conclusions once initiated, the i · conclusions once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a...

63
CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively altered without a major modification i n time and funds, contrary to the Manning study. Weather conditions needed to be ideal during the dredging operation and for an approximate 24 hour period following, t o effect a reasonable probabi 1 i ty of projected results . A1 1owance also had to be made for the commissioning (in this case, subcontract- ing) of a commercial dredger which reduced the degree of absolute control. Many of the observations were from necessity, visual and/ or presumptive but were thoroughly discussed and judged prior to making decisions or recommendations. The up-bay sampl i ng sites, for example, were examined only on one occasion each and during a period of considered high salinity, which would reflect the structure of the benthic community. At the Broome Island site the sediment trap data appeared to be the most reliable even though background point source was undefinable. I n our estimation, however, the operation was a qualified success and the several weeks preparation followed by an in- tensive in-si tu exercise went essentially as planned. The sediment trap data effectively separated the component plumes and progressively indicated deposition rates. This data also in- dicated a marked increase i n deposition rates when hypothetical ly extrapolated through the proximal zone between the 15 foot station and the dredged area (Fig. 2). The dredge plume and ambient background suspensions tend toward near convergence if the curves are regressively CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Aquatic Commons

Upload: others

Post on 08-Nov-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively

CONCLUSIONS

Once i n i t i a t e d , t h e i n - s i t u impac t s t u d y was a non -man ipu la t i ve

exper iment . The p lanned i n t e r g r a t e d e f f o r t c o u l d n o t be e f f e c t i v e l y

a l t e r e d w i t h o u t a m a j o r m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t i m e and funds, c o n t r a r y t o

t h e Manning s t u d y . Weather c o n d i t i o n s needed t o be i d e a l d u r i n g t h e

d redg ing o p e r a t i o n and f o r an approx imate 24 hour p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g ,

t o e f f e c t a r easonab le p robab i 1 i ty o f p r o j e c t e d r e s u l t s . A1 1 owance

a l s o had t o be made f o r t h e commissioning ( i n t h i s case, s u b c o n t r a c t -

i n g ) o f a commercial d redge r wh ich reduced t h e degree o f a b s o l u t e

c o n t r o l . Many o f t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s were f rom n e c e s s i t y , v i s u a l and/

o r p resumpt ive b u t were t h o r o u g h l y d iscussed and judged p r i o r t o

making d e c i s i o n s o r recommendations. The up-bay sampl i ng s i t e s , f o r

example, were examined o n l y on one occas ion each and d u r i n g a p e r i o d

o f cons ide red h i g h s a l i n i t y , wh ich would r e f l e c t t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e

b e n t h i c community. A t t h e Broome I s l a n d s i t e t h e sed iment t r a p d a t a

appeared t o be t h e most r e l i a b l e even though background p o i n t source

was u n d e f i n a b l e . I n o u r e s t i m a t i o n , however, t h e o p e r a t i o n was a

q u a l i f i e d success and t h e s e v e r a l weeks p r e p a r a t i o n f o l l o w e d b y an i n -

t e n s i v e i n - s i t u e x e r c i s e went e s s e n t i a l l y as p lanned.

The sediment t r a p d a t a e f f e c t i v e l y separa ted t h e component plumes

and p r o g r e s s i v e l y i n d i c a t e d d e p o s i t i o n r a t e s . T h i s da ta a l s o i n -

d i c a t e d a marked i n c r e a s e i n d e p o s i t i o n r a t e s when h y p o t h e t i c a l l y

e x t r a p o l a t e d t h rough t h e p rox ima l zone between t h e 15 f o o t s t a t i o n and

t h e dredged a rea ( F i g . 2 ) . The dredge plume and ambient background

suspensions t e n d toward n e a r convergence if t h e curves a r e r e g r e s s i v e l y

CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

Provided by Aquatic Commons

Page 2: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively

t r a c e d sugges t i ng t h e overwhelmi ng e f f e c t o f t h e suspens ion r e -

s u l t i n g from t h e d redg ing . T rapp ing e f f i c i e n c y was s i g n i f i c a n t l y

i d e n t i c a l compa i r ing between and among s t a t i o n s . A l though t h e r e was

n e a r l y t w i c e t h e t o t a l amount o f m a t e r i a l t r apped i n t h e bo t tom cups

as compaired t o t he sum o f t h e m i d d l e and t o p cups, b o t h between

and among t h e s t a t i o n s percentage-wise was n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l . Deposi-

t i o n a t t h e 15 f o o t s t a t i o n was one -e i gh th t o t h r e e - s i x t e e n t h of an

i n c h i n dep th (3-4 mm).

The sediment d isp lacement s t akes proved r e l a t i v e l y i n e f f e c t u a l

when compaired t o t he sed iment t r a p s a l t h o u g h t h e s t a k e s r e q u i r e d an

i n o r d a n a n t e f f o r t i n f a b r i c a t i o n , deployment and a q u i s i t i o n . I t i s

p o s s i b l e t h a t p o s i t i o n i n g t h e s takes nea re r t h e dredge zone ( l e s s t h a n

15 f e e t ) c o u l d have p r o v i d e d a d d i t i o n a l d a t a on heavy p a r t i c u l a t e

f a l l o u t . We assumed, however, t h a t t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r damage t o t h e

commissioned dredge f rom i m p l a n t e d dev i ces and t h e r e s u l t a n t t o t a l

r ees tab l i shmen t e f f o r t wou ld be p r o h i b i t i v e m o n i t a r i l y . I t i s a l s o

l i k e l y t h a t t he s t akes wou ld have proved t o be v a l u a b l e i n a reas o f

g r e a t e r c u r r e n t v e l o c i t i e s and/or s u b s t r a t e s c o n s i s t i n g m o s t l y o f

f i n 2 p a r t i c u l a t e s .

The s u b s t r a t e p a r t i c u l a t e f r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d n o

measurable s i g n i f i c a n t change i n t h e impac t zone due t o d e p o s i t i o n

o f m a t e r i a l from t h e dredge zone.

E lementa l a n a l y s i s ev idenced no unusual amount o f t o x i c substances

i n t h e s u b s t r a t e s t e s t e d . When c o n s i d e r i n g t h e t r a n s f e r o f energy

w i t h i n a b e n t h i c cornmuni ty, however, resuspens ion o f m a t e r i a l s can

e f f e c t t h e t o t a l communi t y . Suspended m a t e r i a1 c o n t a i n i n g p o t e n t i a l

Page 3: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively

p o l l u t a n t s can r e s u l t i n t h e concen t ra ted d e p o s i t i o n o f these p o l l u -

t a n t s by f i l t e r feeders t h rough s e l e c t i v e s o r t i n g and f e e d i n g

niechani sms. I n faunal d e p o s i t feeders cou l d, t h e r e f o r e , r e c e i v e l a r g e

amounts t h rough t h e i r normal f eed ing process.

V i s u a l obse rva t i ons t h r e e days f o l l o w i n g t h e d redg ing and down-

s t ream f rom t h e dredge zone i n d i c a t e d no a1 t e r a t i o n o f t h e bottom,

no s i g n i f i c a n t accumula t ions o f d i s p l a c e d subs t ra tes , o r b u r i a l o f

marke t s i z e d o y s t e r s and c u l t c h m a t e r i a l s . Oys te r m o r t a l i t i e s w i t h i n

t h e con f i nes o f t h e dredged p l o t appeared t o be 100 pe rcen t due t o

b u r i a l and o n l y a few clam s h e l l s were e v i d e n t a t t h e sediment i n t e r -

face.

B e n t h i c i n f auna l p o p u l a t i o n s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced i n

e i t h e r t h e impac t o r dredge zones when compared t o c o n t r o l s . The

March 1981 sampl ing i n d i c a t e d a d i s t i n c t s i m i l a r i ty i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n

i n a l l sampl i n g s i t e s . The dredged p l o t , however, was sma l l when con-

s i d e r i n g commercial d redg ing o p e r a t i o n s . Reestab l ishment was a p p a r e n t l y

r a p i d w i t h i n t h e dredged s i t e r e s u l t i n g f rom an o p p o r t u n i s t i c c o l o n i z a -

t i o n response and /o r a m in ima l e f f e c t t o t he r e s i d e n t p o p u l a t i o n s

w i t h i n t h e s i t e .

Clam p o p u l a t i o n s i nc reased i n t h e impact , dredge and c o n t r o l s i t e s

i n t he March and June samples. There was, however, a s i g n i f i c a n t de-

c rease i n t he September sarr~ples a t a l l t h e s i t e s i n d i c a t i n g a h i g h

r e c r u i t m e n t o f j u v e n i l e clams b u t a low s u r v i v a b i l i t y r a t e t o market

s i z e . The h y d r a u l i c d redg ing had no measurable n e g a t i v e impac t on

j u v e n i l e c lam p o p u l a t i o n s .

Page 4: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively

Dominant spec ies i n a l l t h e a r e a s sampled were those commonly

a s soc ia t ed with s h e l l s u b s t r a t e s i n t h e mid-Bay a r e a . The ma jo r i ty of the

dominant spec ies c o l l e c t e d were s o f t - s u b s t r a t e burrowers and may no t have

been adverse ly a f f e c t e d by t h e dredging. In most cases t h e s e small animals

washed through t h e dredge and were i n suspension f o r a s h o r t per iod . Preda-

t i o n i s a seasonal cons idera t ion and in a l l p robab i l i ty not a s e r i o u s f a c t o r

during t h e October dredging.

Hydraulic e s c a l a t o r dredging r e s u l t e d i n t h e t o t a l d i s rup t ion of a

l a r g e port ion of t h e ep iben th ic community and caused a s h o r t term d i s t u r b -

ance in t h e infaunal benthic community, in c o n t r a s t t o spo i l d isposa l where

na tu ra l bottoms and a l l r e s i d e n t populat ions a r e completely covered w i t h

deposi ted s p o i l . Sediment suspended from any source decreases a s d i s t ance

from t h e bed inc reases and a l s o decreases w i t h increased v e l o c i t i e s . A

maximum deposi t ion-concent ra t ion e f f e c t would, t h e r e f o r e , occur i n an area

o f low flow and approaching t h e sediment i n t e r f a c e .

Recommendations

Comparing t h e present s tudy t o t h e Manning s tudy (Manning 1956) i t i s

ev ident t h a t l a r g e s c a l e va r i a t ion e x i s t s between geographical a r e a s i n t h e

Chesapeake Bay. These v a r i a t i o n s a r e evidenced i n c u r r e n t p a t t e r n s , t i d a l

ampli tudes, sediments , s a l i n i t y , e t c . The physical environment is re -

f l e c t e d in t h e biol ogi cal community. Base 1 ine environmental c h a r a c t e r i z a -

t i o n would se rve t h e present r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i t u a t i o n and provide a

reference f o r f u t u r e cons idera t ion .

Due t o t h e v a r i a b i l i t y between a r e a s , dec is ions t o r e c l a s s i f y bottom

should be based on s i t e - s p e c i f i c physical and b io logica l obse rva t ions .

These observat ions inc lude:

Page 5: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively

Physical Observations

1 . Sediment grain s i z e ana lys i s - p a r t i c u l a t e s i z e determins length

of time in suspension and/or t r anspor t mode.

2 . Water col umn - incl udes measurements o f current v e l o c i t i e s and

d i r e c t i o n s a f f e c t i n g dispersion r a t e s and eventual impact of de-

posi ted mater ia ls - s a l i n i t y - behavior of f i n e pai - t icula tes in

suspension a r e dependent on the presence of ionizing s a l t s i n t he

water along w i t h composition, s i z e and shape (~ig.~).

3 . Geographical f ea tu res of area t o be r e c l a s s i f i e d - consol idat ion

o r compaction of f r e s h l y deposited sediments occurs slowly and

material i s 1 ike ly t o be resuspended both by t i d a l and wind in-

duced events. Distr ibution and t r anspor t of resuspended sediments

a r e d i r e c t l y re la ted t o the tu rbu len t nature of the flow. For

example, sanding o r t r anspor t o f heavy p a r t i c u l a t e s m i g h t occur

i n a reas of high s t r e s s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in unconsolidated bed sedi -

ments.

Biological Observations

1 . Determinations should include estimated dens i t i e s o f o y s t e r and

clam populat ions, cul tch mater ia ls a t t h e i n t e r f a c e and the benthic

infaunal communi t i e s . Economical l y harvestabl e populat ions of

clams should be present t o j u s t i f y r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n with i t s pro-

found a1 t e r a t i o n of bottom s u b s t r a t e . The potent ia l f o r natura l

oys te r propagation shoul d be minimal o r non-existan t .

2 . The p o s s i b i l i t y o f the uptake and magnification of tox ic material

by t h e biological comrnuni t y in areas of suspected contaminants

should be examined. The pulsed resuspension of such mater ia l would

r e s u l t in the t r anspor t of these contaminates over a wide a r e a .

Page 6: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 7: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively

We would l ike t o t h a n k the following persons for the i r advice

and technical assistance in the execution of th is project.

Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater Fisheries Administra-

t ion, Mr. Peter Jensen, Mr. William Outen, Mr. Roy Scott; University

of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Dr. Joseph Cooney, Dr.

Richard Smucker, Captain Martin 0 ' Berry, Captain Will iam Keefe, Mr.

Michael Reusing, Mr. John Crane, Mrs. Janet Crane, Mr. George Nichols,

Mr. William Cap1 ins, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Larry Lubbers; Summer Interns

Miss Brenda Donlin, Miss Cynthia Schwenk; Commissioned personnel Mrs.

Linton Beaven, and Mr. James Lathroum.

Page 8: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively

LITERATURE C I TATIOEJS AND REVIEW

Biggs, R. B. 1967. The sediments o f Chesapeake Bay. CBL Ref. No. 67-38.

B i s t r u c k i , T. 1980. A p e l l e t mould f o r bu lk specimen X-ray mic roana lys is i n SEN. Journal o f Microscopy 118:489-491.

Bohlen, W.F., e t a1 . 1979. Suspended ma te r ia l d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n t he wake of e s t u a r i n e channel dredgi ng operat ions. Es tua r ine and Coastal Clari ne Science 9:699-711.

Bouma, A.H., e t a l . 1976. She l l dredging and i t s i n f l u e n c e on Gu l f Coast environments. G u l f Pub1 i sh i ng Company.

Conner, W.G., and J .L. Simon. 1979. The e f f e c t s o f oys te r she1 1 dredging on an es tua r ine benth ic corr~muni t y . Es tuar ine and Coastal Mar i ne Sci ence 9:749-758.

Ci ' Anglejan, B. 1981. On t h e advect ion o f t u r b i d i ty i n t h e S a i n t Lawrence midd le estuary. Es tua r ies 4( 1 ) :2-15.

Dar raco t t , A., and H. Watting. 1975. The irse o f mo l lusks t o mon i to r cadmium l e v e l s i n es tua r ies and coasta l marine environments. Transact ions of t h e Royal Society o f South A f r i c a .

Davi s, H. C., and H. Hidu. 1969. E f f e c t s o f t u r b i d i ty-producing substances i n sea water on eggs and l a r v a e o f t h ree genera o f b i v a l v e mol lusks. The V e l i g e r 11(4):316-323.

Urobeck, K.G. 1962. Tred Avon R i v e r survey. CBL Ref. No. 62-60.

Drobeck, K.G. 1962. M I les R iver survey. CBL Ref. No. 62-65.

Dunnington, E.A. 1968. Su rv i va l t ime o f oys ters a f t e r b u r i a l a t va r i ous temperatures. CBL Ref. No. 68-80.

Durant, C.J., and R.J. Reimold. 1972. E f f e c t s o f es tua r ine dredging of toxaphene contaminated sediments i n Ter ry Creek, Brunswick, Georgia. 1971 P e s t i c i d e Floni t o r i n g Journal 6 ( 2 ) :94-96.

F e u i l l e t , J-P, and P. F l e i scher. 1980. Es,tuari ne c i r c u l a t i o n - - C o n t r o l 1 i ng f a c t o r o f c l ay m i neral d i s t r i b u t i o n i n James R i v e r estuary, V i r g i n ia . Jour. Sed. P e t r o l . 50(1):267-279.

Gibbs, R.J. Mechanisms o f t r a c e metal t r a n s p o r t i n r i v e r s . Science 180:71-73.

Page 9: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively

Gunter, G. 1969. Reef s h e l l o r mud s h e l l dredging i n c o a s t a l bays and i t s e f f e c t upon t h e environment. T ransac t ions o f No r th American Wi ld1 i f e tia t u r a1 Resources Conference 1969:51- 74.

Ha i r s ton , N.G. 1964. S tud ies on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f an imal communit ies. J u b i l e e Symposium Supplement. J. Ecol . 52:227-239.

Hargrave, B.T., and N.M. Burns. 1979. Assessment o f sediment t r a p c o l l e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c y . Limnology and Oceanography 24(6) :

Harper, D.E., Jr., and S.H. Hopkins. 1976. The e f f e c t s o f o y s t e r s h e l l d redg ing on macrobenth ic and nek ton i c organisms i n San An ton io Eay. Gulf P u b l i s h i n g Company.

Haven, D.S. 1970. k s tudy o f t h e hard and s o f t c lam resources o f V i r g i n i a . VIMS spec i a1 r e p o r t .

Haven, O.S., e t a l . 1979. The use o f son ic gear t o c h a r t l o c a t i o n s o f n a t u r a l o y s t e r bars i n t h e l owe r Chesapeake Bay. Proceedings o f t h e Na t i ona l She1 l f i s h e r i e s A s s o c i a t i o n 69:

Hugget t , R.J., e t a1 . 1975. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f copper and z i n c i n o y s t e r s and sediments f rom t h r e e coas ta l p l a i n es tua r i es . ERDA symposium s e r i e s 224-238.

Kennedy, V .S. , and J .A. tti hursky. 1971. Upper temperature t o l e r a n c e s o f some e s t u a r i n e b i v a l v e s . CBL Ref. No. 71-100.

Krebs, C.J. 1972. Ecology. Harper & Row Publ . Flew York. 694 pp.

Kyte, M.A., e t a1 . 1975. The impact of t h e h y d r a u l i c e s c a l a t o r she1 l f i s h h a r v e s t e r on an i n t e r t i d a l s o f t - s h e l l c lam f l a t i n t h e Har raseeke t R i v e r , Maine. P r o j e c t # 3 - 1 7 0 4 , Department o f Mar ine Resources. A u ~ u s t a , ME.

Ky te , M.A., and K .K. Chew. 1975. A rev iew o f t h e h y d r a u l i c e s c a l a t o r s h e l l f i s h h a r v e s t e r and i t s known e f f e c t s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e s o f t - s h e l l c lam Mya a renar ia . Pub. # WSG 75-2, Department o f Ma r i ne Resources, U n i v e E t y o f Washington, S e a t t l e , WA.

Luosanof f, V .L., and F .D. Tommers. 1948. E f f e c t of suspended s i 1 t and o t h e r substances on r a t e o f f eed ing o f oys te rs . Science 107:69-70.

L u t h e r , G.W., 111, e t a l . 1980. Metal s u l f i d e s i n e s t u a r i n e sediments. Jour . Sed. P e t r o l . 30(4):1117-1120.

li lanning, J .h. , and E.A. Dunnington. 1956. The Mary land s o f t - s h e l l clam f i s h e r y : A p r e l im ina ry i n v e s t i g a t i o n a l r e p o r t . CBL Ref. No. 56-33

Planning, J .h. 1957. Q u a n t i t y o f so f t -c lams landed i n Mary land i n f i s c a l y e a r 1956. CbL Ref. No. 57-13.

Page 10: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively

Manning, J.H. 1957. The Mary land s o f t s h e l l clam i n d u s t r y and i t s e f f e c t s on t i d e w a t e r resources . Resource Study Repo r t No. 11. CBL Ref. No. 57-14.

Manning, J.H. 1957. S o f t c lam survey o f Three S i s t e r s Bar . CBL Ref. No. 57-51.

Manning, J .H. , and H.T. P f i t zenneye r . 1958. Expl o r a t o r y survey o f t i d e w a t e r bottom, Somerset County, bld. Resource Study Repo r t No. 12. CBL Ref. No. 58-15.

Manning, J .H. 1958. C u r r e n t research on t h e s o f t she1 1 c lam (twlya - a r e n a r i a ) . CBL Ref . 140. 58-37.

Ivianning, J .H. 1958. She1 l f i s h survey, Broad Creek Oys te r Bar , Queen Anne's County. CBL Ref. No. 58-44.

Planning, J.h. 1958. S h e l l f i s h survey. Three S i s t e r s O y s t e r Bar, Anne Arundel County. CBL Ref. No. 58-45.

Manning, J .H. 1959. Es t ima tes r e l a t e d t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f "P roduc t i ve " o y s t e r and clam bottom. CBL Ref. No. 59-4.

Manni ng, J .H . 1959. Notes p e r t i n e n t t o resurvey contempl a t e d by proposed amendment t o c lam laws submi t ted by Anne Arundel , Ta l b o t , and Queen Anne's County Clam Assoc ia t i ons . CBL Ref. No. 59-12.

Manning, J .H. 1959. Notes on proposed 1 e g i s l a t i v e amendment t o t h e c lam laws. CBL Ref. No. 59-16.

hanning, J.H. 1959. Es t imated c o s t s and t ime requ i rements f o r r esu rveys of c e r t a i n s o f t c lam bottoms i n T a l b o t and Queen Anne's Count ies . CBL Ref. No. 59-17.

Manning, J .H. 1959. Bottom survey, C u r t i s Pt . t o F r a n k l i n P t . , Anne Arundel County, 11-12 June 1959. CBL Ref. No. 59-22.

Manning, J .H. 1959. Bottom survey, Jack Bay, Pa tuxen t R i v e r , C a l v e r t County, 4 September 1959. CBL Ref. No. 59-36.

Manning, J .H. , and H.T. P f i t z e m e y e r . 1960. The Mary land s o f t - s h e l l c lam i n d u s t r y : I t s p o t e n t i a l s and problems. CBL Ref. No. 60-21.

Pilanni ng, J .H. 1960. Comnlerci a1 and b i 01 og i ca l use o f t h e Mary land s o f t c lam dredge. CBL Ref. No. 60-30.

Planning, J.H., and K.A. Mclntosh. 1960. L v a l u a t i o n of a method o f r educ ing t h e p o ~ e r i n g requ i rements o f s o f t s h e l l e d c lam dredg ing . CBL Ref. fro. 6 0-38.

Page 11: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively

Manning, J .H. 1961. Observat ions on f i v e yea r - c l asses o f clams, Mya a rena r i a , f rom 1954 t o 1959. CBL Ref. No. 61-11.

-

McIntosh, R.P. An index o f d i v e r s i t y and t h e r e l a t i o n o f c e r t a i n concepts t o d i v e r s i t y . Ecology 48( 3 ) : 392-404.

McKi nney', L.D., e t a1 . 1976. The e f f e c t s o f shel 1 d redg i ng and s i l t a t i o n f rom dredg ing on organisms assoc ia ted w i t h o y s t e r r e e f s . G u l f Pub1 i s h i ng Co.

M i hursky, J .A. 1964. Hydraul i c dredge c o l l e c t i o n s made i n t h e Pa t u x e n t R i v e r d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d June 1962 t o Flay 1964. CBL Ref. No. 64-50.

Palmer, R.E. , and L.G. M i l 1 i ams. 1980. E f f e c t o f p a r t i c l e c o n c e n t r a t i o n on f i 1 t r a t i o n e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e bay s c a l l o p Agropecten i r r a d i a n s and t h e o y s t e r Crassos t rea v i r g i n i c a . Ophe l i a 19(2):163-1/4.

Pf i tzenmeyer , H.T. 1959. Bottom survey, T o l l e y P t . t o Thomas Pt . , Anne Arundel County. CBL Ref. No. 59-33.

Pf i tzenmeyer , H.T., and C.N. Shuster , J r . 1960. A p a r t i a l b i b l i o g r a p h y of t h e s o f t shel 1 clam Mya a rena r i a . CBL Ref. No. 60-24. -

P f i tzenmeyer, H.T. 1962. Per iods o f spawning and s e t t i n g o f t h e s o f t she l l e d c lam Mya a r e n a r i a a t Solomons, Md. CBL Ref. No. 62-29.

Pf i tzenmeyer , H.T. 1963. Q u a n t i t i e s o f commercial s h e l l f i s h i n t he v i c i n i t y o f F r a n k l i n Flanor, Anne Arundel County, bld. CBL Ref. No. 63-61.

P f i tzenmeyer, H .T. 1963. H y d r a u l i c dredge sampl ing i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f Chl o r a Pt. , Choptank R iver . CBL Ref. No. 63-44.

P f i tzenmeyer, H.T. 1963. Reports and pub1 i c a t i o n s re1 a t i ng t o s o f t she1 1 c lam research, 1953-1963. CBL Ref. No. 63-8.

Pf i tzenmeyer , H.T. 1965. Annual c y c l e o f gametogenesis o f t h e s o f t s h e l l e d clam, - blya a rena r i a , a t Solomons, Md. CBL Ref. No. 65-33.

Pf i tzenmeyer , H.T. 1966. Deep water b e n t h i c survey f o r s o f t - s h e l l e d clams i n t h e Chesapeake Bay. CBL Ref. No. 66-23.

P f i tzenmeyer, H.T. 1968. Deep water b e n t h i c survey f o r so f t -she1 l e d clams i n t h e Pa tuxen t R i v e r . CBL Ref. No. 68-4.

Pf i tzenmeyer , H.T. 1968. Summary o f r e s u l t s o f deep wate r survey f o r s o f t-she1 l e d clams i n t h e Chesapeake Bay and Ches te r R i ve r . CBL Ref. ko. 68-39.

Page 12: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively

P f i t zenneyer , H.T. 1972. The e f f e c t s o f t h e Mary land h y d r a u l i c clam dredge on popu la t i ons o f t h e s o f t - s h e l l e d clam - blya a rena r i a . CBL Ref. No. 72-41.

P f i tzermeye r, H.T. 1975. The e f f e c t s o f shal low wate r channel d redg ing on t h e community o f ben th i c animals and p lan ts . CBL Ref. No. 75-69.

P f i t zenneye r , H.T. 1975. E f f e c t s o f channel d redg ing on mar i ne l i f e s tud ied . CBL Ref. No. 75-167.

Rodhouse, P .G. 1976. Survey of an o y s t e r f i s h e r y w i t h a h y d r a u l i c dredge c a l i b r a t e d by d i ve rs . Jaur . Mol luscan S tud ies 42(3 ) :

Rose, C.D. 1973. M o r t a l i t y o f marke t s i z e d oys te r s Crassos t rea v i r g i n i c a i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f a dredging opera t ion . Chesapeake Science 1 4 ( 2 ) :

Simon, J .L., and W .G. Conner. 1977. Response o f a sub - t r op i ca l so f t - bo t t om community t o p e r t u r b a t i o n o f o y s t e r s h e l l dredging. American Z o o l o g i s t 17 ( 4 ) :

Simon, J .L. , and W .G. Conner. 1977. Response o f a Tampa Bay s o f t bottom community t o t h p e r t u r b a t i o n s o f m in ing o f f o s s i l o y s t e r she1 1. F l o r i d a Sc ience 40(Suppl . 1 ) :

Thomas, D.J., and E.V. G r i l l . 1977. The e f f e c t o f exchange r e a c t i o n s between F r a z e r R i v e r sediments and seawater on d i s s o l v e d Cu and Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t h e S t r a i t o f Georgia. Es tua r i ne and Coasta l Ma r i ne Sc ience (1977)5:421-427.

Swartz, R.C. Techniques f o r sampl ing and ana l yz i ng t h e mar ine macrobenthos. Repor t No. EPA-600/3-78-030 Environmental Research Labo ra to r y , O f f i ce of Research and Development, U .S. Envi ronmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency, Corva l 1 i s, Oregon.

Wade, B.h. 1972. A d e s c r i p t i o n o f a h i g h l y d i v e r s e so f t - bo t t om community i n K ings ton Harbour, Jamaica. Mar ine B i o l . 13 (1 ) :57-69.

Wilhm, J.L. 1967. Comparison o f some d i v e r s i t y i n d i c e s a p p l i e d t o popu la t i ons o f b e n t h i c macro inver tebra tes i n a stream r e c e i v i n g o rgan i c wastes. Jour . Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Fed. 39(10)-Pt . 1: 1673-1683.

Page 13: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 14: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively

MIDDLE BAY PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION SITES

W i t h the r ec l a s s i f i c a t i on of four s i t e s in the mid-Bay region pending,

i t was f e l t t h a t some basic baseline data should be obtained before dredging

commenced. These areas could then be examined following r ec l a s s i f i c a t i on t o

determine i f problems exis ted. The s i t e s se lected were sampled f o r benthic

community s t ruc tu r e , hydrography, sediment gra in s i ze s and elemental analyses

of the s i l t c lay f r ac t i ons .

The s i t e s evaluated were se lected by Tidewater Fisheries personnel . The

four s i t e s were Hol l i cu t t s Noose, Queen Anne's County; 'Three S i s t e r s , Anne

Arundel County; Buoy Rock, Kent County; and Tolley's-Thomas Point in Anne

Arundel County. W i t h the exception of the To1 ley's-Thomas Point s i t e , the

sampling s t a t i ons were a l so se lected by the management personnel. Sediment

samples were obtained by van Veen grab a t the Hol l icut ts Noose, Three S i s t e r s ,

and the Buoy Rock s i t e s . Cores were obtained a t the Tolley's-Thomas Point s i t e

a f t e r a su i t ab l e method had been developed fo r coring i n sand-shell subs t r a t e s .

In the laboratory a l l the samples from the four s i t e s were i den t i ca l l y processed.

Method appl icat ion as previously described f o r the Broome Is1 and sample t r e a t -

ments were a l so i den t i ca l .

Holl i cu t t s Noose sediment displayed a mean pa r t i cu l a t e f ract ion grain s i z e

considerably smaller than the other s i t e s invest igated (Fig. I j ) . The Three

S i s t e r s s i t e mean displayed a grain s i z e l a rger than the other s i t e s sampled by

van Veen grab and corresponded favorably with the Tolley's s i t e when comparing

la rger grain s i z e f rac t ions (Fig. 4a - 89) . The Tro l ley ' s s i t e , however,

produced a g r ea t e r percentage of material smaller than .063 micrometers which

may have resul ted from variance in sampling method. Species d ive r s i t y and

dominance between s i t e s could resul t from seasonal variance, subs t ra te preferance

and from difference i n s a l i n i t y (Environmental data - a l l s i t e s ) .

Page 15: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 16: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 17: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 18: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 19: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 20: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 21: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 22: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 23: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 24: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 25: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 26: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 27: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 28: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 29: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 30: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 31: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 32: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 33: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 34: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 35: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 36: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 37: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 38: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 39: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 40: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 41: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 42: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 43: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 44: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 45: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 46: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 47: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 48: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 49: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 50: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 51: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 52: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 53: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 54: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 55: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 56: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 57: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 58: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 59: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 60: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 61: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 62: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively
Page 63: CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i · CONCLUSIONS Once initiated, the i n-si tu impact study was a non-manipulative experiment. The planned i ntergrated effort could not be effectively