figure 1).
-------
Disposal in the proposed area, will likely be during late fall, winter and early spring. Within
Zone G, during the winter nearly 75% of landings occur from Federal waters. Federal waters
represent 48% of lobsters landed in the fall, and 39% in the Spring (Figure 2).
Table 1, 2009 - 2014 number of lobster trips and active harvesters.
Year
LOB ZONE
Total Trips
Active Harvesters
50% -
30% -
20% -
10% ^
2009 G 15,814 275
2010 G 16,318 261
2011 G 15,825 255
2012 G 16,843 253
2013 G 17,111 238
2014 G 16,762 227
Percent by State and Federal Waters
I Pounds
Trips
Harvesters
State Federal UK
Figure 1. Percentage of pounds landed, trips, and active harvesters in State, Federal and
unknown (UK) waters during 2009-2014 in Zone G.
-------
80%
70%
Percent Federal Activity by Season
60%
50%
40%
2.0%
30%
10%
0%
¦ Pounds
Trips
Harvesters
1
2
3
4
Season
Figure 2. The percentage of Pounds, Trips and Harvesters by season in Federal Waters in Zone
G, 2009-2014.
DMR Lobster Monitoring Program Comments
The DMR has limited direct observations on commercial lobster vessels in the vicinity of the
proposed dredge disposal site. The DMR has conducted at-sea lobster sampling primarily during
the months of May through November since 1985, which was expanded to include all lobster
zones in 2000. Each zone is sampled three times monthly from May through November with
trips spread throughout the zone. Zone G is the southwesternmost lobster management zone
spanning from the Presumpscott River (near Portland, Maine) south to the New Hampshire
border. Winter trips are opportunistic and are completed on a regional basis in the southern,
midcoast, and downeast portions of the Maine Coast. The southern winter sampling covers
ports from Kitteryto Friendship, Maine.
For this analysis, lobster landings and associated values were compiled for a subset of Lobster
Management Area Zone G spanning from 42.95° N to 43.125° N and west of -70.35° W to the
shore. This subset is the area most representative and likely to be impacted by the proposed
dredging, transit and disposal activity. Lobster sea sampling data from 2008 until 2014 were
considered.
The DMR conducted 3 trips in the subarea during December through April in the period 2008-
2014 and 25 trips in Zone G for these months (Table 2). The mean size of lobsters was slightly
higher in the subarea as compared with mean size in the greater zone, however, the difference
-------
does not appear significant since standard errors overlap (Table 2). The percent of the catch
that that consists of females is also slightly higher in the subarea (Table 2).
Table 2. Summary statistics and standard errors for mean trip values for subarea and for Zone G
for all months and Dec-April (2008-2014). CL = carapace length.
All months Dec - April
Subarea
Mean CL (mm) 84.45 ± 0.84 87.02 ± 2.68
% Females 64.95% ± 1.71% 67.55% ± 6.50%
Mean Depth (fm) 18.56 ± 2.36 26.45 ± 9.05
# Trips 29 3
Zone G
Mean CL (mm) 85.1 ±0.57 85.38 ±1.37
% Females 61.04% ± 0.76% 64.68% ± 1.93%
Mean Depth (fm) 22.54 ± 1.10 7.94 ± 3.81
# Trips 172 25
Zone 6, 2008-2014
Month
Figure 3. Median catch per trap (# legal lobsters) by trip for lobster management Zone G (2008-
2014).
Disposal Site
-------
The subarea adjacent to the proposed disposal site was observed to be fished by commercial
and recreational harvesters from 2008 through 2014. Mean lobster catch per trap was highest
in November near the proposed dumping site as well as in Zone G (Figure 3), which implies that
there is high fishing activity at the beginning of the potential active dredge time period.
Furthermore, lobster catch was relatively high in February for these years (Figure 3) and
therefore winter catches could be impacted by disposal activity . The DMR is unable to disclose
monthly lobster catches for the subarea during the winter months for confidentiality reasons,
since only three trips were conducted in that area from December through April for that time
period. However, the mean catch was 0.39 legal lobsters per trap (± 0,09 lobsters) for those
four trips, which is comparable to Zone G winter catches.
Transit Routes
Although limited data are available from the monitoring programs for lobster fishing effort and
catch data in the immediate area of the proposed dumping site, fishing effort is relatively high
along the transit routes between the proposed dumping site and the ports of Portland, Maine
and Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Figure 4). There was lobster activity along the likely transit
route to Portsmouth, NH in both the summer and the winter in 2000 - 2014 (Figure 4). Steps
should be actively taken to communicate with the fishing community to minimize impacts.
Lobster Sea Sampling
2000-2014 data
• summer months (May-Nov)
© winter months (Dec-Apr)
Proposed Site j
Figure 4. Lobster Sea Sampling locations for 2000-2014 in summer (black points) and winter
(red points) months in relation to the proposed dredge disposal site (red circle).
-------
Lobster gear characterization
The DMR completed a lobster gear characterization survey in 2010 as a retrospective
evaluation of gear that was fished in 2009. A paper survey was mailed to all license holders
with a 10% return. Inside the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Exemption Line in Zone
G (Figure 5, thick black line), which is mostly within state waters, excluding the areas around
Boon Island and Isles of Shoals, the fishery used mostly single, paired, and triple lobster trap
configurations with peak fishing occurring from July - September. In non-exempt state waters
fishermen deployed ten trap trawls in addition to singles, pairs, and triples. Peak fishing
occurred in non-exempt state waters from July - October. Outside state waters and inside the
12nm line, the fishery used trawls of two, three, six, ten, twelve, and twenty traps in 2009.
Peak fishing occurred in this outer area from November - March. Since June 2015, the whale
regulations have prohibited singles in non-exempt state waters and established a minimum
trawl length of three traps between the 3nm state waters line and the new 6 mile whale
regulation line. These new rules have changed the configuration of gear outside the exemption
and 3nm state line.
Though gear configuration does not have a direct relationship with dredge disposal, the transit
route could potentially have more impact in areas with more end lines from fishing activity.
Atlantic Large Whales
There is a hotspot of historic sightings for Humpback and Right whales associated with Jeffreys
Ledge southeast of the proposed disposal site (Figure 5). This is a highly important feeding
ground for Right and Humpback Whales in the summer and fall and to a lesser extent in the
spring (Figure 5). The importance of these feeding grounds is reflected in the creation of a
management area in the latest iteration of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan to
increase gear marking by fishermen utilizing this area. The proposed disposal site is directly
west of the management area (Figure 5). However, we do not foresee that these activities will
have a negative impact on Atlantic large whales, especially if conducted in the winter when
whale activity in this area is low.
-------
Co-occurrencQ Rights/Humpbacks
Fall
Rights/Humpbacks
Figure 5. Atlantic Large Whale Co-occurrence model for Right and Humpback Whales in the Fall
and Winter in relation to the proposed disposal site (yellow point).
-------
ATLANTIC HERRING
The location of the proposed dredging disposal site lies in proximity to significant summer and
fall Atlantic herring landings and fishing grounds, and inside the MA/NH herring spawn closure
(Figures 6A and 6B.) The bulk of the herring fishing in this area occurs between June and
November (Figure 7.). As mandated by the ASMFC, the MA/NH herring spawn closure, which
prohibits any landings of Atlantic herring, begins by default on September 21st, and remains
closed for fishing for 30 days (ASMFC, 2016). If herring samples collected by the ME DMR
reveal the spawn condition of the commercially caught herring are not ready to spawn the
closure dates can be postponed, or the opposite holds true if the herring appear ready prior to
the default date. This closure helps protect herring in the area that are close to releasing their
eggs and the eggs that are already on the benthos, and is implemented to secure successful
spawning and incubation of the eggs.
Particulate dispersed into the water column by the dredging disposal could interfere with the
schooling behavior of Atlantic herring and therefore interfere with fishing success whether by
purse seine, mid-water trawl, or small mesh bottom trawl (Connor, et al., 2006).
The site is located in prime spawning grounds of Atlantic herring and depending on the rate and
amount of dredged material that is dumped into the water it could in theory impact the
necessary adhesion of eggs to the appropriate substrates, smother the eggs on the benthos,
inhibit fertilization, and interfere with the incubation and developmental processes (Suedel,
Kim, Clarke, and Linkov, 2008). However, lighter density particles would probably be carried
south southwest with the Western Maine Coastal Current (Figure 8).
Given the highly localized area of the proposed site and the status of the herring stock, impacts
on the inshore component should be minimal. But there could be a local effect on fishing for a
limited time. Of course all of this is if the dumping coincides with the summer/fall fishery and
the spawning season of the US Atlantic Herring, therefore timing of the disposal is paramount.
-------
- i-o o 7c:,:,v.- is-.'v-'f btuvw stroTiv
AREA 1A
AREA IB
AREA 2
AREA 3
Figure 6A. Spawning Closure Areas of the US Atlantic Herring fishery
-------
mtoxnyt
^_sF) ¦ imf
AIWG 10s 71ft 16M
HORN.
Fl Ca 38ft 12M
HORN mm Mf
Ml Ayameritiou
LJ'uvuf 'j'Jt
U'JVU CARE MED
Iso R 13
19M I IDKN
~ m snn
WMJi
FiW{
IMo
oo'so' n
y aA" ^
Ff Y 43
Frtv s
'A & ™ "
G flRA PR -h-
^3 ">•« r.ttr^r. s^tr;
tvcs- III| /•**¦:<&* £
HORN
-'i »¦ a
PC (fffv\7£Z'6
Ml NO I S LbUGt
Fl (1 +4 + 3I 4fif.
flCrft 10M HORN -
AtHC1"'
no i \g&Q
NAUSCT
.Al (2) W I-
i VVyv
¦JDtefiny**i'i fiss* otian ?324&±
_, i
.xJyL? LP=tfj^/' C/fart
.H**|
\^?X
-1& "4 s>3 x
NOIL a
cuUrJ -:ii«j=U 1 5 OF"1?
3 activities ^rc proh bllcd
ik Mai-It a Sanr.hJiry
l*cshstrgincj nr cU.mping
«*xplOrii<.j Or d&veirjp ruj
ihJ CtotXiQit
J llUtlOi —el. ^rlif<=iL;l.i>
j
-R D22 Tar details ot SanccLaiy
H43 1 a lit L«4M HOHN
(;ai'i i /au
Fl (43 IGs I29JL1GM
HORN
i=Kt;o
RirJrififrircl
¦p /vr^
Fl (2) 1Or» r»Ott 1 1 M
^ Hpnrj
/Ithin
r ^
Npwhurypnr ¦
a°
C5l
-------
35,000
30,000
25,000
CO
,1 20,000
u
% 15,000
s
10,000
5,000
0
6 7
Month
10 11 12
Figure 7. Atlantic herring landings by month for the MA/NH Spawn Closure Area for the years
2008-2015
-------
Figure 8, Currents of the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank.
References
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council (ASMFC), 2016:
http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/fr.html
Clarke, D., Hay, D., Rice, S., Schoellhamer, D., Smith, P. 2006. Potential Impacts of Dredging on
Pacific Herring in San Francisco Bay. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division, White
Paper: (1-86)
-------
Suedel, B.C., Kim, J., Clarke, D.G., and Linkov, I. 2008 A Risk-Informed Decision Making
Framework for Setting Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects. Science of the Total
Environment, 403, (1-3): 1-11
-------
INSHORE TRAWL SURVEY - GROUNDFISH
The Maine-New Hampshire (MENH) Inshore Trawl Survey samples this area in spring, typically
the first week of May, and fall, the last week of September. The survey has been sampling this
area since the fall of 2000. There were 136 tows made in proximity to the disposal site from
2000 through 2015 (Figure 9). Spring tows totaled 65 and fall 71. The total number of species
caught in these tows is 91. For the spring tows art average of 21 species per tow were caught
with a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 33 in any one tow. For the fall, 23 species were caught
with a range of 8 to 34 species in any one tow. The catch weight for a tow ranged from 1,82 to
1493.31 kg (Figure 9), the spring average tow catch weight was 75.20 kg and the fall was 321.52
kg.
Catch Weight (KG)
MENH Survey Tows 2000-15 © 101-250
• 1 - 5 ® 251 - 500
® 6-25 (•) 501 - 1000
* 26"50 ® 1001 - 1493
® 51 -100
©
Figure 9. Bubble plot of survey tows conducted near the ACOE Isle of Shoals North disposal
site both spring and fall from 2000-2015. The bubble size represents the tow catch weight in
kilograms.
This area is appears more productive than the larger survey area in the fall, at least in the
earlier years. Figure 10 shows the average catch weight per tow for the study area, regionl of
the MENH survey which encompasses New Hampshire and southern Maine, and also for the
-------
entire survey area. The spring average catch is fairly similar to the region 1 catches and slightly
less than the entire survey area.
160
140
120
80
Proximity Area
40
Region 1
20
Survey Area
1000
Proximity Area
900
800
700
S3 600
Region 1^
Survey Area
¦= 500
g 400
300
200
100
%o ^ fiiO$ *i04 **0$ *10S FIo? Ai09 **0$ *Lj0 ^ ^
Figure 10. Seasonal average catch weights (per tow) for 3 areas. The blue line represents the
area in proximity to the proposed disposal site, the red line represents MENH survey region 1
(New Hampshire and So. Maine), and the green line the entire survey area (coasts of Maine
and New Hampshire.
Figure 11 indicates the top 30 species by average catch weight of finfish and invertebrates that
were caught in the area over the time series shown in figure 1.
-------
10
Average Catch per Tow (KG)
20 30
40
50
Spiny Dogfish
Silver Hake
Atlantic Herring
American Lobster
American Plaice
Northern Shrimp
Goosefish
Red Hake
Alewife
Atlantic Cod
Longhorn Sculpin
Yellowtail Flounder
Shrimp, Dichelo
Winter Flounder
White Hake
Butterfish
Witch Flounder
Thorny Skate
Acadian Redfish
Haddock
Blueback Herring
Longfin Squid
Sea Raven
American Shad
Little Skate
Shortfin Squid
Jonah Crab
Lumpfish
Fourspot Flounder
Atlantic Halibut
Spring
Figure 11. Average catch weight per tow for the top 30 species by season. The average weight
for spiny dogfish was 135.15 kg.
-------
Several commercially important groundfish species are seen in this area. Observations made
while conducting the survey indicate that the area is utilized by commercial groundfish boats,
trawlers and gillnetters as well as by herring trawlers and commercial lobsterman.
American plaice are frequently caught in tows conducted in this area, being caught in 119 of the
136 tows, for an 88% occurrence. The mean number per tow is 192 with a range per tow of 76
to 2068 Mean length for plaice in the spring tows was 18.7 cm and in the fall it was 18.1 cm.
Sizes of plaice caught ranged from 5 cm to 59 cm. A sub-sample of plaice is examined for sex
and maturity stage from these tows in the spring survey, approximately 35% offish sampled
were found to be near or in spawning condition. Spawning period for plaice is March to May
(Burnett et al, 1989).
Goosefish (monkfish) are commonly caught in the survey tows; they are more abundant in the
fall (Fig. 1). Goosefish were caught in 94 of the 136 tows conducted in the designated area. The
overall average number per tow is 8 with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 220 in any 1 tow.
The mean lengths for goosefish were 23.5 cm in spring and 31.8 cm in the fall. Sizes of fish
caught ranged from 7 to 88 cm, so the area is utilized by all life stages of goosefish. Of the
goosefish examined for maturity in that area none were found to be near spawning condition
but the spawning season is June to September (Burnett et al, 1989) so they survey timing is off
somewhat.
The Gulf of Maine Atlantic cod stock is currently at an all-time low and is considered to be over
fished (NEFSC REF DOC 13-1). Cod were caught in 88 of the 136 tows conducted in the
designated area, 65% occurrence. The overall average number per tow is 6 with a minimum of 1
and a maximum of 179 in any 1 tow. The mean lengths for cod were 34.3 cm in spring and 39.4
cm in the fall. Sizes of fish caught ranged from 3 to 99 cm, so the area is also utilized by all life
stages of cod. The majority of cod caught were examined for sex and maturity stage,
approximately 10% were at or near spawning condition from this area in the spring survey. The
spawning season for Atlantic cod is December to April (Burnett et al, 1989).
The GOM winter flounder stock status is considered to be currently low (NEFSC REF DOC 11-
11). Winter flounder are seen in 108 out of 136 tows in the area, the catch numbers may be low
with an average of 18 per tow but at 80% occurrence they are common to the area. Mean
lengths are 20.2 cm for spring and 21.3 cm for fall. Sizes range from 7 cm to 49 cm. Again, the
area is utilized by all life stages. Another species that maturity staging is conducted on,
approximately 10% of fished examined from the area were at or near spawning condition in the
spring. Spawning time typical for GOM winter flounder is March to May (Burnett et al, 1989).
Yellowtail flounder are seen in 100 out of 136 tows in the area and are more plentiful in the
spring (Fig. 1). The catch numbers are at an average of 12 per tow but at 74% occurrence they
-------
are typical to the area. Mean lengths are 30.5 cm for spring and 30.1 cm for fall. Sizes range
from 9 cm to 49 cm. Again, the area is utilized by all life stages. This species is also staged for
maturity, approximately 38% of fished examined from the area were at or near spawning
condition in the spring. Spawning period for yellowtail flounder is known to be May through
August (Burnett et a I, 1989).
In summary, the survey data indicates there is usage of the area by a large number of marine
species. There is slight indication that the area may be used as spawning habitat. Based on
survey data, American plaice, Atlantic cod, and winter flounder could potentially be using the
area in the designated time frame of November to April. Winter flounder eggs are benthic and
could be harmed by disposal of dredged material (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-
138).
Table 3. List of the species caught in the MENH survey tows in the designated area and time
period.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Acadian Redfish
Sebastes fasciatus
Aesop Shrimp
Pandalus montagui
Alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
All igatorfish
Aspidophoroides monopterygius
American Lobster
Homarus americanus
American Plaice
Hippoglossoides platessoides
American Sand Lance
Ammodytes americanus
American Shad
Alosa sapidissima
Anemone
Anemonia sp.
Atlantic Cod
Gadus morhua
Atlantic Halibut
Hippglossus hippoglossus
Atlantic Herring
Clupea harengus
Atlantic Mackerel
Scomber scombrus
Atlantic Silverside
Menidia menidia
Atlantic Torpedo
Torpedo nobiliana
Barndoor Skate
Raja laevis
Bigeye Scad
Selar crumenopthalmus
Black Sea Bass
Centropristis striata
Blue Mussel
Mytilus edulis
Blueback Herring
Alosa aestivalis
Bluefish
Pomatomas saltatrix
Bobtail Squid (unclass.)
Sepiolidae
Boreal Asterias
Asterias vulgaris
Bristled Longbeak
Dichelopandalus leptocerus
Buckler Dory
Zenopsis conchifera
-------
Butterfish
Cunner
Daubed Shanny
Fourbeard Rockling
Fourspot Flounder
Goosefish
Greenland Halibut
Grubby
Gulf Stream Flounder
Haddock
Jellies, Sea pens, Salps, etc.
Jonah Crab
Krill
Little Skate
Lobster shrimp
Longfin Squid
Longhorn Sculpin
Lumpfish
Mantis Shrimp
Moon Snail
Moustache Sculpin
Northern Pipefish
Northern Puffer
Northern Searobin
Northern Shrimp
Northern Stone Crab
Ocean Pout
Octopus unclass.
Pearlsides
Polar Lebbeid
Pollock
Quahog
Rainbow Smelt
Rat-tail Cucumber
Red Hake
Rock Crab
Sand Dollar
Scup
Sea Raven
Sea Scallop
Sea sponges
Sea Urchin
Sevenspine Bay Shrimp
Peprilus triacanthus
Tautogolabrus adspersus
Lumpenus maculatus
Enchelyopus cimbrius
Paralichthys oblongus
Lophius americanus
Reinhardtius hippoglossoides
Myoxocephalus aenaeus
Citharichthys arctifrons
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Cancer borealis
Euphausuid spp.
Raja erinacea
Axius serratus
Loligo pealei
Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus
Cyclopterus lumpus
Stomatopod sp.
Lunatia heros
Trig lops murrayi
Syngnathus fuse us
Sphoeroides maculatus
Prionotus carolinus
Pandalus borealis
Lithodes sp.
Macrozoarces americanus
Cephalopoda spp.
Maurolicus muelleri
Lebbeus polaris
Pollachius virens
Mercenaria mercenaria
Osmerus mordax
Caudina arenata
Urophycis chuss
Cancer irroratus
Echinoidae sp.
Stenotomas chrysops
Hemitripterus americanus
Placopecten magelanicus
Demospongiae sp.
Stronglyocentrotus droebachiensis
Crangon septemspinosa
-------
Shortfin Squid
///ex illecebrosus
Shrimp (unclass)
Pandalus spp.
Silver Hake
Merluccius bilinearis
Silver Rag
Ariomma bondi
Smooth Skate
Raja senta
Snakeblenny
Lumpenus lumpretaeformis
Snow Crab
Chionectes opilio
Spiny Dogfish
Squalus acanthias
Spiny Lebbeid
Lebbeus groenlandicus
Spotted Hake
Urophycis regia
Spotted Tinselfish
Xenolepidichthys dalgleishi
Starfish unclass.
Stelleroideae sp.
Ten-Ridged Whelk
Neptunea decemcostata
Thorny Skate
Raja radiata
Toad Crab
Hyas araneus
Waved Astarte
Astarte undata
White Hake
Urophycis tenuis
Windowpane
Scophthalmus aquosus
Winter Flounder
Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Winter Skate
Raja ocellata
Witch Flounder
Glyptocephalus cynoglossus
Wrymouth
Cryptacanthodes maculatus
Yellowtail Flounder
Limanda ferruginea
References
Burnett, J., L. O'Brien, R. K. Mayo, J. A. Darde, and M. Bohan. 1989. Finfish Maturity Sampling
and Classification Schemes Used During Northeast Fisheries Center Bottom Trawl Surveys,
1963-89. NOAATech. Memo. NMFS-F/NEC-76.
52nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (52nd SAW): Assessment Summary
Report (2nd edition) Northeast Fisheries Science Center Northeast Fisheries Science Center 166
Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document
11-11
55th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (55th SAW) Assessment Summary Report
by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center January 2013 Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Reference Document 13-01
-------
Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Winter Flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus,
History and Habitat Characteristics U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region Northeast
Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts September 1999 NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-NE-138
-------
Environmental Assessment and Evaluation Study
for a Designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site in
Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern
Massachusetts
Appendix F
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for IOSN
-------
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
Environmental Assessment and Evaluation Study
for Designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site in
Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern Massachusetts
AUGUST 2019
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Proposed Action
3.0 Managed Species
4.0 Analysis of Impact
5.0 Conclusion
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
require that an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation be conducted for activities that
may adversely affect important habitats of federally managed marine and anadromous fish
species. EFH includes "those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity." An assessment of EFH for the designation of an Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) in Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and
Northern Massachusetts is included here for the proposed Isles of Shoals-North (IOSN) site.
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION
The availability of an ODMDS in the vicinity of southern Maine, New Hampshire, and
northern Massachusetts is necessary to maintain safe navigation of authorized federal
channels and permitted actions. Projected dredging needs for the area were calculated to be
approximately 1.5 million cubic yards (CY) of material over the next 20 years. While there
are alternatives to open water disposal available, the projected dredging needs quantities
significantly exceed the capacity of available practicable alternatives. The States of Maine
and New Hampshire have expressed concern over this situation to both the USACE and
EPA. While the current situation does not constitute an imminent hazard to life and property,
the EPA and USACE agreed that a prudent management action, the designation of an
approved ODMDS, was required in order to meet the long-term dredging needs of southern
Maine, New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts.
Efforts were undertaken by the Federal government to study the possibility of expanding a
currently used Section 103 site (the Cape Arundel Disposal Site) to accommodate the
regions dredging needs. However, studies revealed that suitable areas for an ODMDS are
limited at the current Section 103 site. Additionally, a historically used disposal site was
examined for potential reuse, however, the site is located in an area that contains a diversity
of habitats that are not compatible with the placement of dredge material. Given the lack of
available existing capacity and the incompatibility of material types associated with
alternative options available, the EPA and USACE are seeking to designate an ODMDS that
will serve the region's long-term dredging needs. As such, the Isles of Shoals - North site
(See Figure 3-6 of the Environmental Assessment) is being proposed to be designated as an
ODMDS.
The designation of an ODMDS at the IOSN site would allow dredged material that has been
found suitable for open water disposal by regulatory agencies to be placed at the site. The
sources of the dredged material would be Federal Navigation Projects (FNP) and private
projects within the draw area (See Section 2 of this Environmental Assessment). The
estimated amount of dredged material needed to be removed within the draw area from
FNPs is approximately 1.5 million cubic yards over the next 20 years. Placement events (on
a year to year basis) would be infrequent as the projects within the draw area are each
anticipated to be dredged only once during the projected 20-year period.
-------
3.0 MANAGED SPECIES WITH EFH WITHIN AFFECTED AREA
Managed species listed for the area that includes the proposed IOSN site include: Atlantic
wolffish Anarhichas lupus (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults), little skate Leucoraja erinacea
(adults), ocean pout Macrozoarces americanus (adult, eggs), smooth skate Malacoraja sen la
(juvenile, adult), silver hake Merluccius bilinearis (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults), thorny
skate Amblyraja radiata (juvenile, adult), Atlantic cod Gadus morhua (eggs, larvae,
juveniles, adults), haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus (juveniles, adults), pollock
Pollachius virens (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults), red hake Urophycis chuss (adults), white
hake Urophycis tenuis (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults), redfish Sebastes fasciatus (larvae,
juveniles), witch flounder Glyptocephalus cynoglossus (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults),
yellowtail flounder Pleuronectes ferruginea (eggs, larvae), windowpane flounder
Scopthalmus aquosus (larvae), American plaice Hippoglossoidesplatessoides (eggs, larvae,
juveniles, adults), Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults), Atlantic sea
herring Clupea harengus (larvae, juveniles, adults), monkfish Lophius americanus (eggs,
larvae, juveniles, adults), blue shark Prionace glauca (juvenile, adult, basking shark
Cetorhinus maximus (all) , common thresher shark Alopias vulpinus (all), porbeagle shark
Lamna nasus (all), northern shortfin squid Illex illecebrosus (juvenile, adult), longfin inshore
squid Doryteuthis pealeii (adult), Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus (larvae), Atlantic
butterfish Peprilus triacanthus (juvenile adult), spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias (juveniles,
adults), and bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus (juvenile and adults).
4.0 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS
Potential impacts to EFH from the disposal of dredged material include changes in the
chemical and physical properties of the water column, changes in sediment types, and
changes in water depth. Only dredged material suitable for ocean disposal would be placed
at an ODMDS. Changes in the abundance and/or distribution of benthic prey species may
also result from placement activities. These impacts may range from short-term, as in high
total suspended solids (TSS) in the water column during placement, to longer term impacts
such as the changing of bathymetry that results from the placement of dredged material.
4.1 Physical Environment
Water Quality - The impacts of the IOSN designation and subsequent material placement on
water quality are not expected to be long-term. Water temperature, salinity, and dissolved
oxygen (DO) may be altered during the actual disposal activities, however, these changes to
the water column are temporary and will return to "pre-disposal" conditions upon completion
of the disposal activities. Short-term water quality impacts will be due mostly to increased
total suspended sediment (TSS) loads in the water column, and changes in DO that result
from increased TSS. No appreciable changes in the salinity regime, current flows, or tide
height are expected as a result of this designation.
-------
Bathymetry/Water Depth — The proposed IOSN designation, and subsequent disposal of
dredged material at the site, would produce long-term changes to the bathymetry of disposal
site due to the deposition of sediment at the site. Water depths at the disposal site will become
shallower. However, the change in bathymetry is not anticipated to impact the various fish
species that use the IOSN site as the long-term elevation changes will be minor (i.e., tens of
feet).
Sediment Type - The sediment type at the IOSN site is not expected to change significantly.
The sediment type at the proposed disposal is composed of fine-grained sediment (see
section 6.2 of the Environmental Assessment). Disposal of fine-grained dredged material,
which is the predominate type of material anticipated to be placed at the IOSN site, will not
change the sediment composition of the disposal site to any appreciable extent.
4.2 Biological Environment
Prey Species - The abundance and/or distribution of prey species for fish for which EFH has
been designated may be impacted from disposal activities if the IOSN site is used for
material placement following designation. Many of the fish with EFH in the area of IOSN
feed on organisms that live in or on the sediment. During disposal operations, prey species
which live in the sediment in the direct footprint of the material placement are likely to be
buried. As the sediments to be disposed of at IOSN are expected to be similar in nature to
materials at IOSN, benthic prey species are expected to recolonize the areas within the site
used for placement, thus only impacting fish during disposal events until the benthic
community recolonizes the site.
Prey species that live in the water column are also likely to be impacted during disposal
activities. The TSS resulting from disposal activities will likely destroy planktonic species in
the vicinity of the TSS plume resulting from disposal. However, this area will be limited to
the water column above each disposal event. Following completion of disposal, this habitat
will be recolonized by adjacent plankton populations.
4.3 Impact to Essential Fish Habitat for Managed Species
Disposal activities that will follow the designation of the proposed IOSN site as an ODMDS
are also likely to have some temporary impacts on the EFH species present at the proposed
disposal site during disposal and until the benthic habitat at the disposal site recovers.
Demersal species such as flounders will experience greater impacts than pelagic species, and
eggs and larvae will experience greater impacts than juveniles and adults. The species with
the most potential to be adversely affected by disposal would be those that have demersal
eggs and larvae. Demersal eggs and larvae are likely to be buried as dredged material is
dumped at the disposal site. Species that have planktonic eggs and larvae in the water column
may also be seriously damaged or killed as they encounter the mass of material released from
the scow.
Juveniles and adults of demersal species may be buried if they do not quickly move from the
area when disposal begins. Smaller juveniles are more likely to be buried than larger
-------
juveniles or adults. Pelagic juveniles and adults will likely experience minimal impacts as
they are able to quickly move from the area as disposal begins. Small pelagic juveniles,
however, may be damaged or killed if they are not able to escape the rapidly descending
sediment particles during the disposal activities.
4.3.1 Demersal Species
Demersal species are those fish living on or near the bottom. Demersal species found in the
project area include flounders and groundfish.
Atlantic wolffish Anarhichas lupus (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults)
The proposed IOSN site contains habitat designated as EFH for all life stages of Atlantic
wolffish (,Anarhichas lupus). EFH for Atlantic wolffish is generally described as bottom habitat
of 40 to 240 meters deep in areas of open water. Wolffish eggs are laid on bottom substrates
while larvae are both demersal and pelagic for short periods of time. Juvenile and adult wolffish
are present in deep waters and do not appear to have a substrate preference.
Effects: Wolffish have been documented in the MENH nearshore trawl surveys in the vicinity of
the proposed IOSN site (see Section 6.5.3 of the Environmental Assessment). The disposal of
material at the proposed IOSN has the potential to impact all life stages of wolffish through
burial. As impacts to the water column habitat and benthic habitat in the proposed IOSN
footprint are expected to be short term and highly localized, no significant effects to wolfish EFH
are anticipated.
Little Skate Leucoraja erinacea (adults)
The project area is designated as EFH for adult little skates (Leucoraja erinacea). The little skate
has a coastal distribution and is found in habitats with sandy, gravelly, or mud substrates of the
shallow water in the western Atlantic from Nova Scotia, Canada to North Carolina, USA. This
species can tolerate a wide range of temperatures and salinity ranges from 27- 33.8 ppt. They are
found from the surface waters to depths of 295 feet (90 m). The little skate does not appear to
have large-scale migrations, but they do move to shallower water during the summer and move
to deeper water in fall or early winter.
Effects'. Little skate have been documented in the MENH nearshore trawl surveys in the vicinity
of the proposed IOSN site. The disposal of material at the proposed IOSN has the potential to
impact adult little skate through burial. As impacts to the benthic habitat in the proposed IOSN
footprint are expected to be short term and highly localized, no significant effects to little skate
EFH are anticipated.
Smooth skate Malacoraja sen la (juvenile, adult)
The proposed IOSN site has habitat designated as EFH for juvenile and adult smooth skate
(Malacoraja senta). Juvenile and adult smooth skate utilize benthic habitats between 100 and
400 meters in the Gulf of Maine, on the continental slope to a depth of 900 meters, and in depths
-------
less than 100 meters in the high salinity zones of a number of bays and estuaries along the Maine
coast. EFH for juvenile smooth skates occurs mostly on soft mud in deeper areas, but also on
sand, broken shells, gravel, and pebbles on offshore banks in the Gulf of Maine.
Effects: Smooth skate have been documented in the MENH nearshore trawl surveys in the
vicinity of the proposed IOSN site. The disposal of material at the proposed IOSN has the
potential to impact juvenile and adult smooth skate through burial. As impacts to the benthic
habitat in the proposed IOSN footprint are expected to be short term and highly localized, no
significant effects to smooth skate EFH are anticipated.
Silver hake Merliicciiis bilinearis (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults)
EFH is designated for all life stages of silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) in the proposed IOSN
site. Juvenile silver hake are found on bottom habitats of all substrate types, water temperatures
below 21° C, generally at depths between 66 and 886 feet (20 - 270 m) and salinities greater than
20%. The adults are also found on bottom habitats of all substrate types, at water temperatures
below 22° C and generally at depths between 94 and 1,066 feet (30 - 325 m). Eggs and larvae are
found in pelagic habitats from the Gulf of Maine to Cape May, New Jersey, including Cape Cod
and Massachusetts Bays.
Effects'. Silver hake have been documented in the MENH nearshore trawl surveys in the vicinity
of the proposed IOSN site. The disposal of material at the proposed IOSN has the potential to
impact all life stages of silver hake burial during disposal. As impacts to the water column
habitats and benthic habitats in the proposed IOSN footprint are expected to be short term and
highly localized, no significant effects to silver hake EFH are anticipated.
Witch flounder Glyptocephalus cynoglossus (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults)
The witch flounder Glyptocephalus cynoglossus is a demersal species that is distributed
throughout the Gulf of Maine and deeper waters along Georges Bank, and along the edge of the
continental shelf south to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Witch flounder are sedentary and are
more common in water depths greater than 90 meters; most are caught between 110 and 275
meters (361 and 902 feet). Witch flounder are found on substrates of mud, clay, mud/clay mixed
with sand, and smooth ground between rocky patches. They spawn in late spring and summer,
peaking in May and June. The eggs are pelagic and drift in the plankton. Larvae are also pelagic
and are commonly found over depths of 28 to 250 meters (92 to 820 feet).
Effects. Impacts to witch flounder eggs and larvae during disposal of dredged material at the
proposed IOSN site will occur if eggs and larvae are in the water column over the disposal site
during disposal. Juvenile and adult witch flounder are likely to occur at IOSN as they have been
documented in the MENH inshore trawl surveys. Since impacts to IOSN water column habitat
and benthic habitat are expected to be short term and localized, no significant effects to witch
flounder EFH are expected.
-------
Yellowtail flounder Limanda ferruginea (eggs, larvae)
Yellowtail flounder Limanda ferruginea is a demersal species that is distributed along the
northwestern Atlantic from Labrador to the Chesapeake Bay. Yellowtail flounder are a "right-
eyed" species and are relatively sedentary, preferring bottoms of sand or sand and mud in waters
from 30 to 90 meters (98 to 295 feet) in depth. Discrete stocks have been identified off Southern
New England, Georges Bank, Cape Cod, and in the Middle Atlantic. Yellowtail flounder spawn
in spring and summer with peaks observed in May. The eggs are pelagic and float near the
surface in water depths ranging from 10 to 90 meters (33 to 295 feet). Larvae are also pelagic
and drift in the plankton for approximately a month or two before settling to the bottom.
Effects. Impacts to yellowtail flounder eggs and larvae during disposal of dredged material at the
proposed IOSN site will occur if eggs and larvae are in the water column over the disposal site
during disposal. Juvenile and adult yellowtail flounder are likely to occur at IOSN as they have
been documented in the MENH inshore trawl surveys. Since impacts to IOSN water column
habitat and benthic habitat is expected to be short term and localized, no significant effects to
yellowtail flounder EFH are expected.
Windowpane flounder Scopthalmus aquosus (larvae)
Windowpane flounder Scophthalmus aquosus is a demersal species that is distributed in the
northwest Atlantic along the continental shelf from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Florida and is
particularly common in large estuaries in waters less than 56 meters (184 feet). The windowpane
flounder is a "left-eyed" flounder that is found over sand, mixtures of sandy silt or mud. No
seasonal migration is evident in New England waters. Spawning occurs from April through
December with peaks from May through October in waters below 21°C and salinities between
5.5 and 36 ppt. Eggs and larvae are pelagic and float near the surface, drifting with currents.
Juveniles are most often observed in the sublittoral zones generally in water depths of 6 to 14
meters (20 to 46 feet).
Effects. Windowpane flounder larvae have the potential to occur at the proposed IOSN site as
this species was collected in the MENH inshore trawl surveys noted above. Since impacts to
IOSN water column habitat and benthic habitat are expected to be short term and localized, no
significant effects to windowpane flounder EFH are expected.
American plaice Hippoglossoidesplatessoides (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults),
The American plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides is a demersal species that is distributed in the
Northwest Atlantic along the continental shelf from southern Labrador to Rhode Island. The
American plaice is a "right-eyed" flounder that prefers substrates of mud, sand, or mud-sand
mixtures. The species is generally found from the tide line down to 700 meters (2,297 feet) in
depth. Spawning occurs on bottom habitats of all substrate types in waters less than 90 meters
(295 feet) in depth and temperatures less than 14°C from March through June. Eggs and larvae
are pelagic floating/drifting in the surface water. Larvae sink to greater depths as they grow and
at metamorphosis will take up residence on the bottom.
-------
Effects. Impacts to American plaice eggs and larvae during disposal of dredged material at the
proposed IOSN site will occur if eggs and larvae are in the water column over the disposal site
during disposal. Juvenile and adult plaice are likely to occur at IOSN as they have been
documented in the MENH inshore trawl surveys. Since impacts to IOSN water column habitat
and benthic habitat are expected to be short term and localized, no significant effects to
American plaice EFH are expected.
Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults),
EFH is designated within the project area for all life stages of the Atlantic Halibut (Hippoglossus
hippoglossus). The eggs of the Atlantic halibut are typically found at depths of less than 700
meters in bottom waters at salinities <35ppt). Spawning, and therefore the presence of eggs,
occurs from November to March with the peak in November and December. EFH for juveniles is
20-70m water depths with salinities between 30 and 35ppt in a substrate of sand, gravel or clay.
For adults, the habitat includes water depths <700m with similar substrates.
Effects. Impacts to halibut eggs and larvae during disposal of dredged material at the proposed
IOSN site will occur if eggs and larvae are in the water column over the disposal site during
disposal. Juvenile and adult halibut are likely to occur at IOSN as they have been documented in
the MENH inshore trawl surveys. Since impacts to IOSN water column habitat and benthic
habitat are expected to be short term and localized, no significant effects to Atlantic halibut EFH
are expected.
Ocean pout Macrozoarces americanus (adult, eggs)
Ocean pout Macrozoarces americanus are demersal eel-like fish that are distributed in the
northwest Atlantic from Labrador to Delaware. This species does not make extensive migrations
but does move to different habitats when seasons change. During winter and spring, ocean pout
are common feeding in areas over bottom substrates of sand and sand-gravel. Feeding ceases in
summer and ocean pout move to rocky areas where they spawn. Spawning occurs in September
and October. Demersal eggs are guarded by adult fish until eggs hatch.
Effects. Ocean pout have been documented in the vicinity of IOSN by the MENH inshore trawl
surveys noted in Section 6 of the Environmental Assessment. Ocean pout adults and eggs may
experience some impact from burial during disposal operations at the proposed IOSN. However,
as the ocean pout prefers sand and sandy gravel habitat, no significant effect to ocean pout EFH
is expected as the sediments at the proposed disposal site are silt.
Atlantic cod Gadus morhua (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults)
The Atlantic cod Gadus morhua is a demersal species distributed in the northwest Atlantic from
Greenland to North Carolina. Cod form large loose schools several km long and wide. They tend
to avoid temperatures greater than 10°C and are most commonly found in depths of 40 to 130
meters (131 to 427 feet) within the limits of the continental shelf along rocky slopes or ledges
over bottom substrates of rocky, pebbly, or gravelly areas, and sometimes over sand, clay, or
mud bottoms. They can also be found in harbors, lagoons, brackish river mouths, and freshwater
-------
rivers. The Mid-Atlantic Bight population of cod tends to concentrate north of Block Island in
the summer and along the New Jersey coast in winter. Spawning occurs primarily during
November through May in any number of places including inlets, bays, harbors, both coastal and
offshore banks, over bottoms of rock, clay, sand, mud, and aquatic vegetation. Eggs are found in
bays and in the open ocean floating at or near surface. Larvae are also found at the surface,
drifting with the currents. As larvae grow, they move deeper into the water column. They are
commonly found over deep waters, around rocks in bays, in shallow sounds, coves with light
bottoms, beaches, and in shallow water over muddy bottoms among weeds. As juveniles, cod
generally move toward shore and begin a demersal existence.
Effects. Impacts to Atlantic cod eggs and larvae during disposal of dredge material may occur if
eggs and larvae are in the water column over the disposal site during disposal. Those eggs and
larvae at the surface are likely to be less impacted than eggs and larvae deeper in the water
column. For juvenile and adult cod, the likelihood of impact is low as juvenile and adult cod
prefer substrates of rocks, pebble and gravel, and the substrate at IOSN is silt. Therefore, only
minimal impacts to cod and cod EFH are anticipated.
Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus (juveniles, adults)
Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus are a demersal species distributed in the western Atlantic
from Greenland to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Adult haddock are generally more common in
water depths from 45 to 135 meters (148 to 443 feet) and temperatures ranging from 2 to 10°C.
They are found in bottom habitats with substrates of sand, rock, pebbles, gravel or broken shell.
Spawning occurs between January and June, peaking during March and April. Eggs are pelagic
and are generally concentrated within the upper 10 meters (33 feet) of the water column. Larvae
are also pelagic and are typically oceanic although they may be found in estuaries. Juveniles are
found initially in the water column but will descend to the bottom as they get older. Juvenile
haddock tend to remain in more shallow water on banks and shoals, moving to deeper areas as
adults.
Effects: Haddock have been documented in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN site by the MENH
inshore trawl surveys noted in Section 6 of the Environmental Assessment. Haddock adults may
experience some impact from burial during disposal operations at the proposed IOSN. However,
as haddock prefer sand and sandy gravel habitat, no significant effect to haddock EFH is
expected as the sediments at the proposed disposal site are silt.
Pollock Pollachius virens (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults),
EFH for all life stages of pollock (Pollachius virens) is designated in the vicinity of the proposed
IOSN site. Pollock are typically found over bottom habitats with aquatic vegetation, sand, mud,
or rocks in waters ranging from depths of <1 to 150 meters (3 to 492 feet). Salinity preference
for ranges from 29 to 32 ppt.
Effects. Pollock have been documented in the vicinity of IOSN by the MENH inshore trawl
surveys noted in Section 6 of the Environmental Assessment. All life stages of pollock may
experience some impact from burial during disposal operations at the proposed IOSN. However,
-------
as the impacts to water column habitat and benthic habitats in the proposed IOSN location are
anticipated to be short term and highly localized, no significant impacts to pollock EFH are
expected.
Red hake Urophycis chuss (adults)
The red hake Urophycis chuss is distributed in the northwest Atlantic from the Gulf of St.
Lawrence to North Carolina. This species undergoes extensive seasonal migrations, moving into
shallow waters in the spring and summer to spawn and moving offshore to overwinter in deeper
waters of the outer continental shelf and slope, particularly the area south and southwest of
Georges Bank. Spawning occurs from May through November, with Southern New England a
primary spawning area. Red hake spawn in coastal waters over the continental shelf in water
46.8 to 108 meters (154 to 354 feet) in depth and temperatures between 5 and 10°C. Red hake
eggs are pelagic, and float in plankton. Larvae also drift at the surface in the plankton often
under eelgrass and rockweed. Young juvenile red hake are found initially at the surface, but as
they grow (approximately 27 - 49 mm length) they descend to the bottom and are often found in
the mantle cavity of shellfish (i.e., scallops) under sponges, or in other benthic litter. Juveniles
will remain in the vicinity of shellfish beds for 2 years if temperatures remain above 4°C. If
temperatures fall below 4°C, juveniles will migrate to warmer, deeper water. Adult red hake stay
close to objects on the bottom (i.e., shellfish beds) and can be found over soft mud or silt
substrates and less frequently over sand and shell, and never rocky bottoms. Two stocks have
been identified - a Gulf of Maine-Northern Georges Bank stock and Southern Georges Bank-
Middle Atlantic stock.
Effects. Red hake have been documented by the MENH inshore trawl surveys noted in Section 6
of the Environmental Assessment. Adult red hake are likely to experience some impact from
burial during disposal operations at the proposed IOSN. However, larger more mobile adults and
will likely move to avoid the disposal plume. As the material to be placed at the proposed IOSN
is similar to the existing sediments and the benthic community at the disposal site should recover
following the cessation of disposal events, no significant impact to red hake EFH is expected.
White hake Urophycis tenuis (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults),
EFH is designated for all life stages of white hake (Urophycis tenuis) in the project area. The
juvenile and adult hake can be found in waters ranging from 5 to 300 meters over mainly mud
and sand substrates.
Effects. White hake have been documented by the MENH inshore trawl surveys noted in Section
6 of the Environmental Assessment. Adult white hake are likely to experience some impact from
burial during disposal operations at the proposed IOSN. However, larger more mobile adults and
will likely move to avoid the disposal plume. As the material to be placed at the proposed IOSN
is similar to the existing sediments and the benthic community at the disposal site should recover
following the cessation of disposal events, no significant impact to white hake EFH is expected.
Redfish Sebastesfasciatus (larvae, juveniles)
-------
EFH for redfish larvae include pelagic habitats in the Gulf of Maine, on the southern portion of
Georges Bank, and on the continental slope north of 37°38'N latitude. EFH for juvenile redfish
includes sub-tidal coastal and offshore benthic habitats in the Gulf of Maine between 50 and 200
meters, and on the continental slope to a maximum depth of 600 meters north of 37°38'N
latitude. Juveniles prefer bottom habitats of complex rocky reef substrates with associated
structure-forming epifauna (e.g., sponges, corals) and soft sediments with cerianthid anemones.
Adult EFH is offshore benthic habitats in the Gulf of Maine, primarily in depths between 140
and 300 meters, and on the continental slope to a maximum depth of 600 meters north of
37°38'N latitude. EFH for adult redfish occurs on finer grained bottom sediments and variable
deposits of clays, silts, gravel, and boulders with associated structure forming epifauna (e.g.
corals, sponges, cerianthid anemones, sea pens).
Effects: Redfish have been documented by the MENH inshore trawl surveys noted in Section 6
of the Environmental Assessment. All life stages are likely to experience some impact from
burial during disposal operations at the proposed IOSN. Larger mobile adults will likely move to
avoid the disposal plume. However, larvae and juveniles in the water column may experience
impacts during material disposal at the site. As the material to be placed at the proposed IOSN is
similar to the existing sediments and the benthic community at the disposal site should recover
following the cessation of disposal events, no significant impact to redfish EFH is expected.
Additionally, since the water column effects from disposal are short term and localized, no
significant effects to larvae and/or juvenile redfish EFH are expected.
Monkfish Lophius americanus (eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults),
Monkfish, or goosefish Lophius americanus are distributed in the northwest Atlantic from the
Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Hatteras North Carolina. Adult monkfish are found in bottom
habitats with various substrates including hard sand, sand-shell mix, mud, gravel, and algae
covered rocks along the continental shelf in waters from 70 to 100 meters (230 to 328 feet) in
depth but may also be found at depths of 800 meters (2625 feet). Spawning occurs in these
habitats at water depths of 25 to 200 meters (82 to 656 feet), water temperatures below 13°C, and
salinities ranging from 29.9 to 36.7 ppt. Eggs are shed in a continuous ribbon-like sheet of
gelatinous mucus which can be as large as 12 meters (39 feet) long and 1.5 meters (5 feet) wide.
These egg "veils" float in the water column, generally close to the surface. Larvae and juveniles
spend several months in a pelagic phase before juveniles settle to the bottom.
Effects. Monkfish hake have been documented by the MENH inshore trawl surveys noted in
Section 6 of the Environmental Assessment. All life stages are likely to experience some impact
from burial during disposal operations at the proposed IOSN. Larger mobile adults will likely
move to avoid the disposal plume. However, eggs, larvae and juveniles in the water column may
experience impacts during material disposal at the site. As the material to be placed at the
proposed IOSN is similar to the existing sediments and the benthic community at the disposal
site should recover following the cessation of disposal events, no significant impact to adult
monkfish EFH is expected. Additionally, since the water column effects from disposal are short
term and localized, no significant effects to egg, larvae, and/or juvenile monkfish EFH are
expected.
-------
4.3.2 Pelagic Species
Pelagic species are those species that live at the surface layers or mid depth layers within the
water column. Pelagic species found within the project area include bony fish, sharks, and
invertebrates.
Atlantic sea herring Clupea harengus (larvae, juveniles, adults)
The Atlantic sea herring Clupea harengus is distributed in the northwest Atlantic in continental
shelf waters from Labrador to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. This species is an open water
planktivorous fish that is found in large schools. Adult Atlantic sea herring are generally found
offshore, but some populations may migrate inshore during spawning season. Spawning
generally occurs in bottom habitats with substrates of gravel, sand, cobble, shell fragments, or
aquatic macrophytes. Spawning generally occurs from July through November in well-mixed
waters below 15°C with tidal currents between 1.5 and 3.0 knots. Water depths at spawning
locations range from 20 to 80 meters (66 to 262 feet) and salinities range from 32 to 33 ppt.
Atlantic sea herring eggs are demersal and adhesive and are most often observed in large sheets
directly on stone, gravel, or shell beds. Larvae are first found in the vicinity of spawning areas
and within hours of hatching, they will form small schools and begin vertical movements upward
at night until they become dispersed by currents. Juveniles drift with currents and may remain in
bays/estuaries or may be found offshore at sea. As adults (in large schools), the Atlantic sea
herring's movements are typically local and short range and they undertake vertical migrations -
rising at night and sinking by day.
Effects. Given the distribution of Atlantic herring and the highly localized extent of the proposed
site, impacts to the Atlantic herring EFH are anticipated to be minimal. As noted in the
Environmental Assessment, placement of material at the proposed site would generally be
restricted temporally to late fall and winter months, thus reducing potential for impact to the
Atlantic herring EFH. Additionally, the projected site usage for dredged material placement (see
Table 2-1 of the Environmental Assessment) is expected to be infrequent. Therefore, no
significant effects to the Atlantic herring EFH are expected as a result of designating the site as
an ODMDS.
Atlantic butterfish Peprilus triacanthus (juvenile and adult)
The Atlantic butterfish Peprilus triacanthus is distributed in the northwestern Atlantic from
Newfoundland to Florida but is most common between the Gulf of Maine and Cape Hatteras
North Carolina. This species tends to loosely school near the surface in waters overlying sand
bottoms several hundred feet from shore. Butterfish are common in coastal waters during the
summer months, moving north and inshore to feed. During winter, butterfish move south and
offshore to deeper warmer water to overwinter. Spawning occurs in the coastal waters offshore
during the summer months (June through August). Eggs and larvae are pelagic and drift in the
plankton
Effects. Atlantic butterfish juveniles and adults were observed in the MENH inshore trawl
surveys noted in Section 6 of the Environmental Assessment. Juvenile and adult butterfish are
-------
likely to move from the water column areas while dredged material is being disposed, resulting
in only minimal impacts to individuals. As noted above, impacts to the water column are
expected to be short term and localized, therefore no significant effects to Atlantic Butterfish
EFH are expected.
Blue shark Prionace glauca (juvenile, adult)/ Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus (all)
Common thresher shark Alopias vulpinus (all)/ Porbeagle shark Lamna nasus (all)
Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias (juveniles, adults)
EFH designation/Effects: The shark species noted above have the potential to occur in the
pelagic habitat over the proposed IOSN site. As impacts to the water column habitat over the
proposed IOSN site are expected to be short term and localized, no significant effects to the EFH
of the various species of sharks noted above are expected.
Northern shortfin squid Illex illecebrosus (juvenile, adult)/ Longfin inshore squid Doryteuthis
pealeii (adult)
EFH designation/Effects'. The squid species noted above have the potential to occur in the
pelagic habitat over the proposed IOSN site. As impacts to the water column habitat over the
proposed IOSN site are expected to be short term and localized, no significant effects to the EFH
of the various species of squid noted above are expected.
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus (larvae)
The Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus is distributed in the northwest Atlantic between
Labrador and North Carolina. The mackerel is a fast swimming pelagic fish found in very large
schools. Atlantic mackerel are generally found offshore and are not dependent on the coastline or
bottom substrate for any period of their lives. Smaller fish, however, may move inshore into
estuaries and harbors in search of food. Spawning occurs in spring and early summer (typically
June) at any location, resulting in pelagic egg and larval stages that are dispersed by currents.
Effects. Impacts to Atlantic mackerel larvae at the proposed IOSN site are expected to be
minimal. Impacts to the water column habitat from dredged material disposal are expected to be
short term and localized, therefore no significant effects to Atlantic mackerel EFH are expected.
Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus (juvenile and adults).
The bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus is distributed in many regions including the warmer parts of
the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, as well as the Mediterranean Sea. In the western
Atlantic, the bluefin tuna ranges from Labrador south along the U.S. coast into the Gulf of
Mexico and the Caribbean and from Venezuela to Brazil. Bluefin tuna are a strong swift
swimming migratory pelagic species. They school by size and are common in the Gulf Stream.
In July through October, bluefin tuna will congregate on the continental shelf off New England.
Spawning is believed to occur in May and June in the Straits of Florida and does not appear to
occur north of this along the U.S. coast. Bluefin tuna eggs and larvae are pelagic and drift in the
currents. Small juveniles arrive to feed in the northeastern Atlantic (Virginia to Cape Cod) in
-------
mid-June to July and will spend the winter above the 36°N in offshore waters warmer than 16 to
17°C.
Effects. Impacts to bluefin tuna at the proposed 10SN site are expected to be minimal. Impacts to
the water column habitat from dredged material disposal are expected to be short term and
localized, therefore no significant effects to Bluefin tuna EFH are expected.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Although the designation of IOSN as an ODMDS does not result in the disposal of dredged
material at the site, the designation will allow dredged material that has been found suitable
for open water placement to be placed at the site. As such, the impacts of designating the site
and the subsequent placement of dredged material at the site have been considered in this EFH
assessment. As noted in the Environmental Assessment and throughout this EFH Assessment,
impacts to the physical and biological conditions at the IOSN site are not anticipated to be
significantly affected by site designation and dredged material disposal. The majority of the
impacts that would negatively affect EFH for managed species will be short term and
localized and are not expected to significantly alter essential fish habitat permanently. The
long-term effects of increased bathymetry in the footprint of the site is not expected to
negatively affect EFH for managed species.
-------
Environmental Assessment and Evaluation Study
for a Designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site in
Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern
Massachusetts
Appendix G
Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP)
-------
PROPOSED IOSNSMMP
August 2019
Isles of Shoals Dredged Material Disposal Site North
Site Management and Monitoring Plan
August 2019
£
<
¦jy
\
a
% ^
PRO^*"
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England District
696 Virginia Road
Concord, MA 01742
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109
-------
PROPOSED IOSNSMMP
August 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND AUTHORITIES 2
Management 3
Monitoring 4
3.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN 5
Specific Management Practices 6
Modifications to Management Plan 10
4.0 BASELINE ASSESSMENT 11
Site Characteristics 11
Site Capacity 12
Sediment and Water Quality 13
Living Resources 16
5.0 DISPOSAL HISTORY 20
6.0 MONITORING 21
Organization of the Monitoring Program 22
Monitoring Elements 24
Monitoring Methods 35
Quality Assurance 37
7.0 ANTICIPATED SITE USE 37
8.0 REVIEW AND REVISION Ol I I IIS I'l.AN 38
9.0 FUNDING 39
10.0 REFERENCES 39
LISTOl TABLES
Tabic I. I'ish Species Identified in the MI-NII Insliore Trawl Survey 17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Isles of Shoals North Dredged Material Disposal Site 2
Figure 2. Bathymetry of the Proposed IOSN Disposal Site 12
Figure 3. Surficial Sediment Types in the Gulf of Maine Including the Proposed IOSN 14
-------
PROPOSED IOSN SMMP
August 2019
ACRONYMS AND KEYWORDS
aRPD Apparent Redox Potential Discontinuity
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DAMOS Disposal Area Monitoring System
EA Environmental Assessment
DMR Department of Marine Resources
DPS Distinct Population Segment
DQM Dredging Quality Management
EFH Essenti al Fi sh Habitat
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
GoMOOS Gulf of Maine Ocean Observation System
IOSN Proposed Isles of Shoals North
ITM Inland Testing Manual
MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NERACOOS Northeast Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observation Systems
NERDT New England Regional Dredging Team
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ODMDS Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
QA Quality Assurance
RIM Regional Implementation Manual
SMMP Site Management and Monitoring Plan
SPI Sediment Profile Imaging
TOC Total Organic Carbon
USACE-NAE U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
QA Quality Assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP
1.0 INTRODUCTION
August 2019
The primary statutes governing the aquatic disposal of dredged material in the United States are
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1401, et seq.. and
the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251, et seq. The MPRSA applies to the disposal of
dredged material in the waters of the Gulf of Maine seaward of the baseline from which the
territorial sea of the United States is measured. This applies to both the authorization of specific
disposal sites and the assessment of the suitability of specific dredged material for disposal.
Section 102(c) of the MPRSA, 33 U.S.C. § 1412(c), authorizes the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to designate sites where ocean disposal of dredged material may be
permitted. See also 33 U.S.C. § 1413(b) and 40 CFR § 228.4(e). Ocean dredged material
disposal sites (ODMDS) designated by EPA under the MPRSA are subject to detailed
management and monitoring protocols to track site conditions and prevent the occurrence of
unacceptable adverse effects to the marine environment. See 33 U.S.C. § 1412(c)(3). Those
management and monitoring protocols are described in a Site Management and Monitoring Plan
(SMMP) developed jointly by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). See id.
The Region 1 office of EPA (EPA Region 1) is proposing to designate the Isles of Shoals
Dredged Material Disposal Site North (IOSN) in 2019 under Section 102(c) of the MPRSA
(EPA Region 1, 2019). EPA is proposing to designate the site to help meet the long-term needs
for dredged material disposal in southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts
(see Figure 1). In conjunction with the site designation, EPA Region 1 and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, New England District (USACE-NAE) are developing this SMMP for the
proposed IOSN. Section 102(c)(3) requires that "the Administrator and the Secretary shall
provide opportunity for public comment" in developing SMMPs for each EPA-designated
dredged material disposal site. EPA Region lis providing an opportunity for public comment for
the SMMP at the same time as the draft Environmental Assessment and Proposed Rule for the
site designation.
-1 -
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP
August 2019
Trwvw 7rsor»» 7rmrn wsnrw 70-anrw *r««rw w«r
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
disposal at the proposed IOSN. To this end, the SMMP identifies actions, provisions, and
practices necessary to manage the operational aspects of dredged material disposal at the site and
monitor the site. This is consistent with the SMMP requirements of Section 102(c)(3) of the MPRSA
and the requirements of the Ocean Dumping Regulations. See also 40 CFR § 228.10(a) (the impact
of disposal at designated sites should be evaluated periodically).
Management
Management of the disposal site involves: regulating the quantity and physical/chemical
characteristics of dredged material that may be disposed at the site; establishing disposal controls
and conditions; and monitoring the site environment to verify that permit terms are being met and
that potentially unacceptable conditions that could result in significant adverse impacts are not
occurring from past or continued use of the disposal site.
In addition, this SMMP also incorporates the following six requirements for ocean disposal site
management plans that are described in MPRSA § 102(c)(3)(A) - (F):
1. Consideration of the quantity of the material to be disposed of at the site, and the
presence, nature and bioavailability of the contaminants in the material [Section IIC,
infra];
2. A baseline assessment of conditions at the site [Section III, infra] ;
3. A program for monitoring the site [Section IV, infra];
4. Special management conditions or practices to be implemented at each site that are
necessary for protection of the environment [Section V.A, infra] ;
5. Consideration of the anticipated use of the site over the long term, including the
anticipated closure date for the site, if applicable, and any need for management of the
site after closure [Section VI, infra]; and
6. A schedule for review and revision of the plan calling for review and revision not less
frequently than 10 years after initial adoption of the plan and every 10 years thereafter
[MPRSA § 102(c)(3); Section VII, infra].
This SMMP is consistent with EPA regulations at 40 CFR § 228.10(c) calling for EPA to
periodically assess disposal sites based on the available body of pertinent data. Recognizing and
-3 -
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
correcting any potential adverse condition before it causes an unacceptable adverse impact to the
marine environment or presents a navigational hazard to any type of vessel traffic is a central
objective of this SMMP.
The practices that will be applied to address these management goals at the proposed IOSN
include the following: coordination among federal and state agencies; testing of material to
ensure acceptability for disposal at the site; review of general and specific permit conditions;
review of allowable disposal technologies and methods; implementation of inspection,
surveillance and enforcement procedures; periodic environmental monitoring at the site and at
relevant reference sites for comparative evaluation; and information management and record
keeping.
Monitoring
Under 40 CFR § 228.10(b), the following types of potential effects should be considered when
evaluating impact at a disposal site:
• Movement of materials into sanctuaries or onto beaches or shorelines [228.10(b)(1)];
• Movement of materials toward productive fishery or shellfishery areas [228.10(b)(2)];
• Absence from the disposal site of pollutant-sensitive biota characteristic of the general
area [228.10(b)(3)];
• Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in water quality or sediment composition at the
disposal site when these changes are attributable to dredged materials placed at the site
[228.10(b)(4)];
• Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in composition or numbers of pelagic, demersal, or
benthic biota at or near the disposal site when these changes can be attributed to the
effects of dredged materials placed at the site [228.10(b)(5)];
• Accumulation of material constituents (including without limitation, human pathogens) in
marine biota at or near the site {i.e., bioaccumulation [228.10(b)(6)]); and
• Any non-compliance with MPRSA permit conditions (information about any non-
compliance should be referred to enforcement authorities, as appropriate).
The monitoring approach defined in this SMMP focuses on those factors that provide an early
-4-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
indication of potential unacceptable effects. The plan also incorporates ongoing regional
monitoring programs in the Gulf of Maine that can provide additional information. The
identification of unacceptable impacts, if any, from dredged material disposal at the proposed
IOSN will be accomplished in part through comparisons of the monitoring results to historical
{i.e., baseline) conditions, and in part through comparison to nearby reference locations.
If site monitoring demonstrates that the disposal activities are causing unacceptable impacts to
the marine environment as defined under 40 CFR § 228.10(b), the site managers will place
appropriate limitations on site usage to reduce the impacts to acceptable levels. Such responses
may range from limitations on the amounts and types of dredged material permitted to be
disposed or limitations on disposal methods, locations, or schedules to withdrawal of the site's
designation {i.e., de-designation).
3.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN
All dredged material projects using the proposed IOSN must be authorized under MPRSA
Section 103. The proposed IOSN will be managed in a manner that ensures the following site
management goals are met:
• Only suitable material meeting the requirements of the Ocean Dumping Regulations will
be allowed at the proposed IOSN disposal site.
• Ensure compliance with permit conditions;
• Avoid or minimize loss of sediment from the disposal site;
• Avoid or minimize conflicts with other uses of the area;
• Maximize the retention of site capacity;
• Avoid or minimize any adverse environmental impact from sediments placed at the site;
and
• Recognize and correct conditions that could lead to unacceptable impacts.
EPA Region 1 and the USACE-NAE will jointly manage the proposed IOSN and will coordinate
with other agencies as appropriate. The effectiveness of the management approach depends on
having efficient planning processes, consistent compliance and enforcement, a robust yet
flexible monitoring plan, and an effective communication structure that includes timely receipt
and review of information relevant to the site management goals. To support this approach, EPA
-5 -
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
Region 1 and the USACE-NAE utilize the New England Regional Dredging Team (NERDT) to
share information and provide input on site management and monitoring issues. The NERDT is
a federal-state interagency workgroup that meets 3-4 times per year to share information and
coordinate activities on a wide range of issues related to dredging and dredged material
management, including the management and monitoring of dredged material disposal sites like
the proposed IOSN. In addition, EPA Region 1 and USACE-NAE have quarterly meetings at
which they review monitoring data, establish monitoring objectives, and plan future monitoring
surveys for disposal sites throughout New England coastal waters.
Management of the proposed IOSN will include the following practices:
• Evaluation of the suitability of material for disposal in accordance with the MPRSA;
• Specification of disposal conditions, location, and timing in permits, as appropriate;
• Requiring compliance with all permit conditions;
• Requiring disposal to occur at specified target coordinates within the site (to be
determined on an annual basis);
• Utilization of tracking instrumentation on all scows placing material at the proposed IOSN in
accordance with the USACE-NAE Dredging Quality Management (DQM) system to ensure
compliance by allowing the determination of actual placement locations;
• Annual review of disposal coordinates and target setting with the intent of minimizing
environmental impacts and maximizing long-term site capacity;
• Limiting the buildup of material in height above the bottom so that disposal mounds do
not become either a hazard to navigation or likely to be mobilized by storm events;
• Conducting disposal site monitoring in a consistent, systematic manner; and
• Specification of site de-designation {i.e., closure) conditions and dates when it becomes
appropriate.
Specific Management Practices
In addition, special management practices may be required for individual projects using the
proposed IOSN based on existing site monitoring data and long-term management goals:
-6-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
• Specification of the volume of dredged material that can be placed at specific locations
within the site and the total volume of dredged material that can be placed at the site;
• Modifications to the approved disposal methods, locations, or times; and
• Requirement for additional monitoring focused on a specific aspect of a project.
EPA regulations, see 40 CFR § 228.10(c), suggest that disposal sites be periodically assessed
based on the available body of pertinent data. A central goal of this SMMP is that any potential
unacceptable conditions will be recognized and corrected before the cause an adverse impact to the
marine environment or presents a navigational hazard. Both EPA Region 1 and USACE-NAE will
cooperate to ensure effective enforcement of all disposal requirements.
The USACE-NAE will provide EPA Region 1 with summary information on each project at two
stages of the dredging and disposal process. A Summary Information Sheet will be provided
when dredging operations begin, and a Summary Report will be submitted when dredging
operations have been completed.
The following list describes special conditions to be applied to projects using the proposed IOSN:
• At least ten working days before the start date, the USCG First District, Aids to
Navigation Office, shall be notified of the location and estimated duration of the dredging
and placement operations.
• At least ten working days before the start date, the USCG Captain Sector Northern New
England, shall be notified of the location and estimated duration of the dredging and
placement operations.
• USCG Captain Sector Northern New England shall be notified at least two hours prior to
each departure from the dredging site.
• The DQM system must be operational on each disposal scow and record each placement
event. This information is automatically uploaded to a USACE-NAE database.
• Prior to the initiation of placement activity, and any time placement operations resume
after having ceased for one month or more, the permittee or the permittee's representative
must notify the USACE-NAE .
-7-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
• The permittee must notify the USACE-NAE upon completion of dredging for the season
by completing and submitting the form that the USACE-NAE will supply for this
purpose.
• Except when directed otherwise by the USACE-NAE, all disposal of dredged material
shall adhere to the following: The permittee shall release the dredged material within the
site at a set of coordinates specified by the USACE-NAE. All disposal is to occur at the
specified coordinates with the scow moving at less than three knots. This requirement
must be followed except when doing so would create unsafe conditions because of
weather or sea state, in which case placement within a specified distance (generally less
than 350 ft [107 m]) of the specified coordinates with the scow moving only fast enough
to maintain safe control is permitted. Disposal is not permitted if these requirements
cannot be met due to weather or sea conditions and special attention needs to be given to
predicted conditions prior to departing for the dumpsite.
• EPA Region 1 and the USACE-NAE (and/or their designated representatives) reserve all
rights under applicable law to free and unlimited access to and/or inspection of: 1) the
dredging project site, including the dredge plant, the towing vessel and scow, at any time
during the project; 2) all records, including logs, reports, memoranda, notes, etc.,
pertaining to a specific dredging project (federal or non-federal); and 3) towing, survey
monitoring, and navigation equipment.
• If dredged material regulated by a specific permit or federal authorization issued by the
USACE-NAE is released in locations or in a manner not in accordance with the terms or
conditions of the permit or authorization, the master/operator of the towing vessel shall
immediately notify the USACE-NAE of the incident, as required by the permit or
authorization, and provide the USACE-NAE with the relevant DQM data export. The
USACE-NAE shall copy EPA Region 1 of such notification as soon as possible but no
later than the next business day. In addition, the towing contractor shall make a full
report of the incident to the USACE-NAE and EPA Region 1 within ten (10) days.
• From February 1 through May 31 of any year, disposal vessels including tugs, barges,
and scows transiting between the dredge site and the proposed IOSN shall operate at
speeds not to exceed five knots after sunset, before sunrise, or in daylight conditions
where visibility is less than 1 nm (1.8 km). Disposal shall not be permitted if these
requirements cannot be met due to weather or sea conditions. In that regard, the
-8-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
permittee and contractor should be aware of predicted conditions before departing for the
disposal site. The intent of this condition is to reduce the potential for vessel collisions
with endangered species, including right whales.
• From February 1 through May 31 of any year, a marine mammal observer must be
present aboard disposal vessels transiting between the dredge site and the proposed IOSN
during daylight hours. The disposal vessel captain, or a crewmember assigned by the
captain, may be the observer for that trip. The name of the observer must be recorded in
the logbook.
The captain, assigned crewmember, or NMFS-approved observer shall:
a. Monitor the Right Whale Sightings Advisory System as well as other
communication media (i.e., NOAA weather radio, USCGNAVTEX
broadcasts, Notices to Mariners, and U.S. Coast Pilots) for general
information regarding North Atlantic right whale sighting locations;
b. Report any interactions with listed species as soon as possible (within 24-
hours) to NMFS at (866) 755-NOAA or USCG via CH-16, and immediately
report any injured or dead marine mammals or sea turtles to NMFS at (866)
755-NOAA; and
c. Ensure that a separate NMFS Marine Mammal Observation Report is
completed for every whale sighting and that this report is submitted to
NMFS and to the USACE-NAE Marine Analysis Section within one week
of the trip date (it is encouraged to provide this report within two days of
returning to port).
The vessel captain shall:
a. Lookout for turtles and whales at all times;
b. Employ the tug's searchlight in darkness or otherwise limited visibility for
the benefit of the observer when traveling to, at, or returning from the
disposal site;
c. Avoid harassment of or direct impact to whales and turtles except when
precluded by safety considerations;
d. Ensure that the disposal vessels do not approach whales and turtles closer
than 100 ft (30 m) (see additional condition below for approaching right
whales);
-9-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
e. Ensure that the disposal vessels adhere to NMFS regulations (50 CFR
222.32) for approaching right whales which restrict approaches within
1,500 ft (457 m) of a right whale; and
f. Ensure that dredged material is not released if whales are within 1,500 feet
or turtles are within 600 ft (183 m) of the specified disposal point.
These conditions may be modified on a project-by-project basis based on factual changes or
when deemed necessary as part of the individual permit review process.
Modifications to the Management Plan
Based on the findings of the monitoring program, modifications to site use could be required. In
such a case, corrective measures such as, but not limited to, those listed below, will be developed
by EPA Region 1 and the USACE-NAE.
• Stricter definition and enforcement of disposal permit conditions;
• Implementation of even more conservative evaluation procedures for determining whether
sediments proposed for dredging are suitable for open-water disposal;
• Implementation of special management practices to prevent loss of sediment to the
surrounding area;
• De-designation of the site as an available dredged material disposal site (i.e., to prevent
any additional disposal at the site).
• Modifications to the use of marine mammal observers during disposal operations;
• Implementation of dredging windows; and
• Any additional measures deemed necessary to further ensure compliance with the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
• Additional, more detailed monitoring
In addition to identifying management practices for the disposal site the MMP also must
include a monitoring plan, which is provided in Section 6.0. Through the monitoring efforts
results will be available through coordination and outreach, to state and federal agencies,
scientific experts, and the public. To ensure communications are appropriate and timely, site
management activities and monitoring findings will be disseminated through a combination of
-10-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
scientific reports and peer-reviewed publications, participation in the NERDT, and public
meetings and fact sheets.
4.0 BASELINE ASSESSMENT
MPRSA 102(c) (3)(A) requires that the SMMP include a summary of baseline conditions at the
site. Baseline conditions are reported in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the site
designation (EPA Region 1, 2019). This section provides a brief site description and overview
of sensitive resources at the proposed IOSN. More detailed information is found in the EA and a
recent contribution from the USACE-NAEDAMOS program (Guarinello et al, 2016). DAMOS
also monitored three reference areas outside the disposal site, and they (REF-A, REF-B, and
REF-C) are incorporated into this SMMP. As this is the initial SMMP for a newly designated
ODMDS, there is no documented disposal history at proposed IOSN presented in this document.
Site Characteristics
The proposed IOSN is located in the Gulf of Maine, approximately 20 km (10.8 nmi) east of
Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Figure 1). The site is defined as a 2,600 m (8,530 ft) diameter circle
on the seafloor with its center located at 70° 26.995' W and 43° 1.142' N. Three reference areas
(REF-A, REF-B, and REF-C) are defined as 250 m radius circles located at 70° 25.165' W, 42°
59.282' N; 70° 28.039' W, 43° 0.257' N; and 70° 27.895' W, 43° 2.280' N, respectively. Reference
areas were selected based on a review of existing data and confirmed through a baseline survey to
represent areas of the seafloor with similar bathymetric characteristics as proposed IOSN
(Guarinello et al, 2016).
Water depths at proposed IOSN gradually slope from approximately 90 m (295 ft) on the western
boundary to 100 m (328 ft) in the southeastern portion of the site (Figure 2). The site is generally
a flat soft-bottom with topographic highs present outside the northwest, southeast, and northeast
boundaries of the site (Figure 2).
-11-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP
August 2019
-iDD.O
•L'-.O
I
Figure 2 - Bathymetry of the proposed IOSNPROPOSED IOSN (USACE-NAE DAMQS
2015, Meters MLLW)
Site Capacity
Proposed improvement dredging of the Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River Federal
Navigation Project would be the primary source of dredged material for the proposed IOSN in
the next decade. This project is expected to produce a volume of approximately 754,000 cubic
yards of dredged material. Planned maintenance dredging of Federal Navigation Projects in
Cape Porpoise, ME; Pepperell Cove, ME; Rye Harbor, NH and other harbors may also utilize
the site over the next ten years.
Because of its depth (over 90 m [300 feet]) and size (5.3 km2 [1.5 nmi2]), the capacity of the
proposed IOSN is far in excess of the potential site use over the next 20 years so a potential
closure date for the proposed IOSN has not been considered. Remaining site capacity will be
updated periodically as additional bathymetric surveys are performed at the site. The need for
-12-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
collecting bathymetric data is based, in part, on the record of dredged material placement
location and scow volume. The accuracy of this record has increased significantly with the
implementation of the National Dredging Quality Management (DQM) Program, which was
developed by the US ACE to provide detailed tracking of dredging and scow operations
nationwide. Information on this system can be found at:
http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/Missions/Spatial-Data-Branch/Dredging-Qualitv-Management/
Sediment and Water Quality
All dredged material projects proposed for disposal at the proposed IOSN will be evaluated on a
project-specific basis under the chemical and biological testing framework outlined in the EPA's
Ocean Dumping Regulations (see 40 CFR Part 227) and guidance developed by EPA and the
USACE (EPA/USACE, 1991,A screening level modeling is performed to further evaluate the
potential for water column effects as part of the dredged material suitability determination.
In general, the seafloor in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN is a fairly uniform flat bottom made
up of fine-grained sediments. Surficial sediments at the site were sampled in November of 2010
by the USACE-NAE using a 0.4 m2 grab sampler. All sampling locations, with the exception of
a single station, were composed of 93% or more of silts and clays (with the remaining fraction
sand). The sediments at the remaining station were composed of 80% silts and clays and 20%
sands. Grain size curves of all samples can be found in Appendix A of the EA (EPA Region 1,
2019).
A review of data from the Northeast Ocean Data Portal (https://www.northeastoceandata.org)
confirms that the sediments within the proposed IOSN are primarily silts. Figure 3 illustrates the
sediments within proposed IOSN and the surrounding Gulf of Maine.
-13 -
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
Figure 3 - Surficial Sediment Types of the Gulf of Maine Including the Proposed IOSN
1
kml
1 i':V
j i
** 1.H
¦a
A
¦
15 July 2019
Soft Sediments (by grain size
J Clay (< 0.002)
I Silt (0.002 - 0.06)
¦ Very Fine Sand (0.06 - 0.125) I
Nautical Miles
^ Fine Sand (0.125 - 0.25) |
~ Medium Sand (0.25 - 0.5) |
I Coarse Sand (0.5 - 1)
| Very Coare e Sand (1-2)
I Gravel/Granule (> 2)
(Northeast Ocean Data Portal, https://www.northeastoceandata.org)
In September of 2015, the USACE-NAE DAMOS Program performed a baseline survey of the
proposed IOSN (Guarinello et al, 2016) which employed hydroacoustic data collection and a
Sediment-Profile Imaging/Plan View Imaging (SPI/PV) monitoring technique that involves
deploying an underwater camera system to photograph a plan view of the seafloor as well as a
cross-section of the sediment-water interface. The DAMOS monitoring survey concluded that
the proposed IOSN and the proposed reference areas are low energy depositional environments
dominated by fine-grained soft sediments and robust, mature benthic communities. Acoustic
backscatter data, coupled with SPI results, confirmed the predominantly soft and fine-grained
nature of the sediments. The SPI data also revealed a healthy soft-bottom benthic ecosystem
with no evidence of low dissolved oxygen or sedimentary methane within the sediments of the
proposed IOSN (Guarinello et al, 2016)
There are no existing data that characterize the sediment chemistry of the sediments at the
proposed IOSN site. An evaluation for the Cape Arundel Disposal Site (CADS) noted that the
-14-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
sediments at the CADS site were similar in metal and organic compound concentrations to
nearby reference areas, which were at low levels (USACE, 1989). As the proposed IOSN site is
approximately 27 km (15 nmi) from CADS, and far from contaminant sources, the sediment
concentrations of metals and organic compounds are anticipated to be similar to other sites in the
Gulf of Maine, such as the baseline conditions at the CADS and the CADS reference areas
(USACE, 1989).
The water column at proposed IOSN behaves in a manner typical of northeastern continental
shelf regions, with isothermal conditions less than 6°C during the winter, giving way to
stratified conditions with maximum surface temperatures on the order of 18°C, and a strong
thermocline between 20 and 30 m (65 and 100 ft) during the summer months. The water
column overturns during the fall, returning to isothermal conditions. Although this typical water
column structure is persistent over the long term, there are anomalous perturbations that can
cause significant variations, particularly in the winter months (EPA Region 1, 2019).
Current patterns in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN are typified by coastal-parallel, non-tidal
southerly drift generated by the overall circulation of the Gulf of Maine. The southerly flow is
affected by tidally induced currents (averaging 15 cm/sec [0.5 ft/sec]) which generate inshore
and offshore movements and local topography which may create local eddies. Strong northeast
storms can generate southwesterly flows with speeds of 30-40 cm/sec [1-1.3 ft/sec]. Bottom
currents are influenced by topographic features in the region which disrupt the vertical
coherence of the current structure. Near bottom currents in the region are generally less than 10
cm/sec (0.3 ft/sec) and highly variable in direction (USACE, 1989).
Gulf of Maine water quality in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN is discussed in the
Environmental Assessment for the ODMDS designation (EPA Region 1, 2019). The data was
compiled from previous studies of the CADS (USACE, 1989), data from EPA coastal nutrient
trend monitoring (EPA Region 1, 2011), and data from Northeastern Regional Association of
Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (NERACOOS) ocean observing system buoys in the Gulf of
Maine (NERACOOS, 2017). In general pH, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen levels in the region
are typical of open ocean environments with excellent water quality. Nutrients (ammonia,
nitrates, and phosphorous) concentrations varied seasonally and reached a peak in winter
-15 -
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP
months (USACE, 1989).
August 2019
Living Resources
Fish and Shellfish Resources
The proposed IOSN area supports a variety of pelagic and demersal fish species. The habitat at
the disposal site is not a rare or especially unique habitat for the Gulf of Maine, consisting of a
primarily flat, silt/clay bottom.
Fish community data collected jointly by the states of Maine and New Hampshire were used to
describe the communities at proposed IOSN. The Maine-New Hampshire (MENH) Inshore
Trawl Survey samples areas off of coastal New Hampshire and Maine in the spring (typically
the first week of May) and the fall (typically the last week of September) (Maine DMR, 2016 -
See Appendix E in the EA). Sampling in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN has been conducted
since the fall of 2000, and there have been 136 trawl tows made in proximity to the disposal site
from 2000 through 2015. A total of 65 spring tows were performed, and a total of 71 tows were
made in the fall. A total of 91 species were caught in all tows, with the spring tows averaging
21 species per tow and the fall tows averaging 23 species per tow. Table 1 lists all fish species
caught from the trawl tows in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN. The dominant fish species by
weight in the MENH fall trawls were spiny dogfish, silver hake, and Atlantic Herring. The
dominant fish species by weight in the MENH spring trawls were American plaice and silver
hake (EPA Region 1, 2019).
The USACE-NAE also sampled the area within the proposed IOSN site on May 24, 2016 and
February 20, 2017 (See Appendix D in the EA). Six trawl transects were established within the
site and at each location a 15 minutes trawl was performed at speed of approximately 2.6 knots.
In general, species composition of the fish community was similar to that reported by USACE
(1989) and from the MENH data set (Maine DMR, 2016).
-16-
-------
PROPOSED IOSN SMMP August 2019
Table 1 - Fish species identified from the Maine-New Hampshire (MENH) Inshore Trawl
Survey in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN during the spring and fall (2000-2015)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Common Name
Scientific Name
Acadian Redfish
Sebastes fasciatus
Little Skate
Raja erinacea
Alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
Longhorn
Sculpin
Myoxocephalus
octodecemspinosus
Alligatorfish
Aspidophoroides
monopterygius
Lumpfish
Cyclopterus lumpus
American Plaice
Hippoglossoides
platessoides
Moustache
Sculpin
Triglops murrayi
American Sand
Lance
Ammodytes americcmus
Northern
Pipefish
Syngnathus fit sens
American Shad
Alosa sapidissima
Northern Puffer
Sphoeroides maculatus
Atlantic Cod
Gadus morhua
Northern Sea
robin
Prionotus carolinus
Atlantic Halibut
Hippglossus hippoglossus
Ocean Pout
Macrozoarces
americanus
Atlantic Herring
Clupea harengus
Pearlsides
Maurolicus muelleri
Atlantic Mackerel
Scomber scombrus
Pollock
Pollachius virens
Atlantic Silverside
Menidia
Rainbow Smelt
Osmerus mordax
Atlantic Torpedo
Torpedo nobiliana
Red Hake
Urophycis chuss
Barndoor Skate
Raja laevis
Scup
Stenotomas chrysops
Bigeye Scad
Selar crumenopthalmus
Sea Raven
Hemitripterus
americanus
Black Sea Bass
Centropristis striata
Silver Hake
Merluccius bilinearis
Blueback Herring
Alosa aestivalis
Silver Rag
Ariomma bondi
Bluefish
Pomatomas sal tutrix
Smooth Skate
Raja senta
Bristled Longbeak
Dichelopandalus leptocerus
Snakeblenny
Lumpenus
lumpretaeformis
Buckler Dory
Zenopsis conchifera
Spiny Dogfish
Squalus acanthias
Butterfish
Peprilus triacanthus
Spotted Hake
Urophycis regia
Cunner
Tautogolabrus adspersus
Spotted
Tinselfish
Xenolepidichthys
dalgleishi
Daubed Shanny
Lumpenus maculatus
Thorny Skate
Raja radiata
Fourbeard
Rockling
Enchelyopus cimbrius
White Hake
Urophycis tenuis
Fourspot Flounder
Paralichthys oblongus
Windowpane
Scophthalmus aquosus
Goosefish
Lophius americanus
Winter Flounder
Pseudopleuronectes
americanus
Greenland Halibut
Reinhardtius
hippoglossoides
Winter Skate
Raja ocellata
-17-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP
August 2019
Grubby
Myoxocephalus aenaeus
Witch Flounder
Glyptocephalus
cynoglossus
Gulf Stream
Flounder
Citharichthys arctifrons
Wrymouth
Cryptacanthodes
maculatus
Haddock
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Yellowtail
Flounder
Limanda ferruginea
The Maine DMR Lobster Monitoring Program has routinely collected lobster population data
throughout the state since 1985, with the sampling occurring primarily from May through
November and occasionally in the winter months as allowed. Each lobster management zone is
sampled three times monthly from May through November with trips spread throughout the
zone. Zone G is the southwestern most lobster management zone spanning from the
Presumpscot River (near Portland, Maine) south to the New Hampshire border and is the zone
in which the proposed IOSN is located. Using a subset of data from Zone G that was relevant to
the location of the proposed IOSN, the Maine DMR Lobster Monitoring Program calculated a
mean catch of 0.39 legal lobsters per trap (± 0.09 lobsters) during the December through April
timeframe, which was comparable to the overall zone G winter catches (EPA Region 1, 2019).
The mean catch in the May through November timeframe ranged between 1 and 2 legal lobsters
per trap (Maine DMR, 2016 - See Appendix E in the EA).
USACE-NAE also collected lobster abundance data in and around the proposed IOSN in
December 2016 and January 2017 to assess the winter lobster community in the area. A total of
6 deployment/retrieval events were conducted. The mean catch ranged from 0.6 to 2.15 legal
lobsters per trap and from 1.1 to 4.9 shorts (i.e., lobsters under the legal size) per trap (EPA
Region 1, 2019). The mean number of lobsters per trawl generally decreased from December
through January. Appendix D in the EA contains all the lobster data collected during the effort.
Endangered and Threatened Species
There are a number of species found in Gulf of Maine waters that are currently listed as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. They are summarized below.
Northern Right Whale (Endangered)
The north Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glaciala) is one of the most endangered large
whales in the world. The range of the right whale occurs from Nova Scotia and
-18-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
Newfoundland (Sergeant, 1966; Mitchell, 1974; Sutcliffe and Brodie, 1977; Hay 1985), into
the lower Bay of Fundy (Arnold and Gaskin, 1972; Kraus and Prescott, 1981, 1982, Reeves et
al., 1982) and throughout the Gulf of Maine (Watkins and Schevill, 1976, 1979, 1982) in the
spring and summer. In the winter, right whales occur from Cape Cod Bay (Watkins and
Schevill, 1976) south to Georgia and Florida (Moore, 1953) and into the Gulf of Mexico
(Moore and Clark, 1963; Schmideley, 1981).
Fin Whale (Endangered)
Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) are the most cosmopolitan and abundant of the large
baleen whales (Reeves and Brownell, 1982). They also are the most widely distributed whale,
both spatially and temporarily, over the shelf waters of the northwest Atlantic (Leatherwood
et al., 1976) occurring as far south as Cape Lookout, North Carolina and penetrating far
inside the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In the shelf waters of the Gulf of Maine the frequency of fin
whale sightings generally increase from spring through the fall (Hain et al., 1981; CETAP,
1982; Powers et al, 1982; Chu, 1986). The areas of Jeffery's Ledge, Stellwagen Bank, and the
Great South Channel have the greatest concentrations of whales during spring through fall.
There is a decrease in on-shelf sightings of fin whales in winter, however, fin whales do
overwinter in the Gulf of Maine.
Leatherback Sea Turtle (Endangered)
Leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) have been reported in New England waters in
July through early November. Inshore seasonal movements may be linked to those of the
jellyfish Cyanea capillata, which periodically occur in the proposed IOSN area, and,
therefore, could be used by Leatherbacks for foraging. They could also pass through the area
while migrating or seeking prey. The population of Leatherbacks has been declining
worldwide, but specific status in the United States is currently unknown.
Shortnose Sturgeon (Endangered)
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) occur along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Available
information on shortnose sturgeon indicates that they make coastal migrations within the Gulf
of Maine (i.e. between the Merrimack and Kennebec Rivers) and make at least occasional
-19-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
short visits to Great Bay in New Hampshire (NMFS 2016). Based on patterns of detections by
acoustic receivers in Great Bay, it is thought that shortnose sturgeon visit Great Bay at least
during the spring and fall; although there is no known spawning in the nearby Piscataqua
River. Migrating shortnose sturgeon may be present in the nearshore areas of the Gulf of
Maine, however, no tagged shortnose sturgeon have been detected at a buoy (GoMOOS buoy
B01) deployed in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN site. The proposed IOSN site may serve
as a migratory corridor for shortnose sturgeon.
Atlantic Sturgeon (Threatened)
The marine range for Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) includes all
marine waters, coastal bays, and estuaries from Labrador, Canada to Cape Canaveral, Florida.
The Gulf of Maine distinct population segments (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon is currently listed
as federally threatened. An Atlantic sturgeon was detected as recently as June 2012 in Great
Bay New Hampshire and acoustic receivers in the vicinity of the Isles of Shoals (GoMOOS
buoy E01) have detected tagged Atlantic sturgeon. The proposed IOSN site may serve as a
migratory corridor for Atlantic sturgeon.
Atlantic salmon (Endangered)
Seaward migrating juvenile Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) have been
recorded by acoustic telemetry moving southward toward the vicinity of the proposed IOSN.
Atlantic salmon have been detected in the vicinity of GoMOOS Buoy E01, however, they
have not been detected in the buoy closest to the proposed IOSN (B01) since its deployment
in 2005. It is unlikely that this species would be in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN during
winter months.
5.0 DISPOSAL HISTORY
The proposed IOSN is a newly proposed ODMDS. There is no known record of disposal in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed IOSN, but the recent USACE-NAE DAMOS baseline survey
suggests that there may have been historic disposal of dredged material at the site.
Hydroacoustic data from the baseline survey revealed an area of small craters in the northeast
portion of the site, and SPI images from the northeast and southeast areas of the site showed
evidence of potential dredged material deposits (Guarinello et al, 2016). If historic disposals did
-20-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
occur in the vicinity of the proposed IOSN, it was limited in extent and did not results in the
formation of defined dredged material disposal features.
6.0 MONITORING
The EPA Region 1 and USACE-NAE and share responsibility for monitoring ODMDS in New
England which includes the proposed IOSN. Historically, this monitoring has been performed
through an interagency agreement between the EPA and USACE-NAE Disposal Area
Monitoring System (DAMOS) Program. The regional monitoring uses a tiered monitoring
framework (Germano et al., 1994) that is consistent with the guidance for SMMPs (EPA and
US ACE, 1996). In addition to dedicated site surveys, data collected by other agencies and
organizations will also be used as part of assessment of proposed IOSN (e.g., MENH Inshore
Trawl Survey, Maine DMR Lobster Monitoring Program, and NERACOOS). Collectively, the
data will be used to address the following overall site monitoring objectives:
• Assess whether disposal activities are occurring in compliance with permit and site
restrictions;
• Support evaluation of the short-term and long-term fate of materials based on
MPRSA site impact evaluation criteria;
• Support assessment of potential significant adverse environmental impact from
dredged material disposal at the site.
This SMMP provides a general framework for the monitoring program and guides future sampling
efforts at the disposal site. Specific details about those efforts (e.g., sampling design, statistical
comparisons) will be developed in project-specific survey plans considered during the annual
agency meeting. Similarly, the schedule for the monitoring surveys will be governed by the
frequency of disposal at the site, results of previous monitoring surveys, and funding resources. The
data gathered under this monitoring plan will be evaluated on an ongoing basis to determine
whether modifications to the site usage or designation are warranted.
EPA Region 1 and USACE-NAE jointly assess compliance with permit conditions and
authorizations for specific projects. EPA Region 1 is responsible for determining if an
unacceptable impact has occurred from dredged material disposal at the proposed IOSN.
-21-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
However, any such determinations will be made in consultation with other agencies and will be
based on available monitoring data and any other pertinent information. EPA Region 1 is also
responsible for determining any modifications to site use or de-designation.
6.1 Organization of the Monitoring Program
The monitoring program is comprised of two components, compliance monitoring and
environmental monitoring. Although the specific objectives of the components differ, much of the
actual monitoring overlaps. Compliance monitoring includes collection of data relevant to the
specific conditions in permits and authorizations (e.g., where, when, and how much material can be
disposed). Environmental monitoring for the disposal site is developed around four fundamental
premises that establish the overall monitoring approach from a data acquisition perspective as well
as the temporal and spatial scales of the measurement program:
• Testing information from proj ects previously authorized to use the site for dredged
material disposal can provide key information about the expected quality of
material that has been placed in the site;
• Lack of benthic infaunal community recovery on recently created mounds provides
an early indication of potential significant adverse impact;
• Some aspects of the impact evaluation required under MPRSA Section 102(c)(3)
can be accomplished using data from regional monitoring programs (e.g., fisheries
impact);
• Measurement of certain conditions at the site can be performed at a lower
frequency (e.g., long-term mound stability) or only in response to major
environmental disturbances such as the passage of major storms.
The first premise requires that historic and ongoing dredged material testing results be available.
The remaining premises require various types and scales of monitoring to ensure dredged material
disposal at the site is not unduly impacting the marine environment. Thus, the environmental
monitoring is further organized around five management focus areas that are derived from the types
of potential effects required for evaluation under MPRSA [40 CFR § 228.10(b)] as described in
Section 2:
• Management Focus 1: Movement of dredged material. This focus combines the
requirements under 40 CFR 228.10(b)(1) (Movement of materials into sanctuaries,
-22-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
or onto beaches or shorelines) and 40 CFR 228.10(b)(2) (Movement of materials
towards productive fishery or shellfishery areas) into one focus;
• Management Focus 2: Absence of pollutant-sensitive biota. Addresses 40 CFR
228.10(b)(3) (Absence from the disposal site of pollutant-sensitive biota
characteristic of the general area);
• Management Focus 3: Changes in water quality. Addresses 40 CFR
228.10(b)(4) (progressive, non-seasonal, changes in water quality or sediment
composition at the disposal site when these changes are attributable to materials
disposed of at the site);
• Management Focus 4: Changes in composition or numbers of biota. Addresses
40 CFR 228.10(b)(5) (Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in composition or
numbers of pelagic, demersal, or benthic biota at or near the disposal site when
these changes can be attributed to the effects of materials disposed at the site);
• Management Focus 5: Accumulation of material constituents in biota.
Addresses 40 CFR 228.10(b)(6) (Accumulation of material constituents [including
without limitation, human pathogens] in marine biota at or near the site [i.e.,
bioaccumulation]).
A tiered approach, based on a series of null hypotheses, is used to monitor compliance and address
concerns under each Management Focus. Tier 1 evaluates a series of hypotheses addressing
"leading indicators" that provide early evidence of unacceptable environmental responses or
conditions. Examples include documentation of whether recolonization is proceeding as expected or
whether mounds are deposited as planned and that no post-deposition movement is occurring.
Should the hypotheses under Tier 1 be satisfied, the findings would be evaluated and decisions to
conduct Tier 2 activities made. The specific condition that will initiate Tier 2 or Tier 3 monitoring
will be decided between EPA and the Corps. Based on the type of event/action that has occurred,
EPA and the Corps, with advice from other state and federal agencies, will work to implement the
appropriate management practice with the monitoring program.
The measurement program under Tier 1 focuses on both individual dredged material mounds and
the overall site conditions. New mound construction will be evaluated within one to two years of
completion, and the entire site will be evaluated as needed. While specific monitoring activities are
-23-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
defined under each tier, the actual monitoring conducted in a given year must be consistent with
budgetary constraints. Thus, prioritization of monitoring by organizational focus and findings of the
monitoring program must be done annually during the Agency planning meeting.
Tiers 2 and 3 provide for progressively more detailed and focused studies to confirm or explain
unexpected or potentially significant adverse conditions identified under Tier 1. For example, if Tier
1 monitoring under Management Focus 2, indicates that the benthic community was not recovering
on recently deposited sediments, successive tiers would enable examination of potential causes by
incorporating additional investigation of sediment characteristics and quality. However, if the
results from the Tier 1 data do not suggest impact, Tier 2 activities would not be invoked.
The following sections describe the monitoring approach that will be applied to each management
focus. Each subsection provides the following:
• Intent of the data gathered under the focus area;
• Statement of relevant questions and hypotheses to be addressed within each tier;
• Summary of the measurement approach and tools to be used under each successive
tier.
6.2 Monitoring Elements
Compliance Monitoring
Compliance monitoring includes evaluation of information and data relevant to the
conditions in specific permits and authorizations and may be gathered separately from
the environmental data. The hypothesis that will be addressed is:
Ho 0-1: Disposal operations are not consistent with requirements of issued
permits/authorizations.
This hypothesis will be evaluated by review of the record of towed scow track and
disposal location provided by the USACE Dredging Quality Management system. This
information is supplemented by multibeam acoustic surveys which can provide
information on the location of recently disposed dredged material. Any variances
identified will be discussed by the EPA and the Corps on a project-specific basis to
determine the potential magnitude of effect and the appropriate action.
-24-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP
August 2019
Management Focus 1: Movement of the Dredged Material
This management focus addresses two concerns relative to the disposal of dredged
material at the proposed IOSN site. The first is site management and compliance. The
second is movement of the material after disposal. The questions that will be addressed
include:
• Is the material deposited at the correct location?
• Are mounds constructed consistent with the site designation?
• Are mounds stable and dredged material retained within the disposal site?
The latter question directly addresses management concerns about material moving
into sanctuaries, or onto beaches or shorelines and towards productive fishery or
shellfishery areas.
Tier 1
The site designation specifies that the proposed IOSN is a non-dispersive site;
therefore, significant movement of materials out of the site is not expected. Loss of
mound material could mean that the material is being lost inappropriately and may
potentially impact areas outside of the site, if transported beyond the site's boundary.
For the purpose of Tier 1, this question is addressed through two hypotheses.
Ho 1-1: Changes in elevation for any mound are not greater than 1.0 feet (0.3 meter)
over an area greater than 50 by 50 meters:
This hypothesis will be tested by determining the dimensions of disposal mounds
created in a given dredging season and performing periodic monitoring of the mound
using precision bathymetry techniques. The bathymetric baseline data for new or
modified mounds will be collected after one year of consolidation. Bathymetric
surveys of mounds (historic and recently completed) and the entire site will also be
performed periodically. Information on mound size and height will be compared with
previous data to determine if loss of material has occurred. Further study of the
characteristic of the mound and surrounding area will be conducted under Tier 2, if
large scale (50 by 50 meter) mound changes of more than 1.0 feet (0.3 meters) within
-25-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP
any five-year interval.
August 2019
Ho 1-2: Major storms (greater than 10-year return frequency) do not result in erosion
and loss of material from disposal mounds at the proposed IOSN.
This hypothesis tests whether major storms have eroded mounds. Although the depth of
the proposed IOSN site is such that significant erosion of mounded dredged material is
not expected, this hypothesis will be tested by determining the dimensions of disposal
mounds within six months following the passage of storms with a ten-year return
frequency or greater. Dimensions will be determined using precision bathymetry
techniques. The decision to conduct post-storm surveys will be made jointly by the site
managers. If a mound changes in height by more than 1.0 feet (0.3 meters) from the
previous survey, the site and surrounding area will be examined as defined under Tier 2.
Tier 2
Significant loss of material from the deposited mound may result in changes to the
benthic community structure either within or beyond the site boundaries (primarily due to
burial). Change in bathymetry and benthic community structure immediately outside of
the site would be indicative of potential unacceptable transport. Tier 2 investigates
whether significant erosion of mound height determined under Tier 1 results in the
relocation of material outside of the site boundaries.
Ho 1-3: Material lost from disposal mounds at the proposed IOSN site does not increase
the (a) bathymetry more than 0.5 feet (15 cm) over an area larger than 50 by 50 meters
and (b) the biological indices measured with sediment profile imaging are not
significantly lower than the reference site in bathymetrically changed areas.
This hypothesis will be tested by determining changes in bathymetry and sediment
characteristics within 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) beyond the site boundary. The survey
design will take into account the expected direction of transport based on the
predominant current direction and velocity (e.g., it may not be necessary to survey the
entire area within 1 kilometer [0.6 miles] of the site).
-26-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
Precision bathymetry will be used to define substantive changes in bathymetry and
topography (greater than 0.5 foot [15 centimeters]). Sediment profile imagery will be
used to evaluate changes in sediment characteristics and the benthic community.
Comparison of sediment profile imagery data from areas of concern to reference areas
will be used to determine whether the transported material has a potential significant
adverse biological effect.
Changes in bathymetry across the mound apex or apron of more than 1.0 feet (0.3
meters) or development of large areas of predominately muddy sediments not
previously documented may be an indication of substantial transport of material from
the site. If such changes are documented, Tier 3 characterization of sediment quality or
further characterization of benthic communities may be required.
Tier 3
The premise of this Tier is that significant transport of material beyond the site boundary
could affect the benthic productivity of the area. Therefore, characterization of sediment
quality may be required.
Ho 1-4: Material transported beyond the proposed IOSN boundaries does not
result in significant decreases in sediment quality.
Sediment chemistry, toxicity, and benthic community structure will be measured at
representative locations (determined through interagency coordination) from the area
where the benthic community is depressed and at the proposed IOSN reference sites to
test this hypothesis.
Chemical and toxicity testing and analysis will be conducted using methods required by
the RIM (EPA and Corps, 2004) or subsequent approved documents. Benthic community
sampling and analysis methods will be the same as those conducted during site
designation studies. Statistical comparisons and numbers of samples will be determined
during project-specific survey planning.
Data from the area of concern will be compared statistically to data collected concurrently
-27-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
from the proposed IOSN reference sites to determine if the quality of transported material
is unacceptable. The decision of unacceptable conditions will be based on all three
measures (i.e., sediment quality, benthic community analysis, and toxicity).
Management Focus 2: Absence from the Disposal Site of Pollutant-Sensitive Biota
Characteristic of the General Area
The premise underlying this management focus is that the infaunal community on
disposal mounds recovers rapidly after disposal ceases. Therefore, the absence of or
slower-than- expected recovery of the benthic infaunal community indicates a potential
biological impact at the mound and by implication the ability of the site to support higher
trophic levels. The long history of disposal site monitoring in New England has resulted
in an excellent understanding of the rate at which benthic infauna recover from
disturbances such as those caused by dredged material disposal as well as the types of
communities that are expected to recolonize the mounds (SAIC 2002; Murray and
Saffert, 1999; Morris, 1998; Charles and Tufts, 1997; Wiley etal., 1996; Williams,
1995; Wiley, 1995; Wiley and Charles, 1995; SAIC, 1995; Wiley, 1994; Germano etal.,
1994; Germano etal., 1993; SAIC, 1990; SAIC, 1988; SAIC, 1987; SAIC, 1985; Morton
etal., 1984; Scott et al., 1984; Scott et al., 1983; Morton and Paquett, 1983; Arimoto and
Feng, 1984; Morton etal., 1982; Morton and Stewart, 1982; SAIC, 1982; Morton, 1980;
SAIC 1980). Thus, the questions that the monitoring program addresses are directed at
determining if benthic recovery is proceeding as expected and if pollutant sensitive
organisms are growing on the mounds. For Tier 1, these questions include:
• Do opportunistic species return to the mound within a growing season?
• Are the infaunal assemblages consistent with similar nearby sediments or
expected recovery stage?
• Are benthic communities and populations similar to surrounding sediments?
If these questions are answered in the affirmative, the biological community on the
mounds is recovering as expected, and significant adverse impact from the disposal
operations is not demonstrated. If the questions are answered in the negative,
investigation into potential causes is conducted under Tier 2.
-28-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP
Tier 1
August 2019
This tier focuses on the biological recovery of the mound surface by sampling for
specific, opportunistic, benthic infaunal species and the recolonization stage relative to
nearby sediments.
Ho 2-1: Stage 2 or 3 assemblages (deposit-feeding taxa) are not present on the disposal
mound one year after cessation of disposal operations.
This hypothesis will be tested with sediment profile imaging on the disposal mounds
created in a given dredging season and by periodic imaging of older mounds. This
evaluation includes estimates of grain size classes, which is a key variable affecting the
types of organisms observed in the images. The initial sediment profile imaging survey
should be conducted within 12 to 16 months after mound completion. Evaluation of
selected historic (inactive) mounds and imaging of the proposed IOSN reference stations
will be incorporated into each survey of active mounds. Sampling of historic mounds can
be sequenced across years depending on budgets and the conclusions of the previous data
review at the annual agency coordination meeting.
Significant adverse impact will be determined from comparison of the sediment profile
imagery data on the active and historic mounds to that of the reference stations. If the
comparison of the mound data to the reference areas is consistent with the expected
successional sequence, the biological community on the mounds would be considered to
be recovering as expected and significant adverse impact from the disposal operations not
demonstrated. If there is significant departure from the successional expectation in the
sediment profile imagery data between the mounds and reference site, and the grain size
information from the images or reference condition cannot explain the difference, further
investigation into the potential causes of the difference is conducted under Tier 2.
Tier 2
This Tier is executed if differences in the benthic recolonization data on a dredged
material mound cannot be explained by differences or changes in grain size. The
hypotheses are designed to determine if the observations made under Tier 1 are localized
-29-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
(mound specific) or regional and to determine the effect of different sediment grain size
distributions on the biological observations.
Ho 2-2: The absence of opportunistic species and Stage 2 or 3 assemblages is not confined to the
disposal mounds.
Ho 2-3: The range in sediment grain-sizes on the disposal mound is not different from
the ambient seafloor.
These hypotheses examine whether or not the differences observed in Tier 1 extend
beyond the disposal mounds and whether the grain size distribution within and outside the
site can explain the biological observations. If diminished recolonization (successional)
stage data is widespread and substantial movement of material is not observed under Tier
1 or 2 of Management Focus 1 or if poor water quality conditions (e.g., sustained low
dissolved oxygen levels) are known to have occurred in the region (Management Focus
3), assignment of the dredged material disposal as the cause is questionable. However, if
the differences are widespread and cannot be attributed to other factors, an investigation
of cause would be initiated under Tier 3 of this Management focus.
These hypotheses will be tested with sediment profile imaging. The full suite of
information developed from the sediment profile images will be used to evaluate the
similarity or differences of the areas sampled. This evaluation includes estimates of grain
size classes, which is a key variable affecting the types of organisms observed in the
images. The data will be used to address the above hypotheses. If the results find the
effect is widespread and that grain size distributions cannot explain the biological
observations, additional cause effect studies defined under Tier 3 may be conducted.
Tier 3
Tier 3 is conducted if the benthic recolonization data developed under Tier 2 indicate
that potential impacts are widespread (i.e., encompass areas within and beyond the site
boundaries). This Tier attempts to determine if the Tier 2 findings are the result of
contaminants in the sediments or sediment toxicity. Tier 3 studies will only be
conducted after a review and concurrence by the agencies managing the site.
-30-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
Ho 2-4: The toxicity of sediment from the disposal site is not significantly greater than the
reference sites.
Ho 2-5: The benthic community composition and abundance is not equal to that at
reference sites.
Sampling and analysis of the sediments for benthic infaunal enumerations and
community analysis will be conducted to evaluate the status of the infaunal
community and compare the community to measures of sediment quality. Sediment
chemistry and toxicity will be measured at representative locations from within the
deposited material and at the proposed IOSN references sites.
Chemical and toxicity measures will be conducted as defined in the RIM (EPA and
Corps, 2004) or subsequent approved documents. Data from the area of concern will be
compared statistically to data collected concurrently from the proposed IOSN reference
sites to determine if the quality of transported material is unacceptable. The number of
stations to include in the testing may be determined at the annual meeting. The decision
of unacceptable conditions will be based on all three measures.
Management Focus 3: Changes in Water Quality
The premise underlying this management focus is that water quality in Bigelow Bight
within the Gulf of Maine is affected by many different sources, and that dredged material
placed at the site exerts minimal oxygen demand on the water column and minimal
potential for other water column impacts. Moreover, dredged material plume studies
indicate the cloud of particles resulting from dredged material disposal has a very short
duration in the water column and turbidity levels reach ambient levels within minutes to
hours. This fact, coupled with required testing that ensures residual material meets water
quality criteria within an initial mixing period (within four hours within the site and
always outside the site) before the material can be accepted at the site, minimizes any
long-term, cumulative impact to the water column. Therefore, it is expected that
significant short-term adverse effects are unlikely to result from the disposal operations.
-31-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP
August 2019
Tier 1
Tier 1 monitoring will consist of tracking available existing coastal water quality monitoring programs to
identify any longer-term trends within Bigelow Bight that might be relevant to the proposed IOSN site.
Additionally, although not a concern for most projects, some projects may be required to prove that
they are not exceeding Limiting Permissible Concentration (LPC) criteria at the site boundary during
dredged material disposal. Thus, a measurement program to document whether short-term changes in
water quality during disposal operations (Ho3-0) occurs is not proposed under Tier 1 but may be
required as part of a disposal permit.
Ho 3-0: The LPC is not exceeded at the site boundary for four hours after a dredged
material disposal event.
Specifics of this monitoring, as well as what follow up Tier 2 and Tier 3 monitoring
would encompass would be developed through interagency coordination at such time the
tier is deemed necessary.
Management Focus 4: Changes in Composition or Numbers of Pelagic, Demersal,or
Benthic Biota at or Near the Disposal Site
Similar to the water column, significant impacts to pelagic or demersal species is not
expected given the limited time dredged material is expected in the water column and the
relatively small footprint of benthic habitat that is affected on an annual basis. Also
similar to the water column, tracking of existing coastal studies of pelagic and demersal
species will be performed to trends that may be relevant to the proposed IOSN site.
As noted in the Environmental Assessment for site designation, benthic biota within the
immediate footprint of disposal are directly impacted, but studies have demonstrated a
rapid recovery of the benthic community. Hence, site monitoring will follow the tiered
structure described above as part of Management Focus 2 tracking the benthic recovery of
the site.
Management Focus 5: Accumulation of Material Constituents in Marine Biota at or
Near the Site
The intent of this management focus is to evaluate whether significant potential for
-32-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
bioaccumulation results from disposal of dredged material at the proposed IOSN site. The
basic premise of this management focus is that testing of sediments for open water
disposal eliminates material that poses an unacceptable risk to the marine environment
from disposal. Moreover, because bioaccumulation of contaminants is a phenomenon, it
may not result in the impairment or death of organisms in and of itself. However, because
bioaccumulation may result in transfer and possible biomagnification of certain chemicals
throughout the food chain, which may pose potential unacceptable risks to marine
organisms and humans that are not addressed through the evaluation of benthic
community recovery, measurements for potential bioaccumulation are precautionary and
prudent.
Such bioaccumulation data can serve several purposes. The first is to help understand
whether transfer of chemicals from sediments to organisms could be contributing to a
significant adverse biological response (e.g., failure of a benthic infaunal community to
thrive). The second is to estimate potential risks posed from bioaccumulation of
contaminants at the site. Taken together, this information provides assurance as to the
adequacy of the dredged material testing program in preventing unsuitable material from
being disposed at the site.
Tier 1
The premise of this Tier is that bioaccumulation potential at the proposed IOSN,
and thus risk, does not increase after the sediments are deposited.
Ho 5-1: Bioaccumulation potential of sediments collectedfrom the proposed IOSN is
not significantly greater than the range of bulk chemical values measured in permitted
projects.
This hypothesis will be tested by periodically collecting sediments from within the
proposed IOSN and its reference areas and measuring the level of contaminants in the
sediments. If statistically significant increases in sediment chemistry above permitted
dredged material project data are found, theoretical bioaccumulation calculations will be
performed. These may be performed in association with any sampling for sediment
-33 -
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
chemical analysis. If the bioaccumulation modeling indicates a significant increase in
potential bioaccumulation relative to baseline conditions or reference areas more specific
studies that directly measure bioaccumulation may be conducted under Tier 2.
Tier 2
Direct evidence of bioaccumulation from sediments placed at the proposed IOSN site
may be obtained by comparing bioaccumulation in organisms collected from within and
near (reference stations) the disposal site. The study may include collection of
representative infaunal organisms from these locations and comparing the level of
chemicals in their tissues or testing sediments under controlled laboratory conditions
{i.e., bioaccumulation bioassays) or both. The specific study questions and sampling
design will be developed and approved by the agencies managing the proposed IOSN
site before any study is conducted. If significant increases in bioaccumulation are
determined to exist in the sediments from the site, ecological and human health risk
models may be run to examine the significance of the increase. If risks increase
significantly, studies described under Tier 3 would be implemented.
Tier 3
This Tier tests for transfer of bioaccumulated compounds at the site into higher trophic levels.
Ho 5-2: Bioaccumulation of material constituents in higher tropic levels that reside at
or near the site does not result from disposal of dredged material at the proposed IOSN
site.
Proving the source of contaminants measured in higher trophic level species is a difficult
and complex task. Therefore, careful experimental design is required to make a cause
effect link to the sediments deposited at the proposed IOSN site. The specific study
design will be developed and approved by the agencies managing the proposed IOSN site
before any study is conducted.
6.3 Monitoring Methods
-34-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
This section describes equipment and approaches typically used to evaluate dredged material
disposal sites in the northeast United States. Use of consistent techniques increases
comparability with future and historic data; however, monitoring methods used at the proposed
IOSN site are not limited to these technologies. New technology and approaches may be used as
appropriate to the issues and questions that must be addressed. The applications of equipment
and survey approach must be tailored to each individual monitoring situation, as warranted.
Mound Erosion
Loss of deposited dredged material (erosion) at the site will be investigated using precision
multibeam bathymetry. Today's survey techniques and equipment have matured to the place that
surveys provide full bottom coverage, and comparative surveys can detect changes in the
bathymetry of mounds of approximately 6 inches (15 cm). Co-collected side scan sonar and
acoustic backscatter provide additional insight into the physical characteristics of surficial
sediment and processes affecting them. Sediment profile imaging systems (Rhoads and
Germano, 1982; Germano el al., 1994) may also be used and are useful for defining broad areas
where grain size may have changed or identify thin layers of dredged material, respectively
(Rhoads, 1994). Specific survey requirements and application of these measurement tools will
be defined for each tier and situation investigated. Evidence of mound erosion will need to be
evaluated carefully to distinguish between actual erosion and mound consolidation.
Biological Monitoring
Benthic recovery at disposal mounds will be measured by combined sediment profile and plan
view imagery (Germano and Rhoads, 1982; 1994). In addition, stations at each of the reference
sites will be obtained. At each station a minimum of three photos will be taken with the sediment
profile imaging camera. Stations are typically randomly located within a specified area of
interest to increase the statistical power of comparison of affected site with reference areas.
Image analyses will provide the following information:
• Sediment grain size;
• Sediment surface boundary roughness;
• Sea floor disturbance;
• Apparent Redox Potential Discontinuity (RPD);
-35 -
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
• Depth of camera penetration (inferring sediment strength);
• Sediment methane;
• Infaunal successional stage.
Water Quality
Should site specific monitoring be required for water quality monitoring, methodologies will be
developed through interagency coordination.
Sediment Quality
Grab samples of the sediments will be collected and analyzed for grain size, total organic
carbon, and selected contaminants such as trace metals (e.g., mercury, lead, zinc, arsenic, iron,
cadmium, copper), total PCBs, total PAH, and pesticides (EPA/Corps, 2004). The number of
stations and locations will be defined during survey planning and will be sufficient to enable
characterization of within and among station variability.
Bioaccumulation Measurements
Measurement of bioaccumulation will include collection of representative benthic infaunal
species within the site and at reference locations. At least two types of organisms (filter feeders
and sediment feeders) will be obtained and genus level species aggregated into field replicates.
Sufficient biomass to enable quantifications of bio-accumulatable compounds will be obtained
from grab samples (or other appropriate sample collections device). Tissue will be prepared and
analyzed using methods consistent with EPA/Corps (2004). The number of stations and
locations will be defined during survey planning and will be sufficient to enable characterization
of within and among station variability. Between three and five replicate samples should be
obtained from each station sampled including each of the reference stations. Laboratory based
bioaccumulation testing will follow the requirements outlined in EPA/Corps (2004).
6.4 Quality Assurance
An important part of any monitoring program is a quality assurance (QA) regime to ensure that
the monitoring data are reliable. Laboratories are required to submit Quality Assurance (QA)
sheets with all analyses on a project-specific basis. Monitoring activities will be accomplished
-36-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
through a combination of EPA Region 1 and USACE-NAE resources (e.g., employees, vessels,
laboratories) and contractors. Documentation of QA/QC is required by both agencies for all
monitoring activities (i.e., physical, chemical, and biological sampling and testing). QA is
documented in the form of Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP) and/or Monitoring Work
Plans. QAPPs are required for all EPA Region 1 and USACE-NAE monitoring activities.
Analytical methods, detection limits, and QA procedures are contained in the EPA Region 1 and
USACE-NAE Regional Implementation Manual for the Evaluation of Dredged Material
Proposed for Disposal in New England Waters (RIM, EPA/USACE, 2004). Additional sources
of information include the Ocean Testing Manual (OTM, or Green Book, EPA/USACE, 1991)
7.0 ANTICIPATED SITE USE
MPRSA § 102(c)(3)(D) and (E) requires that the SMMP include consideration of the quantity of
the material to be placed in the site and the presence, nature, and bioavailability of the
contaminants in the material, as well as the anticipated use of the site over the long term. The
proposed IOSN is designated to receive dredged material only. No other types of material may be
placed at the site.
Projected dredging volumes for the southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northern
Massachusetts coastline include a mix of large and small federal navigation projects and many
small private dredging projects (from marinas, boatyards, and harbors). A complete list of
federal dredging projects that may use the proposed IOSN is provided in the EA (EPA Region 1,
2019). A large fraction of the potential dredging volume is from the planned improvement of the
Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River Federal Navigation Project. This project is anticipated
to yield approximately 576,000 cubic meters (754,000 cubic yards) of dredged material which
would be placed at the proposed IOSN.
Dredging and dredged material disposal at the proposed IOSN will be accomplished using a
bucket dredge to fill split hull or pocket scows for transport to the disposal site. These types of
equipment are expected to be the primary mode of any ocean disposal at the proposed IOSN,
although disposal is not specifically limited to this equipment.
National guidance for determining whether dredged material is acceptable for ocean disposal is
provided in the OTM or Green Book (EPA/USACE, 1991) and for disposal in state waters in the
-37-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
ITM (EPA/USACE, 1998). The Regional Implementation Manual (RIM), which builds on and is
consistent with the Green Book and the ITM, provides specific testing and evaluation methods
for dredged material projects at the proposed IOSN and elsewhere in New England. The quality
of MPRSA-regulated material will be consistent with EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations (40
CFR Part 227), as implemented under the Green Book and the RIM (EPA Region 1/USACE-
NAE, 2004).
Because of its depth (90 m [300 ft]) and size (5.3 km2 [1.5 nmi2 ]), the potential capacity of the
proposed IOSN is far in excess of the potential site use over the next 20 years and does not pose
a hazard to navigation.
8.0 REVIEW AND REVISION OF THE PLAN
MPRSA 102 (c)(3)(F) requires that the SMMP include a schedule for its review and revision,
which should be consistent with the requirement that SMMPs be reviewed and, as necessary,
revised no less frequently than 10 years after adoption of the plan, and every 10 years thereafter.
EPA Region 1 and the USACE-NAE have agreed to review this plan annually as part of an
annual agency planning meeting. A more comprehensive, formal review and revision of this
SMMP will take place every 10 years unless the agencies agree to do so more frequently at an
annual agency planning meeting. Based on that schedule, and anticipated completion of the final
SMMP in 2020, EPA Region 1 and the USACE-NAE would then expect to undertake the next
review and revision in 2030. EPA Region 1 and the USACE-NAE will coordinate with the
USFWS, NMFS, and other federal and state agencies through the NERDT and other established
regional networks for these reviews.
Section 102(c)(3) requires that "the Administrator and the Secretary shall provide opportunity
for public comment" in developing SMMPs for each EPA-designated dredged material disposal
site. EPA Region 1 and the USACE-NAE will provide an opportunity for public comment for
future SMMP revisions, as will occur for the current SMMP.
In addition to the 10-year review and revision process, EPA Region 1 and the USACE-NAE will
continue to inform and involve the public regarding the monitoring program. The USACE-NAE
monitoring reports are available at the USACE-NAE website (http://www.USACE-NAE
-38-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
.usace.army.mil/Missions/Disposal-Area-Monitoring-Svstem-DAMOS/Disposal-Sites/). and
information on the SMMP may be found at the EPA Region 1 website (http://www.epa. ^ov/ocean-
dumpinu/).
9.0 FUNDING
The costs involved in site management and monitoring will be shared by EPA Region 1 and the
USACE-NAE. This SMMP will be in effect until it is further revised or the site is de-designated.
Those monitoring efforts conducted under other agencies and programs will depend solely on
funds allocated to those programs by those agencies or other supporting agencies.
The timing and scope of monitoring surveys and other related activities will be determined by
funding levels, the frequency of disposal at the site, and the results of previous monitoring.
10.0 REFERENCES
Arnold, P.W. and D.E. Gaskin. 1972. Sight records of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and
finback whales (Balaenoptera physalus) from the lower Bay of Fundy. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada
29:1477-1748.
Carey, D. A.; Hickey, K.; Germano, J. D.; Read, L. B.; Esten, M. E. 2013. Monitoring Survey at
the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site September/October 2013. DAMOS Contribution No. 195.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA, 87 pp.
CETAP. 1982. A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and north Atlantic
areas of the U.S. outer continental shelf. Final Report of the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment
Program, Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. AA551-CT-48, U.S. Dept of Interior,
Washington D.C. 450 pp.
Chu, K. 1986. Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). In T. French (ed.), Endangered, Threatened
and Special Concern Vertebrate Species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div. Fish & Wildlife, Non-
game and Endangered Species Program. Boston, MA:\\02202.
-39-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP
August 2019
Dutil, J. D., and J. M. Coutu. 1988 and early marine life of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, post-
smolts in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence (Fishery Bulletin 86: 197-212)).
Eggleton, J. & Thomas, K. V., 2004. A review of factors affecting the release and bioavailability
of contaminants during sediment disturbance events. Environ Int, 30(7), pp. 973-980.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1. 2011. OSV BOLD Survey Report. Coastal
nutrient criteria and trend monitoring 2011. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1,
Boston, MA.
EPA Region 1. 2019. Environmental Assessment and Evaluation Study for Designation of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site in Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern
Massachusetts. Draft Environmental Assessment. August 2019.
EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material for
Ocean Disposal (Ocean Testing Manual) USEPA Office of Water, EPA-503/8-91/001.
EPA and USACE. 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of
the U.S. - Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual). USEPA Office of Water, EPA-823-B-98-
004.
EPA Region 1 and USACE-NAE. 2004. Regional Implementation Manual for the Evaluation of
Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal in New England Waters.
Fredette, T.J. and G.T. French. 2004. Understanding the physical and environmental
consequences of dredged material disposal: history in New England and current perspectives.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 49: 93-102.
Guarinello, M. L.; Carey, D. A.; Wright, C. 2016. Data Summary Report for the Monitoring
Survey at the Isles of Shoals Disposal Site North, September 2015. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA, 63 pp.
-40-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
Hain, J.H., R.K. Edel, H.E. Hays, S.K. Katona, and J.D. Roanowicz, 1981. General distribution
of cetaceans in the continental shelf waters of the northeastern United States. In A
characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the Mid- and North Atlantic areas of the U.S.
outer continental shelf. Ann. Rept. 1979, CETAP Program, Univ. of Rhode Island, prepared for
Bureau of Land Mgmt. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C.
Hay, K.A. 1985. Status of the Right Whale, Eubalaena alacialis in Canada. Can. Field Nat.
99:433-437.
Jones-Lee, A. & Lee, G. F., 2005. Role of Iron Chemistry in Controlling the Release of
Pollutants from Resuspended Sediments. Journ Remediation, 16(1), pp. 33-41.
Johnson, M. R. et al., 2008. Chapter Six: Offshore Dredged and Disposal Activities, Impacts to
marine fisheries habitat from nonfishing activities in the Northeastern United States. [Online]
Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm209/pdfs/ch6.pdf.
[Accessed 15 August 2014],
Kraus, S.D., and J.H. Prescott. 1981. Distribution, abundance and notes of the large cetaceans of
the Bay of Fundy, summer and fall 1980. Final Report to NMFS/NEFC, Contract No. NA-80-
FA-2-00048.
Kraus, S.D. and J.H. Prescott. 1982. The North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena alacialis) in the
Bay of Fundy, 1981, with notes on distribution, abundance, biology and behavior. Final Report
to NMFS/NEFC Contract No. NA-81-FA-C-00030. 105 pp.
Leatherwood, S., D.K. Caldwell, and H.E. Winn. 1976. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises of the
western North Atlantic. A guide to their identification. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech.
Rept. NMFS Circ. 396. 176 pp.
Maine DMR. 2016. Bureau of Marine Science Comments on the Proposed Isles of Shoals
Disposal Site. 20 pp. (APPENDIX E in EPA Region 1, 2019).
-41-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP August 2019
Mitchell, E. 1974. Present status of northwest Atlantic fin and other whale stocks, p. 108-169. In
W.E. Schevill (ed.), The whale problem, a status report: Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge MA.
Moore, J.C. 1953. Distribution of marine mammals to Florida waters. Am. Midi. Nat. 49:117-
158.
Moore, J.C. and E. Clark. .1963. Discovery of right whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Science
141:269.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2016. Shortnose sturgeon species webpage.
Accesses December 2016. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnose-sturgeon.html
NERACOOS. 2017. NERACOOS website accessed for buoy data: www.neracoos.org
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. Accessed June- August 2018. https://www.northeastoceandata.org
Powers, K.D., P.M. Payne, and S.J. Fitch. 1982. Distribution of Cetaceans, Seabirds and Turtles,
Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia, June 1980-December 1981. Final Report to NMFS/NEFC
Contract No. NA-81-FA-C-00023. 163 pp.
Reeves, R.R. and R.L. Brownell. 1982. Baleen Whales Eubalaena alacialis and allies, p 415-444.
In J. A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer (eds.), Wild Mammals of North America. Biology,
Management and Economics. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germano, 1986. Characterization of Organism-Sediment Relations Using
Sediment Profile Imaging: An Efficient Method of Remote Ecological Monitoring of the
Seafloor (Remots System). Marine Ecology-Progress Series. 8:115-128.
Schimidly, D.J. 1981. Marine mammals of the southeastern United States coast and the Gulf of
Mexico. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Service, Biol. Serv. Progr. FWS/OBS-80/41.
Sergeant, D.E. 1966. Populations of large whale species in the western North Atlantic with
special references to the Fin Whale. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., circ. No. 9.
-42-
-------
PROPOSED 10SN SMMP
August 2019
Sutcliffe, W.H. and P.F. Brodie. 1977. Whale distributions on Nova Scotia waters. Technical
Report No. 722. Fisheries and Marlene Service, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth,
Nova Scotia. 83 pp.
USACE. 1989. Site Evaluation Studies for Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material. Cape Arundel
Disposal Site. US Army Corps of Engineers, 424 Trapelo Road, Waltham, MA 02254.
Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Schevill. 1976. Right whale feeding and baleen rattle. J. Mamm.
57:58-66.
Watkins, W.A. and W.E. Schevill. 1979. Aerial observation of feeding behavior in four baleen
whales: Eubalaeha alaciais, Balaenoptera borealis, Magaptera novaeanctliae, and Balaenoptera
physalus. J. Mamm. 60:155-63.
Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Schevill. 1982. Observations of right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, in
Cape Cod waters. Fish. Bull. 80:875-880.
-43 -
-------
|