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

Top Related