Scope of services development for a shell dredging impacts study a repot

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION CENTER

SCOPE OF SERVICES DEVELOPMENT
FOR A SHELL DREDGING IMPACTS STUDY

A Report to The
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
CONTRACT NO. 21910-85-01

Prepared By:
TAYLOR BIOLOGICAL Co., INC.
Postal Drawer 730
Lynn Haven, FL 32444

TC November 15, 1984
175.2
S36
1984

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Letter of Transmittal ii

Introduction 1

Purpose and Approaches 4

The Direct Effects Study 7
Ojectives 7

Procedures 7
Pre-study Survey 8
Field Work for the Direct Effects Study 15
Equipment, Methods and Analyses 18

Vessels 18

General Field Observations
and Supporting Data 21
Records of Mud-flows, Trenches
and Ridges 22
Field and Comprehensive Water
Quality Parameters 24
Coring Devices for Sediment and
Infauna Sampling 25
Sediment Analyses 26
Infauna Analyses 37

Data Reductions and Presentations 39

Report Format 41
Cost Summary 46

Literature Cited 49

Table 1. Station pairs and site characteristics
Direct Effects Study 9
Table 2. Pre-study survey tasks: responsibility,
events, and time allocations 14
Table 3. Direct Effects Study tasks:
responsibility, events, and time
allocations 19

Figure 1. (Appended as a Map)
Figure 2. (Appended as a Map)

TAYLOR BIOLOGICAL COMPANYt INC.
CONSULTANT IN MARINE ECOLOGY

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS OFFICE & LABORATORY
DEVELOPMENT SITE PLANNING 801 DELAWARE AVENUE
POSTAL DRAWER 730
ESTAURINE RESEARCH LYNN HAVEN, FLORIDA 32444
INVERTEBRATE TAXONOMY November 15, 1984

Mr. John D. deMond
Coastal Resource Analyst
Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources
Natural Resources Building
P. 0. Box 44396
Baton Rouge, LA 70804

Reference:

DNR Contract No. 21910-85-01
OCR Contract No. N/A 431-5002-A
Amendment No. 2

Dear Mr. deMond,
The attached materials are my final submission under the con-
tracts referenced above, which are entitled, SCOPE OF SERVI6ES
DEVELOPMENT FOR A SHELL DREDGING IMPACT STUDY. All of the required
tasks have ben completed, but with modification in some instances.
My comments on each task are as follows.
Task 1. Four trips have been made to Louisiana to obtain as
much information as possible from all interested groups. The first
meeting was held in Baton Rouge and Lafayette to hear of expectations
for the scoping study from government agencies, academia, conser-
vation groups, and industry. In the second meeting I made a pre-
liminary presentation on the study, and received back advise that
has been incorporated in this final revision. The third visit was
solely with industry representatives in New Orleans to obtain infor-
mation on recent levels of dredging intensity in Lake Maurepas

and Lake Pontchartrain. The last visit was made in mid-November

to present my final report to you and DNR's other resource analysts.
In between the last two trips, I also made a visit to Dr. Stephen
A. Bloom in Gainsville, Florida to get his views on my approaches
to field work and data analyses.

Task 2. The bibliography here submitted is not an annotated
one. Early on, it became evident that time constraints would not
permit coverage of all pertinent literature to that degree. Consequent-
ly, I have provided the most complete list of references that could
be brought together in the time allowed. Most of these have descriptive
titles anyway; so as an unilateral decision, the bibliography in
its present form was deemed more useful to DNR and the eventual
contractor of choice for the shell dredging study. It contains
nearly 1700 citations, and about one-third of these have been located
and copied for your use and the use of your contractor - on an
indefinite loan basis. Since the literature search was an ongoing
activity, the main group of entries is followed by a short addendum.
Those entries having one or two asterisks are the ones that have
been copied, or are otherwise available from TBCo. Citations that
we did not obtain may contain some unavoidable errors.
Task 3. This item is covered in the design of the shell dredging
study, because I believe the main information gaps and problems
exist mainly for Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain. If there is
consciencious enforcement action, it is my belief that shell dredging
practices on the coast can be adequately regulated by current rules.
However, as I have mentioned before, I do believe that the coastal
area should be set off in a pattern of grids to assist in permitting
and management activities. Also, I strongly feel that all unburied
reefs should be completely protected regardless of size.
In reference to the two lakes, I feel that the most important
management consideration should be rate and nature of recovery
after dredging. Here I refer to water quality, sediments, and the
qualitative and quantitative aspects of bottom communities- Dredging
activities must be keyed to recovery if these lakes are to be managed
as multiple use resources. The main purpose of the study I have
outlined it to. obtain objective information regarding recovery
in a variety of habitat types.
Task 4. This task has been encompassed in the scoping study.
However, no provisions have been made to initiate the reviews called

for on recreation and economics. I believe these two elements should

iii

be separated out and addressed in two small contracts that could
be well done in the appropriate departments of local universities.
The last item, and one of great concern, I'm sure, is the
matter of cost. My final figure may be reduced considerably if
WPCD can pick tip the bulk of their work on their own budget. Furthermore,
the cost of the station comparability work will probably be less
than projected, because I anticipate that matches between control
and experimental stations can be made after one or two trials,
rather than running the selection process out to three or four.
Even so, the cost is still far above budget. And I really
don't know what to do about it in light of the requests for coverage
and thoroughness voiced by all interested parties. When you consider
that Dr. Sikora's two-year study at just two stations cost nearly
$200,000, then the costs listed here for 18 stations seem quite
reasonable. As I see the problem, you will either have to make
some sacrifices in the study, or find additional sources of funding.

Sincerely,
Y
"t 61

John L. Taylor, Ph.D.

Director

Scope of Services Development for a
Shell Dredging Impact Study

INTRODUCTION

Industrial shell dredging began in coastal Louisiana during

the early 1900s, with the advent of hydraulic equipment to

extract deposits of oyster shell in commercial quantities.

Some 30 years later, dredges also began operations in several

of the State's fresh and brackish water lakes to obtain shell

produced by clams of the genus, Rangia.

From these beginnings, Louisiana's shell dredging industry

has grown and developed into a substantial, multifaceted

enterprise. Current production is about equally divided betwe6n

oyster and clam shells. It is on the order of six to eight

million cubic yards annually, and has a wholesale value of

roughly 80 million dollars. Of this amount, between one and

three percent revert to the State in the form of sales taxes,

severance taxes, and royalties. Much of the State's share

supports programs of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.

One of these is the use of shell as cultch to establish,

revitalize, and expand reefs that promote Louisiana's renowned

and valuable oyster fishery.

In other applications, dredged shell is widely used in

road building and general construction. It also serves as

-1-

a basic material in the manufacture of cement and lime, animal

feeds, chemicals, glass, paper goods, and a variety of other

products. Because of its reasonable cost, light weight, and

laminar shape, shell is uniquely suited for use as a foundation

material in the loose and often moist soils found in many coastal

areas. Figures furnished by shell producers show that their

industry is worth about 450 million dollars each year to the

economy of coastal Louisiana. This figure is based on direct

and indirect revenues and includes a multiplier factor of five

to account for economic, "ripple effects."

On the other side of the ledger accounts must also Ue

made for the environmental destruction and disturbances that

are unavoidable results of shell dredging operations. In

principal categories, these perturbations affect bathymetry,

sediments, water quality, aquatic life, and public participation

in a variety of water related activities. Interactions among

these, and many more specific factors, have wide-ranging

ecological and socio-economic ramifications that are well

documented in an extensive literature covering impacts of shell

dredging on the southeastern seaboard and all along the Gulf

coast. Even so, findings in practically all of these papers

show that the individual, synergistic, and cumulative impacts

-2-

of shell dredging are mostly transitory and inconsequential

when adequate regulations are imposed and enforced. However,

as a qualification, this body of work also contains studies

which show that dredging impacts, and their severity and duration,

become greater as operations progress landward from relatively

high energy, dynamic coastal ecosystems into mesohaline and

oligohaline locations that are more confined and protected.

In Louisiana, it is this geographic relationship between

shell dredging and location that has created an especially

vexatious management problem in Lake Pontchartrain. Here,

increasing evidence on adverse impacts of shell dredging has

caused a serious controversy between those opposed to dredging

and those who side with the shell producing industry.

Working under legislative guidelines based on the concept

of multiple resource utilization, coastal managers have concluded

that available information is insufficient to adjudicate the

present conflict over shell dredging in Lake Pontchartrain.

For this reason, Governor Edwin Edwards issued Executive Order

EWE-84-7, directing the Department of Natural Resources to

study the economic, environmental, and other effects of shell

dredging within the waters of the State. In accordance with

that directive, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

entered into a contract with Taylor Biological Company for

-3-

the design of two definitive studies that would demonstrate

the direct effects and the cumulative effects.of shell dredging

on the water quality, sediments, and benthos of Lake Pontchartrain.

PURPOSE AND APPROACHES

As part of that contract, this report was prepared to

give DNR an analysis of services and costs for the completion

of a Direct Effects Study, and a Cumulative Effects Study and

shell reserve assessment. The development of plans for both

studies was based on previous experience in the area of shell

dredging and on information from many other sources. These

@ncluded a literature review and comments from numerous individuals

in conversations and meetings before and after presentation

of preliminary study plans in Baton Rouge on October 2nd and

3rd, 1984.

In overview the Direct Effects Study has been designed

as an experimental investigation, while the Cumulative Effects

Study and shell reserve assessment has been designed as a survey.

'rhe structure of the Direct Effects Study is based on a pattern

of selected station pairs located near the North-South centerline

of the Lake in the vicinity of the cross-lake Causeway (Figure

1). One station in each pair is to receive no treatment and

-4-

will therefore serve as a control area. The other station

in each pair will be dredged and serve as an experimental area.

Both stations in each set are to be sampled before and after

dredging. Subsequently, additional post-dredging samples will

be taken at each station at intervals of two months for a period

of two years. During this sampling period, the immediate and

more prolonged environmental impacts of shell dredging will

be evaluated by comparing pre- and post-dredging data from

ail nine sets of control and experimental stations, Since

past dredg ing practices may influence the course of environmental

recovery, the station pairs have been sited to include undredged,

areas and areas where past dredging has been done at several

levels of intensity. Certain stations will provide data for

a period greater than two years. These are the pair labeled

DC (control) and DX (experimental) and stations one and three,

which were all sampled in two previous investigations by methods

similar to those that will be proposed here (Sikora, Sikora,

and Prior, 1981; and Sikora and Sikora, 1982). Station DX

will not be redredged in this study because of its historical

significance. One very important condition that niust be enf orced

during this study is a complete prohibition against all dredging

and shrimping within one mile of any station. This can be

most conveniently achieved by extending the present Causeway

-5-

Conservation Zone by an additional two miles along both sides.

As a survey, the Cumulative Effects Study was designed

to broadly sample environmental conditions over the entire

surface of the Lake, and vertically through bottom deposits

that may be as much as 30 feet thick. To achieve the coverage

needed for this work, 57 sampling stations were selected within

a pattern of sampling grids established by Tarver and Dugas

(1973). Other considerations for positioning stations included

locations of previous studies; undisturbed shoreline and

undredged areas in the open Lake; and shorelines variously

influenced by tributary flow, floodway discharges, sewage effluent,

and non-point drainage from urban and industrial areas (Figure

2.). At all of these stations sampling will include seismic

profiling, shallow and deep coring, infauna collections, and

water quality measurements. Data from this sampling program

should provide a chronological record of alterations in the

Lake caused by shell dredging, and by other anthropogenic

derangements. The deep coring and seismic work will also be

used to prepare a two dimensional, quantitative depiction of

the Lake's Rangia deposits. As before, data from earlier studies

will be used to the greatest possible extent to augment and

corroborate findings from this survey.

-6-

THE DIRECT EFFECTS STUDY

Objectives. This study has been designed to answer four

basic questions concerning the management of shell dredging

operations in Lake Pontchartrain. First, are there environmental

differences between stations in dredged and undredged areas

of the Lake? Secondly, what are the immediate impacts of dredging

on water quality, sediments, and bottom dwelling organisms?

Thirdly, does the Lake recover from these impacts in a reasonable

time period? And finally, are the initial impacts and the

nature of recovery solely related to past dredging activit-y,

or are other factors involved as well?

Procedures. As a practical matter, station selections

were limited to the 18 sites adjacent to the Causeway. Factors

bearing on this decision included funding limitations, facilitation

of operations for the field study, considerations for shell

producers and shrimp trawlers, and simplification of enforcement

duties by Wildlife Officers. Nevertheless, in most respects these

stations are representative of many dredged and undredged areas

in the Lake. Furthermore, the Causeway Conservation Zone has

not been directly affected by dredging for nearly 30 years;

and differences in many other environmental conditions occur

along this corridor from shore to shore and from side to side.

-7-

These variables include (1) proximity to coastal development,

(2) salinity, (3) water depth, (4) sediment type, (5) dredging

intensity, and (6) previous study (Table 1).

1. Pre-study survey. Before systematic sampling can

begin for the Direct Effects Study, several field and laboratory

determinations must be made to establish the credibility of

certain procedures. These tasks include (1) selection and

demonstration of an acceptable experimental dredging routine,

(2) determination of a safe inter-station distance for respective

station pairs, (3) selection of sample replication levels that

will provide adequate confidence limits for sediment and infauna.

data, and (4) the close matching of station pairs in terms

of water quality, sediments, and infauna, so that dredging

becomes the only significant difference between them.

Addressing these tasks in order, the first is the matter

of duplicating a typical dredging pattern for use at the even-

numbered experimental stations. A first approximation of such

a pattern can probably be made by integrating traces from industry's

LORAN C plotter logs of actual dredging operations. Based

on a review of a few such logs, the characteristic pattern

seems to be oval or circular with a long central axis of one-

half mile or less. Industry claims that within this area a

dredge normally makes about five loops before moving on to

-8-

L AKE

PON
16 Afi

10
@4 9

0 2 4 6 6
...... SHELL DREDGING RESTR
Scale: I'm 4miles

Table 1. -- Station pairs and site characteristics - Direct Effects Study.

Average Dredging Dredging
Station Geographic Salinity Depth Sediment Before After Sampling
Pairs Location (ppt) (feet) Type 1980 1980 History

1 Control N-C@@nu-ral 2.0 13-14 Silty Clay Light Moderate Sikora, 1982
2 Exper. N-Central 2.0 13-14 Silty Clay Light Moderate

3 Control Central 3.0 14-15 Silty Clay Light Moderate Sikora, 1982
4 Exper. Central 3.0 14-15 Silty Clay Light Moderate -

5 Control S-Central 3.5 14-15 Clayey Silt None None -
6 Exper. S-Central 3.5 14-15 Clayey Silt None None -

7 Control S-Central 3.5 14-15 Clayey Silt Heavy Light -
8 Exper. S-Central 3.5 14-15 Clayey Silt Heavy Light -

9 Control Central 3.0 14-15 Silty Clay None None -
10 Exper. Central 3.0 14-15 Silty Clay None None -

11 Control Central 3.0 14-15 Sand None None -
12 Exper. Central 3.0 14-15 Sand None None -

13 Control Central 3.0 14-15 Sand Heavy Heavy -
14 Exper. Central 3.0 14-15 Sand Heavy Heavy -

15 Control N-Central 2.0 13-14 Silty Clay None None -
16 Exper. N-Central 2.0 13-14 Silty Clay None None -

DC Control Central 3.0 14-15 Silty Clay None None Sikora, 1981
DX Exper. Central 3.0 14-15 Silty Clay Heavy None

-9-

another location. This preliminary information needs to be

verified by further log review, field observations, interviews

with vessel operators, and an actual field trial with the plotter

in operation and a water quality monitoring team in place.

In regard to the selection of an adequate distance for

inter-station separation, presently one-half mile seems to

be a satisfactory choice. This distance is based on existing

WPCD data which show that changes in water quality around a

working dredge are limited to a downcurrent distance of about

one-quarter mile. If this distance can be verified during

trial dredging, then doubling that figure (one-half mile) would

virtually preclude the possibility of contamination at control

stations by dredged residuals from experimental stations.

Examination of field water quality parameters during dredging

should be sufficient for the distance determination. Additionally,

while trial dredging is in progress, fathometer and side-scan

sonar evaluations should be made by LGS to judge the practicability

of these instruments for measuring and recording trenches,

ridges, and off-site sedimentation (mud-flows).

Concerning sampling replication, industry ha@; for

levels that will provide a statistical -'r 85 to

90 percent for sediment and infauna COllf-'CtLons. Th i s would

seem to be a reasonable request considering Lhe LiTipurtance

_10-

of this study to many interest groups. A trial sampling program

will need to be run to establish this degree of sampling confidence.

in such a program dredged and undredged station locations should

be sampled in the three sediment types to be included in the

Direct Effects Study. This approach should cover all likely

possibilities for sediment and infauna variability. Suggested

locations would be Stations 5 and 7 (clayey silt), 11 and 13

(sand), and 3 and 9 (silty clay). In this trial, 10 replicate

cores for sediment and infauna should probably be taken at

each of the above six sites. Since the infauna corer has four

equal internal divisions, those samples would actually provid

40 collections for the benthos. Based on data from collections

at each stte, analysis of variance techniques would be used

to select levels of sampling for both sediment and infauna

which would fall within the pr escribed 85 to 90 percent confidence

limits for the most demanding station. This task, and the

following one, should probably be done in the beginning of

March when infauna abundance apparently reaches a peak.

The final pre-survey task involves an evaluation of prospective

station pairs to determine their environmental comparability

and establish their status as valid control and experimental

locations. This will require some additional sampling for

water quality, sediments, and infauna. Without benefit of

results from the preceding task, the assumption here is that

the necessary station evaluations can be made on the basis

of field analyses for water quality, and a statistical analysis

of data from three sediment cores and five infauna cores (20

subsamples). A recommendation to accomplish this task is as

follows. First, water, sediment, and infauna samples would

be taken at all control station locations. From around each

control station like sampling would be done to find suitable

experimental stations. The number of these candidate experimental

stations for each control site would be limited to four; and

they would be sampled at a distance from it of one-half mile

to the North, East, South, and West. In the laboratory, data

for the control stations would be worked up first. Then water

quality and sediment data would be worked up for all 64 of

the possible experimental sites. Tentative station pairings

would be made on the basis of the closest water-sediment matches.

These choices would then be accepted or rejected on the basis

of an analysis and comparison of corresponding infauna data.

In some instances the contractor might have to go to the next

best fit, and in other cases the best of all four possible

options avail able may have to be accepted. Under similar

hydrological conditions sediment type is the principal environmental

-12-

determinent controlling the development of local bottom communities.

That is why hydro and sediment data have been suggested for

use as a time-saving guide to the analysis of candidate faunal

samples in the search for acceptable pairs of control and experi-

mental stations. In this selection task, the calculation of

the degree of similarity between respective control and experimental

stations will be done using multivariate analytical methods.

When the station selection process has been completed,

all sites should be logged by LORAN C coordinates, and buoyed

with heavy ground tackle and a durable surface marker that

bears a station number and a conspicuous State property logo..

The coordinates of the protective perimeter zone should be

well publicized, especially among the shell producers and commercial

and recreational boat operators. Provisions for regular perimeter

patrols and enforcement action against violators will be the

responsibility of the LDWF.

The contractor for this study should be in a position

to do field work for the pre-study survey in the February-

March time period of 1986. Collections and other work completed

in those two months can probably be evaluated within another

four months, so that the Direct Effects Study can start in

the fall of 1986 (Table 2).

-13-

T,,ble 2* Pre-study survey tasks: responsibility, events, _,nd
C
time allocations.

I'as k - Days Months
I I e r fo 1: j i i,j nc 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4

Dredge
Pattern
Contractor + + + + +
Dredge +

Inter-station
Distance -
Contractor
Dredge
WPCD +
Belthymetry - (20)
Contractor -
Dredge
1,GS +

"""), e " C, ps*,
Sod i mon t s
Contractor - - - +
(20) (20) (20)

Intaund
Contractor + + + +
(20) (20) (20)

C ompa L-,A L) i I j t y,
W'1[01- -
Cont.ractor - - - t + +

St-at ion Comparability,
S(-,d i me n t s -
Ck)11tL'dCtO[7 - - - - - - + + +
(20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20)
Stut-Lon
Comparab i I i t y,
Intauna -
Contractor + + + + + +
(34) (34) (34) (34) (34) (30)
Station Buoys -
C(.)11L1_dCtor + + +
1, DW F

Single task cost item; number of operations; no additional
cosL to DNR; duration of Direct Effects Study.

-14-

2. Field work for the Direct Effects Study. Initially,

and at specific intervals thereafter, this study will require

close coordination between the Contractor, WPCD, and the dredging

companies. ' As a suggested routine, field work at one station

pair would be started every day over a nine day period. On

day one, prior to dredging, the Contractor's team would first

flag the boundaries of the area to be dredged. The team would

then determine bathymetry in the work area by making

runs in a crisscross pattern having one leg parallelling the

direction of current flow and the other running across it.

This team would then take their standard series of samples.
These would include field tests for water quality at the surface'

and bottom, three sediment cores, and five box corer samples

for infauna. Next the team would move to the adjacent control

station and repeat these procedures.

The WPCD team, having already worked the control site,

would then move into the experimental site and make pre-dredging

collections at the surface and bottom for their comprehensive

list of water quality parameters. Dredging would then commence

at the experimental site, and WPCD would sample through the

period of dredging as well as for four hours after:ward. The

WPCD's final set of water samples would be taken at the center

-15-

of the dredged area, one-quarter mile downcurrent from that

point, and near the buoy at the center of the control site.

This would complete WPCD's participation for the day. In each

of the next eight days WPCD would again work one station pair

in the same way. In addition, this team would field test for

water quality at the station pair(s) sampled the previous day(s).

This system of sampling and resampling would be followed through

all eight days of dredging, the sampling at DC and DX on the

ninth day, and for nine additional days. In this way each

study site would be sampled during dredging operations and

afterward for between nine and 17 days. If anomalous values

should persist at any station pair beyond the nine-day water

sampling period, then sampling would continue at those stations

until all field parameters returned to normal.

Returning to the Contractor's field team - while dredging

is in progress it could be processing pre-dredging sediment

and infauna samples. Upon the completion of dredging, this

team will revisit both stations to obtain a post-dredging seismic

survey, together with their standard set of samples for water

quality tests, sediments, and infauna.

By following this schedule, the initial phase of field

work would be completed in nine days for the Contractor and

-16-

in 18 days for the WPCD. Also, at the discretion of DNR, some

aerial monitoring may be requested during experimental dredging.

This work would be done to supplement ground data on turbidity

plumes, and possible changes in water temperature and chlorophyll

a concentrations. As another special provision, DNR may wish

to establish several remote sensing arrays on Causeway pilings

near one or more station pairs. These instruments would be

useful for continuously monitoring surface and bottom water

values for salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and perhaps

other factors.

After the initial sampling has been done, each station

will be restudied at two-month intervals over a two-year period.

Following this schedule, on each sampling excursion and at

every station the Contractor will make seismic soundings, test

surface and bottom water for basic field parameters and collect

three sediment cores and five box corer samples for infauna.

Coincident with two sampling periods per year (early Spring

and late Summer), the WPCD will again take their comprehensive

series of water samples at all 18 stations. These seasons

have been selected for WPCD's participation because they

represent times of maximum contrast for major hydrological

factors such as temperature, salinity, turbidity, and dissolved

-17-

oxygen. At four other times the WPCD should also conduct field

tests at all stations after major storm events. These data

are needed to make comparisons of gross changes in water quality

due to natural disturbances, and observed changes caused by

dredging.

Analysis and interpretation of field data from all of

this work will probably take about four months. An additional

two months would be needed to prepare the final report (Table

3).

3. Equipment, methods, and analyses.

3.1 Vessels. The WPCD already has suitable vessels
for routine water quality survey work in the Lake. Presumably',

these will be available for use in the Direct Effects Study.

Instrumentation should include a ship's compass, VHF and CB

radios, LORAN C, and a high resolution fathometer.

The dredge should be one of those having the greatest

pumping capacity-now permitted by DNR for Lake Pontchartrain.

It must have a LORAN C and plotter, and the ship's complement

of navigation and communication equipment should be in good

working order. The dredge will be accompanied by a barge for

loading shell.

The vessel leased by the Contractor needs to be in the

-18-

Table 3. -- Direct Effects study tasks: responsibility, events, and time allocations For key see Table 2).

Task- Days
Performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is

Dredging
Dredge

Flag Sta.
Cant. + + + + + + + + +
Bathymetry
Field Hydra
Cant.
(4) (4) (4) (4) (40 (4) (4) (4) (4)
Sediments
Cant. - - - - - - - - -
(12) (12) (12) (12) (12) (12) (12) (12) (6)
Infauna
Cant.
(20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (10)
Comp.
Hydra -
WPCD + + + + + + + + +
(20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20)
Field Hydra
WPCD + + + + + + + + +
(2) (4) (6) (8) (10) (12) (14) (16) (18) (18) (18) (18) (18) (18) (18) (18) (18)
Aerial
Monit. -
DNR ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Remote
Monit. -
DNR (??????]

Data
Anal., Inter.
Report -
Cant. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

-19-

Table 3. -- (continued)

Task month
Performance 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 28 30

Dredging -
Dredge Done -
Flag Stations -
Contractor Done
Bathymetry,
Field Hydro
Contractor (18) (18) (18) (18) (18) (18)
Sediments -
Contractor -
(6 days per event) (54) (54) (54) (54) (54) (54) (54) (54) (54) (54) (54) (54)
Infauna -
Contractor
(6 days per event) + + + + + + + + + + +
(90) (90) (90) (90) (90) (90) (90) (90) (90) (90) (90) (90)
Comprehensive
Hydro -
WPCD +
(18) (18) (18) (18)
Field Hydro -
WPCD + +
(18) (18) (18) (18)
Aerial Monitoring -
DNR Done

Remote Monitoring -
DNR j??????)

Data Analysis,
interpretation,
Report
Contractor + + + + + + +

-20-

40-foot class or larger. The cabin should be large and spacious,

and much open deck space will be needed aft. Speed should

be on the order of 12 knots or more. Mechanical rigging will

be needed to operate the box corer for sampling infauna. A

dive platform or stout ladder will be essential -I@or boarding

divers used in sediment coring operations. Provisions should

be made to supply running water on deck to facilitate the sieving

of infauna samples. Minimum instrumentation would consist

of a compass, VHF and CB radios, LORAN C, auto-pilot, and a

high resolution fathometer. Electrical service must be available

for the operation of side-scan sonar.

Cost for the lease of such a vessel should be no more

than five or 600 dollars per day, including the operating crew.

This means that vessel cost for the pre-study program (12)days

@ $600 per day) would amount to $7,200; and for the Dredging

Effects Study (81 days @ $600 per day) it would be $48,600,

or a total for both field programs of $55,800.

3.2 General field observations and supporting data.

The Contractor will design a log sheet for each field collection

with entry spaces for field observations, specific collecting

data, a numerical designation, and the required routing for

analysis. This sheet will ac company each collection through

-21-

its processing and analytical pathway, and a duplicate will

be checked-off and filed at each successive handling point.

Field observations will include date, time, tide stage,

approximate current velocity and direction, depth, percentage

of cloud cover, wind directions and approximate velocity, air

temperature, and presence or absence of precipitation. Regional

meteorological observations on wind and rainfall can be requested

from the U. S. Weather Bureau and other regional recording

stations, such as the International Airport. The USGS can

provide tributary flow records for the Pontchartrain drainage

basin, and WPCD can serve as a data aquisition center for the

additional hydro data routinely collected by other agencies

having ongoing programs within this watershed (DEQWPCD, 1984).

Industry should provide the Contractor with LORAN C plots

of all dredging operations during the course of the Study,

and DNR can act as a coordinator to obtain pertinent data from

any privately or publicly funded research conducted on the

Lake within the duration of the Direct Effects Study.

3.3 Records of mud-flows, trenches, and r-tdyes.

If possible, these features would be recorded u--;tn,j A tatnc)rneter.

If not, trials will be made using a side-scin ii,)viever,

in the event that the density of dredged !@it low

-22-

for eleCLronic detection by either device, then another method

will have to be used to at least record the depth and extent

of offsite sedimentation. One suggestion for this would be

the use of fine oyster shell to lay out a broad bottom transect

downcurrent and well beyond a dredge site perimeter. After

dredging, cores taken along this line could be used to directly

measure overburden at various distances from experimental dredging

operations. The logistics of this method would have to be

worked out during trial dredging work in the pre-study survey.

Even if a satisfactory electronic bottom trace can be recorded,

the dive team can still be used to obtain bottom cores of any

disconformities presumed to be especially unusual.

Regardless of the method and survey pattern selected some

provision will need to be made for measuring distances. The

LORAN C can be used for this purpose, as can an hand-held range-

finder (Rangema tic). A somewhat less accurate technique is

to calculate distance from point-to-point elapsed time and

engine speed, based on a prior timed run made over a premeasured

course at the same RPMs (4 min./ 1 mile - 6 min./ x miles ).

As for cost, the vessel chartered by the Contractor should

already be equipped with a high resolution fathometer. if

a side-scan instrument is needed, this can probably be procured

-23-

through LGS for about $200 per day.

3.4 Field and comprehensive water quality parameters.

The field, or basic water quality parameters are water temperature,

salinity, secchi disk disappearance depth, turbidity, pH, and

dissolved oxygen. These are the only tests for which the

Contractor will be responsible, while the WPCD will be responsible

for these as well as the following more comprehensive list:

nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, inorganic, and Kjeldahl nitrogen;

phosphorus and orthophosphate; BOD-5; suspended, dissolved,

and total solids; sulfates, chlorides, organic carbon; chlorophyll a;

selected trace metals; and selected synthetic organic compounds.

The selections for metals and organics will be made on t he

basis of WPCD's tests throughout the Lake in 1984. As in the

field tests, samples for these determinations will be taken

one meter below the surface and one-half meter above the bottom.

Instruments and methods of analysis will be those currently

used by WPCD. 8upplementary water quality data may be available

from industry, and from continuou6 recording equipment if it

is installed.

Furthermore, DNR and the Contractor may decide to obtain

some sediment-water interface samples for analysis of such

items as hydrated iron and manganese oxides, suspended solids,

DO, nutrients, toxins, and etc, This can be done by hypodermic

-24-

extraction through the plastic barrel of the sediment coring

tube described in the next section (3.5). All hydro data will

be presented in appropriate appendices of the final report.

As a rough guide to cost, there is listed below an estimate

of the price for each analysis. Field tests are no cost items.

Analysis Price Analysis Price
Nitrate N $ 10 Dissolved Solids 5
Nitrite N 10 Total Solids 5
Ammonia N 10 Sulphates 5
Inorganic N 10 Chlorides 5
Kjeldahi N 14 Organic Carbon 25
Phosphorus 14 Chlorophyll a 10
Orthophosphate 14 Trace Metals 50 ea.
BOD-5 8 Synthetics 50 ea.
Suspended Solids 5
3.5 Coring devices for sediment and infauna sampl@ing*_

The coring tube proposed for sediment sampling is one designed

by Dr. Joseph Donoghue of the Department of Geology at Florida

State University (please see 'attached letter and drawings on

the following pages). This device is a diver-operated, piston

type corer that uses clear three and five-eights O.D. plastic

tubing in the barrel. In operation, virtually undisturbed

cores as long as six feet have been obtained. On deck, a sediment

sample inside the clear plastic tube can be conveniently observed,

measured, or photographed. Dr. Donoghue is willing to demonstrate

this corer to DNR, and would be pleased to provide equipment

-25-

and orientation to the Contractor awarded the Direct Effects

Study. Cost of a new corer is about $200, and purchase price

of the CAB tubing is $7 per foot (AIN Plastics, Inc., 249 E.

Sandford Blvd., P.O. Box 151, Mt. Vernon, NY - (914)668-6800).

The corer proposed for the infauna study is a modified

Jonassen and Olausson box corer manufactured by Mr. Frank O'Hara

of Specialty Services Company in Bryan, Texas (please see the

attached photos on the following pages). This was the instrument

used by Sikora in his earlier benthic work in Lake Pontchartrain.

In a newer model, however, the inside of the corer is divided

into equal quarters to provide subsamples. This feature is

desirable because it has a number of useful statistical appli-

cations. The purchase price of this corer is about $2,500.

3.6 Sediment analyses. In the pre-study survey,

10 cores wiil be taken at each station for the sampling replication

level determinations (60); and three cores per site will be

taken to determine sediment comparability between prospective

pairs of control and experimental stations (120). In these

tests, all samples will be photographed and measured to record

layering characteristics, and any other features of apparent

importance will be recorded. Next, the upper three inches

-26-

The Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida 32306
Department of Geology

November 2, 1984

Mr. John Taylor
P.O. Drawer 730
Lynn Haven, Florida 32444

Dear Jack,

Enclosed are some of the items you asked about over the
phone the other day. I hope they are of some use.

The two shop drawinqs are for the most recent of the
four piston corers I've built. It works the best and collects
the larqest sample. The cores are collected in 3 5/8" O.D.
cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB) plastic tubes.

The sketch will qive you an idea of how the corer works.
Any size boat can be used, as lonq as there is some means for
clampinq the piston cable to the gunwale. A diver or swim-
mer with extra weiqhts stands on the bottom. He places the
corer assembly on the bottom so that the piston is just above
the sediment-water interface. When the cable extendinq up
to the boat is taut and firmly clamped in place, he loosens
the thumbscrew on the corer head. He then exerts force down-
ward on the handles, pushing the CAB tube down past the piston.
When the tube has gone into the sediment as far as it will
qo, he again tiqhtens the thumbscrew. The corer is then hauled
out of the sediment, using muscle or winch power from the boat.
The lower end is capped as soon as it is free of the bottom.
Usinq this method we have recovered undisturbed cores up to
2 m long with the 3 5/8" corer and up to 8 m long with smaller
diameter corers.

You asked if it is possible to sample directly through
the liner. It is, but I have never had the need to do so.
Douq Hammond, at the University of Southern California Geology
Department, has sampled gas bubbles in marine cores using a
hypodermic needle. He mentions it in a publication, but I
can't find the reference. I have also seen Edward Callendar,
of the USGS in Reston, collect estuarv cores using CAB tubes
with small, taped holes down the side. As soon as the cores
were on deck, sediment pore water was extracted from selected
holes and analyzed for nutrients.

-27-

Mr. John Taylor
November 2, 1984
Page Two

You also asked for some references on interpreting and
reporting grain-size data and relatinq it to source differences
or environmental changes. Some of the more commonly referenced
papers that I found in my files are as follows:

Folk, R., 1966, A review of grain-size parameters:
Sedimentology, v. 6, p. 73.

Friedman, G., 1961, Distinction between dune, beach
and river sands from their textural characteristics:
Joun. Sed. Petrology, v. 28, p. 151.

1962, On sorting, sortinq coefficients and
the loanormality of the grain-size distribution of
sediments. Joun. Geology, v. 70, p.737.

1967, Dvnamic processes and statistical
parameters compared for size frequency distribution
of beach and river sands: Joun. Sed. Petroloqy
v. 37, p. 327.

1979, Differences in size distributions of
particles among sands of various origins: Sedimentoloqy,
v. 26, p. 3.

Mason, C., and Folk, R., 1958, Differentiation
of beach, dune and aeolian flat environments by
size analysis: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 28, p. 211.

Passeqa, R., 1957, Texture as a characteristic of clastic
deposition: Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petroleum Geol. v. 41,
p. 1952.

I hope the above is helpful. Give me a call if You have
any further questions. Sincerely yours,

Joseph F. Donoghue

JFD/pr
Enclosures

-28-

yr- All
J
Sfe-el . A 6 --) 7L)3
r 0 v ide4,
p a V
v%A t 'A u %,%4
Se-t
&V@J
A@I
V-C e- 7-401M 6
14,
@-ar A
9
e-

L o e- t-
41

lv@

14
is ta P-c>,s fte @e
le

71 \0- L) k C-P, tz V--
I) ej Ce- d-e @4
7'A

/4 1

c A at-e Aj

-7

It
L'19
V4'0
@t4j @4e
le

C.::7 A@- -

A r-P,
-29-

..........

T1
:ij L!
53
tom All.,
--log

@A -7 0,

Af
li-L

-A a

-:,I il.
rv. v

fRA

I-IT

I t
NE
pj

IV -A 0) 1 -A
cy tv I O@
if
-,tAf
5s. rv

jr 3
'rn

-Ld

v'A
A =-I Ol
'@.O 7M.;
604,

1'. F: F, t 1.
ry ILL
r 4,

C?"@

A' IA

rr\ A/ G

flA I I J

L C,'@ L r- L U Nrt-, N t
L) P. 0. Box i762 "'7)
c
Bryan, Texas 77801
-4v
^01
V4

L'fAD

-32-

WWI

zj.

A. ell.

-33-

sit

The corer cocked and ready to go Box corer after the sample has been
over the side. retrieved (simulated) and back over
the deck. Note the trigger is now
tripped. The safety pin that pre-
cludes the opening of the jaws allows
the corer to be decked while sub:
samples are being taken.

7
i',@

To dump the sample, the safety pin The wire has been slacked completely
has been removed and the corer is let and the corer is ready to be dumped
down on the deck. Tilt corer so that by engaging the trigger and lifting
it is resting on one jaw, nudge with with the winch wire. The cycle has
knee and it will start opening. After been completed and the rig is ready
the jaws have opened about 4 or 5 to go over the side again.
inches, it can be set back level. -34-

of each core (biotic zone) will be carefully extruded,

homogenized, and apportioned for the following tests: (1)

organic, inorganic, and total carbon - LECO system; and (2)

total texture in one-half phi intervals, together with statistical

calculations for mean grain size, sorting, skewness, and kurtosis

- Folk, 1974. Information needed on similarity between intra-

and inter-station samples will be generated by multivariate

analytical procedures.

In the Direct Effects Study, three cores will be taken

at each station immediately before and after dredging (102.),

and then at two-month intervals for the two-year duration of

sampling (648). These collections will be handled in the manner

described above, but other fractions will be apportioned for

additional physical and chemical analyses. The additional

physical analysis will be for bulk density (Sikora, Sikora,
and Prior, 1981'). The additional chemical analyses will include

tests for (1) nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, inorganic, and Kjeldahl

nitrogen; (2) phosphorus and orthophosphate; (3) sulphates;

and (4) scans for trace metals and synthetic organic compounds

-emission spectrometer and gas chromatographic mass ipectrometer.
These scans 'would only be done immediately before and after

-35-

dredging to determine which elements and compounds should be

included in subsequent testing over the duration of the Study.

This work would be directed by the Contractor with consultation,

and perhaps assistance from WPCD. Results from these tests

will be treated individually and collectively for graphic and

cluster diagram representations. All sediment data will be

reported in appropriate appendices in the final report.

on a per sample basis, the group of carbon analyses costs

about $50, and together, the textural and statistical analyses

run about $60. Bulk density tests are here estimated at $10

each; while other sample costs would be $50 for the nitrogen

series, $25 for the phosphorus series, $10 for sulphate, and

about $800 for each of the scans. However, after the scans

have been done on the first pre- and post-dredging samples,

charges for a single metal or synthetic compound would be $50

each.

Using these prices, a cost breakdown for the pre-survey

and the Direct Effects Study has been estimated as follows:

pre-survey - $6,600 (replication level work), and $13,200

(comparability work), or a subtotal of $19,800; and $184,110

(first pre- and post-dredging samples), and $327,240 (subsequent

-36-

samples), or a subtotal of $511,350, and a grand total of

$531,150 for all of the sediment work. For this calculation,

the cost of analyzing three metals ($150) and three synthetic

compounds ($150) was included for the 12 sampling events after

dredging.

3.7 Infauna analyses. In the pre-study survey,

10 box corer samples will be taken at each station for the

sampling replication level determinations (60). An estimated

five corer samples per site will be taken to determine the

comparability of infauna at prospective pairs of control and
experimental stations (200). And in the Direct Effects Study,.
five corer samples will be taken at each station immediately

before and after dredging (170), and then again at two-month

intervals for the two-year duration of sampling (1080).

Specimens from each quarter of every box corer sample

in all sampling events will be processed and recorded as a

discrete group. This procedure will begin by individually

sieving each subsample (0.5mm screen) and preserving the residue

in properly labeled, plastic, screw-cap containers Eilled with

a solution of 10 percent, buffered formdl@n contamLriq rose

bengal dye. Plywood sample carriers sh(-);i I(I 5e )n@;* , ticted

-37-

(20 compartments) and used for shipboard sample storage and

offloading.

In the laboratory, the contents of each jar will be resieved.

Following this screening specimens will be picked out under

dissecting scope magnification and sorted by major groups into

screw-cap vials containing 70 percent ethanol or isopropanol.

These vials will then be transferred to the appropriate taxon-

omists for species identifications and enumeration. Identifications

should be made to the lowest practical level, and a reference

collection must be maintained by the Contractor. Taxonomic

specialists should be available for the following invertebrate

groups - Mollusca, Oligochaeta, Polychaeta, Rhynchocoela,

Crustacea, and larval aquatic insects.

The diversity and abundance data for subsamples at each

station will be presented in a sequence of tables appended

to the final report, These tables should contain a phylogenetic

and alphabetical list of species, together with the numbers

collected and their frequency of occurrence. Summarized data

dt the end of each table should include the total number of

species, total number of individuals, number of individuals

per square meter of bottom, Shannon-Weaver Index of Diversity,

-38-

and Evenness-J.

In the pre-study survey these data will be used in making

the multivariate analyses used to determine the needed level

of sampling replication; and to objectively select locations

for eight of the nine experimental stations. In the Study

itself, these data will be used in multivariate analyses to

show the magnitude of dredging impacts and the rate and extent

of environmental recovery for respective sampling sites over

the two-year study period.

The cost for collecting and processing each corer sample

is about $200. At this rate, the identification of infauna

in the pre-study survey would amount to about $52,000. In

subsequent sampling the figure would be $250,000, making a

grand total. of $342,000 for both phases of the Direct Effects

Study.

3.8 Data reductions and presentations. Czekanowski's

coeffi-cient, in' its similarity form, is suggested for use in

the pre-study survey to determine the amount of sampling repli-

cation that will be required to satisfy the 85 to 90 percent

confidence limits requested for infauna ddta. This coefficient

contains both diversity and abundance factors, and is probably

-39-

as well suited for this study as any of the generally used

measures of faunal similarity (Boesch, 1977; and Bloom, pers.

comm. ). In the selection of appropriate pairs of control and

experimental sites, this coefficient will also be used to determine

inter-station infauna resemblances. Likewise, a multivariate

similarity coefficient can be developed to determine the level

of replication required in sediment sampling; and to assess

the degree of similarity between sediments at control stations

and possible experimental locations (Bloom, pers. comm.; and

Donoghue, pers. comm.).

In the main Study, the multivariate approach, and extensions

of that approach, can be used to develop cluster diagrams

tt:om classification analyses; and to develop graphic representations

from recovery-stability analyses (Bloom, 1980; and Saloman,

Naughton, and Taylor, 1982). These are powerful data reduction

techniques. For example, cluster diagrams based on station

similarities for sediment and infauna facilitate comparisons

between station pairs as well as between any two stations in

the entire control-experimental matrix.

As an extension of the multivariate approach, the multi-

variate quantification of community recovery is a statistical

data transformation technique that should be particularly useful

-40-

in this Study. In this analysis community properties at a

station before dredging are represented statistically as a

three dimensional entity that can be plotted as a position

on a graph. Then following dredging, community properties

in each succesive sample can be statistically evaluated by

the same procedure and compared for likeness to the mathematical

form of the original community. On the graph, the undisturbed

community is symbolized as a line from the y-axis that extends

from a zero point and runs above and parallel to the x-axis.

When points for post-dredging samples are plotted from the

x-axis, the line connecting them indicates the degree of community

recovery as it approaches or departs from the zero-line. if

the recovery-line touches the zero-line over the time course

of sampling, then recovery may be considered to have occurred.

Figures in the last two references illustrate this concept,

and these publications have been attached for DNR's use,

4. Report Format. Upon the completion of field work,

data compilation and analyses will probably take about four

months and report preparation can be expected to take an additional

two months. This means that about three years will be required

to complete all tasks from the beginning of the pre-study

survey to the end of the Direct Effects Study.

-41-

The Contractor's report to DNR should be organized in

standard format to contain an Introduction, Purpose, Area

Description, Review of Previous Studies, Methods, Results,

Discussion and Conclusions, Recommendations, Executive Summary,

and Bibliography. There will also be rather extensive Appendices

to show all raw data and any oversize materials such as maps

and cluster diagram print-outs.

The Introduction should provide an historical review and

current status of shell dredging nationally, with particular

emphasis on practices and regulations in Louisiana. Tab les

along the lines of those used by Templet (1974) would be a

good way to summarize this information and provide easy reference

to it.

The Purpose of the Contractor's report will be to clearly

describe and document the direct effects of shell dredging

on water quality, sediments, and infauna; and to record any

observed post-dredging environmental recovery over the 24-

month field study period. Additional objectives will be to

reevaluate two previous studies pertaining to tnfauna and shell

dredging on the basis of the present study (Sikord, Sikora,

and Prior, 1981; and Sikora and Sikora, 1982). Then, trom these

results and evaluations, the primary goal ot t-he Dir-,,-ct ECfects

-42-

Study will be to make warranted management recommendations

on shell dredging to DNR.

The Area Description will be confined to the Pontchartrain

Basin with emphasis on anthropogenic influences on the Lake's

natural features. Important reference publications for this

section include Gulf South Research Institute, 1974; Stern

and Stern, 1969; Stone, 1980, and more recent reports by the

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, in press; and

Coastal Environments, Inc., 1984.

In the Review of Previous Studies, findings from dredging

research in coastal areas can be highlighted and summarized *

Emphasis here should be placed on studies done in sheltered

estuarine situations like Lake Pontchartrain and of course

in Lake Pontchartrain itself (Bouma, 1976; and Sikora, Sikora,

and Prior, 1981). Furthermore, other literature for the Lake

should be researched to develop an historical setting to

which data from this study can be compared. Here, care must

be taken to evaluate past sampling and analytical procedures

so that comparative findings can be properly validated or qualified.

Methods, and other procedural matters, must be clearly

and concisely presented. Figures and Tables should be liberally

used in both this section and the one below. Preparation of

-43-

a glossary is recommended. This should include terms and words

unfamiliar to the public, and explanations of equations and

any other technical items that would otherwise be confusing

to the general reader,

The Results section should be organized to first present

findings at respective station pairs regarding pre-dredging

environmental conditions, impacts associated with dredging

operations, and post-dredging changes over time. Following

this, comments should be directed toward findings between station

pairs and between other station combinations.

In the Discussion and Conclusions section results from

this Study will be summarized and critically reviewed within

the cnntext of other relevant research in Louisiana and elsewhere.

This appraisal will then provide a basis for the formulation

of the Contractor's conclusions on the specific aspects of

shell dredging in Lake Pontchartrain that can be supported

by objective research data, Speculation should be avoided.

Areas of special concern to DNR include particulars of the

initial impacts of dredging, and the relationship of recovery

to past dredging intensity, sediment type, and time.

The Recommendations section will be largely based on the

Contractor's conclusions, and should emphasize the development

-44-

of regulatory criteria that may be useful in the implementation

of existing guidelines and the State's overall management plans

for Lake Pontchartrain. Coming from this study, any such criteria

could relate to water quality, sediment, infauna, community

recovery, or some combination of these factors. In proposing

any criterion, the rationale for its selection must be evident,

and complete monitoring procedures should be described.

If after two years the results of this Study prove to

be inconclusive, the Contractor may wish to recommend a time

extension along the lines of present research, or justified

areas of new research.

This section will be followed by a Bibliography and all

appended material. A synopsis of the Direct Effects Study

will be prepared as an Executive Summary for the front of the

Contractor's report.

-45-

COST SUMMARY

Vessel
Pre-study Survey
SampLe Replicates, Sediment and Infauna
3 cdys @ 600 per day .......................... 1,800
Stdtion Comparability, Sediments and Infauna
6 days @ 600 per day .......................... 3,600
Station Buoys
3 days @ 600 per day .......................... 1,800

Direct Effects Study
Initial
Flag stations, bathymetry, hydro, sediment,
and infauna
9 days @ 600 per day .......................... 5,40()
Subsequent
Bathymetry, hydro, sediment and infauna
72 days @ 600 per day ......................... 43,200

Total Vessel ........................................ 55,300

Water QUd[.ir-V
Pre-study Survey
Inter-staLion distance, all parameters
plus 3 trace metals and 3 synthetics
20 Samples @ 450 (x2) ......................... 18,00()

Diz:e(:L Lftects Study
In i t ial
Al.1 parameters plus 3 trace metals
ind 3 synthetics
180 samples @ 450 (x2) ..................... 162,000

Subsequent
A ALI. parameters plus 3 trace metals
and 3 synthetics
7/2 samples @ 450 (x2) ...................... 64,800

rrotai Water Quality ................................. 244,800

S,.d Lment Analyses
Pre-study Survey
,0,wiipLe Replicates, carbon chem., texture and
statLsti-cs
60 samples @ 110 .............................. 6,600
1; t at
. -Lon Comparability, carbon chem., texture and
statistics
120 samples @ 110 ............................. 13,200

4 6 -

Sediment Analyses (cont.)
Direct Effects Study
Initial
Carbon chem., texture and statistics,
bulk density, nitrogens, phosphorus,
sulphates, and 2 scans
102 samples @ 1805 ......................... 184,110

Subsequent
Carbon chem., texture and statistics,
bulk density, nitrogens, phosphorus,
suiphates, 3 metals, and 3 synthetics
648 samples @ 505 .......................... 327,12140

Total Sediment ...................................... 531,150

ln@aund Analyses
Pre-study Survey
Sample Replicates, taxonomy and statisti=cs
GO samples 0 200 .............................. 12,000
SLaLion Comparability, taxonomy and statistics
200 samples (a 200 ............................. 40,000

Di_c(_ct ELI-fects Study
Initial
laxonomy and statistics
1.70 samples @ 200 .......................... 34,000

Subsequent
Taxonomy and statistics
1080 samples @ 200 ......................... 216,000

lot-il InLauna ....................................... 302,000

Total Pi:eliminary Analysis ......................... 1_133,750*

Data Pro(_:ess ing And Final Statistical Analyses
@J Lo'@@, @)E preliminary analysis ....................... L13,375-

Field Crew Of 6
Pre-Study Survey
12 days @ 600 .................................... 7,200*

DJ1:t:@ct Effects Study

9 days 9 600 .................................. 5,400*

Subsequent
72 days @ 600 ................................. 55,000*

-47-

Laboratory Staff
Project Director
735 days @ 100 ................................... 73,500*
First Assistant, Field Operations
735 days @ 50 .................................... 36,750*
Second Assistant, Laboratory Operations
735 days @ 50 .................................... 36,750*

Subtotal* 2,923,450**

Overhead, Contingencies, and Profit @ 30% .............. 877,035**

Grand Total" $3,800,485**

-48-

LITERATURE CITED

Bloom, Stephen A.
1980. Multivariate quantification of community recovery,
p. 141-151 In John Cairns, Jr. [ed.] The Recovery Process
in Damaged Ecosystems. Ann Arbor Sci. Publ., Inc.
Ann Arbor, MI

Boesch, Donald F.
1977. Application of numerical classification in ecological
investigations of water pollution. EPA, Ecol. Res. Ser.
EPA-600/3-77-033. Corvallis, OR. 113 p.

Bouma, Arnold H.
1976a [ed.] Shell dredging and its Influence on Gulf Coast
Environments. Gulf Pub. Co., Book Div., Houston, TX.
x + 454 p.

Coastal Environments, Inc.
1984. Workshop Packet, Lake Pontchartrain Task Force,
Proposed Pontchartrain-Maurepas Special Areas. 1260
Main St., Baton Rouge, LA 70802

Folk, R. L.
1981. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Pub. Co.,
Austin, TX. 182 p.
Gulf South Research Institute.
1974. Environmental impact of shell dredging in Lake
Pontchartrain. Prepared for Louisiana Shell Producers
Association. GSRI Proj. Rept. No. 414-665-41. 98 p.
+ appendices.
Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality, WPCD.
1984. Louisiana Ambient Water Quality Monitoring System.
P. 0. Box 44066,-Baton Rouge, LA 70804.
Saloman, Carl H., Steven P. Naughton, and John L. Taylor.
1982. Benthic community response to dredging borrow Pits,
Panama City Beach, Florida. U. S. Arym COE, Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Misc. Rep. No. 82-3, Ft.
Belvoir, VA. 138 p.
ikora, Walter B. and Jean P. Sikora.
1982. Ecological characterization of the benthic community
of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Coastal Ecology Lab,
Ctr. Wetland Resources, LSU, Baton Rouge, LA. LSU-CEL-
82-05. 214 p.
Sikora, Walter B., Jean P. Sikora, and Anny M. Prior.
1981. Environmental effects of hydraulic dredging for clam
shells in Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Pub. No. LSU-
CEL-81-18. Ctr. Wetland Resources, LSU, Baton Rouge,
LA. ix + 140 p.

Stern, Daniel H. and Michele S. Stern.
1969. Physical, chemical, bacterial, and plankton dynamics
of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Louisiana Water Resources
Res. Inst. Tech. Rep. No. 4. vi + 60 p.

-49-

one, James H.
1980 [ed.] Environmental analysis of Lake Pontchartrain,
St Louisiana, its surrounding wetlands, and selected land
uses. Vols. 1 & 2. Ctr. Wetland Resources, LSU, Baton
Rouge, LA. LSU-CEL-80-08. Prepared for the U. S. Army
COE, Contract No. DACW29-77-C-0253. 1219 p.
Templet, Paul H.
1984. Lake Pontchartrain: A test case for special area
planning. Institute for Environmental Studies, LSU,
Baton Rouge, LA. 21 p.

-50-

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I'
b
U
k
U
k

--- I
, I
3 6668 14109 5499
1