[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
v MONITORING OF OPEN WATER DREDGE MATERIAL DISPOSAL OPERATIONS AT KENT ISLAND DISPOSAL SITE AND SURVEY OF ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS February, 1976 Jr- TC 187 CD .M66 1976 MONITORING OF OPEN WATrR DREDGE MATERIAL DISPOSAL OPERATIONS AT KENT ISLAND DISPOSAL SITE AND SURVEY OF ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC7, Final Report To The Maryland Department of Natural Resources Water Resources Administration And Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland Port Administration February, 1976 CREDITS Frank L. Hamons, Jr. Project Manager Maryland Water Resources Administration Consultants M. Grant Gross William B. Cronin Jeffrey A. Boggs Chesapeake Bay Institute The Johns Hopkins University Joseph M. Forns Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory Westinghouse Electric Corporation George E. Krantz University of Maryland Center for Estuarine and Environment Studies Horn Point Laboratories Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Environmental Health Administration Division of General Sanitation Funding Provided by The Maryland Department of Transportation Marvla.nd Port Administration PREFACE From February 19 to March 17, 1975, the Baltimore District Army Corps of Engineers conducted maintenance dredging operations in the Baltimore Harbor approach channels. The dredging occurred in the inbound or eastern side of the Brewerton cut-off and Craig- hill angles, and the material generated was disposed overboard onto the Kent Island Disposal, Site. Public notice of this operation was issued 1 November 1974, and a public hearing was conducted on 3 December 1974 in the City- of Baltimore on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay. In re- sponse to requests by the public, the Corps issued a supplemental public notice on 25 November 1974 and conducted an additional ses- sion of the public hearing on 5 December 1974 in the Town of Center- Ville, Queen Annes County, on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay. Public sentiment towards this project as expressed in the pub- lic hearings ranged from support by Bal timore Port and other shipping and boating interests to opposition by Maryland's seafood harvesters and by environmentalists. Opposition to the project focused pri- marily on the possible environmental consequences of ov erboard dis- posal at the Kent Island site. Opposition toward the dredging was seldom voiced. The position of the State of Maryland as expressed by the De- partment of Natural, Resources towards this maintenance dredging project was based on policy established in 1968. That policy has as its goal the elimination ofa''ll unconfined overboard disposal of Baltimore Harbor spoil in Chesapeake Bay. Until that goal is achieved, the State has specified that dredging projects in Balti- iv more Harbor be limited to those which are. criti,cally needed. For, those projects consideted.to be criti,cally needed, State policy allows for the overboard disposal of uncontaminated dredging ma- terial provided it is placed in the best available dumpsite in such a manner as to minimize Any environmental damage. On the basis of information provided the State by the Associ- ation of Maryland Pilots and confirmed by the Baltimore District, Army Corps of Engineers, shoaling conditions existing in the Balti- more Harbor approach channels in the Fall of 1974 constituted a serious hazard to navigation'. Under- e main- those circumstances, )t-li, tenance dredging of those shoals was considered to be critically needed. Analysis and evaluation by appropriate State and Federal agencies of the quality of the sediment to be dredged led to the designation of that sediment.as uncontaminated. Evaluation of disposal site alternatives by the State, which has theresponsi- bility of designating which sites may be used by the Corps, led -fo- the conclusion that Kent Island was the only feasible alternative meeting the Corps budgetary constraints within fiscalyear 1975. Based on these conclusions, the Kent Island disposal site was de- signated by the State January 29, 197-9,by letter from the Secretary of Natural Resources to the District Engineer, as the site to re- ceive the material generated by the proposed maintenance dredging. Because of the concern about possible deleterious effects of open water disposal of dredged material at the Kent Island si@E6_,'_an environmental impact monitoring program was initiated by the Water Resources Administration of the Department of Natural Resources. An agreement was made between the.Department of Natural Resources czp', ;,.?I L H PPS. JAMES 8. COULTER P I SECRETARY STATE OF MARYLAND SECRET; DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENERGY & COASTAL ZONE ADMINISTRATION TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILDING ANNAPOLIS 21401 April 27., 1976' orm Mr. John Sun NOAA-OCZM 3300 Whitehaven St.@ N.W. Page Building I Washington, D.C. 20235 Dear Ur--gun: This is to forward six copies of the report on Monitoring"of Open Water Dredge Material Disposa.1-0 Ibetations'at--@Kent Island Disposal Site and Survey of Associated Environmental Impacts...February 1976. The study was designed to monitor the .environmental impacts of open water disposal of dredged material at the.Kent Island site. Specifically, there were four (4) major areas of investigation : (1) accumulation and dispersal of:dredged material, (2) biological effects on clams and oysters, (3) impact on existing commercial shellfish populations and predominant benthic organisms, and (4) bacteriological and public health impacts. The study-detected a temporary impact caused by spoil disposal upon benthic organisms within the immediate dumpsite area,, but . observed no impact upon Natural Resources lying outside the charted dumpsite. The affected area did not involve nearby shellfish beds. Concurrent with an influx of freshwater from the Susquehanna River, potentially adverse impacts.to shellfish and other Natural Resources along the Kent Island shore were detected and identified as resulting from that influx. Additional copies of the report may be obtained from this office. Sincerely, Kenneth E. Perkins, Director Coastal Zone Management Program, E&CZA KEP:d1s Enclosures V and the Corps of Engineers that all dredging and disposal activities would immediately cease should any unexpected and deleterious ef- fects be identified by the monitoring activities. No such effects were identified and the dredging and disposal activities proceeded to conclusion. Field efforts were initiated on 14 February 1975 in order toachieve pre-disposal information about existing envir- onmental conditions at the Kent Island site and adjacent areas. The monitoring program was performed from February 14 to October 31, 1975 in order to provide opportunity to detect not only short-term dramatic impacts but longer term impacts which might become apparent only after seasonal changes in the environment. Sections II, III, IV and V of this report are presented in the format used by the consultants who worked on this project to report their findings to the State of Maryland. The decision to present those findings as individual sections of this final report was a de- cision of the project manager, and criticisms of any inconsistency of style are accrued thereto. Frank L. Hamons, Jr. Project Manager vi Brief History of the Kent Island Spoil Disposal Area The dumping ground for spoil disposal in the Chesapeake Bay off Kent Island was originally established by the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army in November 1924. This original disposal area extended from a position approximately 3.2 kilometers (1-3/4 miles) northwest of Love Point (approximately 390 , 03.41N lat.), in a south-southwest- ward direction along the natural deep channel of the Bay to a position due east of Sandy Point Light. The centerline length of the original disposal area was 5 kilometers (2.70 nautical miles) and the width averaged one kilometer (0.50 nautical miles). In June 1950, the dumping ground was extended southward to 390001N, an extension of just under one nautical mile. Again, in September 1960, the dumping ground was'extended southward some 760 meters (2500 feet), to a line running parallel to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge at a distance of 600 meters (.2000 feet) from the Bridge. At the same time, the-southern 2.0 kilometers (.1.1 nautical miles) of the dumping ground were widened toward the west by approximately 300 meters (1000 feet) . I Depths along the channel axis in the area covered by the dump- ing ground, prior to initiation of spoil disposal operations, were 20 to 22 meters (70-73 feet) over the northern three quarters of the area and 26 to 28 meters (86-95 feet) in the southern one quarter of the area. As originally svecified, water depths over the dumped material should not be less than 15 meters (50 feet) below MLW. In September 1960, this limit was reduced to 12 meters (40 feet) below MLW. A map of the disposal area follows. (Figure i-1). vii or Comm U. I ARM 1. w A L ell, lei' .......... .......... ... . SWAN POW Secriom LrI . . . . .; 77 -12 1 Figure i-l Map of dredged area and disposal site.. MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION ONE: Executive Summary . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 1 SECTION TWO: Accumulation and Dispersal of Dredged Materials - Chesapeake Bay Institute 17 TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Chapter 1. Excess Turbidity . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Chapter 11. Particle gizes ana ge@-@-ling Veloci@-y 41 Chapter III. Seismic Reflection Profiling Record s 48 Chapter IV. Bathymetric Reflection Profile Surveys 59 Chapter V. Coring Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Chapter VI. Susquehanna River Inputs . . . . . . . . 71 Appendicu A to E . . . . 1 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 SECTION THREE: Biological Effects on Clams and Oysters Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory 107 TABLE OP CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Abstract . . . . * , * 109 Chapter I. introduction* 110 Chapter II. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Chapter III. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 SECTION FOUR: Impact on Commercial Shellfish Stocks and Predominate Benthic Organisms - Chesapeake Biological Laboratory . . . . . 159 TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Chapter T. Tntroauc@-ion 161 Chapter II. Techniques and Ob@e@vLti-on*s*.*.*.'.*.*.' 165 Chapter III. Discussion and Conclusions . . . . o . . 188 Chapter IV. Summary of Project Findings . . . . . . 200 Appendices I to VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . 202 SECTION FIVE: Bacteriology and Public Health Impacts Md. Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene 284 TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 Abstract . . . . . . * * * * , * * * , * , * * , , , * 286 Chapter I. introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Chapter II. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Chapter III. Observations and Discussion . . . . . . 292 Chapter IV. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . 305 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 SECTION ONE: EXECUTIVE S17MMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose The purpose of this program was to monitor the Kent Island Disposal Site,and contiguous. areas for environmental impacts related to the open water disposal of dredged material at that site. Monitoring began February 14, 1975 in order to provide predisposal background information, continued during actual disposal operations (February 19 March 17, 1975), and concluded October 31, 1975. Methodology Specific operations performed for this program-are schematically depicted by Figure ES-1, and are defined as follows: 1. The initiating factor; the dumping or release of dr edged material onto the Kent Island site by the-Corps of Engineers hopper dredge ESSAYONS. 2. The charting of dispersal patterns of dredged material released onto the Kent Island site. The movement of this material was determined through studies of excess turbidity designed to measure the quantities and dispersal patterns of released dredged material being transported by tidal currents. This activity was of primary importance to the study because pollutants such as heavy metals, 3 FIGURE ES-1 KENT ISLAND MONITORING SURVEY FIELD OPERATIONS 4 Kent Island Monitoring Survey - Field Operations Key, Figure i-l Numbers Key 1. The initiating factor, dredged material disposal activity. 2. Charting of suspended dredged material dispersal patterns. Biological experiments, exposure of shellfish to disposal induced turbidity conditions. 4. Near-shore turbidity monitoring. 5. Monitoring for changes in sediment quality on shellfish beds. 6. Monitoring of benthic organisms, eg. oysters, soft shell clams, for changes in biological viability, pollutant buildup. 7. Charting of bottom topography to determine the amounts and possible movements of1deposited material. 8. Monitoring of water column and shellfish for Public Health Impacts involving bacteria, trace metals, and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Abbreviations Key COE - Corps of Engineers CBI - Chesapeake Bay Institute, Johns Hopkins University DHMH - Department of Hdalth and'Mental..Hygiene WORL - Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratories CBL - Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland, Center for Estuarine and Environmental Studies .","Won woo" "W"00" Chesapeake Bay 0 0 0 A4 C tzj OL. tLi 0 aj z 0 @1: 1-3 to > tj .-W J)9p 044 0 q 0 6 z H @d U1 40 j-. 0 z z T,, 00 0 tzj @-g C: F3 1P 0 .761 Public Cl arming tyi Grounds 0 Kent Island 6 chlorinated hydrocarbons and to a considerable extent bacteria are not independently carried by water but are sediment borne, and their dispersal from the point of release is largely dependent upon the movement of released sediment from that point. This operation was conducted by the Chesa- peake Bay Institute (CBI) with assistance from the Westinghouse Ocean-,,-Research Laboratories (WORL). 3. The exposure of selected stocks of oysters and soft shelled clams to various turbidity conditions created by the disposal of dredged material. This activity determined the impact of such conditions on animal health and pollutant u.ptake (metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons). Some chlorinated hydrocarbon-data is not yet available and will be issued as an addendum to this renort.@ Shellfishused were selected because of approximately equal meta- bolic rates to facilitate achieving consistent, meaningful results. For worst possible conditions (maximum exposure), racks of oysters and clams were suspended at normal growth depths near the disposal site in that area where maximum turbidity was expected to occur (3a). However, since such extreme conditions might actually inhibit shellfish respiration and consequently pollutant uptake, and for the purpose of detecting any movement of pollutants toward adjacent shellfish beds, racks of shellfish were placed at normal growth depths about halfway 7 between the disposal site and the nearest sh6ll?ish beds (3b). Turbidity conditions at this site were expected to be low to medium. For comparative purposes, shellfish were stationed at Hacketts bar on the Anne Arundel County shore (not shown.on Figure FS - 1). Considerable background information was available for this area, and it is unaffected by disposal activities at the Kent Island site. This operation was conducted by Westinghouse'Ocesan Research Laboratories (WORL) with analytical assistance provided by the Environ- mental Protection Agency, Annapolis Field office. 4. Near-shore turbidity monitoring, determining if water quality in these shallower shellfish growing waters altered signi ficati tly during disposal patterns detected by operation #2. This monitoring was conducted by the Cb,es&peake Biological Laboratory of the Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, University of Maryland (CBL). 5. Monitoring of sediment quality on shellfish beds from Swan Point in Kent County to Kentmoor on the Kent Island shore, to detect any change in constituents attributable to the disposal operation. This activity was conducted by the Maryland Water Resources Administration and.the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. 6. The monitoring of benthic organisms, including oysters, 8 (Crassostrea virginica), soft shelled clams (Mya arenaria), rangia clams (Rangia cuneata), and selected species of worms for any change of biological viability, or metals buildup. Benthic monitoring activities were conducted from Swan Point in Kent County to Kentmoor on the Kent. Island shore. Detected changes in these organisms were statistically compared to the sediment dispersal patterns to define any existing correlations. This activity was conducted by the Chesapeake Biological Laboratorv. 7. Charting of bottom topography for two reasons: (a) to facilitate measuring the amount of dredged material deposited, and (b) to allow continuing measu re- ments in order to assess whether or not the material stays in place, or is continously eroded away. Esti- mates of the amount of dredged material deposited in the disposal site were obtained from comparisons of detailed bathymetric and high- resolution seismic reflec- tion. profiles made in the disposal site prior to and immediately following the disposal operations. Selected studies wer6@made of the sediments and dredged wastes to determine certain physical and chemical parameters that would be useful in identifying wa@te deposits and in quantifying the volumes of wastes found in the depo- sits. This activity was conducted by the Chesapeake Bay Institute and the Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratories. 9 8. The monitoring of water column and shellfish for Public Health Impacts involving bacteria, trace metals, and chlorinated hydrocarbons by the disposal of dredged material. The ch.lorinated.hydrocarbon data was co- ordinated with the benthic organisms biological via- bility investigations as described in operation #6. The water column was sampled in.and around the dump- site, and in adjacent shellfish.waters from Swan Point to Kentmoor on the Kent Island shore. Shellfish were sampled from Swan Point to Kentmoor. This activity was conducted by the Environmental Health Administration of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH). Administration, coordination and focus for this program was provided by the Water Resources Administration. Funding was pro- vided by the Maryland Port Administration, Maryland Department of Transportation. Conclusions The Kent Island Spoil Disposal Monitoring Survey was designed to moni tor the environmental impacts of open water disposal of dredged material at the Kent Island site. Specifically there were four C4) major areas of investigation: (1) accumulation and dispersal of dredged material, C2) biological effects on clams and oysters, C3) impact on existing commercial shellfish populations and predominant benthic organisms, and (4) bacteri- ological and public health impacts. The following are conclusions 10 by survey participants in each of those study areas: Accumulation and Dispersal of Dredged Material - CBI, WORL 1. Within the disposal area, I'transmittance measurements were taken approximately 100 yards behind the Essayons while the spoil was released" ... "At D+30 (Dumt) and 30 min.), between (buoys) E and F, the transmittance had returned to normal background values", being appro- ximately 80% down to 8m, decreasing to about 20% at 14m, and 0 at 16m." 2. "Excess turbidity from the disposal operations extended to the surface within a few minutes after dum@ing began ... Although excess turbidity was most.noticeable at depths greater than 4m (13 ft.) to 10m (32 ft.)." 3. "At the site near the disposal area, the effects of dumping were detectable at depth.greater than 8m (25 ft.) immediately after disposal operations. One hour later ing was no at this site, the sediment from the dumpi longer -detectable; indeed the turbidity was slightly clearer then before dumping began. Comparable results were obtained on other days at locations near the dis- posal operation. These observations suggest that the plume of turbidity from dumpIng remained primarily at depths greater than 8m C25 ft.). at locations within a few hundred meters of the dumpsite." 4. Investigations indicate.that the material being dumped probably "settled to the bottom as a discrete mass with little or no material reachingthe surface. About 15 minutes after release most of the coarse materials had settled out of the water leaving a plume of turbid water a few meters thick that was moved by tidal cur- rents. After about two hours, the plume of turbid water had settled even more leaving only a thin layer of turbid water very near the bottom. This layer of turbid, near bottom water has been ascribed to resuspen- sion of sediment by action of tidal currents." 5. "Dur ing the course of this survey., we extended the seismic reflection lines well eastward of the dumpsite extension in order to cover the Broad Creek Oyster Bar. No accumulation of materials were noted in the post-dump survey lines. On the basis of these survey linea, it is clear that no detectable accumulation of new material Cspoil). was presented on this bar." "The presence of several mounds south of the marker buoys E and F suggest that (1) dumping of single loads took place in.stages; (2) release points varied, or (3) bottom currents redistributed the materials dumped between b uoys E and F "We are informed that the dumping routine remained the same throughout the period, and that a single release point was established for all dumping." "The third possibility ... is supported by measurements of strong near-bottom currents flowing about 1950, a trend nearly parallel with the alignment 12 of the separate mounds." 6. "On the basis of bathymetric change noted in the pre- and post-dump surveys we conc;uded that approximately 520,000 yds.3 of newly deposited material (presumably spoil), can be identified within and slightly to the east of the Kent island Dumpsite extension on the old dumpsite." Identification of new material accumulations was also attempted by seismic reflection techniques (isopach construction), but imprecision led to aban- donment of that method. "The fact that some of the material was app arently deposited slightly east of the boundary is not significant, since our records indicate no significant spoil accumulation has occurred in the Broad Creek Oyster Bar east of the dumpsite. Discrepancies between the amount dredged (as reported by the.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and that'deter- mined by our study indicates that about 338,000 yds.3 (256,000m3) have been deposited elsewhere." "In other words, 60.6% of the material transported by the ESSAYONS could be detected in the designated disposal site." 7. Comparison of the two post-operational surveys shows no compelling evidence for removal" (by normal tidal action) "of dredged materials from the disposal site." Biological Effec,ts, on Clams and* Oysters - WORL S. "There was no compelling evidence of increased metal 13 ,uptake of the oysters or clams due to dredging and spoil disposal for cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel and zinc ... no obvious increases in heavy metals with-in exposed shellfi,sh can be attributed to the di'sposal operations off Kent Island during February - March.1975." "The health and viability of clams and oysters were affected more by natural physical phenomena during these investigations than by dredge disposal operations." Iynpact on Existing Commercial Shellfish Stocks and Predominant Benth-ic Otganisids' -'. CBI;,r' WRA 9- "Spoil disposal operations at Kent Island may have increased turbidity at water depths greater than 40 feet but only in an area immediately adjacent to the disposal site." 10. "Increased levels of turbidity at the disposal site in deeper water (greater than.40 feet) were.noted before and two months after spoil disposal operations." 11. "There was no evidence'of sediment from spoil dis- posal operations impinging on.commercially important shellfish beds." 12. "There was no detectable mortality or change in health status in oysters, soft shell clams or other benthic organisms on commercially important shellfish beds that could be related to spoil disposal operations." 14 13. "There was no significant increase in heavy metal concentrations in oysters, soft clams and Rangia clams. Each species seems to concentrate a dif ferent metal from the environment." 14. "Documentation of the influx of low salinity, highly turbid, and bacterially contaminated water from the Susquehanna River over commercially important shell- fish beds in,the Upper Bay provides an explanation of some of the problems of shellfish health and shell- fish bacteri4l quality previously encountered by State agencies. 15. "Rangia clams are experiencing a significant mortality (throughout the Upper Bayl which, may be related to their environmental intolerance to northern winter conditions." This phenomenon is not related to the dumping activity. 16. "Changes in the benthic community at the dumpsite were transitory and the spoil was recolonized by benthic forms within thirty to sixty days." 17. "Population levels of oysters in the Upper Bay are extremely low and no recruitment has occurred for years while commercial harvest has continued with maximum effectiveness. Meat quality of oysters above the Chesapeake Bay bridge is very poor, and histopatho- logy suggests extreme stress from a toxic agent com- plicated by exposure to fresh water." Bacteriological and Public Health Impacts 18. "Bacteriological water quality, described in terms of organisms of the fecal coliform group, reflected no significant degredation resulting from disposal opera- tions. Runoff occurring after heavy rainfall in late February had an impact upon bacteriological water quality that could have masked the effects of the spoil disposal operation." 19. "Bacterial concentrations in marketable shellfish collected throughout the study-indicate that no signi- ficant bacteriological uptake occurred." 20. "Levels of trace metals, PCBs and chlorinated hydro- carbons in shellfish collected throughout the study indicate that no sIgnifIcant increase was.observed." Some of the most important results of this survey may re- sult from the coincidental monitoring of a major i ,nflux of fresh water from the Susquehanna River. This influx peaked at Conowingo Dam on February 26, 1975 at a discharge rate of 369,200 cfs., and within a three-day period brought with it about 90% of a normal year's sediment discharge. It increased surface.turbidity above the Bay Bridge to the extent that the effects of the dumping were indistinguishable. Salinities for a period of weeks were lowered below 5 ppt (parts per thousand) which is consid ered a criti cal minimum for most shellfish. Coinciding with this influx, some increases in concentra- 16 tions of bacteria and metals in shellfish, and J?acteria in the water column were detected. These increases occurred equally at all sample stations, leading survey participants to conclude tha t these impacts were definitely caused by the fresh water in- flux. The increases were not significant because of size, but because of their relationship with,the Susquehanna input. For example, previous Health Department research has indicated that low salinities (below 7 ppt) seem to precipitate increases of bacteria in shellfish. If a line. is drawn down the Kent shore to outline recorded flow patterns of the fresh.water, it impacts at Love Point, runs down the shore-to about Kentmoor and veers off towards the western shore. This coi ncides almost exactly with previous late spring, early,summer Health Department closures due to high bacterial counts,in shellfish. At this time, there is insufficient data on this phenomenon to fully explain it, but further study is considered essential. In summary, monitoring of Natural Resources by this survey detected a temporary impact caused by spoil disposal to benthic organisms within the immediate dumpsite area, but no impact to Natural Resources lying outside the charted dumpsite was seen. The affected area did not involve nearby shellfish beds. Con- current with an influx of freshwater from the Susquehanna River, potentially adverse impacts to shellfish and other Natural Resources along the Kent Island shore were detected and identified as result- ing from that influx. SECTION TWO: ACCUMULATION AND DISPERSAL OF DREDGED MATERIALS KENT ISLAND DISPOSAL SITE, 1975 William B. Cronin M. Grant Gross Jeffrey A. Boggs Harold D. Palmer* Jeffrey, L. Nolde-r* Donald G. Wilson* Chesapeake Bay Institute The John Hopkins University Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory* Annapolis, Maryland 21202 8 December 1975 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. EXCESS TURBIDITY Page Suspended sediment conce ntratibris .. . . . . . . . . . 22 Background observations . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Excess turbidity during disposal operations . . . . . 24 Turbidity following the ES-SAYONS . . . . . . . . . . . 424 Turbidity. at, a, location near the'disposal site . . . . 28 Excess turbidity in a water parcel . . . . . . . . . . 36 CHAPTER II. PARTICLE SIZES AND SETTLING VELOCITIES . . . . 41 Settling Velocities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Particle Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 42 CHAPTER III. SEISMIC REFLECTION PROFILING RECORDS 48 CHAPTER IV. BA THYMETRIC REFLECTION PROFILE SURVEYS 60 Results 60 CHAPTER V. CORING OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 CHAPTER VI. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER INPUTS .1 . . . . . . . . . . 71 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 A. Characteristics of Dredge ESSAYONS and R/V 80 D. W. PRITCHARD . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 B. Navigational and field techniques . . . . . . . . 82 C. Temperature and salinity observations and background data: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 D. Observations of suspended sediment concen- trations and current speeds . . . . . . . . . . 100 E. Flow of Susquehanna River at Conowingo, Maryland, 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 19 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page I-1. Suspended sediments (mg/Lj vs. transmittance ....... 23 -1-2. Background transmissivity between F, & F dumping buoys 390 001 54" N 760 211 31" W ..................... 25 1-3. Tabular and,graphic transmittance (%), between E & F and at 11 stations (17 March 1975) .............. 26 1-4. Station locations@for background transmissivity, 17 March 1975 ......................................... 27 1-5. % transmittance prior, during, and following dump (25 February 1975). Background levels and excess turbidity 5 minutes after dumpinq'(D + 5) are indicated ......................................... 30 1-6. % transmittance between E & F prior, (D - 120), at start (D - 0), and post (D + 60) 26 February 1975 near dump area.....i ..... I ............................. 31 1-7. % transmi-tance prior and post dump from a nearby fixed station (11 Marcli 1975, 100.m E of dump), ......... 32 1-8. % transmittance during dump 30.m of dump area (1, 2 3); 200m W C4),,126 February 1975 ............... 33 1-9. % transmittance following current drogue set at 12m (vertical scale reads from bottom to surface to give common origin for different depths of stations) 11 March 1975 ......................................... 34 1-10. Track of current drogue at 12m (11 March-1975) ........ 35 I-11. Temporal sediment suspension Cin transmittance %) following dump at 1400 - 11 March 1975 ................ 37 1-12. Probable behavior of plume of dredqed materials and turbid water following disposal by hopper dredge in the open waters of the Kent Island site...'.. 39 II-1. Grain diameter Cmicronsl, surface, 11 Marc h 1975 ....... 43 20 LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Page 11-2. Grain diameter (microns) mid-depth (10m), 11 March 1975 ......................................... 44 11-3. Grain diameter (mi,crons)bottom C16m)-, 11 March 1975 ......................................... 45 III-1. Isopach maps of thickness, acoustically transparent sediments ............................................. 51 111-2. Bathymetric charts for pre-dump (left), post-dump (center) and difference (right) ....................... 52 111-3 Pre-dump profile run 17 January 1975 .................. 53 111-4. Typical fathometer records showing bottom topography and deposits of dredged materials, Kent Island Disposal s'lte .......................................... 54 111-5. ..... 55 111-6. 56 '111-7. ..... 57 IV-1. Bottom topography prior and post dump ................. 60 IV-2. Comparison of bottom,topography in disposal site before disposal and about 250 days after cessation of disposal operations ...................... 61 V-1. Station locations, core and grab samples, 25 March, 2 April, 9 April 1975 .................................. 615 V-2. Schematic of cores taken 25 March 1975 .....* ........... 66 V-3. Water content W and sediment descriptions of cores 1 - 3, 25 March 1975 ............................. 67 V-4. Core and microcore locations . ........................ 70 VI-1. Susquehanna River flow at Conowingo, MD 1928-1975 ..... 72 Conowingo, MD 1975 .................................... 73 VI 2. Weekly average Susquehanna River discharges at VI-3. Recurrence intervals of peak river flows at Conowingo, MD (natural flow) (after U.S. Geological Survey) ................................ 74 21 LIST OF FIGURES (continued Page VI-4. Weekly average discharges of suspended sediment at Conowingo, MD 1975 ............... ................. 76 VI-5. Susquehanna sediment,discharge Cshort tons/day, metric tons/da@y) during period of dredged material disposal .............................................. 77-1 B-1. Tide corrections for pre-dump (14 February) and post-dump C18'Marchl, surveys .......................... B-2. Approximations, used in determining volumes ............ 87 C-1. Temperature OC at back-ground station between . dump buoys E.& F ...................................... 9@4 C-2. Background salinity between dump buoys E & F ...... 94 C-3. Temperature (OC) January 1972-75 ...................... 95 C-4. Salinity January 1972-75 .......................... 96 C-5. Temperature (?C) February 1972-75 ..................... 97 C-6. Salinity (%.) February 1972-75 ......................... 99 C-7* Temperat Iure (oC) March 1972-75 ........................ 99 C-8. Salinity March 1972-75 ............................ 100 D-1. Tabular background transmissivity ..................... 101 E-1. Conowingo flow data ................ I ................... 103 22 CHAPTER I: EXCESS TURBIDITY Excess turbidity was measured by observing optical trans- mittance (the ratio of light transmitted to the 'Incident light) prior to dumping and comparing the results to observations made at varying times after disposal operations began. Details of the transmissometer used and observing techniques are described in Appendix B. Optical properties of seawater and their determi- nation were discussed by Williams (.1970). Suspended sediment concentrations, Measurements of opti cal transmittance can be related in the laboratory to suspended sediment concentrations using known concentrations of sediment. Results of these experiments are shown in Figure 1-1. Background observations Transmissometer observations made between dumping buoys & F before dumping began showed generally homogeneous, relatively clear water (65 - 85% transmittance)-with two exceptions. (Note that high- transmittance indicates low sediment concentra- tions.) During the period of high Susquehanna runoff, the tur- bidity decreased to 35 40% transmittance in the upper 4 meters of water. Suspended sediment brought down from the Susquehanna River in the period of high runoff 25 February - 2 March is the most likely cause. The second unusual occurance was observed from 12m depth to the bottom and was readily apparent on two dates, 25-26 February, again during the period of high runoff. 23 100 80 E z w 60 w Cn 40 w z w Cn D 20 Cn 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 TRANSMITTANCE Figure I-1. Suspended sediments (mg/k.) vs transmittance 24 At these times the bottom currents were measured at 1.86 knots (93 cm/sec); this could cause the bottom sediments to be resus- pended giving high turbidities. These results are shown in Figure 1-2 and in Appendix 0. A typical background observation, taken on 17 March 1975, shows no effect either from runoff or spoil disposal. At that time transmittance ranged from a mimimum of 74.3% to a maximum of 91.5%, averaging 81.8% for eleven stations both in and south of the disposal area. Figure 1-3 shows the tabular and graphical transmission percentages and Figure 1-4, the station locations. Observations made on the ebbing tide gave no indication of resuspension of bottom sediments. Excess turbidity during disposal operations Transmittance during disposal operations was measured by three methods: (1) observations were made behind the ESSAYONS while dumping was taking place and comparing with transmission before and after the dumpi see 25 February 75, Figure 1-5 and 1-6; (2) measurements were made before, during and after dump from a fixed station 100m east and slightly south of the buoys E & F which marked the dump site boundary, see 11 March 1975, Figure 1-7 and 1 8; and (3) the shio followed a current drogue which was set at 12m behind the ESSAYONS during the dump, see 11 March 1975, Figures 1-9 and I-10. Turbidity following the ESSAYONS Following the ESSAYONS (see Figure 1-5), transmittance M, M-nN 0 W, a a DEPTH (M) 0) 4h, rla 0 00 0) wo 0 Ca @..n @-i > - 1050 5 MA Z !R@ ca cn 0 @l - H. K En 0 P. ci- z 0 1 105 25 FE C+ m :K (D M 10 12 00 26 FE 0- OD 1050 1 1 MA 0- 1345 17 MA pj - '3@ P, Oil I 00) LM CA W 0 0 0 0 0 DEPTH FT.) 26 Sta Min Av Max Sta 0 S 9 80.2 81.6 84.1 1 2 7 79.1 80.6 81.5 3 10 4 1 80.9 86.0 90.0 9 BETWEEN 20. 6 1 80.4 88.4 91.5 9 E F 8 1 74.3 81.7 91 .5 11 8 11 STATION 3 0' AVERAGE -10 10 1 77.5 82.6 88.9 11 12 1 80.3 83.6 88.4 10 -12 40 U- -14 14 80.6 81.8 83.3 8 X X 50 F- 16 0- (L 16 5 78.2 80.5 82.6 9 W W -18 60 18 4 77.4 79.2 82.7 9 Sta -20 7&8 f20 7 76.6 77.4 78.0 8 7 0 only 22 Sta 22 11 77.6 81.3 83.7 10 9-11 f only 24 11 75.4 79.1 81.4 9 60 80. 100 TRANSMITTANCE (%) Figure 1-3. Tabular and graphic transmittance (%T) between E & F and at 11 stations (17 March 1975). 27 KENT ISLAND DUMPING GROUNDS TIVI STATIONS 17 MARCH 1975 2C 02 01, E Ft 2 03 5 0 ro 4 390 7k 0 .5 1 r- I NAUTICAL MILE 90 -K E N T 10 59 0 .1 S L A N D- Oil 23 22' 760 2 1' 0 E Ft 003 6 Figure 1-4. Station locations for background transmissivity, 17 Mar 1975. 28 measurements were taken approximately one hundred yards behind the ESSAYONS while the spoil was released. Curve D - 40 was taken between buoys E & F forty minutes prior to the dump and D - 0 shows how the transmittance decreased to 0 - 30% at 4m (extremely variable) and to 0% at 8m. Five minutes later at the same loca- tion, the turbidity had reached almost a constant 35% transmit- tance from the surface to 8m with most of the mixing due to the. passage of the ship. Below 8m the transmittance sharply decreased to 7% at 12m, 3% at 14m, and 0% at 16m. At D + 15, between E & F, the surface to 4m transmittance had cleared to normal and there- after slowly decreasing to 0% at 16m. At D + 30, between E & F, the transmittance had returned to normal background values. values higher than the original background at D - 40 are attri- buted to replacement of the water by the ebbing tide (tidal stage--just before slack flood). As Figure 1-5 indicates, excess turbidity from the disposal operations extended to.the surface within a few minutes after dumping began (D + 5) although excess turbidity was most notice- able at depths greate r than 4m (13 ft.) to 10m (30 ft.). Turbidity at a location near the disposal site Percent transmittance between E and F prior,(D - 120 minutes) at start (D - 0) and post (D + 60) .(26 February 75) is shown in Fiqure 1-6. This figure shows a transmittance of 75 - 80% down to 10m, decreasing to 30% at 14m pri or to dump time. This decreased to 60 70% from surface to 6m and suddenly dropped to 29 15% at 8m and slowed to approximately 0%,at 10m during the dump- ing time.: At IT) + 60 the entire column had returned to between 60 - 15% transmittance. Transmittance prior to (D - 10 minutes) and following dump times (D + 30, D + 55) were made from a nearbY fixed station 100m east'of and slight ly south of E and F Csee Figure 1-7, 11 March 1975). At D-10 minutes before dump time, the trans- mittance was between 65 - 80%. One-half hour after the dump, the transmittance had recovered to the same value down to 12m and dropped to 20% at 13.5m and 4% at 16m. Fifty-five minutes following the dump, the transmittance had recovered to 14m and dropped to 12% at 16m. See Figure 1-8 for transmittance during dump times of the dump CD - 0, D + 5, D + 151 at stations 30 meters out of the dump area and 200 meters west of the dump area. Station locations and %-transmittance curves are also shown on Figure 1-8. Transmittancevaried between,25 50% from the surface down to 8m and then to 0% at 12 - 14m except at the 200m W sta- tion where transmittance remained between 36 - 47% over the entire depth. Suspended sediment samples taken during these stations read 500 - 700 mg/1 at 14m depth. At the site near the disposal area,.the effects of dumping were detectable (Fiq. 1-6) at depth greater than 8m (25 ft.) immediately after disposal operations. One hour later at this site, excess turbidity from the dumping was no longer detectable; 30 S 0 D+ 0 110 4 6 20 D+5 D+15 D+40 84 U- D-40 30 10 W 12 EXCESS TURBID1 TY -40 14 BACKGROUND 50 18 60 0' 20 40 60 80 100 TRANSMITTANCE MY Figure 1-5. % transmittance prior, during, and following dump (25 Feb 75). Background levels and excess turbidity 5 minutes after dumping (D + 5) are indicated. S 0 2 10 4 2 6 .-20 U- D-0 8 -30 D+60 a. 10-- 12 12 0 -40 14 50 16 0 20 40 60 80 100 TRANSMITTANCE (%) Figure 1-6. transmittance between E and F prior, (D 120), at start (D - 0), and post (D + 6o) 26 Feb 75 near dump area. ,12 S 0 2 10 4 6 -20- D-Ior 8 - T CL 30 10- 12 - -40 D+30 14- D +-55 - 50 16 0 20 40 60 80 100 TRANSMITTANCE (%) Figure 1-7. % transmittance prior and post dump from a nearby fixed station (11 Mar 75, 100 m E of dump). 39001'- 2 3 39* 23 22' 76*21' S 0 3 D + 15) 2 10 4 6 -20 I (D-0) 2 D+5) M 8 30 U, 10 12, -40 14@@ 4 D + 30). 50 161 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 0 20 40 60 so 100 TRANSMITTANCE M. Figure 1-8. % transmittance during dump 30 m E-of dump area (1, 2, 3); 200 m W (4),, 26 Feb 75.. / '2 @3 34 16 14 50 C) 12 D+O 40" 0 D- 180 10 TO D -30 0 30 8 AV D+ 15 U) ir -20 W a. W 4 D+140 D+120 -10 D+8 0 0 0 20 40 -60 80 100 T RANSMITTANCE M) Figure 1-9. % transmittance following current drogue set at 12 m (vertical scale reads from bottom to surface to give common origin for different depths of stations) 11 Mar 75. 35 KENT ISLAND DUMPING GROUNDS CURRENT DROGUE 11 MARCH 1975 '2C lilt# 1640 02 1615 1549 01 1 14 57. E Ft 1445- 1436- 1354 390 0 .5 I NAUTICAL MILE K E N T 591 A.'ISLAND 23' 22' 760 21' 0 @F t 135@ Fi6ure I-10, Track of current drogue at 12 m (11 Mar 75). 36 indeed the turbidity was slightly clearer than before dumping began. Comparable results were obtained on other days at-loca- tions near the disposal operation. These observations suggest that the plume of turbidity from dumping remained primarily at depths greater than 8m (25 ft.) at locations within a few hundred meters of the dump site. Excess turbidity in a water,parcel A study was made of the plume of turbid water formed by a single disposal operation. In this experiment, a drogue was set at 12m (40 ft.) on a flooding tide at .390 001 37" N, 760 21' 33" W The boat tracked the drogue, thus staying in the same water, and periodically measu red water turbidity. Results are shown in Figure I-11. Immediately following the discharge, the top of the turbid cloud was.observed at approximately 5m (16 ft.). Fifteen minutes later, the top of the turbid water was at approximately 8m (25 ft.) and at approximately 15m (50 ft.) at 80 minutes after the release. After 80 minutes, turbidity in the water column was essentially normal except near the bottom. Note that there was no evidence from this set of observa- tions to indicate that the plume of.turbid water reached within 5m of the surface. If we assume that the ship was indeed able to stay in the plume for the period of.observations and further that particles settled out by gravitational settling, the data indicate settling 37 HOURS 0 2 1400 1415 1520 1600 1625 D D+15 D +80 D+120 D +145 S. S -10 4- PRE-DUMP 60 BACKGROUND 6- -20 U_ X lo- -30 a. W W 12- 40 14- 0 0 -50 181 0.35 0.67 0.72 0.69 AVERAGE CURRENT VELOCITIES (FLOODING) Figure I-11. Temporal sediment suspension (in transmittance %) following dump at 1400 11 March 1975. 38 rates of 0.2 to 0.4 cm/s ec (0-08 to 0.16 inches/sec.). Figure 1-12 shows hypothesized behavior of the plume of dredged materials released during'disposal operations. The material originally settled to the bottom as a discrete mass with little or no material reaching the surface. About 15 minutes after release most of the course materials had settled out of the water leaving a plume of turbid water a few meters thick that was moved by tidal currents. After about two hours, the plume of turbid water had settled even more leaving only a thin layer of turbid water very near the bottom. This layer of turbid, near bottom water has been ascribed to resuspension of sediment by the action of tidal currents. 39 D+O min FINE SEDIMENT 60 Feet (20m) OARSE SEDIMENT D + 15 min TURBID WATER SPOIL DEPOSITS' 2T@ CEO-min D+ 120 min - @-T 71@ ATEJR @W __j Figure 1-12.. Probable behavior of plume of dredged materials and turbid water following disposal by hopper dredge in the open waters of the Kent Island site. 40 REFERENCES Schubel, J:,R. 1968. Suspended Sediment of the Northern Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Institute. The Johns Hopkins University Technical Report 35, Ref. 68-2. Schubel,,J.R. 1972. The Physicaland Chemical Conditions of the Chesapeake Bay. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. '62:57-87. Williams, J. 1970. Optical Properties of the Sea. United States .Naval Institute. Annapolis, Md. 123 pp. 41 CHAPTER II. PARTICLE SIZES AND SETTLING VELOCITIES Settling Velocities Movement of sediment particles released to Chesapeake Bay by disposal operations can be evaluated in two ways. First, if the spoil were thoroughly dispersed by mixing with a large volume of water (relative to the amount of sediment involved) the particles would settle slowly as predicted by Stokes law. For examRje, a sediment particle 10 microns in diameter(density 2.6 g/cjt@3) would have a settling velocity of about 4 X' 10-3 cm/sec (1.5 x 10-4 ft/sec) and would require 10,day,s to'settle through 40 meters (130 ft) of water. 'Particles 100 microns in diameter would have a settling velocity of 0.4 cm/sec (0.015 ft/sec) and would require about 2 1/2 hours to settle through the same water column.. In the presence of strong tiAal @curreats, thoroughly dispersed par- ticles could be carried long distances in Chesapeake Bay. Instead of individual particles settling through the water, the dredged spoil could remain as a discrete mass and settle as a unit through the water. Such vertical density currents have been ob- served in laboratory experiments where sediment-water slurries sink at rates 50 times more rapid than the settling velocities of individual particles (Bradley, 1965). Such currents are likely formed when hopper dredgeg discharge. If so, the bulk of spoils should settle out of the water within a few minutes. Behavior of the waste plume for a bottom -opening hopper barge has been modelled by Koh and Chang (1.973). While the model was formulated for deep ocean conditions (S = 37109, T--20C), it could probably be used in Chesapeake Bay, ignoring tidal current effects. 42 Particle Size Particle sizes of suspended materialat the Kent Island Disposal Site were measured in a small number of samples to investigate the probable sources of turbidity and to provide data needed for analy- sis of settling velocities and possible dispersion by tidal cur- rents. Sampling and analytical procedures are described in Appen- dix B. Samples were-taken at surface, middle, and near-bottom depth in the Bay between the bouys used to mark the location for starting dumping operations; sampling was done prior to and just after dump- ing. The data (Figures 11-1, 11-2, 11-3) indicate that on March 11, 1975 the surface particles were identical before and after dumping vof 10A). Greatest change in particle qAze was observed in the mid-depth and near-bottom samples where the volume mean diameter (Dv) of the particles were 15 microns before dumping and 30 microns afterward at mid-depth and 12 microns before and 24 after dumping in near-bottom waters. Schubel (1968) reported Dvvalues of 4 to 28 microns in 1966 and 1967, with particle size gradually increasing with depth. Schubel considered Dv values 10 to 15 microns to be representative of the Upper Bay. Comparable measurements of the mean Stokes diameter gave the following results: Mean Stokes Diameter @(mkcrons) 75% of observation (Range) Surface ..2.3 - 4.0 (2.3 - 6.OA) Mid-depth 3.4 - 6.0 (3.4 - 6.8) Near-bottom 4.2 - 8.0 (4.2 - 12.2) 43 10 100 99.9 99.8- to 99, z 98 UJ 95 Uj >' 90 80 70 60 D -J 50 0 > 40 1 1 MARCH 75 STA. E-F 1100, 1400 30 SURFACE 20 BEFORE DUMP .......... AFTER DUMP 1 0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1 3 6 10 30 60 100 GRAIN DIAMETER, Dv IN MICRONS Figure II-1. Grain diameter (microns) surface, 11 Mar 75. 44 0 10 100 99'.9 99.8- \% 99 0 98 z 95 - Uj 90 - < 80 - _j 70 - 60 50 I IMARCH 75 40 0 > STA. E-F 1100, 1400 30 MID-DEPTH ( 10 m) 20 -BEFORE DUMP ......... AFTER DUMP 10 0.1 0.3 0.6 1 3 6 10 30 60 100 GRAIN DIAMETER, Dv IN MICRONS Figure 11-2. Grain diameter (microns) mid-depth (10 m) 11 Mar 75. 45 q 99.9 10 100 99.8 99 98 z 95 Cr go % < 80 70 - 60 - Uj 50 D -I I MARCH 75 -j 40 > STA. E-F 1100, 1400 30 , -BOTTOM 06M) 20 BEFORE DUMP ---.AFTER DUMP 10 0.1 0.3 0.6 1 3 6 10 30 60.100 GRAIN DIAMETER, Dv IN M I CRONS Figure 11-3. Grain diameter (microns) bottom (16 m), 11 Mar 75. 46 Note that the Stokes diameters, based on settling velocities are approximately half of the volume mean diameters. In general, Stokes diameters will be used in estimating settling velocities and tidal current transport. The data collected indicate that the particles in the disposal area were relatively large compared to normal particle sizes ob- served in the Bay. This could be either the result o f previous dispos al operations or the result of the large sediment discharge from the Susquehanna River during the two weeks preceding the study. it is also apparent that the particles in the materials being dumped are substantially larger than those normally present in the area. The larger particle size promotes rapid settling of particles out of the water and therefore minimizes transport by tidal currents. 47 REFERENCES Biggs, R.B. 1968. Environmental Effects of overboard Spoil Disposal. Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engr. (Sanitary Engr. Div.) SA3(5979):477-487. Bradley, W.H. 1965. Vertical Density Currents. Science,.1.5-O..:1423-1428. Koh, R.C.Y. and Y.C. Chang. 1973. Mathematical Model for Barged Ocean Disposal of Wastes. EPA-660/2-73-029. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Envir. Prot. Ag. Wash. DC. 178p. Kolessar, M.A. 1965. Some Engineering Aspects of Disposal of Sediments Dredged from Baltimore Harbor. p.613-617. In Proceedings of the Federal Inter-Agency SedimentatioE-- Conf. 1963. Misc.Publ. No. 970 Agricultural Research Serv. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Wash. D.C. 933p. Mauriejlo, L.J. and L. Caccese. 1965. Hopper Dredge Disposal Techniques and Related Developments in Design and Development. p.598-613. In Proceedings of the Federal Inter-Agency SedimentatiZ;_n Conf. 1963. Misc. Publ. No. 970. Agricultural Research Serv. U.S. Dept. of Agricul- ture. Wash., DC. 933p. Schubel, J.R. 1968. Suspended Sediment of the Northern Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Institute. The Johns Hopkins University Technical Report 35. Ref. 68-2., 48 CHAPTER III. SEISMIC REFLECTION PROFILING RECORDS On January 17, 1975, prior to initiation of disposal operation s in the Kent Island site, several high resolution seismic reflec- tion profiles were obtained along tracks normal to the long axis of the designated,disposal area. In'certain,s,egments of the Upper Chesapeake Bay, seismic reflec- tion surveys have encountered regions of "acoustically transparent" materials. Palmer (1972, 1974) has presented records from the Chester River which contain examples of such features, and others have reported similar observations. Schubel (1974) and Schubel and Schiemer C1973)discuss the general lack of success in profiling surveys in most areas of the Upper Bay, a situation which they ascribe to the presence of gas in the Bay sediments. We have ex- perienced similar difficulties, but in certain areas penetration in excess of 30.feet (10 m) has been achieved. Cores from both the "soft" or acoustically transparent materials and from the "hard" areas which exhibit no penetration reveal marked differences in physical properties. The corer employed weighed approximately 80 pounds and was dropped from a height of 12 feet above the bottom. Penetration. in the soft materials was about 46 inches (106 crft) while in the hard materials it was 11 inches (27 cm). The hard bottom consists of a stiff grey clay, while the softer materials are loose grey to grey-black silt andclay. Water content of the soft sediments was 62 - 69%; that of the hard materials 49 - 55%. We believe that these softer sediments represent recent Bay muds which have filled in old topographic surfaces which originated during a lower stand of sea level. For reference, the water content of spoil 49 material Csee Chapter V) ranges from 10% to 25% higher than for the hard areas. originally, it was felt that determination of the difference in thickness resulting from comparison of the pre- and post-dump. surveys would provide a better measure of the volume of materials accumulated during spoil disposal than would bathymetric difference. This is- due to the fact that should compaction of the Bay sedii- ments beneath the spoil mound occur, the net difference in batliy- metry would not represent the true@v-olume,lbut some value less by the amount of depression of the older surface. Therefore, isopach- maps (Figure III-1) were prepared for those areas displaying acoustically transparent materials. Thickness Cisopach) lines-wer .e pre-pared as in.th-e- technique em- ployed for bathy-metric difference. the final difference in thick- ness CFigure 111-2, right) was drawn, and planimetry of the contours produced a volume of 1,101.9 x 10'3 yds-3. This amount is in ex- ces@s of the volume dredged (840 x 103 yds3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data, personal communication, Frank HamOns, 19751,, and sources of the error are considered to lie in the resolution of the lower reflecting horizon forming the contac t between the spoil and the Bay floor. Inspection of the pre-and post-dump surface benea th accumulations of spoil shows no measurable depression of Bay floor. Similarly, the records from a January 1975 cruise (Figure 111-3) (pre-dump'inspection).suggest that no compaction of the bottom has occurred under older spoil mo unds, but since we. have no earlier survey data, this question must remain open. During the course of this survey, we extended the'seismic re- flection lines well eastward of the dumpsite extension in order to 50 cover the Broad Creek oyster bar. No accumulations of materials were noted in the post-dump survey lines. On the basis of these survey lines, it is clear that no detectable accumulation of new material (spoil) was present on this bar. The presence of several mounds south. of the marker bouys E and F suggest that: (1) dumping of single loads took place in stage-s-r-' (2) release points varied, or (3) bottom currents redistributed the materials dumped between bouys E and F. (See Figs. 111-4 through- 111-7.1 We are informed that.the'dumping routine*.'re- mained the same throughout the period, and that a single release point was established for all duMping. The third possibility, distribution by bottom currents, is supported by measurements of strong near-bottom currents flowing about 1950, a trend nearly parallel with the alignment of the separate mounds. This, plus the displacement of spoil fIne-s-'to the south (discussed elsewhere), points to a hydrodynamic factor as the cause of this distribution. It is well-known that finer material can accumulate in discrete deposits behind obstructions to flow. It may be that the distribu- tion shown in Figure 111-2 reflects a hydraulic response to lee effects behind the major deposit between the two bouys but at present, we can only speculate as to the efficiency of such a mechanism. on own WIN NOWN010 Mlow M, toplow 12 6 + 0 3 0 16 3 1 3 12 Un 33 6 3b 3 24 9 6 9 AD 18 12 '6 ,Is 0 PRE DUMP THICKNESS POST DUMP THICKNESS THICKNESS DIFFERENCE Figure III-1. Isopach maps of thickness, acoustically transparent sediments. Note buried channel at left (westl of the dumpsite extension. Pre-dump (-left), post-dump (center) and difference (x.ight) axe in feet. 56 0 Ul 0 6- 0 PRE DUMP BATHYMETRY POST DUMP BATHYMETRY BATHYMETRY DIFFERENCE Figure 111-2. Bathymetric chaxts for pre-dump (left), post-dump (center).and. difference (right). Contours are in feet. M m --,7777 a 7-1,77, 77 77- 7 777, .. . . . . . ......... M"d _0 7F, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -7, -t S-1-0 IT -7 _Q- 7`- j INU,2_ @P- 4_4=00, _RINA md- W @h AL . . . . .. i8, aiz 0- P M, -6 f p ZIT, IRJ @'il _W R RS12 07 F J, . ..... @@1_11 'JI 25"1 n- N R1 Ui, x`_ t $ ,@q""gm @-F _'2 a. ... .. y 77",@ tt @@igj @ @F- _," , _,- - y", Rtd --FO I- 2-K 7 A 7, A, 'AN M 7@,@ A 3 77 "Y" f Z" -F M '44 g =4, - N, A 4 g" z 0 44 -- 1_@kA 44_3 RN -2m i", P _5 C J 22-f Ln W P", `02 @A J r4 4S, -N @W- "F14 N-- K 4- --Z A', r"M U1 R@ 'E'W! _4 V A K?@@ Z1, ""t J M x@, @ 4,24 '6- Z @_U, W@E,1_11__f @@F SM .1,61,11, M,N, III-El, ROW J@ NIV -M-1 -E@_"J OT 's M M t@ V "A' M111 -q: F, "a, w V,@ T j 'N@[email protected] R-4 Q F, Figure 111-3. Pre-dump profile run 17 Jan 1975. The "acoustically transparent" -sedi=nts--to the left (labelled "soft") consist of loose bay muds which have filled in and obliterated older topograph,ic irregularities on the Bay floor. The more reflective "hard" materials con- sist of.s'tiff clays. The .old spoil mound is at least 3 years old. Dep@h in feet. 4'4@ 7_777 -1 -q, ...... iz, X_ -"i W, J11,11:; m@z' F f i@-- 2@ _J! Y, . .... . . . . AR 17@ k- '71 A A--- Am 00 Wb g,fWr tq LT1 Y" @;4 -9 M1, o 0, W fg "M T3111 V, 500 FT Al r Tf -@Sj T --I I-VO """N W MAFRA *i M V, L NVU V Ll A-1-OR USE lij Typical fathometer records showing bottom*topography and deposits of dredged materials, Kent Island Disposal site. Figure 111-4. Arrows show accumulations, pre-dump on bottom, post-dump,top. W, 'A t7t77@7 i=-5 - 7- 'N' _241 -3, '11"1 2_1 M"'M a AEK= A- -W7 g 3111--NM A M 12 V _&Z p, "'A Wg- '0 @N "M cv V" @H - R@ 2V "N J@_ @A "M 3 ff . . .. .. . .X'-"' W OF, . . .. . .. .. 'Z t Z"' F -K @'7 7@MO' t A @"A fl 'M =42, U1 U1 A@l -4"'iiw 7 T 7@ R'.7tal M, _4@ 7 _7 77 @'7 '7!r Al ob 52J41 k 141 U,3 U_ 1_- "N g N tjiz @a M11" Ma", 4E FF J'# tti "Pl," A, 00 FT V_ 04 M' jm@ff '@ 11 1 T T K17- g 'q_ iz"'AM 1 @Jffb"4V I ... ...... L @_j I, W"t" -, -- - @`!' IS t"I"" UR M@ And Typical fathometer records showing bottom topography and deposits of dredged materials, Kent Island Disposal site. Figure 111-5; Arrows show accumulations, pre-dump on bottom, post-dunp, top. 7A, _7 M T "JI _'d 7 A, ''A", _nI_ R 01, r", g, "Ti" 'M Oj f N', 3, A "UZZ", I@O fZ_ x 4, 4 4 @@717777 pt ix Ln 'A15-,!,-zr,, 0 JK "'N % 1- , A? 3 v -14 - M 7@, 7 '7 pl A- 'W T 21 J f iN J j 4; - 4, g, -q, qu 1@ '4i 'M AMY @ V WWI A, 'lit R IF NNW 500 FT V 4 A f" .. F'A A 0- N ''A ME,* f 4 Typical fathometer records showing bottom topography and deposits of dredged materials, Kent Island Disposal site. Figure 111-6. -Arrows show accumulations, pre-dump on bottom, post-dump, top. M` IN No WIN 0, @ M IM a' M'' -0 M Mi. M -M- M mom MWOMIM"'W"'Ons qq a@ 77 A; .... . .... 4, TT' ;J" @"R 7," j -A J MO ,LY -g]- ey- "'L 44; W M ", "k, IN, 'TT AJ % @r 1- _nni - 11 4 n- A- vz AL-N, -V: J.R 22 7--- @'A @Y' I , @' 1 7 ffl",'@ A'- WO T M fnff 4_4144 0- '@r' Mlf- WW" I A L -- ff @@-gmqu4 @c XU 1-43g 0 '44( 41 W MI-W"T, _25 35flg 41, L "Ar '', A RAP, A W12"M jf % !@Uil ME P IN Typical fathometer records showing bottom topography and deposits of dredged materials, Kent Island Disposal site. Figure 111-7. @Arrows show accumulations, pre-dump on bottom, post-dump, top. 58 REFERENCES Gordon, R.B. 1974. Dispersion of Dredge Spoil Dumped in Nearshore Waters. Estaurine and Coastal Mar. Sci. 2:349-358. Palmer, H.D. 1972. Geologic Studies. In Chester River Study (W.D. Clarke. H.D. Palmer and E_.D. Murdock, eds.) Westinghouse Electric Corp. 11.475-137. Palmer, H.D. 1974. Estaurine Sedimentation. Chesapeake. Bay. Maryland. USA. Merrf.Inst. Geol. Bassin Aquataine. No. 7:215-224. Schubel, J.R. 1974. Gas Bubbles and Acoustically Impenetrable, or Turbid Character of Some Estaurine Sediments. In (I.R. Kaplan, ed). Natural Gases in Marine Sediments, Plenum Publ. Co. N.Y. p.275-297. Schubel, J.R. and E.W.'.Schiemer 1973. The Cause of the Acousti- cally Impenetrable, or Turbid, Character of Chesapeake Bay Sediments. Mar. Geophysical Res. 2:61-71. 59 CHAPTER IV. BATHYMETRIC PROFILE SURVEYS open water disposal of dredged material involving hopper barges usually results in A localized and measurable accumulation of spoil on the sea floor around the point of release. An excellent study of spoil disposal, and the depositional mound was made by Gordon (1974) who investigated hopper barge disposal effects in the New Haven, Connecticut? dumpsite. Although the vessel used in the Baltimore Harbor Approaches dredging activities released four to five times the volume studied by Gordon, the dynamics of settling, deposition and accumulation should be similar to those observed at the New Haven site. Trajectories of the spoil plume and tur- bidity associated with individual dumping events were discussed in Chapter I. This section describes the results of acoustical surveys completed: on.14 February "pre-dump" on 18 March 1975 (Figure IV-1) and on November 1975 (Figure,IV-2). Results On the basis of bathymetric change noted in the pre- and post- dump surveys, we conclude that approximately 520,000 yds3of newly deposited material(presumably spoil), can be ide ntified within, and slightly east of the Kent Island dumpsite extension. The fact that some material was apparently deposited slightly east of the boundary is not significant, since our records indicate no significant spoil accumulation has occurred in the Broad Creek oyster bar east of the dumpsite. Discrepancies between the amount dredged (as reported by the U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers) and that 3 3 determined by our study indicates that about 338,000yds (256,000 m 60 1;@ 1160 1911SO 02' 116S RAYDIST DINATE NET ED REEN 0 >I //,qS //90.450 . . ........ .... .... . ... ........ .. . ........ .0 :300 @ 01,8 .... . ..... E F lel 460 ........ . ... 1,3eo 4 490 . . ...... 0, /0, 10, 60 D, 39*00' 610 . . ..... 14 FEBRUARY 1975. 520 ...... (BEFORE DUMP) ..................... 18 MARCH 1975 525 (AFTER DUMP) 530 4 5 6 0 1 2 13 NAUTICAL MILE 7 8 9 10 23' 22' 21' 7 6 20' Fi gu re IV-1. Bottom topography prior and post dump. ,'>3RAY D I <ST @: D 15N AT E<NE T (01 12 .......... ......... ... ........... . 9 62 have been deposited eisewhere. In other words, 60.6% of the material transported by the ESSAYONS could be detected in the designated disposal site. A final bathymetric survey Was made on 26 November 1975, approximately 250 days after disposal activities had ceased. The purpose of this survey was to determine if major changes in bottom topography had occurred in the summer. Specifically we were interested to find if there was any evidence of major re- movals of dredged materials from the disposal site after comple- tion of the operations. The results are shown in Figure IV-2.- Comparison of the two post-operational surveys shows no compelling evidence for removal of dredged materials from the disposal site. Only one sounding line (line 10) shows any difference between March and November 1975. This could be the result of navigational problems in which the two lines did not measure exactly the same portion of the rather irregular bottom topography left by the disposal operations. The adjacent lines of soundings did not exhibit significant losses of materials. 63 REFERENCE Gordon, R.B. 1974. Dispersion of Dredge Spoil Dumped in Near- shore Waters. Estaurine and Coastal Marine Science 2:349-358 64 CHAPTER V. CORING OPERATIONS Upon completion of disposal operations, cores were taken to attempt to determine the areal spread of the dredged materials. A 6.5 cm Benthos corerl and a 3.5 cm Hydro Products2 corer, both with plastic liners, were free dropped for 0.5 3 m as only super- ficial characteristic s were desired. On 25 March a total of 13 cores were taken with the Benthos corer, four in the dump area, four in the north fringe area, and 5 in the south fringe area. The locations are shown in Figure V-1 and a graphical representat- ion of each core in Figure V-2. All cores showed a base of black, dark brown, or dark grey clays usually homogeneous (except #8 which was all sand). The upper 200 mm (average) was normally a mix- ture with occasional shells or sand and the uppermost 10 20 mm always a fine brown silt. Core #3 was taken in the dump area and was very "soupy". Figure V-3 shows the water content of cores 1 3. Fourteen analyses of the uppermost 20 cm of these three cores (approximately 8 inches) averages 54.8 + 8.8,% water. Thus the deposits in the disposal area will be assumed to consist of 55% water and 45% solids with a grain density of 2.6 grams per cubic centimeter. Therefore, the dry solid content of the deposits will be taken as 1.2 grams per-cubic centimeter (or 1.2 metric tons per cubic meter). Benthos, Inc. Edgarton Drive, N. Falmouth, MA 02556 2 Hydro Products, 11777 Sorrento Valley Rd., San Diego, CA 92121 65 V KENT ISLAND DUMPING GROUNDS V CORE GRAB SAMPLES 2C 02' 7() 05 6 13 8 01 GRAB Ef 1-4 SAMPLES Oft 2 15 19 5 16 0 4 017 0 9020 18 3 O_ 9 24(p 22 23 0 .5 92 0 0 r- I I NAUTIC X@@E 9 0 25 0 'K E N T 10 Ir'LAND 59' 026 22' 760 2 1' Vo E I '0 2 4 '6@1 3 F 6 11 5 6 017 @4 0 020 18 0 1 21 @24 Z2 Figure V- 1. Station locations, core and grab samples, 25 Mar, 2 Apr, 9 A.pr 1975. 25 MARCH , 1975 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 0- 13 F ILL F B S _FB S rFBS FBS _F B S F7B S FBS FBS FBS U) BCaS x GY CI @ cn(n CD u >1 x CD CO 0 U) C15 U) 03 U) U) U) W U) X 0 C13 0 - -C 9 -119- co m 2 _j 0 cn _ I CIO 0 Je u x C5 I Co U - m m / 100- u m m co 0 m CO X - 05 C15 u mu fa >1 C15 @ m ca m 0 x (D ol@ m NC @_Ic- - 03 CIO moo > < U,(@ 32 2m m m ol _x X m 0 200- 0 x mu 0 0 Jd @I x ID 0 m m 0 0 300- (D 0 m m 0 x X 0 x 400- Q) U m m 0 C) -W I- CO 0 X: m C15 m 0 2 CO m 0 0 u a0 500- >% 0 (D 0- 0 600 L z LEGEND Bk - Black Cs - Coarse S - Silt Br -Brown Dk - Dar k Sd - Sand Cl -Clay Gy - Gray Sh - Shells go 1* 0, IN; E 0 03 0 0 0- 5 7. 9SILT 62.3 64.7 0 '50. 1 612.3 56.8 x x co -45.9 61.9 32.2 a co -58.0 61.6 48.6 ob m co -52.0 co 49.7 CO x 200- -58.7 53.3 58.4 57.2 CID 0 E 3100, 38.7 52.2 58.6 >, 4@ 0 co @3: 56.8 >, (yI 400. lie >1 -48.1 1 39.4.1---1 .56,511 1 500, 600- 34.8 68 Using these values, we calculate that approximately 470,000 metric tons of dredged wastes (dry solids) remained in the disposal site in accumulations more than 0.3 meters thick. This compares with the estimated 670,000 metric tons of sediment brought into the Chesapeake Bay during the dredging operations. In April another series of 11 cores (13 - 2@)were taken, the first 8 to confirm unusual sub-sonic records, Core #13 showed a 350 mm layer of brown.silt, Core 414 no silt (from center of dump area just S of "E" and 'IF"). Core #16 showed 350 mm of brown silt; Core #17, 300 mm; Core #18, 10 to 15 mm, (inside dump area, western side, hard stiff grey clay, water 49 - 55%, good seismic reflection). Core #19 showed very thin 3 to 5 mm brown silt (outside dump western side, soft, black silty clay,.water 62 - 69%). This is a sonically transparent channel fill outside the dump area. Cores 21 - 23 showed 50 - 60 mm of brown silt on top, with brown and grey clay mixed below. (See Figure V-1). Another series of "mini" cores were taken by pushing a glass tube into the undisturbed top layer taken by grab sampler.. The CBI grab sampler is a modified Van Veen with a top-opening trap door to allow access to the top layer of sediment. Mini cores were taken approximately every 100 m beginning 800 m we st of the dump area approximately 800 m S of "E" and 'IF". Mini cores i's 1 - 5 showed 20 - 30 mm of fine grained silt on the surface layer. Mini core #6 showed no surface layer and was very "soupy" and was taken from the disposal material. Core #7 showed irregular lumps of brownish clay with very little interstitial material for the first 200 mm. 69 osstbWthe fine grained material had been resuspended. Cores just north of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (21 - 23) were sampled with the Hydro Products corer; all 3 showed 20 - 30 mm of fine grained silt in the surface layer. Core #22 showed lumps of grey clay mixed.with black clay while #1 and #2 showed only black clay. All three had coarse grained-sand mixed with the clay. On April 9, ten cores were taken with the Hydro Products corer (#24 #33). (Core #24 was a duplicate of #21 formerly taken.) cores #25 and #33 wereall taken below the Bridge. All of these cores showed a surface layer of fine brown silt from 40 - 130 mm deep underlain by a black clay. The end cores on each side showed a diminishing of fine brown surface layer and a change to sand. In general, the deeper the water, the deeper the fine brown sil t layer. Core #32 in 108,"of water showed a layer 130 mm deep,, see Figure V-4. 70 .25. 76 20 o CORES MICROCORES A.: 390 4 25 0 29 026 0 012 28 0 30 27 009 32 0010 33 :KENT .1 S LAND -55' Thomas Pt. 0 1 2 3 Nautical Miles KENT ISLAND DUMPING GROUNDS CORE LOCATIONS 9 APRIL 1975 Figure V-4. core and microcore locations. 71 CHAPTER VI. SUSQUE@ANNA RIVER INPUTS Discharge of water and'susipended sediment has a major influence on Upper Chesapeake Bay, which extends into the Kent Island Disposal site. The late February-early March period is typically one of low river discharge (Figure VI-11. But during the period of the dredging operations, the Susquehanna River had small f-16-6d-, 24 February to 2 March.1975, in which the discharge was more than twice normal for the period CFigure VI-2). This depressed sur- face water salinity in the disposal s ite and increased the level of background turbidity owing to the large*amount of suspended sediment discharged with thefloor waters". Before considering the amount of sediment discharged by the flood it is worthwhile pointing out that the flood wasnot a large one and in fact was smaller than the one.that occurred in.the Susquehanna Riveras a result..of Tropical Storm Eloise on 24 30 September 1975. The late February flood had a peak.flow of about 370,000 cubic feet per second at Conowingo Dam correspond- ing to a flood with a recurrent period of five to six years. The Eloise floods with their peak flow of 584,000 cubic feet per second on 27 September 1975 correspond to a flood with a recur- rence period of about 23 years. (,See Figure VI-3'.) Thus, the period during the following the dredging and disposal activi- ties in the Kent Island disposal site was one of unusually high river flow. High river flow results in'large discharges of suspended sedi- ment. The February floods brought about 600,,'000 short tons of 72 1,000- 800: 600- -20 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER FLOW 400- CONOWINGO, MARYLAND - 1928-1975 -10 8 200- 6 ANNUAL AVERAGE 4 .36,392 cfs 1031 M3 sec) 100- 80- 0 60- 2ro 0 x 40- x V) LL- 20- 10 8- 6- a z m 0 MEAN 4- z - cn 0 2- J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Figure VI-1. Susquehanna River flow at Conowingo, MD 1928-1975. 73 JOTAL DISCHARGE 2000- 24 -30 SEPTo -60 2.1 x 106 CfS 0TOTAL DISCHARGE -40 1000 24 FEB. -2 MAR.. 1.5 X 106 Cfs 800- -20 600- 400- 10 8 200- 6 4 V) U- c" 100- C) C) 80- 2 60- C) C> V) 40- = LU cl- Ln w Uj U- Uj U 20- co 1928-1975. MONTHLY MEAN U- CD 10- C) V) 8- V) 66- C) CD 4- CONOWINGO TOTAL DISCHARGE 1975 2- WEEKLY AVERAGES. J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Figure VI-2. Weekly average Susquehanna River discharges at Conowingo, MD 1975. -PEAK DISCHARGE THOUSANDS OF CUBIC METERS PER SECOND (10' M'/S) W M rla 0) OD (D 0 M OD -0 c FLOOD 26 Feb 1975 P, @j M z co C+ C+ rfl (D Ft z 0 M Ft 0 (D < ELOISE 27 Sept C+ > (D Fj 11 c @ _4 (D .0 M (D. 0 0 :1@ > OD 0 0 P) U) C+ 0 8 @J 0 (D 0 8 N Ui a) -4 OD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THOUSANDS OF CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (10$-CFS) 75 sediment to Chesapeake Bay; whereas the Eloise floods brought about 9 million short tons (Figure VI-4). The February floods brought as much sediment to the Bay as is normally transmitted during an entire year while the Eloise floods, a sediment supply, that would normally take ten to fifteen years to reach the Bay (Schubel, 1972). Thus, during the last half of the disposal operations, the Bay received more sediment from the Susquehanna River than was moved during the dredging operations. (see Figure IV-5.) The depositional sites for the Susquehanna River sediment is poorly known and probably only a small fraction reaches the Kent Island area. Nonetheless, the high suspended sediment discharges caused an appreciable increase in turbidity in the Kent Island area. 76 WEEKLY TOTAL 107- 24-30 SEPT. 107 9.2XI06 TONS 0 - WEEKLY AVERAGE DISCHARGE OF -SUSPENDED SEDIMENT AT CONOWINGOIMD.- - 1975- 106- 10 6 WEEKLY TOTAL 0.24 FEB. - 2 MAR. 605, 434 SHORT TONS 105 105 0 z 0 0 -r U) io4 10 4 LLJ 5000:- -5000 103 io3 500: -500 200- -200 J F M A M J J A S 0 N D @Figure VI-4. Weekly average discharges of suspended sediment at Conowingo, MD, 1975. 77 106: SEDIMENT DISCHARGE (TONS/ DAY) JAN.-MAR. 1975 105 C:) 1057, - FEB. 17-MAR.17-@ AVERAGE SUSOUEHANNA DISCHARGE La AVERAGE RATE DISPOSALI 104 104 KENT ISLAND SITEI Ll I w in w F_ Uj x X Q @-4 103 M 103 LLj C/) z w lot r_T_ I 20 25 301 5 10 15 20 215 28 5 10 15 20 25 31 JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH Figure VI-5,- Susquehanna sediment discharge (short tons/day, metric tons/day) during period of dredged mater- ial disposal. 78 REFERENCE.'" Schubel, J.R. 1912. The Physical and Chemical Conditions of the Chesapeake Bay. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 62:57-87. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Characteristics of Dredge ESSAYONS and R/V D. W. Pritchard Hopper Dredge ESSAYONS Department of the Army,, Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District The seagoing h-opper dredge E$$AYONS is the largest hopper dredge owned by the Corps of Engineers, U. S'. Army. She is normally assigned to improving and maintaining Federal navigation projects betwe en New@York and Norfolk. Feet Inches Draft Ft In Length Overall 525 2 Light-Fwd 13 0 Length between Perp's 499 0 Light-Aft 20 6 Beam, molded 72 0 Loaded-Fwd 29 2 Depth, molded amidship 5 Loaded-Aft 30 7 1/2 Displacement, Light (Long Tons) 9,516 Tons' Displacement, Loaded (Long Tons) 22,410 Tons Hopper Capacity: 12 Hoppers, 8,270 Cubic Yards total capacity Material of Hull: Steel Material of Superstructure: Steel Construction Started: 15 December 1947 Vessel Commissioned: 16 January 1950 Number in Crew: 114 Accommodations for 155: 34 officers, 115 crew, 6 dispensary Propulsion Power: Turbo-Electric, D.C., 8,000 H.P., twin screw Horsepower per motor: 4,000 at 92 - 110 rpm Reduction Gear: Ratio 9.055 to 1 Propellers: Two, 4 bladed, 16 ft. 0 in. diameter; pitch 15.2 ft. Pumping Power: Total 3700 H.P., 2 motors Horsepower per motor: 1850 at 150 - 180 rpm Dredge Pumps (2): 150 - 180 rpm No. of'Vanes: 4 Suction Pipe I.D.: 36 in. Discharge Pipe I.D.: 32 in. Discharge Pipe Velocity: 20 ft./sec. Boilers: 2 water tube-single pass boilers operate at 600 lb/sq.in. pressure; heating surface 9,050 sq. ft. each boiler Fuel: Bunker C; capacity 7,000 barrels; type of burner, steam- mechanical; cruising radius, approximately 7,700 statute miles. Speed in Statute Miles: Light 17.3 mph Loaded 16.0 mph 81 R/V D.W. PRITCHARD The vessel employed during the se studies was the R/V D.W. PRITCHARD of the Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, ..which has the following specifications: Built: November, 1967 Length: (LOA) 421 Beam: (Exterme) 141 Draft: (max) 2/6" Crew: one Scientific Per sonnel: 3 Main Engine: One 6-71 Detroit diesel engine of 300 H.P. speed, cruising: 15 kts Speed, Full: 18 kts Speed, Minimum: 3 kts Range: 200 miles Enclosed Work Area: 100 sq ft. Vessel has two davits with.hand winches 82 APPENDIX B Navigational and Field Techniques Navigation and Station Locations Precise navigational methods are needed to make "same track" fathometer records. In this series, the Raydist T (Maryland Network #1) furnished locations accurate to within 3 m (10 ft.). In this system, a master and a slave station transmit a simul- taneous signal and the shipboard receive displays the lane count (a difference in micro-seconds in time) for each station. The Raydist T system does not indicate the lane count but only the phase difference between the two stations; the whole micro- . I second (or lane count) must be obtained from a calibration point. Calibration points can be computed for any accurately known (+ .1 second latitude or longitude) on shipboard using an HP-65 pro- grammable calculator. The lanes for any given micro-second count from a hyperbola either from the master or slave station, which- ever is closer. A second set of master and slave stations give a second curve and where the two lanes intersect is the station. The two sets of master-slaves stations are called Red or Green net- works. There are three separate networks covering the Chesapeake Bay region. The Maryland networks are maintained by the Engineering Section of the Department of Natural Resources and charts showing the lane counts were furnished by them. Bathymetric Surveys Surveys of the dumping site were made with a Raytheon Model DE119D Survey Fathometer before dumping began to obtain a detailed map of bottom topography. 83 The runs of 14 February represented the bottom topography prior to the dump andon 18 March conditions after disposal operations were completed. These were photographed and projected to the best fit. Bathymetric 'and High Resolution Seismic Profile Surveys Echosounding equipment consisted of a Raytheon Portable precision depth sounder operating at a frequency of 200 kHz. The seismic reflection profiler was a.Raytheon Model RTT-1000 which operates at a frequency of 7 kHz. Both systems were adjacent to the Raydist display permitting the synchronous en try of timing fixes (event marks) on both records. The transducer was mounted in a float towed alo ngside the vessel.,,Both bathymetry and sub-bottom data reported in-this section were obtained from the records provided by this system. Comments on Survey Accuracy In any hydrographic survey, certain corrections may be applied to echosounding or seismic reflection profiling surveys. The application of such corrections is a judgement left to the operators and to those reducing the data. Corrections applied to the records generated in this survey, or the omission of such corrections with an explanation of reasons for rejection, are provided below. It should be noted that the prime objective of the surveys was to determine changes in depth or thickness of 84 materials, not the preparation of highly accurate bathymetric charts of the area. Although the precision of the instruments would have permitted preparation of such charts, such was not the parpose of the investigation. Tide correction. Water level at Matapeake (the closest tide station to the dumpsite) was monitored during the two surveys by a water level sensor.placed adjacent to the tide staff at this station. Through the courtesy of the National Ocean Survey (NOS) Office in Rockville, reduction of these tide data was expedited and provided to us for use in applying corrections for Bay tides. The corrections for both periods (pre- and post-dump surveys) are shownin Figure. B-1. Corrections.for tide were applied in one- foot increments as shown, so that the possible error might be as high as one foot in the extreme case where the transition from minus one to minus two occurred. However, much of the tide curve during the. first survey period lay between the plus and minus one-foot correction which was centered on the mean low water (MLW) datum of 4.00. feet (NOS reference, personal communication, March 1975), while the second survey required negative corrections of 1 and 2 feet. The seasonal variation for MLW used by.NOS was not included in the. March,correction, since it is much less than one foot. Transducer draft corrections. The transducer employed during this survey- was mounted on a float, and projected one foot below the water surface. Since this depth factor remained constant between surveyst no correction was applied in the preparation of bathy- metric charts. 85 44- 14 FEB 1975 (0) 4.2- 020910 1625-0 TIDE 4D- 0 m1w (FT) 00 00 W 0 0 z 3.8 0 0 0 00 00 (0) 0 0 @d 0 0 -P 0 3.6- 0 cd m ;-i 0 7-A 0* 1150 001415 w 0 co Id u -P 00 cd 3A 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Ho cc 0 rd TIME z 0 4-@ Cd Cd 0 Q) r. CH 0 P:4H -P 4-3 :J Id 0 F2:1M z m CO P4 0 Q rd rd Q) cd H ;-, cd C) cd 4--) P4 0 ;:1 -H Cd 6.0 -P -r-i 18 MAR 1975 M u z Q) rn 01@ 0 r-A (-2) -P 0 w PA 5.8- u u cd 0@5 CP64 jr@Q-i @>, -P Q) TIDE 5.6- 0 d @j: CH -P 00 (F T) TO iit- 14 -48- E-im cd 5.4- 0: a*: 122 000 00 0 5.2- 5.0- 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 TIME 86 Sea state correction. Records obtained during rough weather are generally characterized by "spikes" in the.bottom trace which result from the-heave of the vessel Cand the transducer headl. Weather conditions during both surveys were moderate, and little interference from waves was registered (see later figures of records). No correction was necessary for sea state. Sound velocj@ty correction. The shallow water depths present in the area and the generally non-stratified condition s of Bay waters in winter eliminate the need for a correction for changes in sound velocity. Horizontal correctlon for transducer displacement. The transducer was deployed on the starboard side of the vessel and streamed alongside but outboard of hull drag and wake effects to minimize aeration effects which reduce record quality. The transducer position was 20 feet aft of the Raydist antenna; so that a point on the record is actually 20 feet."behind" the position fix at any instant. On the s-cale employed for plotting data, this amounts to the width of a pencil line and thus was ignored in plotting. Record resolution. The frequencies employed by the acoustic systems used in this survey permit resolution to one foot of depth. In the case of subsurface reflectors, the resolution diminishes to at least two feet since the sharpness of these horizons is dependent upon overburden thickness as well a s the physical nature of the reflecting surface.(.the acoustic impedance--a function of the saturated bulk density and the compressional (sound) velocity) 87 .4.0,41 Figure B-2.. Approximations used in determining volumes. The difference in area between A and B provides area C which, divided by 2, gives the "fillet" volume D. This volume, added to that of B provides the volume in cubic yards when multiplied by o.6666 (2/3 yard) to account for the two-foot contour interval. 88 present at the interface between the two materials. Bathymetry By superimposing two sets of bathymetric profiles, it is possible to calculate the volume of dredged materials that have remained in the surveyed area. By contouring the magnitude of difference at these points of intersection, a map of net change was prepared. Planimetry of the areas and depths in the latter provided an esti- mate of the net volume change (spoil accumulation) which accom- panied disposal at this site. Volumes were computed on the basis of areas contained within the isobaths reflecting the negative change in depth. In order to account for the slopes between iso- ,baths, the following convention was adopted (see Figure B-2): The area contained within an isobath was determined by planimetry. The next shoaler area was similarly determined, and subtracted from the first, giving the area of the segment lying between the two isobaths. The volume of this area in cubic yards was computed using the area and a value of 0.666 (2/3 yd to account for the 2-foot contour interval) and this area was then added to'that for the total area of the next highest isobath to provide a close approximation of a three- dimensional volume of spoil. This approach provides for the inclusion of the "fillet" of materials laying between isobaths. However, it does assume a uniform slope and therefore may.contain a slight error should that slope be irregular (as it certainly must be--but to a modest degree). Figure IV-1 shows the composite set of fathometer tracings. Also shown is a small portion of the Raydist network showing the lanes followed in the surveys. Tidal variations were on the order of 0 to -2 feet and were compensated for as nearly as possible. 89 Methods - Turbidity Observations of turbidity were made by using a 513-TR transmissometer* and an EV 4 Envirotrans made by Beckman Instruments. Three differ- ent techniques were used in.addition to monitoring the natural background. Turbidity observations were calibrated by collecting samples of turbid water by Van Dorn samplers and the samples taken to the laboratory for filtering and gravimetric analysis. Background measurements were made at the same station, between dumping buoys E and F (39900154"N, 76021'31"W), usually one to two hours before the dump which normally occurred between 1100 1200 daily. Particle Size Sampling Samples for particle size analysis were taken at surface, mid- depth (10 m), and bottom (16 m), simultaneously, with 2.1iter Van Dorn bottles. About 100 mi of sample was drawn from each bottle. with constant 'swirling' maintained in the beaker until placed in filter bell jar. This procedure assures suspension of fine particles prior to filtering. Millipore 0.22 )1 filters were used for analysis. Three filters were prepared for each sample with sample volume ranging from 5 to 15 mi, producinq different densities for photomicrography. Distilled water 100 mYQ was placed in the bell jar prior to the entry of thesample, allowing gradual settling of particles, under slight vacuum, so that particles were not distorted. The filters were rinsed three times to remove salt, never allowing the filters *Interocean CSTD-Model 513-TR turbidity monitor, 10 cm path. 90 to go dry under vacuum, and placed in plastic petri dishes for dust-free drying. Photomicrographic Size Analysis optical microscopy was used to determine grain size distribution of fineg'rained sediment-suspended in the water. The technique consisted of measuring particle images. The samples were photo- graphed and analyzed without pretreatment which might alter the original size distribution. The technique also provided infor- mation on particle shape, degree or agglomeration, and on the composition of the suspended matter. The photomicrographic sizing technique involves four steps: (1) sample collection, (2) alide prepara tion, (3) photography of sample, and (4) sizing the images of the particles with the Zeiss Particle Size Analyzer, TGZ-3. Operational details are discussed by Schubel (1968). Volume means diameter (5v) ot suspended sediment particles in Upper Chesapeake Bay ranged from 4 to 28p and generally increased with depth in 1966 and 1967. No systematic seasonal or geographical .patterns were observed. A value of 10 to 15p for 5v is a good estimate for the Upper Bay (Schubel, 1968). Mean Stokes Diameter (Ds) of suspended particles.ranged from 2.3 to 12.2p and was between 3 and 6p in nearly 70% of the samples studied by Schubel in 1966 and 1967. Diameter of a particle Dm is the diameter of an equivalent circle having an area equal to the projected area of the particle. The diameter Dm of a particle determined by optical techniques is not the same as the diameter (Ds) of a particle as determined by settling 91 velocity or sedimentatiog analysis. In sedimentation analysis, Ds is the diameter of an equivalent sphere having the same density as the measured particle and the same settling velocity as the particle in a fluid of equal density and viscosity (Schubel, 1968). Ds and Dm as measured on a given.particle are sel dom the same but can be expected to be closely related. 92 REFERENCE Schubel, J.R. 1968. Suspended Sediment of the Northern Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Institute. The Johns Hopkins University Technical Report 35, Ref. 68-2. 93 APPENDIX Temperature and Salinity observations Temperature and dalinity observations were made at a station located between buoys E & F (39000'54"N, 76021'31"W), usually one to two hours before the dump which normally-occurred between 1100 1200 daily. Temperature (TOC), salinity (S%;,.),@Oand current directions and speed were made at depths of every two meters from surface to bottom. Water temperatures were cooler than normal but fluctuated with and followed climatic changes. Temperature distributions show a well-mixed water column with no indications of a thermo- cline during the period of disposal operations. Temperature and salinity data for 1972, 1973 and 1974 are included. (See Figures C-1 through C-8). DEPTH (M) -b W 0 OD 0) -IS N (n M (D C+ 1130 5 MAR m 'U 1030 25 FEB (D @m - M 1040 11 MAR 0940 9 APR c 1130 26 FEB t-i P 0 m PV atl P, pi 0 0 0 1315 17 MAR C+ 0 0) 0 0 0 DEPTH FT.) m m m m 'Xi DEPTH (M) ro P, w 1130 5 1315 17 Id PV & ol 9 %f 0 11 26 0 r_ 1.14 0 104011 En oj r z P, @:s P. - ,.j C+ 103025 OIR (D 0 C+ 0i N - 0 0 0 0 DEPTH FT) 95 A co 0 C3. 0 c 0 oc 0 0, 0 a > 0 0 lon 0 (ID MIM SURFACE 20 lo: 5- 72 0 1 1741 1 1 1 MID- DEPTH 20: 0 15 w mlo: cr 72 w 5 73 w 73 81 74 0 :BOTTOM P-0 15: 7- lo: 72 5 74 73 L- 0 1 1 1 a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 5 10 15 20 KI,LO-M-ET-ERS--.--.----. Figure C-3. Temperature (00 Jan. 1972 75 96 0. 0 0 0 > 0 MCD in to SURFACE to:. 74 5 72 MID-DEPTH 0: 15: 72 al, 10 74 73 z cn 0 BOTTOM 74 15 72 __73 10 5 5 10 15 20 K ILO METERS Figure c-4. Salinity Feb. 1972,- 75. WO 97 cc) 0 ID 0 0 om m 0 0 L) co 0 rf) _j Intm SURFACE 20 15: 10- 5 73 75 2 MID-DEPTH 20- 15 z 10 75 5- 72 ol 173 74, -BOTTOM 20 15- 10 5 72 75___ or I-- I t I I I 1 1 1731- 1 0 5 10 15 20 _._.K_l.LO_M_ET_E_R$ Figure C-5. Temperature (OC) Feb 1972 - 75. 98 Mo 00 CL 0, 0 0= 0 > a 0 mo M c CD to -j to 4 00 GO L SURFACE 75 10- 72 5: 0 M]D- DEPTH P-0 15: 72 as. I o 74 7@ 73 5 z 75 (n 0 BOTTOM 2-0 15 72 75 10 74 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS Figure C!"-'6. Salinity Feb. 1972-75- 4 3 99 co gi@ 0 0 0 c 0 0= 0 co 0 V) @-j SURFACE 20 15- 10- 73 5- 72 74 74 @a 75 0 MID-DEPTH 20 F15- w cr mlo: 74a75 cr 73 a74 CWL 5= 2 72 w -BOTTOM 2_0 15: z 10 75 74 ...... . 5 =__ - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 73 72, OF I -_ II I I I I I i 0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS- Figure C-7. Temperature (0c) mar. 1972-75. 100 ME 0 V- 0 c 0 om m r- 0 39 4m 0 c 00 0) 0) _j CD co SURFACE 10: 75 7.4 72 0 MID-DEPTH 20: 75 73 vll I o 72 a74 cn or -J BOTTOM 20- 15 75--- __73 72 Io_- 5 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS Figure C-8. Salinity Mar. 1972-75. 2 100a APPENDIX D. Observations of Suspended Sediment Concentrations and Current Speeds observations were made of suspended sediment concentrations in the water at the same time that transmissometer readings were taken for calibration purposes. Current speeds were also measured at the same times and locations. 101 Table D-1. Tabular background transmissivity. Suspended Solids Current Depth TM mg/k k cm/sec 25 Feb 75 1105 S 64 12 2 64 12 .51 26, 4 64. 12 .68 34 6 63 12 .75 38 8 64 12 1.09 55 10 63 12 2.00 100 12 65 12 1.70 85 14 20 4o 1.36 68 16 0 100 o.46 23 26 Feb 75 1200 S 76 14 1.3 67 2 76 14 1.2 61 4 76 14 1.3 69 6 76 14 1.4 73 8 76 14 1.5 76 10 76 14 2.9 151 12 82 7 2.5 126 14 28 1.8 96 16 43 18 5 Mar 75 1050 S 34 27 .16 8 2 4o 20 .12 6 4 48. 18 .14 7 6 70 10 1.5 76 8 79 7 2.0 101 10 86 5 1.9 95 12 67 12 1.5 76 14 1.2 58 102 Table D-1. (continued) Suspended Solids k Current cm/sec Depth TM mg19, 11 Mar 75 1050 S 79 7 0.92 46 2 .79 7 0.74 37 4. 79 7 0.76 38 6 78 7 0.78 39 8 75 8 o.64 32 10 73 9 o.48 24 12 71 10 o.6o 30 14 66 12 o.64 32 16 57 14 0.28 14 17 Mar 75 1345 S 83 5 0.51 47 2 80 7 .73 37 4 84 5 .35 18 6 82 6 .27 14 8 79 7 .39 17 10 83 5 .17 8 12 83 5 .20 10 14 8o 6 .28 14 .23 12 103 APPENDIX E Susquehanna River Flow .Table E-1. Conowingo Flow Data Jan-Feb-Mar 1975 Total Total Total Date Discharge (Cfs) Date Discharge (Cfs) Date Discharge (cfsj Jan 1 22,775 Feb 1 89,6oo Mar 1 155,325 2 52,525 2 89,3200 2 113,275 3 37,100 3 81,775 3 96,414 4 32,925 4 74,8oo 4 80,775 5 29,725 5 61,425 5 71,475 6 38,goo 6 56,775 6 61,775 7 29,825 7 56,025 7 61,825 8 33,025 8. 35,775 8 51,500 9 36,225 9 25,125 9 36,ooo 10 50,165 10 38,750 10 50,775 11 48,200 11 29,250 11 43,6oo 12' 53,625 12 31,550 12 .4o,050 13 8o,725 13 33,275 13 43,650 14 113,820 14 28,300 14 47,375 15 109,715 15 13,950 15 30,775 16 82,56o 16 12,550 16 29',725 17 74,loo 17 30,850 17 46,17 5 18 53,500 18 30,450 18 44,850 19 43,025 19 36,205 19 52,875 20 51,450 20 51,475 20 83,475 21 42,425 21 52,325 21 153,694 36,725 22 58,ooo 22 151,100 23 37,200 23 49,275 23 137,950 24 37,775 24 69,825 24 129,350 25 23,74o 25 2o8,350 25 113,625 26 35,805 26 3699875 26 102,4oo 27 54,255 @27 321,950 27 91,275 28 48,415 28 228,225 28 81,150 29 57,050 29 74,loo 30 71,715 30 66,8oo 31 80,200 31 68,475 104 Conowingo Flow Data A-pr-May-June 1275 Total Total Total Date Discharge (Cfs) Date Discharge (Cfs) Date Discharge (cfs) Apr 1 64,375 may 1 43,325 June .1 26,200 2 62,050 ..2 45,725 2 32,350 3 65,275 3 30,650 3 29,300 4 6o,700 4 37,925 4 27,100 5 61,750 5 6o,125 5 28,125 6 58,625 81,575 6 47,645 7 71,900 7 85,050 7 41,goo 8 70,225 8 98,375 8 77,475 9 67,925 9 109,830 9 82,050 10 56,6oo lo 87,220 10 8o,250 11 53,125 11 73,200 11 62,275 12 38J50 12 73,095 12 55,250 .13 31,300 13 59,05.0 13 64,770 14 44,650 14 66,325 14 45,050 15 41,025 15 58,275 15 44,730 16 37,100 16 61,825 16 51,375 17 30,525 17 67,500 17 46,975 18 35,475 18 56,500 18 55,350 19 26,350 19 61,350 19 46,025 20 19,700 20 62,550 20 41,700 21 34,750 21 53,125 21 25,050 22 32,775 22 4951350 22 19,750 23 30,900 23 41,650 23 28,525 24 34,650 .24 37,575 24 27,325 25 42,6oo 25 26,ooo 25 25,000 26 50,475 26 33,650 26 18,150 4 -2525 8 27 4o,325 27 34,725 28 57,900 28 36,1 0 28 41,375 5 29 54,475 29 33,700 29 26,450 30 49,375 30 34,325 30 37,425 31 .20,975 105 Conowingo Flow Data July-Aug-Sept 1975 Total Total Total Date Discharg (Cfs) Date Discharge (Cfs) Date Discharge (cfs) July 1 30,100 Aug 1 22,925 Sept 1 3,300 2 29,025 2 2,450 2 21,675 3 31,900 3 225 3 20,275 4 13,550 4 lo,8oo 4 19,850 5 20,150 5 15,075 5 23,525 6 19,250 6 11,500 6 7,825 7 22,925 7 11,950 7 2,950 8 2o,675 8 21,900 8 16,300 9 22,650 9 280 9 13,775 10 16,575 10 28o 10 13,475 11 12,775 11 9,850 11 14,325 12 14,125 12 13,500 12 19,975 13 13,475 13 10,775 13 275 14 43,750 14 14,750 14 250 15 27,975 15 13,900 15 22,550 16 22,275 16 275 16 20,225 17 20,775 17 300 17 2,375 18 28,925 18 13,375 18 19,675 19 10,300 19 12,725 19 23,o4o 20 6,325 20 13,000 20 9,500 21 31,200 21 12,275 21 22,175 22 21,550 22 10,575 .22 21,950 23 19,175 23 300 23 27,625 24 21,275 24 170 24 38,025 25 24,050 25 12,225 25 6o,500 26 9,325 26 11,100 26 338,850 27 7,150 27 14,575 27 583,847 28 23,900 28 10,800 28 495,000 29 20,675 29 9,850 29 357,500 30 17,100 30 375 30 215,5o8 31 20,700 31 325 106 Conowingo Flow Data Oct 1975 Total Date Discharge (cfs)- Oct 1 144,719 2 1121,800 3 87,400 4 69,900 5 565975 6 51,275 '7 47,875 8 38,950 9 34,650 10 40,375 11 28,625 12 18,750 13 34,050 14 34,875 15 -28,950 16 27,475 17 35,775 18 40,975 19 78,.925 ;20 142,425 21 145,756 22 132,755 23 115,182 @4 91,475 25 .76,950 .26 56,8oo 27 61,4oo 28 53,425 29 46,525 30 4o,450, 31 41,580 SECTION THREE: FINAL REPORT TO: I CHESAPEAKE BAY INSTITUTE OF JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 313 THIRD STREET ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21403 SUBMITTED BY: JOSEPH M. FORNS, SR. SCIENTIST WESTINGHOUSE OCEAN RESEARCH LABORATORY P.O. BOX 1488 ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21404 CONTRACT #A89374 Dump EVALUATIONS OF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF OVERBOARD DISPOSAL ON CLAMS AND OYSTERS TABLE OF CONTENTS Paqe Abstract . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Chapter I. Introduction .. . . . . . . . . . . 110 Chapter II. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . 111 A., In Situ Preparation of Organisms . 111 B. Metals Analysis . . . . . . . . . 112 Chapter III. Results .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 References . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . ... 131 .Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 109 Abstract Clams 04ya arenaria) and oysters (Crassostrea virginica) with known metal contents and similar pumping efficiencies were held in experimental cages and eXT)os,ed to Chesapeake Bay waters in three locations; at Hacketts Bar and at two locations on either side of the designated disposal area, within 1,000 yards. Clams and oyste'rs survived at all locations during the dredging and disposal operations. Some mortality of clams was observed in-the cages recovered in April and later. The clam mortalities and the later oyster mortalities have no obvious connection to the dredging and disposal operations and are probably related to unusually high temperatures and lower salinity. There was no compelling evidence of increased metal uptake of the oysters or clams due to dredging and spoil disposal for cad- mium, chromium, copper, iron,, leadf manganese, mercury, nickel and zinc. Concentrations of these metals observed in the oysters and clams from the dumpsite are comparable to those from animals collected and analyzed elsewhere in the middle Atlantic coast. 110 INTRODUCTION: Biological studies of overboard disposal of dredged materials off Kent Island were made to identify associated changes in water quality of receiving waters hannful to.indig,@_nous commercially ha rvested clams and oysters. Quantification of these types of biological change is quite difficult, because enormous variabilities within the measured organisms can be expedted (Huggett et al., 1973). None the less, ecologically based assessments must be undertaken. Research performed by the Environmental Protection Agency has shown significant accumulation of various concentrations of "heavy metals" in the sediments of several parts of Baltimore Harbor, Villa and Johnson (1971). Also, Carpenter, et al. (1970) demon- ,strated that oysters accumulate heavy metals from sediments. Experi- ments by Shuster and Pringle (1972) showed that Mya arenaria con- centrates trace metals relative to background environmental levels and studies by Tenore, et al. (1968),using sediment containing zinc-65 labeled detritus found that Ran-gia cuneata can accumulate metals from the sediments. Because of the complexity of the situation,, the time-scale for work--and the limited funding, a simple approach was adopted permit- ting in 6i!tu experimental data to be incorporated with existing water quality information to monitor effects of the Kent Island disposal operation. The principles for experimental design in this effort were: 1.) the comparative assessment of continously measured water quality parameters and 2.) the viability and metals accumu- lations in "normalized" stocks of clams and oysters. Particular emphasis was placed on assessments of possible adverse impact on commercially harvested shellfish stocks resulting from resuspen- sion of metals contaminated sediments during the dredging operations. METHODOLOGIES Water quality data incorporated into this report was supplied by the Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory located at the Bay Bridge. Daily water quality records are kept and biweekly measures are made of suspended sediment concentrations and chlorophyll, @;sing the method of Strickland & Parsons (1963). A. IN SITU PREPARATIONS OF ORGANISMS Working from control stocks of clams (Mya arenaria) and oysters (Crassostrea vkrginica) from the Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory, premeasured organisms with known metals content and similar behavior (i.e. pumping efficiency) were selected for in situ experimentation. Selected organisms were normalized by sorting procedures based on sizes, shell mass and pumping rates. Approxi- mately 75 oysters and 75 clams were collected from off Kent Island and three measures of biomass were made: Displacement volume, wet weight in water and wet weight out of water. By performing a linear regression and correlation ana lysis, organisms were selected which fell on the regression line with a correlation coefficient greater than 0.750. The organisms were then slowly warmed to a temperature of 270C and pumping was observed. Accumulations of pseudo-feces were used as an indicator of pumping and organisms with significant pump rates were selected for experimentation. 112 Three experimentation sites were defined (Fig.1) including two (2) within the approximated impact arta and a control site off Hackett's Bar. At each location, a package (figure.2.) containing six (6) bundles of four (4) oysters and four C4) sand embedded clams were suspended four (4) meters below the water surface. Twenty-four (24) of each species placed at each location remained for five (5).months through summer conditions These racks of organisms were deployed midway through the disposal operation on 4 March and the first samples re- moved on 18 March. The second series were removed 23 April, the third series on 6 June and the final series removed 11 July. Upon removal from the submerged rack, each sample bundle was placed in bay water and returned to the laboratory for biomass analysis, froz en and stored for analytical chemistry evaluations of heavy metals con- tent. An additional series of laboratory samples was examined immedi- ately after dumping was completed. Biomass analysis consisted of sizing individual organisms, wet weight determinations and composite meat weight measurements. B. METAL ANALYSIS: The.,analytical evaluation of trace metals within the meats of clams and oysters consisted of measuring levels within each animal taken during each sampling period. By this method an attempt was made to identify the interorganism variability. The metals selected for analysis were mercury, cadmium, copper, zinc, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel and iron. 113 76 20 --- ------- SANDY POINT SP-3 STINGHOUSE AN RESEARCH ABORATORY 0 39 39 0 K 1 ---'2 00 HB-1 ra 0 y a r--d'-s-"- 5,000 55" 55f F.igure I In'Situ Station Locations 75-@ -Overboard Disposal Evaluations. @WE S OC EA LA 0 0'r I - @2 25 760,20 114 Figure 2. IN SITU SHELLFISH RACKS d oysters sand-embedded clams b a=submerged f loat b=animal rack c=plate anchor* d= surface marker 115 Precautions:, To avoid contamination all glassware was soaked in a chromic acidsolution and rinsed with very hot tap waterl followed by three to four rinses with distilled deionized water., The shucking knife and.blender blades were the only metal instruments used in this procedure. (Teflon coated or wooden spatulas were used in any transfers.) The knife and blender parts were dipped in the chromic acid solution, well rinsed, and checked before any samples were run. Contact between the shucking knife and animal was kept to a minimum. After shucking, each animal tissue was blended until homogeneous and separated into portions needed for the various analyses. Distilledi deionized water was always used in the preparation. Metals: A 3-5 gram portion was placed in a pre-weighed 125 ml glass stoppered erlenmyer flask and weighed to four decimal places. After the addition of 20-25 mls of concentrated nitric acid, the samples were heated in a shaking hot water bath for at least four hours at 580 C. Cooled samples were then filtered (.45 micron millipore, type HA) and brought to volume (100 ml). These were processed at the Annapolis EPA field laboratory for analysis by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. Mercury: Approximately 0.5 grams (weighed to four decimal places) of homogeneous tissue was placed in a clean 300 ml BOD bottle. Four milliliters of concentrated sulfuric acid and 1 ml of concentrated nitric acid were added and the sample was placed in a 580C hot water bath until dissolved. After cooling, 5 mls of potassium permanganate (50g/litre)-was added in 1 ml increments, followed by the addition of another 10 mls KMnO. The sample was allowed to stand overnight. After the volume was adjusted to 150 mls with .distilled, deionized water, it was ready for analysis in a Coleman Mercury Analyzer Mas-50. Six to eight milliliters of sodium chloride-hydroxylamine sulfate solution (.120g of each in 1 liter of distilled, deionized water) was added to reduce the excess permanganate af ter 5 ml.of Stannous Chloride (100 g/1) was added. The maximum peak height and percent transmission were observed'. Concentration of mercury was determined by comparison to a standard curve. The standards were prepared according to.the American Society for Testing and Materials method D3223-73, "total Mercui y in Water". Results Da ily water quality data for the upper portion of Chesapeake Bay is presented in the appendix to this report andreduced data are given in Tables 1 and 2. From this data, it appears that monthly daily average temperatures are quite similar in 1974 and 1975. However, the salinity data for this same Period does not show the same similarities (Figure 3). The 1974 salinities show a typical seasonal pattern with the minimum occurringin April during the spring freshet and then increasing into summertime conditions. The 19.75 salinity data show two lows, one occurring in March and a second in May. Also., the monthly salinity averages are consistently lower in 1,975 than in 1974.. An interesting note is that during the 1974 salinity minimum the average temperature was 11.30C and during the 1975 salinity minimum the average temper- ature was 1807 C. The combination of the higher temperatures and 30.0 25.0 LU 20.0 15.0 0 (L 10.0 1974o .............. LU 1975 5.0 JAN Fig M@R A;R' M@Y J@N J@L 9.0 P 8.0 7.0 6.0 54 J A N F I B MAN A P a M@y J N J L Figure 3. Comparative Average Temperature and Salinity Data for the First Ralf Ye.ars-of 1974,and 1975. TABLE I Kent Island Dumpsite Program 1975 Water Quality Data Westinghouse, Ocean Research Laboratory 1974 Parameter Jan. Feb. March April t@L June July Temp RN) 3.6 4.1 7.24 11.3 18.98 21-38 25.4 Min. 1.2 2.1 5.5 6.7 14.0 19.3 22.9 Max. 6.5 5.9 9.5 16.7 21.7 24.9 27.7 Salinity K(0/00) 5.8 9.0 7' 13 4.9 5.69 6.68 8.69 Min. 2.4 6.3 5.3 2.6 4.2 4.7 7.1 Max. 10.3 11.0 9.3 6.8 6.5 8.0 10.3 D.O.i(mg/1)12.85 12.44 11-53 10-77 9.42 7.5 7.39 Min. 9.4 11.44 9.12 9.68 7.12 6.0 4.76 Max. 14.24 13-72 12.6 12.4 10.42 8.4 9.@o pH K 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.87 7.43 7.97 Min. 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.49 7.0 7.0 Max. 7.8 8.0 7.9 8.2 8.50 7.68 8.6 Chia R(p/1) 12-38 13.64 19.62 11.96 22.46 Max. 29-76 30-78, 35-30 15.83 38.03 Min. 1.91 3.83 10.42 7.10 12.47 No data taken. 119 TABLE 2 Kent Island Dumpsite Program 1975 Water Quality Data Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory 1975 Parameter Jan.. Feb. March April May June July Temp R(OC) 4.35 3.92 5.68 9.71 18.65 23.67 26.16 Min. 1.5 2.1 2.9 6.8 12.8 20..4 23.8 Max. 6.1 6.0 8.7 12.9 24.4 25.4 28.1 Salinity R(0/00) 8.64 7.14 5.25 6.93 4.39 5.2 5.56 Min. 5.7 3.0 4.0 4.9 3.2 4.5 4.4 Max. 11.0 9.1 6.7 8.5 5.5 6.o 6.2 D.O.':R(mg/1) '11.6 11.91 11.28 10.19 8 57 6.27 5.35 Min. 9.4 10.3 10.0 9.8 6.75 5.2 5.3 Max. 12.6 13.1 12.0 11.8 10.1 7.65 5.4 pH*R. 7.97 7.97 7.71 7.82 7.8 7.5 7.37 Min. 7.5 7.65 7.51 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.2 Max. 8.15 8.3 7.8 8.06 8.3 8.0 7.6 Chla.5E(v/l) 19-17 16-05 12.9 16-52 21-33 22.67 61-56 M -0 6 39.3 i 12.63 9.57 .93 11-15 17.94 15-34 Max. 30-88 20-35 19.06 20.04 30.47 39.45 96-31 120 lower salinities during the spring of 1975 undoubtedly caused stresses which were observed during the in situ'experimentation as indicated by the mortality records given in Table 3. Through cooperation with.the NASA ERTS program three images were obtained (Figure 4, 5 & 6) of the study area during the in situ experimentation., The photo from the 21 February pass (Figure 4 during the disposal operation? does not show any traces of a visible surface turbidity plume in the vicinity of the dumpsite. However, photos from the 22 May (Fig. 5) and 9 June (Fig. 6) satellite passes which were two months after disposal operations ceased, indicate that surface turbidities from upper Chesapeake Bay do affect waters within the Kent Island disposal area. The in situ stations were visited four times over a five month period. During each 'sampling divers retrieved a single container of animals and observations were made as to the viability of the oysters and clams collected (Table 3). The station (SP-3) to the Northeast of the dumpsite was lost after the first sampling period. It was during this time that a severe storm was recorded and the submerged mooring devices must have broken loose. The loss of this station was regretted but did not detract substantially from the 'overall results of the experimental program. The results obtained from more than 90.individual analyses of 9 metals on clams and oysters are presented in Tables 4 and 5.. This data represents average corrected values of metal concentrations based on individual animal wet weights. Each value represents the average of at least 3 individual organisms analyzed. Comparison of this information with other studies (Cronin et al. 1974 Pringle et al. 1968, Bryon 1971) indicate no obvious increases in heavy metals TABLE 3 Survival Record lor Oysters and Clams During In Situ Experimentation STATION LOCATIONS CONTROL DUMPSITE H R- I KI-2 SP-3 DATE OYSTER CLAM OYSTER. CLAM OYSTER CLAM 3/18 100 100 100 100 100 100 4/23 100 100 100 75 6/3 100 50 100 50 7/11 91.6 33.3 100 58.3 Sample*rack lost. 122 W075-301 W076-001 I MA-351 pi WIS71-111 01 01 21FEB75 C AMSA75-36 N N38-55/WO75-32 M D SLIN EL30 RZ139 499110w I -N-D-2L NASA 1943-14572-5 el W076-3SI wM-001 W3715-6$1 Figure 4. ERTS Photo of Upper Chesapeake Bay 21 February 1975. 123 %MAO %AIO 14 dw At IF 22M" C N38-SaJR:il'N N36-149,,w7s.35 mss Ym-8*6 EL54NnTis'iSS-4483-N-1-N-4-Wlnig ERTS E-5833-14530-5*81 MOND t @A, 11", Wm-wl wrm-98 I W@75-301 ir Figure 5. ERTS Photo of Upper Chesapeake Bay 22 May 1975. 1.24 LOF NNW W078-081 W075-30i Wa75-801 MA-331 PER Jer OL J@ T., A;@i@T, Yz@ MjLrn C _39 N @M_53,W75_33 rW@ll D SUN ELSO FIZIIS lg@_1171-301IN038-00 W@75-001 4m4-N- I -N-D-2L ERTS E-%5J 114528-5 Of j'A Figure 6. ERTS Photo of Upper Chesapeake Bay 9 J.une 1975. 125 TABLE 4 Kent Island Dumpsite Program 1975 In Situ Shellfish Experimentation OYSTER DATA Metal Concentration (ppm wet Date Location '@Cd Cu Ni Mn Pb Zn Fe 3/18 Control 1.97 47.0 <0.20 1.37 <O-50 995. 15.2 (�0.76)(�24.2) (�0.60) (�576) (�1.4) 4/-23 Control 1.55 47.0 <0.20 1.12 <0.50 1.024 11.9 (�O-89)( �5-5) (�O-99) (�283) (�2.6) 6/3 Control 2.40 48.7 <0.20 5.06 0.50 1,565 16.8 (�0.501.(�11.1) (�1.09) (�285) (�5.7) 7/11 Control 3.66 70.8 <.20 17.2 1.15 1,821 25.0 (�1.44)(�21.0) (�11.3) (�.96) (�543) (�7.8) 3/18 Dumppite 1.97 64.2 0.58 1.95 1.02 1,165 16.8 (�0.37)(+-28.6) (�O-74) (�0.94)(�0.57) (�511) (�8.5) 4/23 Dumpsite 0.85 46.3 <0.20 2.45 <0.50 968 15.7 (�0.54)(�18.5) W-50) (�417) (�8.3) 6/3 Dumopite 1.62 32.4 <0.20 2.60 <O-50 1,079 12.5 (�0.44)(�11.6) (�2.35) �384) (�2.5) 7/11 Dumpsite 4.35 49.6 0.85 19.3 <.50 1,517 31.9 (�*l .73) (�29-2) (�.60) (�10-7) (�890) (�11.7) CR and Hg <0.50 ppm for all animals 126 TABLE 5 Kent Island Dumpsite Program 1975 in situ Shellfish Experimentation Clam Data ppm' w-et I Metal Concentration Date Location Cr Cu Ni Mn Pb Zn Fe 3/18 Control .0-97 @3.25 0.92 17-4 <0-50 36-31 290., (�I.o8) (�i.8o) (�T.tq) (�7-3) (�10.1) (�206.) 4/23 Control <0-50 3.02 1.47 @38.2 <0-50 27.2. 138., W.47) (�I.o6)(�41.9) (�5-0) (�131.) Q-3--- Control <0-50 2.35 <0-50 60.0 2.2o 49.7 127. (�I-34Y (�38.3) (�O-70) (�9-5) 281, 7/11 Control <0-50 1.86 <0-50 75.3 <0-50 22.2 145. (�0.12) (�40.9) (�10-3) (�87.) 3/18 Dumpsite <0.50 3.42 <0.20 4.11 o.67 20-7- 57. (�0.68) 1 .4@ )(�O-35) (�I -0) (+20. 4/23 Dumpsite <0-50 2.20 0.53 47.5 <0-50 38.0 153. (�0.43) (�0.57)(�38.2 23-9@ -133.) 6/3 Dumpsite <0.50 2.35 <0.50 57.& 1.85 zu./I 164. (�2-05) (�45.8) (�O-91)(� 7-7@ 65.) 7/11 Dumpsite <0-50 2.74 <0.5o 8o.80, <0-50 18.91 go. (�1.40) (�79.9) (�12.4) 77.) Cdl<0.50 ppm for all animals 127 within exposed shellfish can be attributed to the disposal operations off Kent Island during February-Marcli, 1975. Only a slight pulse above background levels was observed for Nickel and Lead in oysters during the March sampling. These small increases due mainly to a single high sample were once again at background levels during the April sampling. Comparison of heavy metal values in oysters reported by Pringle, et al., (1968) indicate that the levels of these metals are comparable (Table 6). From Pringle's same data, metals observed in soft shell clams indicate a similar comparison in ranking as ourstudy (Table 7). However, while iron levels in clams seem lower in Chesapeake Bay than other areas of the Atlantic coast, zi nc and managnese levels appear to be somewhat higher. Based on information gathered from pertinent literature, data acquired during this study and material from corroborative investigations, certain qualifications can be made concerning heavy metals associated with the dredge spoil and its ef fect on oysters and clams from the upper Chesapeake Bay The health.and viability of clams and oysters were affected more by natural physical phenomena during these investigations than by dredge disposal operations. It appears that lower salinities, especially in late Spring, caused most of the observed clam mortal- ities. While Spring freshets, accompanied by reduced salinities,- normally occur when Bay water temperatures are relatively cold, a second freshet occurred in upper Chesapeake in 1975 in May when water temperatures were above 180C. The increased temperature and low salinity placed a severe strain on the clams by caus ing the animals to pump at accelerated rates under stressful salinities. 128 TABLE 6 Comparison of Kent Island Dumpsite Metals Data with Published Data on Atlantic Coast Oysters (Cr. virginica) (ppm wet) Metal Prin2le Et Al. Control Dumpsite Zinc 1,428. 1,351. 1,182. Copper 91.5 53.4 48J Iron 67.0 17.21 19.2 Manganese 4.3 6.21 6.59 Cadmium 3.1 2.40 2.20 Lead 0.47 0.67 63 Chromium o.4o. <O-50 <0.50 ..Nickel 0.19@ <0.20 4.46 129 TABLE 7 Comparison of Kent Island Dumpsite Metals Data with Published*Data on So ft Shell Clams (MYA ARENARIA). Kent Island Study Metal Pringle Et Al. Control Dumpsite Iron 405 175. 116. Zinc 17 33.8 24.5 Manganese 6.70 47.7 47.5 Copper 5.80 2.62. 2.68 Lead 0.70 <0.92 <o.88 Chromium 0.52 <0.62 <0.50 Nickel 0.27 <o.85 <0.50 Cadmium 0.27 <0.50 <0.50 130 Trends of increased metals content were.observed for some metals in both oysters and clams. However, comparison of control and dumpsite stations indicate no significant accumulations by shell- fish held in the vicinity of the Kent Island disposal area. Though not statistically significant, observed trends of increased metals content of zinc and cadmium in oysters and manganese in the clams more clearly relate to the increasing water temperatures from March through July. Acknowledlements: This study was conducted for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources under the direction of the Chesapeake Bay Institute of Johns Hopkins University. We wish to express our sincere appreci- ation to Dr. 0. Villa at the Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis Field Office and his staff, especially Ms. P. Johnson, for their enthusiastic cooperation in performing atomic absorption analyses of these samples. Our gratitude is extended to Dr. M. G. Gross for review and comment, Mrs. A. Umpleby for typing the manu- script and to the WORL staff who assisted in the program. 131 REFERENCES Byran, G.W. 1971. The Effects of Heavy Metals (Other Than Mercury) on Marine and Estuarine Organisms. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 1977. 389-410. Carpenter, J., R. Biggs, and H. Hidu. 1970. Shellfish Accumulation of Heavy Metal.in Chesapeake Bay. Pirst Progress Report. Ref. No. 70-72. Cronin, L.E., O.Tq. Pritchard, J.R. Shubel and J.A. Sherk. 1974. Metals in.Baltimore Harbor and Upper Chesapeake Bay and Their Accumulation by Oysters. Technical Report to Md. Dept. Natural Resources. Huggett, R.J., M.P. Bender'and H.D. Stone. 1973. Utilizing Metal Concentration Relationships in The Eastern Oyster (Crass- ostrea vir to Detect Heavy Metal Pollutionj Water Res. 7:451 Pringle, B.H., D.K. Hissong, R.L. Katz and S.T. Mulawka. 1968. Trace Metal Accumulations By Estuarine Mollusks. J. San. Eng. Div. 94:SA3, 455-475. - Shuster, C.N. and B.H. Pringle. 1969. Trace Metal Accumulation By The American Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Proc. Natl. Shellfish Assoc. Vol. 59:91-103. Strickland, J.D.H. and T.R. Parsons. 1960. A Manual of Seawater Analysis. Can. Fish. Res. Bd. Ottawa Bull. 125. Villa, 0., Jr., and P.G. Johnson. 1974. Distribution of Metals in Baltimore Harbor Sediments. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Report 59. 132 PF APPENDIX: Daily Water Quality Data at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge January 1974 July 1975. 133 WESTINGHOUSE: OCERN RESERREH ffiRY ffiRIMGE, RNNAROLIS aim u 2mo 2.rL= ri IL MJ313 1 3 rh 7 9 1@ @7, 2.9 21 @23 25 2T 29 33. &UW4URR*f/2.9T* IVAO 2.'ZJ3[1 min 3LOJ30 MJ3n am UJ30 TA13 - ?A13 - TAM 1 13 is 17 19 21 23 z 2@ 219 31, 3 4--l WESTINGHOUSE OCERN RESERRV--H. bRY BRIISE RNNRP.OLIS u &4-.013 - r w 3mo - ZJ30 14J30 12J30 CL u J IL IDJ30 to EJ30 6AX3 I T 9 11 13 is IT 19 21 23 25 2T 29 31 FK6RURRY/X9TW ISM0 - 14J313 - 13J30 x 8 12J30 IIJ30 5.20 - BJ30 - TAD - TAD - T.40 2 7 9 11 13 im 17 19 21 23 29 27 9 33, FE&RURRY/19791- 135 WESTINGHOUSE OCERN RESERRCH bRy bRIMPEt RNNRPOLIS BAD &AD WAD IZAM 3MAD SAO 6.00 MRRCH/19?W 13AU gim SAO - TAU . TAU . T.Wo r- MARCH/1971* 136 &Dan 9 U &a is 17 L9 3m 23 an X-r M@ 2L 137 WESTINGHOUSE OCERN RESERRCH 6RY 6RIMSE, RNNRPOL..,,I:S ................... Ir uJ3 %-.Do ZAG I t 9 11 13 is 17 19 al 23 ;9, 2,9 2,1 IZZ93 ZZAQ VAQ qj3Q MAD TJ30 13 is 17 19 21 ;m as 27 2@ 3 138 WAD . Zama - NDJ30 , 3AAM ma Ll 3.@ @s @-r @-p 2@ ;3 ;a @r 2,.p MPPZL/3.974- 13-9 WESTINGHOUSE OCERN RESERRC-H ERY 6R.lMGE, RNNRFOLIS 6J30 kn Ema 3.@ 3.r 23. Mr. 2@ 29 MAY/3.97W IIJ30 - IDJ30 - 9j3o sma TJ30 9AD aso SJ30 e-6-- TXD TJ30 M it 3.3 3r, 3..r 2.0 al 23 ME 27 29 31 MIRY/1971+ 1W 30= . 3=0 . 1=0 3. 9 311 3.3 Is wr 3LIP a% a:% as ST 29 141 WESTINGHOUSE MCERN RESERRCH ERY E3RlMGE, RNNRROLIS 26.00 24,00 22.00 20,013 2.5mo BAD 740 640 19.00 L WAD 3.7 2.40 23. 2@ alit 2@ 2@ 10.00 J30 6.00 ?AD TAO -rwo 7.20 Tmo i L lp, 3.'T 3.'9 -,r, ZIP 33. XT c1c XT 6 L T -sa r,,z T! ccrz CMMT acrST ccrt3a ccrxa ZVT 143 WEST-IN13HOUSE OCERN RESERRCH E3RY [!3RIMGE, RNNRROLIS Zama - WMAD - 2*mo 22.00 3.1mo 9MO -j IE in &MD TAD T 2@ @3 21 117 19 21 L 2s ZT 29 31 'JULY,2974F IDJ30 x a 9,00 5.00 Tso TAD T 9 11 13 is IT 19 22. 23 s 2T 29 32 JULY,19TOF CHLORMPHYLL W. tA 145 WESTMNSHOU5E OEEIRN RESERRED-1 ERY ERMMSE, RNNRPOLIS 6J30 u IL x w MD 12.013 10.00 IL IL BJ30 j a: Ln 640 4MU 1 3 T 9 11 13 is 17 19 211 23 2 T 2T 29 31 JRNURRY/1975 12J313 Lo x 1IJ30 R IDJ30 x 9AD 1520 moc) 13: TAD L TAD TAG 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 IS 17 19 al 23 25 2T 29 31 JRNURRY/197S CHLOROPHYLL C hl w 0 a b b td IA z c m < H SR 43 14 rd fu In ri @4 lu 4 147 WESTINGHOUSE OCERN RESERRCH ERY E3RIIIISE, RNNRPOLIS w 3.013 2.DD lama 3.013 L a. u 6.00 J m Ul 4J30 2.013 5 7 9 11 13 is 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 32 FE&RUARY/3,079 l'+j3C 13MO x lima IDJ30 8.40 5.20 MJ30 L 7.30 T.613 T z 29 3- 9 "3 1@ 17 1'9 23 2r, 27 29 3 FE&RURRY/1975 148 2 S.P 0 19 ZOJ30 LA 3.rbJ3[l a. E, 8 3.0413 i j I 3 7 9 11, 13 is 17 19 21 23 25 217 31 FE&RURRY/1979 149 WESTTN13HOUSE MCERN RESERRCH ERY ffiRTMGE, RNNRPOLIS BMD - L &MI3 - x w 2ma I HMO 7MD L 6MI3 u J It Ul 4-mo 3 5 T 9 11 13 is 17 19 al 23 29 27 29 31 MRRCH/1975 13MI3 L9 12MD x 19 a I R IMMD 7.90 TAM 7.Ta L TAM 7.&M -j 3 5 7 9 11 13 irk 3-@ "9 21 "3 2T 2, '1 MRRCH/1975 150 2SJ30 L 20130 9 Li ISJ313 IL ItIJ30 sma 1 3 9 7 9 11 13 is 17 19 21 23 as 2T 29 31 MRRCH/1979 151 WESTINGHOUSE OCERN RESERRCH ffiRY ffiRIMSE, RNNRPOLIS x w EJ30 12XID 10M13 9.00 W313 4.013 1 7 9 11 13 is 17 19 a, 23 as 2-r 29 31 13mo IZJ30 IIJ30 x 19 R IDJ30 9J30 5.213 BJ30 L 7AD 7AD 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 is 17 19 21 23 25 2T 29 31 RPRIL/19TE 152 25MM )j 213J313 19 lEJ30 IDA13 m 7 .11 13 is 17 19 21 23 2S 27 29 31 SPRXL/1979 153 WESTINGHOUSE OCERN RESERRCH ffiRY ffiRTISE, RNNRPOLIS :513,013 25.00 u u IL 20.00 w 3 smo , IDJ30 j TJ30 - 6J30 - L m u EJ30 In WJ30 5 T 9 11 13 is 17 19 21 23 25 2T 24 31 MRY/19T& 14J30 1240 10.00 x R 5013 6J30 940 5.50 CX BJ30 L T.50 TJ30 T 9 is 17 19 23. 23 as 2@ 219 31 MRY/19TS 154 J J 2SJ30 x L 2DJ30 x u lEJ313 1 5 7 11 17 19 21 23 25 2'r 29 31 MRY/1971 155 WESTINGHOUSE OCERN RESERREI-A EiRY E3RIMSE, RNNRPOLIS u a. x w Zama 6.50 6.00 M- a. S.So u -j Ir SJ30 2. 3 5 9 2.3. 2.3 is 3.7 2.9 23. 23 25 2T 29 33. LJUNE/3.97r% EJ30 19 x TJ30 x R 6.013 SJ313 9.00 8.50 8.00 T50 TJ313 5 T 9 11 13 is IT 19 21 23 25 2T 29 .31 JUNE/1979 CHLERMPHYLL- P hl b 13 Iq 41 Id 43 157 WESTIN13HOUSE OCERN RESERRr.--'[-A 23RY E3RIMSE, RNNRPOLIS x w BJ311 7.00 J gnu '+J30 3. 3 5 T 9 11 13 is IT . 19 21, 2,3 2 Is 2@ 219 LJULY/19TM 5.4-5 i L9 x u SAD >- x 19 R 5.35 5.30 NJ30 TAD TAD 7.4.0 720 1 3 5 T 9 is IT 19 21 23 01 2T 29 31 JULY/1975 CHLOROPHYLL CL m -F I?, b b C r 43 lu hi w li hi -4 hi ,a -W p SECTION FOUR:'V IMPACT OF DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL OPERATIONS. AT KENT ISLAND ON EXISTING STOCKS OF COMMERCIALLY IMPORTANT SHELLFISH AND PREDOMINATE BENTHIC ORGANISMS DR.. GEORGE E. KRANTZ PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR TECHNICAL ASSIS TANCE Hayes T. Pfitzenmeyer Martin O'Berry Donald Meritt William Keefe Klaus Drobeck Clellan Keffe David Boone Michael Reusing Phyllis Pulles TABLE OF CONTPNTS Page Chapter I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161 @Chapter II. Techniques and Observations . . . . . . . . . . . 165 A. Study Area . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 165 B. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 C. Oyster @ars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 D. Soft Clam Beds . . . o . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 167 E. BenthiclCommunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 F. Heavy Metals in Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.70 G. Shellfish Pathobioloqy . . . . . . ... . . . o 187 Chapter III. Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 188 A. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Bo Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 C. Benthos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o - o . . . . 195 D. Rangia Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 E. Soft Clams . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . 198 F. Dredge Disposal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Chapter IV. Summary of Project Findings . . . . o . . . . . . 200 Appendix I. Work Statement for C.B.L. Project . . . . . . . . 203 Appendix II. Description of Study Sites . . . . . . . . . o 207 Appendix.III.Water Quality Observations During Monitoring . . . 211 Appendix IV. Bar Composition Yield Sheet and Analysis . . . 241 Appendix V. Numbers of Individual Benthic Species Per Meter 253 Appendix VI. Concentration of Heavy Metals in Shellfish o 258 Appendix VII.Observations of Suspended Material and Salinity 268 INTRODUCTION "Open-water" disposal of spoil materials from the approaches to the Baltimore Harbor on a new disposal site adjacent to Kent Island aroused the social and scientific curiosity of many sectors of our State community and agencies involved in the management of our natural resources. The potential dispersal of the spoil material from this site could have threatened the health and well being of commercially viable shellfish beds and the estuarine benthic community in adjacent waters. The scientific literature has only a few studies of open-wa@er spoil disposal by hopper dredges which indicate that about 90-99% of the spoil material of high silt con- tent will be deposited "on-site" where as the remainder will spread outward over an incr eased area delineated by about 30% of the site depth, (Gorden, 1974). Dispersal of turbidity discharged into surface waters is often more extensive. Biggs (1970) described in- creased turbidity from a point surface discharge.which covered 1.5 to 1.9 sauare miles and a tide related plume that carried increased turbidity 3.1 miles from the disposal site. The bottom topography, tides and wind-borne currents of every disposal site are different. Spoil materials suspended in the water column would be different for everv dredged area. With all of these variables interacting, one would also expect variation in disposal patterns on a daily basis. Therefore, potential hazard of unknown and unpredictable magnitude threatened the natural resources of the 162 Chesapeake Bay during the Kent Island dispos.al operation. Three scientific research groups attempted to describe the problem by monitoring of dispersal of dredged spoils at this site and the impact of the disposal. operation on experimentally exposed and natural stocks of shellfish. Even though the modest budget permitted only cursory evaluation of the existing situation instead of a compre- hensive scientific approach which could have yielded results with predictive value, observations that were made confirmed that the 1975 spoil disposal operation at Kent Island had a minimal impact on the commercially important shellfish resources of the Chesapeake Bay. Two concurrent investigations (CBI and Westinghouse) concentrated on dispersal of suspended sediments from the disposal site, the volume and location of deposited material,. and the effect of the sediments upon laboratory conditioned animals exposed directly to the suspended materials.as they were swept from the disposal site to the exposure stations. Exposure stations for shellfish were adjacent to the spoil disposal site and thought to be representative of natural shell fish beds. All groups hoped to measure subtle biological and physical modifications of the Bay bottom that could be used in the future as an index of impact of this type of dis- posal operation on the estuarine community. The monitoring project contracted to UMCEES and reported in the following pages attempted*'(1) to describe any increased level of turbidity on commercially important shellfish beds east of the dis- posal site as a result of the disposal operations and (2) to 163 determine the health and "well-being" of shellfish and benthic organisms in areas adjacent to the disposal site. Funds were not adequate to permit continuous monitoring during disposal operations nor wore funds adequate to develop statistically valid analyses of changes in animal populations. The project did, however, provide an opportunity to use gross quantative and sub- jective observational techniques to assess the impact of the spoil disposal operation on local shellfish resources and.the community. These techniques were expected to detect any catastrophic environmental change by estimating population mortal- ity, health of shellfish and benthic animals, pathobiology of these animals, and uptake of heavy metals by shellfish. Major changes in the health and/or density of estuarine animals Are the primary factors which can provoke public criticism of'the disposal project. The monitoring program as conducted was to detect gross changes in the benthic animals. An important part of the contract was the flexibility to fully investigate any unusual phenonem.on, and even advise DNR to cease spoil disposal operations if necessary to protect both the public interest in the dre dging operation and the Bay environment. The project study area included the disposal site, Westinghouse exposure sites (East and West), benthic communities inshore of the .disposal site, and commercial soft clam beds and oyster bars located from Swan Point (6 miles North from the disposal site) to Kentmoor.Marina, 6.1 miles South of the site. observations were made as outlined in the work statement which accompanied the 164 project proposal (Attachedr Appendix I). Adverse weather condi- ,tions during the study period caused only minor modifications to the plan of observations. "On-site" surveys by TJMCEES personnel 101- were conducted on: Feb. 18-20 (before operations) Feb. 27 (during operations) March 4 (during operations) @March 14 (during operations) March 19-21 (post-operations 1-3 days) March 25 (State Health Department samples) April 15 (post-operation; 30 days) May 19 and 21 (post-operation; 60 days) June 25 (post-operation; 90 days) July 28 August 21 September 30 165 TECHNIQUES AND OBSERVATIONS The report of this project is conveniently divided by the types of observations used to monitor the changes in the water quality and in the health of the local benthic community as a result of the spoil disposal operation. STUDY AREA A recording fathometer and existing survey charts were used to -locate and delineate the extent of shellfish beds and bottom types adjacent to the disposal site. The area studied extended from Swan Point to Kentmpre Marina (Map 1). Samples of benthic biota were collected with a Van Veen grab,,oyster dredge, and/or a hydraulic escalator soft clam dredge as appropriate for the type of bottom. Six oyst er bars, 5 clam beds and 6 benthic community sites were selected for study (Map 1). An effort was made to place these stations in possible paths of spoil disposal from the discharge site. Most stations also corresponded to active com- mercial shellfish harvest areas and State Health Department water quality monitoring stations. A general description and location of these stations is found in Appendix II. WATER QUALITY Temperature and salinity were recorded at intervals throughout the water column at each site by use of,a Beckman salinometer. Turbidity or more accurately :suspended materials (silt, bacteria, phytoplankton, zooplankton),,was determined gr-av-imet-r-1-6-ally follow- ing filtration of water by use of fiberglass filters. Some investigators (Biggs, 1970) refer to this as seston. 166 A submersible pump lowered to.selected depths obtained water samples for analyses. A measured volume of the sample (250 ml under condi- tions of ambient turbidity) was vacuum filtered through pre-weighed fiberglass filter pads Of 1 micron pore size. (Whatman GFIS; special order). Two filters containing suspended material from a sample from each de pth a,t the stations were stored in separate petri dishes, dried.in a silica gel dessicator at 280C, and weighed to the nearest 0.1 milligram. Variation in weight of filters within each package should be documented since it represents some variation among stations and among different depths at a given station. Standard deviations fo r fiberglass filters used in the study. Date S D 18-19 Feb 8.5 27 Feb 8.1 4Mar 10.5 14 Mar 4.4 21 Mar 7* 2 15 April 7.5 19 May 7.0 During each visit while disposal operations occurred, (27 Feb, 4 March, 14 March), an effort was made to sample the water column at the disposal site (BB-1) within an hour after the dredge dis- charged. Adjacent stations-North (BB-5), South (BB-6), and East (BB-2) of the discharge site were sampled at this time to determine what levels of turbidity were generated in various water masses so that observations of turbidity over commercially important shell- fish beds could be related to this "maximum' condition. Observations of temperature, salinity and quantity of suspended materials in the water column are given by station and date in 167 Appendix III. These data are also summarized on Maps 2 through 17. The maps indicate "turbidity" on the surface and bottom of the water column during each site visit. OYSTER BARS At stations where oyster bars were located, samples were obtained by a 4 minute dredge "haul". Enough shell and live oysters for a standard @ bushel, bar-composition analysis were collected. -Techniques for analysis of oysters and associated organisms were as currently used by the Department of Natural Resources. A bar composition yield slieet (Appendix IV) was completed for each station. Oyster condition, gross signs of health, presence of crystalline style and density of Polydora was determined on 5 Oysters thought to represent market-size oysters on the sample. A representative sample of 25 oysters was processed for histo- pathology. A summary of oyster bar composition by station and date fo und in Appendix IV was prepared from the Field Data sheets. SOFT CLAM BEDS "Beds" of soft clams'Mya arenaria, were located and examined by use of a local, commercial "clammer". A hydraulic escalator dredge of commercial design was used to dig the bottom in the usual manner. Several bushe ls of clams were collected at each site and counts were made on the number of weak or moribund clams per bushel harvested,(Appendix II). Handling several hundred clams also pre- sented the opportunity to observe the gross signs of health of the animals and provided animals for heavy.metal and histopathological analyses. During surveys while disposal operations were being 168 conducted, the clam beds were sampled by Van Veen grab and a modified hard clam dredge with long teeth and a small mesh bag. BENTHIC COMMUNITY At stations where the benthic community was monitored, (BB and CB series) duplicate samples of the bottom sediments were collected with a 0.1 meter Van Veen grab. The bottom material contained in the grab was placed on a 0.7 mm mesh opening screen and washed on board the research vessel. The residual material with speci- mens was flushed into plastic jars and fixed with 10% form.alin. Approximately 3 days later the formalin was replaced with 70% ethyl alcohol. This material was further washed in the laboratory and the entire sample was examined for benthic organisms. After sorting, the specimens were placed in vials and preserved again in alcohol for future identification and enumeration. A summary .of the number of all species found at each station during each particular sampling period is recorded in Table 1. Records of individual stations on various dates may be found in Appendix V. 169 TABLE I Kent Island Spoil Disposal Monitoring Ben'thic Species Diversity Total Number Individuals Number of Species Station Date Code 2/19/75 3/21/75 4/16/75 5/20/75 BB1 5840 30 5095 3560 14 3 12 14 IN BB2 1731 8090 3035 2365 17 16 15 BB3 5300 3035 13220 4810 19 13 19 18 BB4 4840 6512 3400 4840 19 16 17 16 BB5 5880 3795 3665 2775 17 14 17 13 BB6 2800 10265 1599 3450 14 20 13 15 CB-1 840 3430 1045 2770 17 18 14 16 CB-2 2000 2540 940 1825 it 15 16 9 16 CB-3 18045 3025 5925 18370 14 17 22 17 170 HEAVY METALS IN SHELLFISH Oysters for determination of heavy metal levels in the tissue were taken from those in the bar composition analysis. Quantitative analyses for the presence of heavy metals in shellfish were conducted by Mr. Dave Boon at the University of Maryland Seafood Technology Laboratory at Crisfield. The nitric acid digestion'technique and subsequent analysis on a Perkin Elmer 290 atomic absorption spectrophotometer required.the use of pooled samples to yield 100 grams (wet weight) of tissue. Details of lab procedures for sample preparation and analysis may be obtained from Boon, 1973. Assays were conducted to detect coppert zinc, iron, cadmium, manganese, lead, cobalt, nickel, chromium, and mercury. Levels of copper, zinc, iron and manganese in the shell- fish fell within the range of accuracy of the techniques and pro- cedures used. Levels of lead, cobalt, nickel, chromium, cadmium, and especially mercury fell below scientifically acceptable limits of accurate quantitative determination by the above techniques and equipment. The investigators chose not to apply concentration techniques to determine low levels of heavy metals since a volumi- nous literature exists to show that this approach may produce erratic and misleading results. Since data on tissue levels of heavy metals were obtained from pools of several animals, wide range of variation was found among pools from the same station (Appendix V). Comparable levels of variation were noted among individual shellfish. Table 2 gives some measure of the amount of variation in metal concentrations 171 TABLE 2 HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS VARIATION IN 10 INDIVIDUAL ANIMALS COLLECTED 20 FEBRUARY 1975 PRE'DISPOSAL-CONCENTRATIONS IN ppm DRY WEIGHT OYSTERS (OB31 Hi Conc Lo Conc Average Conc S.D. Cd -.22 11 146 11 Mn 29 .7 12 20 Zn 12,000 .1,740 9,200. 10,000 Fe 230 130 160 90 Cu 650 90 425 - 540 OYSTERS (BB4 Cd 22 1 3 18 9 Mn 22 6 11 11 Zn 19,500 4,200 13,400 12,600 Fe 227 12.0 160 100 Cli 767 142 550 510 SOFT SHELL CLAM (BB3) Mn 1,900 250 1,140 1,420 Zn 187 95 146 103 Fe 1,700 800 1,300 1,000 cu 61 38 47' 20 172 among individual animals. Results of some of the analyses for heavy metal concentrations in oysters, soft clams, and Ra ngia clams collected before spoil disposal operation (20 February), immediately after the operation ceased (29 March), and after 30 and 60 days are summarized on a dry weight basis in Table 3 through 16 and details of each sample on a wet weight basis are shown in Appendix V. The standard deviation of metal concentrations equals or exceeds the mean of most of the metals found in oysters from the selected stations. Expression of heavy metal concentra- tion on a wet weight basis increased variation among samples because of the added variable of individual variation in percent solid concentration interacting with animal site! To assist in interpretation'of metal-levels in shellfish from the Kent Island area, Tables 19-20 summarize some data on levels of metals found in oysters and shellfish throughout the coastal waters of the United States (Pringle, 1968). 173 TABLE 3 CONCENTRATIONS OF COPPER IN OYSTERS (ppm wet weight) COLLECTED DURING 1975 KENT ISLAND SPOIL DISPOSAL STUDY STATION FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY CODE 20- 28 15 19 AVERAGE OB 1 48.3 45.2 55.9 36.4 46.5 BOB 2 49.2 67.8 52.4 53.0 55.6 OB 3 46.6 54.6 42.8 52.3 49.1 OB 4 63.9 67.4 65.0 75.9 68.1 OB 5 40.3 55.4 69.3 75.1 60.0 OB 6 63.2 94.0 37.0 72.3 66.6 BB 4 74.6 66.7 70.7 AVERAGE 55.2 64.4 53.7 60.8 174 TABLE 4 CONCENTRATIONS OF ZINC IN OYSTERS (ppm wet weight) COLLECTED DURING 1975 KENT ISLAND SPOIL DISPOSAL STUDY STATION FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY CODE -20 28 15 19 AVERAGE OB 1 1230 .940 1610 1060 1210 OB 2 1490 1720 1340 1360 1478 OB 3 1230 1270 1080 1400 1245 OB 4 1560 1470 1480 1390 1475 OB 5 1005 1230 1610 1730 1394 OB 6 1230 1510 720 1410 1218 BB 4 2090 1640 1865 AVERAGE 1405 1397 1307 139 2 175 TABLE 5 CONCENTRATIONS OF CADNIUM IN OYSTERS (ppm wet weight7) CbEkTED--DURING", 1975 KENT ISLAND SPOIL DISPOSAL STUDY STATION FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY CODE 20 28 15 19 AVERAGE OB 1 1.9 1.7 2.3 1.8 1.9 OB 2 2.3 2.6 2.6 1.6 2.3 OB 3 2.8 2.0 1 .6 2.9 2.3 OB 4 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.4 OB 5 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.0 3.0 08 6 2.8 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.6 BB 4 3.3 2.5 - 2.9 AVERAGE 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.3 176 TABLE 6 CONCENTRATIONS OF IRON IN OYSTERS (ppm wet weight) COLLECTED DURING 1975 KENT ISLAND SPOIL DISPOSAL STUDY STATION FEBRUARY MARCH' APRIL MAY CODE .20 28 15. 19 AVERAGE OB 1 25.1 @15.9 28.6 22..9 23.1 OB 2 18.8 24.0 22.1 22.5 21.9 OB 3 24.4 27.1 23.5 44.5 29.9 0B.4 27.7 24.7 46.0 121.3* 32.8 OB 5 18.6 22.2 18.9 27.9 21.9 OB 6 17.4 19.8 11.4 119.3 17.0 BB 4 18.4 25.8 22.1 AVERAGE 21.5 22.8 25.1 27.4 Data not used in calculation of average 177 TABLE 7 CONCENTRATIONS OF MANGANESE IN OYSTERS (ppm wet weight) COLLECTED DURING .1975 KENT ISLAND SPOIL DISPOSAL STUDY STATION FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY CODE 20 .28 15 19- AVERAGE OB 1 1.7 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.4 OB 2 2.9 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.9 OB 3 2.3 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.7 OB 4 2.9 2.8 3.7 9.6* 2.9 OB 5 1.5 2.0 1.3 2.8 1.9 OB 6 2 .6 2.5 1.3 1.8 2.0 BB 4 1.5 2.2 - - 1.8 AVERAGE 2.2 2.0 1.9 2-.3 Data not used in calculati on of average 178 'moo TABLE 8 CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS IN OYSTERS (ppm wet weight) THAT WERE BELOW LEVELS FOR ACCURATE QUANTATIVE DETERMINATION All samples were of, similar concentration and below the levels shown FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY METAL 20 28 15 19 LEAD 7.3 3.5 3.9 3.6 COBALT 0.4 Q.4 0.8 o.4 NICKEL 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 CHROMIUM 6.0 3.5 0.3 0.6 MERCURY TABLE 9 179 CONCENTRATIONS OF COPPER IN SOFT-SHELLE.D CLAMS (ppm wet weight) COLLECTED DURING 1975 KENT ISLAND SPOIL DISPOSAL STUDY STATION FEBRUARY APRIL MAY CODE 21 18 21 AVERAGE CB 1 No sample 9.8 11.2 10.5 CB 2 822 7.6 5.8 7.2 CB 3 6.1 8.3 5.1 6.5 CB 4 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.3 CB 5 7.4 7.8 7.6 BB 3 8.9 8.9 AVERAGE 7.6 8.1 7.4 TABLE 10 CONCENTRATIONS OF ZINC IN SOFT-SHELLED CLAMS (ppm wet weight) COLLECTED DURING 1975 KENT ISLAND SPOIL DISPOSAL STUDY STATION FEBRUARY APRIL MAY AVERAGE CODE 21 18 21 CB 1 No sample 30 77 54 CB 2 21 41 31 31 CB 3 38 40 38 39 CB 4 31 46 35 37 CB 5 38 45 42 BB 3 30 30 AVERAGE 32 40 45 TABLE 11 180 CONCENTRATIONS OF IRON IN SOFT-SHELLED CLAMS (ppm wet weight) COLLECTED DURING 1975 KENT ISLAND SPOIL DISPOSAL STUDY STATION FEBRUARY APRIL MAY CODE 21 18 21 AVERAGE CB I NO SAMPLE 175 422 298 CB 2 141 386 70 199 CB 3 210 194 55 153 CB 4 564 294 212 357 CB 5 742 600 671 BB 3 209 209 AVERAGE 373 330 190 Data not used in calculation of average TABLE 12 CONCENTRATIONS OF MANGANESE IN SOFT-SHELLED CLAMS (ppm wet weight) COLLECTED DURING 1975 KENT ISLAND SPOIL DISPOSAL STUDY STATION FEBRUARY APRIL MAY CODE 21 18 21 AVERAGE CB 1 NO SAMPLE 42 241 142 CB 2 36 91 86 71 CB 3 108 88 ill 102 CB 4 173 158 168 166 CB 5 145 171 158 BB 3 119 119 AVERAGE 116 110 152 TABLE 13 CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS IN SOFT-SHELLED CLAMS (ppm wet weight) THAT WERE BELOW LEVELS NECESSARY FOR ACCURATE QUANTATIVE DETERMINATION All samples were below levels shown FEBRUARY APRIL MAY METAL 21 18 21 LEAD 6 6 4 COBALT 2 2 2 NICKEL 2 0.7 CHROMIUM o.7 1 CADMIUM 0.5 0.7 0.5 MERCURY TABLE 14 192- CONCENTRATIONS OF COPPER IN RANGIA CLAMS (ppm wet weight) COLLECTED DURING 1975 KENT ISLAND SPOIL DISPOSAL OPERATION STATION FEBRUARY APRIL MAY CODE- 20 18 21 CB I -- -- 2.0 CB 2 2.7 2.0 1.6 CB 4 -- -- 2.0 BB 3 2.1 1.8 -- BB 4 9.8 -- 1.5 AVERAGE 4.9 1.9 1.8 TABLE 15 CONCENTRATION OF ZINC IN RANGIA CLAMS (ppm wet weight) COLLECTED DURING 1975 KENT ISLAND SPOIL DISPOSAL OPERATION STATION FEBRUARY APRIL MAY CODE- 20 18 21 CB 1 -- 16.5 CB 2 lo-, 14.1 14.0 CB 4 -- 16.4 BB 3 15 15.0 -- BB 4 67 -- 12.0 AVERAGE 31 14.6 14.7 TABLE 16 183 CONCENTRATIONS OF IRON IN RANGIA CLAMS (ppm wet weight) COLLECTED DURING 1975 KENT ISLAND SPOIL DISPOSAL OPERATION STATION FEBRUARY APRIL MAY CODE 20 18 21 CB 1 -- -- 46 CB 2 26 52 36 CB, 4 -- -- 86 BB 3 110 49 -- BB 4 188 -- 43 AVERAGE 108 50 53 TABLE 17 CONCENTRATIONS OF MANGANESE IN RNAGIA CLAMS (ppm wet weight) COLLECTED DURING 1975 KENT ISLAND SPOIL DISPOSAL OPERATION STATION FEBRUARY APRIL MAY CODE 20 18 21- CB 1 -- -- 5.7 CB 2 1.5 4.0 5.6 CB 4 -- -- 7.5 BB 3 20 12 BB 4 28 -- 4.9 AVERAGE 16 8 5.9 184 TABLE 18 CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS IN RANGIA CLAMS (ppm wet weight) THAT WERE BELOW LEVELS FOR ACCURATE QUANTATIVE DETERMINATION FEBRUARY APRIL MAY METALS 20 18 21 LEAD 5.0 3.0 COBALT 0.7 0.7 NICKEL 1-0 3.0 2-0 CHROMIUM 0.5. 0.7' 0.7- CADMIUM 0.4 0.6 0.4 MERCURY w- maw'" so imm'w'-ps wagales m- TABLE 19 AVERAGE TRACE METAL LEVELS IN SHELLFISH TAKEN FROM ATLANTIC COAST WATERS, IN PARTS PER MILLION Or WET WEIGHT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY) ELEMENT EASTERN OYSTER SOFT SHELL CLAM NORTHERN QUAHAUG ZINC 1,428 17 20.6 COPPER 91.50 5.80 2.6 MANGANESE 4.30 6.70 5.8 IRON 67.00 405 30 00 LEAD 0.47 0.70 0.52 COBALT 0.10 0.10 0.20 NICKEL 0..19 0.27 0.24 CHROMIUM 0.40 0.52 0.31 CADMIUM 3.10 0.27 0.19 DRY WEIGHT APPROXIMATELY 10 to 15 TIMES THESE VALUES. TABLE 20 RANGE OF TRACE METAL VALUES IN SHELLFISH HARVESTED FROM ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC WATERS, IN PARTS PER MILLION OF WET WEIGHT@ (FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY) OYSTERS ELEMENT EAST COAST WEST COAST SHOFT SHELL CLAM NORTHERN QUAHAUG ZINC 180.. - 4120. 86. -,344. 9.0 - 28. 11.50 40.20- COPPER 7.0 - 517 7.80 - 37.50 1.20 - 90. 1.0 16.50 MANGANESE 0.14 - 15.0 0.90 16. 0.10 - 29.90 0.7 29.70 00 CA IRON 31. - 238 15.30 91.40 49.70 - 1710 9.0 83.0 LEAD .0.10 - 2.30 0.10 4.50 0.10 - 10.20 0.10 7.50 CHROMIUM 0.04 - 3.40 0.10 0.30 0.10 - 5.0 0.19 5.80 NICKEL 0.08 - 1.80 0.10 0.20 0.10 - 2.30 0.10 - .2.40 COBALT 0.06 - 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.10 - 0.20 0.10 - 0.20 CADMIUM 0.10 7.80 0.20 2.10 0.10 0.90 0.10 0.73 *NOTE: DRY WEIGHT APPROXIMATELY 10 to 15 TIMES THESE VALUES 187 SHELLFISH PATHOBIOLOGY Health of the shellfish and benthos.was.monitored during each site visit by visually,inspqcting the animals for gross signs of disease o3@ weakness. In oysters these signs are firmness of shells, gapping, mantle response, meat condition and appearance, and pre- sence of crystalline style; in soft clams and in Rangia, firmness of the siphon, ability to retract siphon, mantle response, meat condition and appearance. To confirm these subjective field evaluations, histopathologic analyses of oysters taken from each station on 19 March, 15 April, 19 May and September. Laboratory processing and initial histopathologic analyses were conducted at the Oxford Biological Laboratory by DNR personnel assigned to the 88-309 project - Pathobiology of Estuarine Animals. Many materials from this project are still being processed and studied. Throughout the study, oysters from stations OB-3 North through OB-6 were in a weakened condition below acceptable levels for market use. These animals had many gross signs of fresh water stress and had a poor meat condition but a high percentage retained the crystalline style (see Bar Composition analysis summary). Histopathologic analysis of tissue and cellular changes suggest a combination of fresh water stress and "winter-kill" syndrome. Noteworthy syndromes observed in the March sample are: (1) Expanded ducts in the diverticulum; (2) Eroded diverticulum; (3) Increased deposition of "yellow-Waste". masses; (4) Reduced levels of food reserves. Soft shelled clams at the 4 stations studied remained in good to excellent physical condition throughout the study. None of the 188 stations showed any changes in the number of moribund or weak clams. The two commercially active clam beds CB-1 and CB-2 contained a few moribund clams as a result of commercial harvest activity. Rangia clams were the most abundant animal throughout all study stations, especially on the soft clam beds. Estimates of abund- ance were not made but as the study progressed, mortality in Rangia increased. Estimates of percent mortality were made on samples obtained by Van Veen grab, hydraulic escalator dredge and modified hard clam dredge. As mortality became pronounced (25%), sample s of Rangia populations in other areas of the Bay were col- lected and examined to determine the cause of the "die-off". These data will be an addendum to this report. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS WATER QUALITY Water quality conditions (temperature, salinity and suspended material) at the Kent Island disposal site prior to disposal (19 February; Maps 2 and 3) were representative of winter conditions in the Upper Chesapeake Bay. Salinity was slightly higher than expected above the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. An unexplained but obvious increased amount oi turbidity was observed in the deeper water masses over the dump site sample stations (Map 2; BB-1; BB-5; BB-6; BB-2; and Appendix III), before disposal operations began. The source and distribution of this turbid water mass is not known but a perceptable increase in turbidity was also found at Swan Point, OB-6, which suggests an Upper Bay origin. The same magnitude of increased turbidity (by comparison to surface waters at adjacent stations) was observed in deeper water over the dump site on all 189 visits. In several instances this layer of increased turbidity existed prior to discharge of spoil from the hopper dredge. When water samples were taken within 1 to 2 hours after the discharge of spoil on the disposal site, turbidity increased over levels observed at the same water depth before disposal. Stations on Maps 2-5 with turbidity thought to originate solely from disposal operations are marked with an asterisk. These stations were BB-1 and BB-6 (Map 6); BB-1, BB-5, BB-6 (Map 8) and BB-1 and BB-6 (Map 10). Stations eastof the disposal site and stations on com- mercially important shellfish beds were not observed to have any increase in suspended materials that could be directly attributed to the spoil disposal operation. Apparently the suspended material from the spoil disposal operation was restricted to the deeper waters (greater than 30 feet) in the immediate vicinity of the disposal site. Extensive measurements by other investigators of turbidity at the dispos.al site support this conclusion. Personal observation of surface waters and photographic records of the Dredge Essayons also support the research findings. During spoil discharge from the dredge, turbidity in surface waters was quickly lost in the relatively high background turbidity which persisted throughout the disposal operation. Two natural phenomena contributed to high levels of turbidity throughout the upper Bay region during the spoil disposal operation. Wind direction, velocity, and duration was such that large quantities of silt from inshore areas of the tipper Bay from the Susquehanna Flats were continuously resuspended in the water column. To help document the effect of wind# all of the summary maps of water 190 quality observations show wind velocity and direction since turbidity over shellfish beds was increased by strong south-west or north-west winds which create strong wave action on the shallow areas of the Upper Bay. This phenomenon was very obvious from aerial overflights and even from the center of the Bay Bridge. The second phenomena was an extremely high discharge of turbid, cold, fresh water from the Susquehanna River. These two factors collectively created high levels of turbidity, high bacteria concentrations in the water, and an unusual temperature and salinity regime over the disposal site throughout the period the "Essayons" operated. Data presented by the other investigators on the discharge and water quality from the Susquehanna River and the Maps 2-15 suggest the extent of the impact of the water mass on the ecology of the Upper Bay. Peak disch arqe at the Susquehanna Dam on 26-28 February approximated the 10-year maximum. This high-flow'period was followed by a second significant discharge in late March. These cold fresh water masses which contained high levels of suspended sediments displaced the Bay water at all depths in the water column over the disposal site (Map 2). On February 27, a distinct line of demark- ation could be seen on the surface between water of 4 ppt salinity and the fresher water. Stations CB-1; BB-3; BB-4; CB-3; OB-2)B-1, (Map 4) were covered with water of higher salinity with a lower silt load. These observations help to understand why marked changes on bacterial quality and health of shellfish have been observed in the vicinity of the Bay Bridge in the past. By the next survey visit following the influx of water from the Susquehanna (4 March), the low salinity, highly turbid water mass 191 covered all stations except Gum Thicket oyster bar, OB-1 (Maps 6-7). Gum Thicket-Kentmore Marina area has often been the dividing line ,for State Public Health closures of soft clam beds. Even though data collected by this study are sparce and superficiali they help explain some of the basic problems in the management of shell- fish in the vicinity of Kent Island. Elevated levels of turbidity in deeper waters over the disposal site were still detected about 30 days after disposal operations ceased (Map 14). These increased levels may have resulted from resuspended dredged spoils, but caution must be exercised in reaching this conclusion since elevated levels of suspended materials of approximately the same magnitude were detected at these stations (Map 2, February 19) prior to dredging operations. This conflict in observations shows the need for a greater understanding of sediment transport mechanisms in the Upper Bay so that the effect of open water spoil disposal on the total Bay environment may be clearly understood and any negative man-induced effect can be detected. The physical characteristics of the water mass over the shellfish resources at Kent Island during February and March suggest that soft shelled clams, oysters, and perhaps the total benthic community suffered an insult that could have resulted in mass-mortality. Cold, fresh water of poor quality and high bacterial levels caused a decline in meat quality. Commercial harvest of shellfish could have been restricted! Without documentation by the contracted monitoring programs, the public would have blamed the spoil dis- posal operation for the loss of the natural resources. F ortunately, 192 probably due to low water temperatures and the reduced activity of shellfish during the winter conditions, such a disaster did not occur. The effects of an inflow of fresh, turbid water from the Susquehanna River during summer months may have an entirely differ- ent effect on the health of "shellfish. monitoring programs designed to evaluate environment parameters and health of the Bay biota during spoil disposal operations can make a valuable contribution by separating natural environmental effects from the effects of.the deposited spoil. SHELLFISH Because of an anticipated loss of shellfish and biota due to the influx of cold, fresh water, oyster bars and soft clam beds received thorough analyses to detect any mortality, assess the health of shellfish and document uptake of heavy metals. The standard oyster bar composition analysis used by DNR and other agencies provided "semi.-quantative" estimates of changes in the oyster popu- lation and associated benthos. During the predisposal survey an extensive effort was made to locate oyster bars representative of where commercial harvest occurs in the Kent Island area. Oysters, even on charted bars and previously planted areas, were at,very low density. Throughout the Upper Bay and at 4 out of the 6 oyster sample areas, oysters were below densities that could support a commercial fishery. This observation is supported by the number of 4-minute dredge hauls needed to collect one-half of a bushel of shell (Appendix II). Most bars have been worked heavily and there has been virtually no recruitment for years. Few bars have any small oysters. Oysters north of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge have very poor meat condition and if harvested they would',not have, 193 been accepted by processors. organisms fouling oyster shell and the associated benthos in this area suggests that oysters on all bars except OB-1 have experienced periodic intrusions of low salinity water or some extreme environmental stress. The oyster bar composition analyses summaries Qppendix IV), indicate that no oyster mortality occurred during and immediately after the spoil disposal operation. Presence of the crystalline style and a general increase in meat condition during late March and April throughout the study area, except for Swan Point (OB-6), substantiate the lack of damage to existing oyster bars. Oysters and mussels at Station OB-5 (Mouth of the Chester River) may have suffered some stress agent. This was suggested by the decrease in the number of oysters with crystalline styles and the observed dead barnicles (Balanus) on 15 April. This condition may have been related to prolonged exposure to the low salinity and highly turbid flow from the Upper Bay and the Chester River. A greater number of boxes were found at this station than at the other stations. However, other factors in the Chester River may have been responsible for these changes since oyster bars in all areas of the Chester River have experienced unusually high mortality during recent years. In factl total mortality on oyster bars.exists from Chestertown to the Mouth of the Corsica River. A decline in worms was also noted on Love Point Bar OB-4, which may receive some flow of water from the Chester River. A great difference was noted in the associated organisms on oyster bars above the Bay Bridge (OB-3,4,5,6) compared to OB-1. organisms on OB.1 are probably continuously covered by a layer of high salinity water due to the morphology of the@Bay bottom at OB-1 and rarel d any expo- ,y receive sure to low salinity water. 194 To confirm field observations on oyster bars and gross signs of oyster health, histopatholoqical techniques were employed to detect probable re.asons for the problems found. In samples examined to date, oysters from all stations were in various states of reduced health. 0 ysters at the southern end of the study area, OB-1 and OB-2, showed lower levels of abnormal response. Cellular changes in oysters at Stations OB-4,5, and 6 indicated that the oysters had experienced several months exposure to fresh water. Many of the signs of pathology also may be interpreted as "winter-kill" syndrome or chronic exposure to pesticides or other toxic material. . There were no obvious signs of prolonged exposure to suspended sediments, nor were any of the 800 oysters examined in a terminal physical condition. Laboratory analysis for concentrations of heavy metals in oysters confirmed the histopathologic interpretation. No significant change in concentrations of heavy metals in natural shellfish populations could be demonstrated. Copper concentrations were about 10 percent higher in the 19 March samples. However, this change did.not exceed the limits of variation in heavy metals among oysters and among the pooled samples. (Note the high standard deviation for copper concentrations Table 2). It is probable that the observed increase in copper may be samplinq procedure and/or experimental error in techniques. Subsequent samples on 15 April and 19 May confirm the opinion that the elevated copper levels may have resulted from sampling procedures. Again this is an illustration of the value of prolonged and multiple monitoring times in pro- ducing reliable assessment of impact of spoil disposal on the 195 environment composed of heterogenous individuals and species. Our understanding of the flux of heavy metals in the Bay biota and the physical environmeInt also suffers from the lack of baseline studies and laboratory proven uptake rates for metals from spoils under expected environmental conditions. Without laboratory data, any investigator would be hard pressed to prove beyond a doubt that heavy metals in levels in natural shellfish did, or did not change as a result of spoil disposal operations. BENTHOS The lack of diversity of benthos associated with the oyster bars in the tipper Bay indicate the stress of low salinity environment and some slight differences among samples were expected. However, if any major environmental change would have occurred as a result of spoil disposal operation, the benthic community associated with an oyster bar would have suffered severe losses since these organ- isms do not have the oysters' capacity to stop circulating water for long periods of time. Minor changes in health of the benthos could not be detected by semi-quantitative techniques employed in this study. An attempt was made to quantitatively examine the benthic community at all stations other than oyster bars by use of Van Veen grab samples. Observations on the diversity of species and number of individuals at various stations showed no change during the dis- posal operation except on the disposal site station BBI-I!l immediately after the disposal operation (21 March). Within thirty days benthos had repopulated the spoil site and in sixty days the spoil con- tained a community and density identical to surround ing Bay bottom, 196 which was covered by at least 10 feet of spoil. No other change in benthos of any significance was detected outside of the disposal area. Slight changes in numbers of individuals found in various samples is expected due to variations in.sampling techniques. The relatively sparce benthic community at adja- cent sites where water depth exceeded thirty feet, is represen- tative of the Upper Bay estuarine benthic community. This "deep- water" community apparently experiences periodic intrusions of fresh water, periods of high silt deposition from the river systems and frequent anoxic conditions. Analyses of uptake of heavy metals by several members of the benthos was prevented by the constraints of the budget and by the requirement to analyze 100 gram s of tissue from a given species. Rangia clams occurred in abundance at all sample sta- tions regardless of depth and therefore were selected to represent a component of the benthos. Analyses of heavy metal concentra- tions in Rangia collected from Kent Island monitoring stations, suggest that Rangia differs from Mya and oysters in metal uptake. Rangia does not appear to concentrate copper, as do oysters, or zinc, as do soft clams. However, Rangia has higher levels of iron relative to the other two shellfish. These observations suggest the need to analyze each species of the benthic biota for uptake of heavy metals since each species may have a different mechanism and physiological need for specific metals. RANGIA MORTALITY Throughout the monitoring study, weak Rangia were observed at 197 all stations. The weakened condition of this species increased from about 5% to 10% of a given sample in February to 25% to 50% in the 15 April samples. During early May, 70% to 90% of the Rangia at various stations died. This weakened condition was ,most pronounced on clam beds, Ct-l and CB-2 which were heavily worked by clam dredges during the winter. Some of the mortality on the clam beds could have been due to mechanical damage by the hydraulic escalator dredges and by burial in the newly worked bottom. However, losses of Rangia increased at other stations where the bottom had not been disturbed. The area of mortality extended far beyond the spoil disposal area. On April 16, areas of the Upper Chester River were sampled with a lined oyster dredge and moribund and weak Rangia were found. Samples of Rangia collected at North Point (Baltimore Harbor) and at Hart-Miller Island on April 17, contained about 10% moribund clams with about 15% weak individuals. Department of Natural Resources,fishery department personnel have also reportod mortality of Rangia in the Chester and Gunpowder Rivers. Samples of several year clasges (.%jze groups) of Rangia from CB-2 and CB-3 were held in the laboratory to observe the nature of the losses and to determine the total levels of expected mortality in the field. An extensive field survey of all Bay examined and histopathologic examination of moribund Rangia is in progress to determine the cause for this mortality. The Rangia clam is adapted to southern climates (south of the Cape Hatteras zoogeographic break.) In Maryland waters, Rangia 198 is near its' northern limit of tolerance to cold water and pro- bably suffers from lack of food due to low phytoplankton densities in the Chesapeake during the winter. The population as a whole is weakened during the winter and due to variation in resistance of individuals, we observed a partial mortalitV. However, State management agencies should be prepared to defend the allegation that spoil disposal may have killed the Rangia adjacent to Kent Island. A comprehensive study on the life history population dynamics and histopatholoqy of Rangia is badly needed to relate the ob- served level of mortality to natural environmental factors in the Chesapeake Bay. Extensive field and laboratory studies are needed to better understand this relatively new component of the Chesapeake Bay biota. Such a study is strongly justified since Rangia is the predominate shellfish in the many areas North of the Bay Bridge which kay be subject to future dredging and spoil disposal operations. SOFT CLAMS The population density, gize, composition, meat quality and gross signs of health of soft dlams in various beds adjacent to Kent Island was determined by use of a commercial hydraulic esca- lator dredge before (18 February) and thirty days after (15 April) the spoil disposal operation. During the spoil disposal operation (27 February, 4 March, 19 March), cursory surveys of the soft clam beds was conducted by use of the Van Veen dredge and/or a lined clam dredge. Living clams were carefully observed for signs 195 of distress and weakness symptomatic of any adverse condition. There was no detectable change in gross signs of health of the clams or in the percentage of moribund clams in a given popu- lation at the 4 stations. Most of the moribund soft clams found suffered damage from the hydraulic dredge. Only 3 clams were found without obvious physical damage. Apparently, soft clams were able to survive the prolonged exposure to the low salinity, highly turbid water from the Susquehanna River. Survival may be related to low water temperatures since mortality due to fresh water influx during summer months has occurred previously at this site. Being a northern clam living at the southern extreme of its range, Mya probably has higher resistance to this type environmental change in.,the winter than!In the summer. Analyses for levels of heavy metals in soft clams failed to demonstrate any significant increase in heavy metals. Commercial clam harvest at CB-1 and CB-2 continued during spoil disposal operations and there were no reports of moribund clams from the watermen or reports of declining meat quality from the packing houses. Spoil disposal operations conducted during winter months when Mya has higher resistance to the stress and to low salinity water, avoids the chance of a concurrent natural clam mortality which may be blamed on spoil disposal and/or dredge operations. This is especially true for sites located in the Upper Bay. Benthos associated with soft clams at Stations CB-1, CB-2, CB-3, ancl CB-4 are listed in Appendix V. There was little change 200 in the species composition or number of species during spoil disposal operations. Slight differences did occur on commercial ly active clam beds (CB-1 and CB-2) as compared to inactive clam beds at CB-4 and CB-3. DREDGE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS Sonar bathymetery of the Bay bottom at spoil disposal site and of spoi1 falling from the dredge Esseyons was conducted on several occasions. These records were given to the Westinghouse personnel who were responsible for this phase of the operation. bathymetric'profiles of the entire dredge site were taken on a north-south and e@ast-Vest axis on three occasions. As part of the UMCEES environmental program, motion pictures and color slides were taken of the Esseyons during spoil deposi- tion on 27 February 1975. These visual references are being edited and prepared for use by interested scientific groups. These materials are available to DNR and will be shown at a future briefing. SUMMARY OF PROJECT FINDINGS 1. Spoil disposal operations at Kent Island may have incr eased turbidity at water depths greater than 40 feet but only in an area immediately adjacent to the disposal site. 2. Increased levels of turbidity at the disposal site in deeper water (greater than 40 feet) were noted before and 2 months after the spoil disposal operations. 3. There was no evidence of sediment from spoil disposal opera- .':.ttons impinging on commercially important shellfish beds. 201 4. There was no detectable mortality or change in health status in oysters, soft shell clams or other benthic organisms on commercially important shellfish beds that could be re- lated to spoil disposal operations. 5. There was no significant increase in heavy metal concentra- tion in oysters, soft clams and Ran ia clams. Each species seems to concentrate a different metal from the environment. 6. Documentation Of the influx of low salinity, highly turbid, and bacterially contaminated water from the Susquehanna River over commercially important shellfish beds in the Upper Bay provides an explanation of some of the problems of shellfish health and shellfish bacterial quality previously encountered by State agencies. 7. Rangia clams are experiencing a significant mortality through- out the Upper Bay which may be related to their environmental tol erance to northern winter conditions. 8. Changes in the benthic community at the dump site were transitory and the spoil was recolonized by benthic forms within thirty to sixty days. 9. Population levels of oysters in the upper bay are extremely low and no recruitment has occurred for years, while commer- cial harvest has continued with maximum effectiveness. Meat quality of oysters above the Chesapeake Bay bridge is very poor and histopathology suggests extreme stress from a toxic agent complicated by exposure to fresh water. I I I . I I I I I I I I APPENDICES I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX I: WORK STATEMENT FOR C.B.L. PROJECT )[MPACT OF DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL OPERATIONS AT KENT ISLAND ON STOCKS OF COMMERCIALLY IMPORTANT SHELLFISH AND PREDOMINATE BENTHIC ORGANISMS The following synopsi's of work schedules for the project is offered .to assist in planning and interpretation of projects by D.N.R. personnel. C.B.L. vessels and personnel will be on the Kent Island disposal site at the following times: Feb. 18-20 Before operation survey. Feb. 25 Assessment of shellfish health and turbidity on commercially important beds during disposal. Mar. 5 D 0 Mar. 11-12 D 0 Mar. 21 D 0 Mar. 26-28 Post operation survey (+1-3 days) Apr. 22 Post operation survey (+ 30 days) May 20-21 Post operation survey (+ 60 days) Oct. 18-20 Post operation survey (+240 days) Details of' activity du ring each visit: Feb. 18-20 Before operation survey; 1. Location of sample stations and bottom characteristics. Range of study areas Kentmore Marina to Swan Point, east of shipping channel. 2. oyster bars (6 sites). a. Bar composition (age, size, meat quality, mortality rate, density ) b. Associated Bentbos quantity and species) , c. Turbidity, temperature, salinity in water column,, d. Heavy metal levels. 3. Benthos at selected sites other than oyster bars. a. 7 locations Spoil area, adjacent flats, (Note: Benthos at exposure sites) b. Quantitative description of species and density, c. Heavy metals in Rangia, d. Turbidity, temperature and salinity in water column, 204 01 4. Clam bed survey (5 locations). a. Population density, size, composition and general health, b. Frequency and cause of moribund clams, c. Heavy metal samples, d. Turbidity, temperature and salinity in water column, e. Associated Benthos - quality and health. 5. Coordinated and complimentary effort. a. Analysis of oyster-clam exposure sites (2) turbidity, temperature, Benthos, heavy metal uptake in clams, bar composition and heavy metals on adjacent oyster bars. b. Oyster bar and clam bed sites correspond to State Health Department water test sites, all data under 2 above (oyster bars) available. c. Bentbic community in spoil to be moved, spoil disposal site (2 locations), old disposal site. Feb. 25; Mar. 5,11-12, 21 Assessment of shellfish health and turbidity on commercially important beds during disposal: 1. 6 oyster bar sites, 5 clam bed sites, 2 test exposure sites, a. Turbidity, temperature and salinity in water column, b. Qualitative study of health and diversity of benthos, c. Sonar Bathemetery of dump site to determine accumulation rate. 2. Coordinated and complimentary effort: a. Analysis of oyster-clam exposure sites, b. Analysis of oyster bar and clam bed sites, coordinated with weekly State Health Department studies., c. Monitoring of turbidity in water column, d. Monitoring of spoil deposition during operation, 3. Immediate assessment of any unusual phenomenon. Mar. 26-28 Post operation survey (repeat of Feb. 18-20) 1. Analysis of oyster bars (6 sites): a. Bar composition, b. Associated Benthos, c. Turbidity, temperature and salinity in water column, d. Heavy metals, e. Histopathologic analysis of sample, 2. Bentbos at selected sites: a. 7 locations adjacent to disposal area, b. Quantitative description by species and density .205 c. Heavy metals in,Rangia Temperature, turbidity and salinity, 3. Clam bed survey (5 locations): a. Population density, size, composition and health, b. Frequency and cause oi moribund clams, c.- Heavy metal'sample, d. Turbidity, temperature and salinity in water column, e. Associated Benthos.quantity and health. 4. Coordinated and compltmentary effort: a. Analysis of oyster-clam exposure sites(see Feb. 18) b. Oyster bar sites correspond with Health Department water test sites, c. Pathobiology of oysters at site (with D.N.R.)) 88-309 project - spoil disposal induced pathology), d. Sonar Batbemetery of dump site. April 22 Post operation survey (30 days) 1. 6 oyster bars; 5 clam beds; 2 test exposure sites. 2. Turbidity, temperature, salinity. 3. Qualitative study of health and diversity of Bentbos.. 4. Sonar Bathemetery of dump site. May 20-21 Post operation survey (60 days) 1. Analysis of oyster bars (6,sites): a. Bar composition, b. Associated Benthos, c. Turbidity, temperature and salinity, d. Heavy metals, e. Histopathologic -analysis. 2.Benthos at 7 sites:. a. Quantitative descriptive of species anddensities b. Heavy metals Rangia, c. Temperature, turbidity and salinity. 3. Clam bed survey - 5 locations: a. Population density, size composition and health,* b. Frequency and cause of.moribund clams, c. Heavy metals, d. Turbidity, temperature and sa'linity, in water column, e. Associated Benthos quantity and health. 4. Coordinated and complimentary effort: a. Analysis of oyster and clam exposure sites, b. Sonar Bathemetery of dump sites, c. Pathobiology of oysters. Oct. 18-20 Post operation survey ( 240 days) (Note: one growing season for adverse effects to show survey is repeat of Pre operation survey of Feb. 18-20) 1. Oyster bar (6 sites): a. Bar composition, b. Associated Benthos - quantity and species, c.., Turbidity, temperature and salinity in water column, d. Heavy metals, e. Pathobiology of oysters. 2. Benthos at 7 selected sites; V ao Quantitative description of species and densites, b. Heavy metals in Rangia, c. Turbidity, temperature, and salinity'in water column, 3. Clam bed survey - 5 locations: a. Population density, size, composition and health, b. Frequency and cause of moribund clams, c. Heavy metal levels, d. -,,Turbidity, temperature and salinity in water column, e. Associated Benthos - quantity and health. 4. Coordinated and complimentary efforts; a. Oyster bar and clam bed sites.correspond to State Health Department water test sites, @b. Patbobiology of oysters. 207 APPENDIX 11: DE5CRIPTT0N OF STUDY1$ITE$ OYSTER BARS Gum Thicket Bar: Code OB-1 380 '541* 0011 760 221 521f .20 ft. deep. Commercially active bar off Kentmore Matina 6.1 miles from the disposal site. Location corresponds to the State Health Department sampling station K314-1. Small "lumps" of shell on base of silt-clays. Oyster density on "lumps" fair. 0.5 bushel sample of oysters and shell required 1 to 3 4 minute dredge hauls. Brickhouse Bar: Code OB-2 380 551 58" . 760 22t 4412 15 ft. deep. Commercially active bar near the North Mile Market.th@ree and one-half miles from disposal site. Location corresponds to the State health - Department sampling station K324-2,Narrow band of old shell on drop-off from 12 ft. to 22 ft.. Bottom of silt, clay aad sand. 0.5 bushel sample of oyster and shell required 2 to 3 - 4 minute dredge hauls. Soft clam dredging appears to have reduced oyster bar to deep area. Very few if any oysters are found inshore on oyster bar described on DNR map. Broad Creek Bar: Code OB-3 20 ft. deep. 386 591 2211 760 21' . 103" Bar only worked by Skipjack dredges in area near Bay Bridge. Closest oyster bar to disposal site, 1.1 miles 0.5 bushel sample required 3 to 4 - 4 minute dredge hauls. Oysters are dispersed over the area. Containing large rock, silt, and sand. Location corresponds to State Health Department sampling site KIM- Love Point Bar: Code OB-4 18 ft. deep. 390 @02' 36" 760 20' 1811 Located 2.4 miles from the disposal "site. Old oysters widely scattered through large rock on bard clay and sand. This could never be considered a workable bar. 0.5 bushel sample required 4 to 5 - 4 minute dredge hauls. Station is located slightly south of original State Health Department sampling station K124 # 8. Health Department station shifted to this location. Chester River (Mouth): Code OB-5 16 ft. deep. Located 3 miles from disposal site. Oyster scattered over well defined hump near 2 wrecks at mouth of Chester River. Large rock on bard @clay bottom could not be considered a workable oyster bar. 0.5 bushel sample required 4 to 5 - 4 minute dredge hauls on a very specific location. State Health Department station KIM 9 is located on sample station. 208 9wan Point Bar! Code OB-6 15 ft. deep. Located 6 miles from disposal site. Site contains "shell plants" and old oysters on shell covered hard bottom. Density of oysters is great enough for commercial harvest, over an area of about I acre. Meat quality and shell shape is poor and may be the reason oysters are not-barvested. 0.5 bushel sample on this spot required I to 2 dredge hauls. At all other locations on Swan Point only 2 to'10 living oysters were found per 4 mihute dredge hauls. State Health Department sample station K 12 is located on this "lump" and station KIM # 11 was 2.5 miles east southeast of this station but was moved to this location. CLAM BEDS, Broad Creek Bed: Code CB-1 11 ft. deep. 390 Oil 03" 760 191 5611 Located 1.1 miles from disposal site. Silt with some sand on heavily worked bottom. Small market clams predominate (65%) with dense Rangia, population (3 year classes). Mortality level before spoil disposal was I - 2 moribund clams per bushel, . . Clam meat condition good. Corresponds to'State Health Department sample station ]KIK-7 Brickhouse Clam Bed: Code CB-2 10 ft. deep 380 561 19" - 760 221 28" Located 3.5 miles from disposal site. Oyster shell, sand, rock on cl@iy and sand. Heavily worked but 70% market clams present. 10% .Ragia clams per bushel of soft clams. Clam meat condition very good. Mortality level.ranged from 1 to 11 moribund clams per bushel. Fier 1 Clam Bed: Code CB-3 16 ft. deep on steep slope. 380 58' 18" 760 211 3711 Located 1.5 miles from disposal site. Clay bank with rock, coal, and clam shell and oyster shell'. Not worked commercially. 90% market clams with large Rangia. No detectable mortality. Clams large 4 - 5.5 inches and in excellent condition. Location corresponds to State Health Department sample station XT-M-3 Love Point Clam Bed: Code CB-4 17 ft. deep. 390 Oil 25" 760 20'. 01" Located 1.15 miles Northeast of dump site. Sand and oyster shell oA hard clay. Not worked commercially in winter due to tide-wind problem. Narrow bed with 95% market clams 4.5 to 6 inches with large Rangia in excellent condition. No mortality in any samples. State,Health Department sample station K324-7 209 Clam Bed near BB-4: Code BB74 16 ft. deep. 390 00' 03" - 760 201 1811 Located 1.15 miles east of disposal site on edge of drop-off from 12 feet to 22 feet. Sand and shell over clay. Commercial quantities present with 75% marketable soft clams. Rafigia of 3 year classes present. 1-2 dead soft clams per bushel indicate some commercial harvest. Located close to State Health Department sample station.M-4 Spoil Disposal Site: Code BB-1 380 00' 47" 760 2.1' 22P 61 ft. deep Located between Coast Guard bouys E and F at the center of the discharge site. Bottom of black silt and sand with spar .ce benthic community representative of deep, bay environment that occassionally experiences anaerobic conditions and receives periodic deposits of sediment. East of Dump Site (old site) Code BB-2 390 00' 42 760 21' 02" 45 ft. deep Located in center of old spoil disposal site about 0.3 of a mile from the edge. of new discharge site. Bottom similar to BB-1. East of Dump Site (Inshore) Code BB-3 390 00' 2111 760 20' 15 22 ft'. deep About 0.9 of a miles east of spoil disposal site on junction of deep bay environm=_nt and producation shellfish beds. Silt and sand with deep bE.n'thic community dominated by My4 and Rangia East Exposure Site Code: BB-4 390 00' 03" 760 20' 18 18 ft. deep Located on edge of clam bed, oyster bai and on shelf dropping into deeper water. 1.17 miles to edge of disposal site. Westinghouse exposure site located here �incd it is close to probable inshore drift of"spoil and-rvPresent commercially important shellfish bavitat. Oyster density very low in mixed rock and old shell. Inshore clar Q bed described alone. Corresponds to State Health Department sample station KIM-4 West Exposure Site BB-5 390 01' 15 760 21' 54" 59 ft. deep Westinghouse exposure site located here on bottom and bentbic communities similar to spoil disposal site. State Health Department sample station KIK-6 210 South Dump Site BB-6 380 501. 56" 760 22! 0111 69 ft. deep Located in a@th end of disposal site near core sample location #10 0 Corresponds to State Health Department sample station KIK-5o Bottom and benthic. community similar to BB-1 APPENDIX III: WATER QUAITY OBSERVATIONS.DURING MONITORING OF KENT ISLAND DISPOSAL OPERATIONS 212 Station Code: BB-1 Station: Dump Site Date: Feb. 18, 75 Time: 1100 Wind: 0 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.0 8.7 181 10 3.0 8.7 177 20 3.9 8.3 180 30 4.6 8.3. 114 40 8.3 272 50 4.8 8.3 312 60 4.8 8.3 292 Station Code: BB-2 'Station: East of Dump Site (bld,site) Dat e: Feb. 18, 75 Time: 13:"22 Wind: .0 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.3 10.0 114- 10 3.1 10.0 230 20 4.5 9.7 148 30 4.7 9.6 218 40 4.8 .9.6 238 Station Code: BB-3 Station: East of Dump (Inshore) Date: Feb.' 18, 75 Time:. 15:55 Wind: 0 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.1 9.5 180 10 4.0 9.4 182 15 4.9 9.4 1:86 Station Code: BB-4 Station: East Exposure Site Date: Feb. 18, 75 Time: 15:55 Wind: SWIL) Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (.PP-M) 172 0 3.5 11.0 5 3.3 11.0 10 3.9 10.8 142 15 3.9 10,08 168 213 Station Code: BB-5 Station: West Exposure Site Date: Feb. 18, 75 Time: 16:45 Wind: SW8 Tide: Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 .1.1 8.9 134 M 3.2 8.9 18,6 20 3,2 8.9 142 30 4.3' 8.6 188 40 4.5 8.6 248 50 4.6 8.6 276 60 4.6 8.5 328 Station Code: BB-6 Station: South Dump Area Date: Feb. 19, 75 Time: Wind: Tide Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.7 9.8 146 10 3.5 9.0 222 20 3.5 9.0 132 30 3.9 9.0 242 40 4.5 8.8 221 50 4.7 8.8 60 4.7 8.7 210 Station Code: OB-1 Station Cum Thicket Bar Date: Feb. 19, 75 Time; 09:20 Wind: 0 Tide: Flood Depth Temp Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 10.1 3.3 130 10 10.1 3.3 160 20 9.9 3.8 160 Station Code: OB-2 StatIon: Brickbouse Bar Date: Feb. 19, 75 Time: 08:10. Wind: 0 Tide: Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.4 10.4 162 10 3.4 10.4 --- 15 3.4 10.4 174 214 Station Code OB-3 Station: Broad Creek Bar Date Feb. 19, 1975. Time Wind Tide Depth Temp Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.7 9.0 133 10 3.7 9.0 170 2 0. 3.7 8.9 110 Station Code OB-4 Station: Love Point Bar Date Feb. 19, 1975 T' Wind Tide Depth. Temp Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.6 8.8 142 10 3.6 8.8 --- 15 3.6 8.8 166 215 Station Code: bB-5 Station: Chester River (Mouth) Date: Feb. 19, 75 Time: Wind: Tide: Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (f t.. (CO) (PPT) (rpm) 0 3.6 9.8 162 10 3.5 9.7 15 3.6 9.7. 182 Station Code: OB-6 Station: Swan Point Bar Date: Feb. 19,75 Time: Wind: Tide: Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT). (PPM) 0 3.7 8.4 192 10 3.5 8.4 15 3.4 8.4 220 Station Code: CB-I Station: Broad Creek Clam Bed Date: Feb. 18, 75- Time: 15:10 Wind: 0 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) 0 3.2 9.9 224 5 3.7 9.7 172 10 3.7 9.7 Station Code: CB-2 Station Brickhouse Clam Bed Date: Feb. 19, 75 Time: 08:15 Wind: 0 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.3 10.3 188 5 3.5 10.2 --- 10 3.5 10.2 152 216, Station Code: BB-1 Station: Dump Site Date: Feb. 270 75 Time: 10:50 Wind: W 6 Tide: Ebb Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (00) (PPT) (PPH) 0 5.4. 2.6 10 5.1 2.8 312 .20 5.3 2.8 306 30 5.2 2.85 40 5.0 2.85 240 so -5.0 2.8 251 292 60 4.9 2.8- Station Code: BB-2 station: East of Dump Site (Old Site) Date: Feb. 27, 75 Time: 11:15 Wind: W 6 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 376 0 5.3 2.8 '2 .224 10 .5. 2.8 20 5.2 2.8 270 30 5.2 2.8 253 40 502 2.9 304 Station Code: BB-3 Station: East of Dump Site (Insbore) Date: Feb. 27, 75 Time: Wind: SW 6 Slack Tide: Depth - Temp., Salinity Turbidity .(PPT) (PPM) 0 5.8 4.2 199 10 .5.7 4.2 203 20 5.3 4.2 220 Station Code: BB-4 Stati on: East Exposure-Site Date: Feb. 27, 75. Time: 12:20 Wind:S W 6 Tide: EBB Dept4 Temp. Salinity.. Turbidity (CII) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.8 3.5 194. 10 5.2 3.5 --- 15 5.2 3.5 206 217 Station Code: BB-5 Station: West Exposure Site Date: Feb. 27, 75 Time: 12:00 Wind: W 8 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (Co) (PPT) 0 5.4 2.9 324 10 5.2 2.9 --- 20 5.2 2.9 276 30 5.2 2.9 --- 40 5.2 2.9 256 50 5.2 2.9 292 60 5.1 2.9 --- Station Code: BB-6 Station: South Dump Area Date: Feb. 21, 75 Time: 09:25 Wind: W 6 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 4.7 2.25 290 10 5.0 2.2 --- 20 5.1 2.2 160 30 5.1 2.2 --- 40 5.0 2.2 245 50 4.8 2.2 60 4.7 2.2 Station Code: BB--6 Station: South Dump Area (1 hr. post) dump Date:, Feb. 27, 75 Time: 11:40 Wind: W 8 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CP) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.4 2.9 300 10 5.1 2.9 241 20 5.2 2.9 255 30 5.2 2.9 --- 40 5.2 2.9 226 50 5.2 2.9 296 60 5.1 2.9 --- Station Code: OB-2 Station: Brickbouse Bar Date: Feb. 27, 75 time: 17:20 Wind: SW-10 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) 00) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.9 5.3 222 10 5.6 5.3 15 5.5 5.3 250 218 Station Code: OB-3 Station: Broad Creek Bar Date: Feb.'27, 75 Time: 13:50 Wind: S SW6 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPH) 0 5.5 2.8 232. 10 5.3 2.9 15 5.2 2.9 200 Station Code: OB-4 Station: Love Point Bar Date:. Feb. 27, 75 Time: 15:30 Wind:pW 8 Tide: Slack Depth Temp, Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 .5. 8 1.9 370 10 5.7 1.9 --- 15 5.5 1.9 240 Station Code:. OB-5 Station: Chester River Mouth Date: Feb. 27, 75 Time: 1600 Wind - SW'10 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) .0 5.9 3.0 306 is 5.5 3.0 301 10 5.7 3.0 Station Code: CB-I Station: Broad Creek Clam Bed Date: Feb. 27, 75 Time: 15:05 Wind: Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity y (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.7 5.1 194 ..-5 5.3 5.1 --- 10 5.4 5.1 302 Station Code: CB-2 Station:. Brickhouse Clam Bed Date: Feb. 27, 75 Time: 17:05 Wind: SW 10 Tide:Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) CPPT) (PPM) 0 5.9 5.7 191 10 5.8 5.7 187 219 Station Code: CB-3 Station: Pier'l Clam Bed Date: Feb. 27, 75 Time: 13:40 Wind: SW 6 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.5 4.4 254 5 5.5 4.4 --- 10 5.2 4.4 230 Station Code: CB-4 Station: Love Point Clam Bed Date: Feb. 27, 75 Time: 16:40 Wind: SW 8 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.7 2.8 242 10 5.7 2.8 15 5.3 2.8 268 Station Code: BB-1 Station: Dump Site Date: March 4, 75 Time: 16:50 Wind: NW 18 Tide: Ebb Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.9 4.7 318 10 3.9 4.7 --- 20 4.6 4.7 313 30 4.9 4.7 --- 40 4.8 4.6 302 50 4.8 4.6 346 60 4.8 4.6 --- Station Code: BB-4 Station: East Exposure Site Date: Mar. 4, 75 Time: 12:20 Wind: NW 20 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.3 4.7 244 10 3.3 4.6 --- 15 4.4 4.5 293 220: Station Code: BB-6 Station; South Dump Area Date: Mar. 4, 75 Time: 16:20 Wind: NW 22 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.9 4.6 334 .10 :3.9 4.6 .20 3.9 4.5 282 30 4.8 4.5 40 4.9 4.5 292 50 4.7 4.5 379 60 4.7 4.5 --- Station Code: OB-1 Station: Gum Thicket Bar Date: Mar. 4, 75 Time: 14:45 Wind: NW 22 Tide: EBB Depth Te%p. Salinity Turbidity (C") (PPT) JPPM) 0 3.8 5.7 238 10 3.8 5.7 --- 15 4.3 5.7 248 Station Code: OB-2 Station: Brickbouse Bar Date: Mar. 4. 75 Time: 14:05 Wind: NW 15 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.8 4.9 286 3.8 5.0 --- 15 4.7 4.9 277 Station Code: OB-3 Station: Broad Creek Bar Date: Mar. 4, 75 Time: 12:40 Wind: NW 24 Tide: Flood Depth Tep. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (C (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.4 4.4 294 10 .3.4 4.5 --- is 3.4 4'. 5 305 20 3.4 4.6 312 221 Station Code: OB-4 Station: Love Point Bar Date: Mar. 4, 75 Time: 11:40 Wind: NW 20 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.3 4.7 264 10 3.3 4.7 --- 15 4.3 4.6 272 Station Code: OB-5 Station: Chester River (Mouth) Date: Mar. 4, 75 Time: 11:20 Wind: Nw-.18 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.4 3.9 228 10 3.5 3.9 15 3.5 3.9 200 Station Code: OB-6 Station: Swan Point Bar Date: Mar. 4, 75 Time: 10:20 Wind: NW 18 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.0 2.2 385 10 3.0 2.1 15 3.0 2.1 379 Station Code: CB-1 Station: Broad Creek Clam Bed Date: Mar. 4, 75 Time: 12:10 Wind: NW 22 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.4 4.5 354 10 3.4 4.5 397 Station Code: CB-2 Station: Brickhouse Clam Bed Date: Mar. 4, 75 Time: Wind: Tide: Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.4 4.1 278 10 3.4 4.1 292 222 Station Code: CB-3 Station Pier 1 Clam Bed Date: Mar: 4, 75 Time: 12:50 Wind: NW 15 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinit Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 3.2 4.8 300 10 3.2 .4.8 --- 15 4.6 4.8 289 Station Code: CB74. Station: Love Point Clam Bed Date: Mar. 4, 75 Time: 13:30 Wind: NW 15 Tide: Slack Depth Temp, Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 j.3 4.7 275 10 3.4 4.7 --- 15 3.4 4.8 292 Station Code: BB-1 Station: Dump Site. Date: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 08120 Wind -NE 18 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (Co) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.5 6.9 270 10 3.5 6.9 --- 20 3.4 6.9 268 30 3.7 8.7 --- 3.7 8.8 307 50 5.19 8.7 403 60, 5.9 8.9. Station Code: BB-1 Statiow. Dump Site I hr. after dump Date: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 16:30 Wind: Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) .0 3.6 8.2 236 10 3.6 8.1 --- 20 3.6 8.1 229 30 3.6 8.2 40 3.8 8.2 522 50 3.9 8.1 495 60 4.2 8.1 --- 223 Station Code: BB-2 Station: East of Dump.Site Date: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 17:40 Wind: NE 16 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT), (PPM) 0 3.8 9.4 276 10 3.7 9.4 20 3.7 9.4 260 30 3 8 9.4 --- 40 4:1 9.3 268 Station Code: BB-3 Station: East of Dump Site (T@ishore) Dat'e: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 0805 Wind: NE 15 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.6 9.1 252 10 3.6 9.0 230 20 3.6 9.0 276 Ite Station Code: BB-5 Station: West Exposure SI Date: Mar. 14. 75 Time: 17:05 Wind: NE 20 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.4 6.9 230 10 3.4 6.9 --- 20 3.4 6.9 304 30 3.6 6.9 --- 40 3.8 6.8 435 50 4.0 6.8 538 60 4.0 6.8 --- Station Code: BB-6 Station: South Dump Area Date: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 16:25 Wind: NE 15 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.5 7.5 197 10 3.5 7.4 --- 20 3.7 7.4 241 30 3.7 7.5 --- 40 3.8 7.5- 334 50 3.9 7.4 --- 60 3.9 7.4 383 224 Station Code: OB-1 Station: Grim Thicket Bar Date: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 13:40 Wind: NE 16 Tide: EBB Depth iTemp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT). (PPM) 3.6 9.5 229 10 3.6 9.5 240 20 9.6 223 Station Code: OB-2 Station: Brickhouse Bar Date: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 14:20 Wind: NE 15 Tide: EBB .Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.6 9.5 271 10 3.6 9.4 222 15 3.8 9.4 2b8 Station Code: OB-3 Station: Broad Creek Bar Date: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 1600 Wind: NE 15 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PFM) 0 3.75 9.7 229 10 3.7 9.7 257 20 3.9 9.7 234 Station Code: OB-4 Station: Love Point Bar Date: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 11:20 Wind: NE 18 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.5 8.1 185 10 3.5 8.1 3.6 8.1 233 Station Code: OB-5. Station: Chester River (Mouth) Date: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 11:10 Wind: NE 18 Tide: Dept'h Temp., Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) '(PPM) 0 3.4 7.8 226 10 3.4 7.9 187 225 Station Code: OB-6 Station: Swan Point Bar Date: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 10:05 Wind: NE 20 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) 0 3.4 7.5 208 10 3.4 7.5 236 Station Code: CB-1 Station: Broad Creek Clam Bed Date: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 1800 Wind: NE 15 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft. (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.7 10.3 220 10 3.7 10.4 232 Station Code: CB-2 Station: Brickhouse Clam Bed Date: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 18:30 Wind: INE 15 Tide:Flood Depth Ter. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (C (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.7 10.1 238 10 3.7 10.2 249 Station Code: CB-3 Station: Pier I Clam Bed Date: Mar. 14, 75 Time: 15:40 wind: NE 14 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 3.7 9.7 215 2 10 3.9 9.7 15 3.9 9.7 258 Station Code: BB-3 Station: East of Dump Site (Inshore) Date: Mar. 19, 75 Time: 15:05 W' SW 30 Tide: Flood ind Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.6 8.5 192 10 5.5 8.4 191 15 5.4 9.4. 290 226 Station Code: BB-4 Station: East Exposure Site Date: Mar. 19, 75 Ti me: 14:15 Wind: SW 4 Tide: Stack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM)" 0 5.7 9.3 230 10 5.6 9.3 199 15 5.5 9.3 158 Station Code: OB-I Station: Grim Thicket Bar Date: Mar. 19, 75 Time: 11:40 Wind: SW 25 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity .@Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 6.3 10.1 17.8 10, 6.2 10.1 --- 15 10.2 177 20 6.2 10.1 Station Code: OB-2 Station: Brickhouse Bar Date: Mar. 19, 75 Time: 1200 Wind: SW 22 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.6 9.6 198 10 5.7 9.7 --- 15 5.5 9.7 208 20 5.5 9.8 --- Station,Code: BB-I Station: Dump Site Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: iOOO Wind: NW 5 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (M) (PPM) 0 5.8 6.7 206, 10 5.7 6.6 --- 20 5.7 7.6 204 30 5.5 9.1 --- 40 5.2 10.3 260 50 5.1. 13.6 258 60 5.0 14.4 264 227 Station Code: BB-2 Station: East.of Dump Site (old site) Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: 09:30 Wind: NW 3 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.9 6.8 212 10 5.8 7.5 --- 20 5.6 9.6 281 30 '5. 1 12.4 --- 40 5.1 14.1 181 50 5.2 14.2 212 Station Code: BB-3 Station: East of Dump Site (Inshore) Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: 09:15 Wind: NW 3-5 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.8 7.8 160 10 5.6 7.8 136 is 5.6 9.7 167 statio n Code: BB-4 Station: East Exposure Site Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: 11:25 wind: NW 7 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (C0 (PPT) (PPM) 0 6.5 7.4 186 10 6.3 7.6 170 15 6.0 7.8 137 Station Code: BB-5 Station: West Exposure Site Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: .10:20. Wind: NW 8 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (C (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.9 6.7 224 10 5.9 7.5 216 20 5.9 8.1 140 30 5.6 10.4 --- 40 5.0 13.3 234 50 5.1 14.4 248 228 Station Code: BB-6 Station: South Dump Area Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time; 10:45 Wind: NW 7 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 6*2 7.2 212 6.0 7. 2 237 20 6'0 8.1 208 '30 5:6 10.3 --- 40 5.2 12.6 223 50 5.2 14.2 236 60 5.4 14.6 219 Station Code: OB-1 Station: Grim Thicket Bar Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: 13:40 Wind: NW 2 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.1 8.0 179 10 6.3 8.9 ---' 15 6.0 10.3 177 20 6.2 10.3 --- Station Code: OB-2 Station: Brickbouse Bar' Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: 12:20 Wind: NW 2 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 8.1 7.2 206 10 8.5 6.7 --- 15 8.8 6.4 218 St ation Code: OB-3 Station: Broad Creek Bar Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: 1200 Wind: NW 3-5 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPM) 0 6.5 7.5 130 10 6.2 8.9 116 20 5.6 10.7 137 229 Station Code: OB-4 Station: Love Point Bar Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: 08:45 Wind: NW 3-5 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.6 6.5 224 10. 5.9 7.0 15 5.8 8.2 209 20 5.2 12.2 230 Station Code: OB-5 Station: Chester River (Mouth) Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: 08:05 Wind: NW 3-5 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.6 6.9 129 10 6.4 8.7 164 Station Code: OB-6 Station: Swan Point Bar Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: 07:20 Wind: NW 2 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.6 4.2 223 10 5.8 5.1 --- 15 5.8 7.1 323 Station Code: CB-1 Station: Broad Creek Clam Bed Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: 09:00 Wind: NW 3-5 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (Co) (PPT) (PPM) 0 5.8 7.2 237 10 5.6 8.2 15 5.6 8.8 228 Station Code: CB-2 Station: Brickhouse Clam Bed Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: 12:20 Wind: NW 2 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.2 8.1 12 6 10 6.7 8.5 15 6.4 8.8 130 230 Station Code: M-3 Station: Pier 1 Clam Bed Date: Mar. 21, 75 time: 12:10 Wind: NW 5 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (&) (PPT) (rpm) 0 6.5 7.5 1'5 5 10 6.2 7.8 --- 15 5.6 8.9 169 Station Code: CB-4 Station: Love Point Clam Bed Date: Mar. 21, 75 Time: 11:45 Wind: NW 3 Tide: Depth temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 6.0 6.5 198 10 6.0 7.1 --- 15 5.9 7.1 202 Station Code: BB-1 Station: Dump Site Date: Apr. 15, 75 Time: 10:40 Wind: NE 10 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.7 6.7 71 20 7.3 6.7 10 7.8 6.7 87 70 30 7.2 6.8 78 7.2 6.8 128 50 7.2 6.8 146 @60 7.2 6.8 152 'Station.Code: BB-2 Station: East of Dump Site (old site) Date: April 15, 75 Time: 11:10 Wind: NE 12-15 Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (Co) (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.8 6 7 73 10 7.8 6:7 --- 20 7.7 6.7 81 30 7.2 6.8 40 7.1 6.8 79 45 7.0 6.8 81 231 Station Code: BB-3 Station: East of Dump Site (Inshore) Date: Apr. 15, 75 Time: 11:50 Wind: NE 18 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (co) (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.9 7.3 59 10 7.9 7.3 -- 15 8.0 7.3 - 20 8.0 7.3 78 Station Code: BB-4 Station: East Exposure Site Date: Apr. 15, 75 Time: 12:20 Wind: NE 10 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (co) (PPT) (PPM) 7.9 7.2 68 10 7.9 7.2 60 15 7.7 7.2 44 Station Code: BB-5 Station: West Exposure Site Date: Apr. 15, 75 Time: 10:20 Wind: NE 10 Tide: Flood Depth Temp'. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (GO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.8 6.6 83 10 7.8 6.6 --- 20 7.6 6.6 77 30 7.1 6.7 --- 40 7.2 6.7 80 50 7.2 6.7 57 Station Code: BB-6 Station: South Dump Area Date: Apr. 15 Time:- 11-30 Wind: NE 15 Tide:, EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.8 7.0 76 10 7.8 7.0 20 7.3 7.1 76 30 7.1 7.1 40 7.2 7.1 71 50 7.2 7.2 60 7.2 7.2 106 232 Station Code: OB-1 Station: Grim Thicket Bar Date: Apr. 15 Time: 14:30 Wind: NNE 12 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.8 7.7 67 10 7.3 7.8 20 7.3 7.8 84 Station Code: OB-2 Station: Brickhouse Bar Date: Apr", 15, 75 Time: 15:20 Wind: NW 15 Tide: Ebb Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 .7.6 8.2 54 10 7.6 7.0 15 7.6 7.0 73 Station Code: OB-3 Station: Broad Creek Bar Date: Apr. 15, 75 Time: 13:45 Vind: NE 15 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 8.0 7.2 57 10 7.8 7.2 56 20 7.5 7.3 62 Station Code: OB-4 Station: Love Point Bar Date: Apr. 15, 75 Time: 10.00 Wind: NE 10 Tide: Flood Depth Temp, Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.7 6.2 66 10 7.9 6.3 20 7.3 6.3 89 Station Code: OB-5 Station: Chester River (Mouth) Date: Apr. 15, 75 Time: @09:30 Wind: E 8-10 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.9 5.5 72 10 7.'9 5.5 15 7.8 6.6 60 Z 3? ;,' Station Code: OB-6 tation: Swan Point Bar Date: Apr. 15, 75 Time: 08:45 Wind: E 8-10 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.9 5.3 65 10 8.1 5.5 -- 15 8.1 5.5 67 Station Code: CB-1 Station: Broad Creek Clam Bed Date: Apr. 15, 75 Time: 12:05 Wind: NWE 15 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (Ppbo 0@ 7.9 6.7 63 7.7 6.8 -- 1-5 10 7.7 6.8 83 Station Code: CB-2 Station: Brickbouse Clam Bed Date: Apr. 15, 75 Time: 15:25 Wind: NW 15 Tide: EBB D-ptb Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.7 8.5 79 10 7.1 8.5 92 Station Code: CB-3 Station: Fier 1 Clam Bed Date: Apr. 15, 75 Time: 15:45 Wind: NW 18 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (C 05 (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.8 7.7 75 10 7.7 7.7 20 7.2 7.8 91 Station Code: CB-4 Station: Love Point Clam Bed Date: Apr. 15 Time: 16:30 Wind: NW 15 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (ft.) (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 7.9 6.3 78 10 7.8 6.3 -- 15 7.8 6.3 86 235 Station Code: BB-5 Station: West Exposure Site Date:7 19 Hay 75 Time: 12:45 Wind: 0 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (Co) (PPT) (PFH) 0 20.6 - 88 10 17.5 - 20 13.4 - 143 30 11.9 - - 40 11.5 - 151 50 11.4 - 65 11.2 190 Station Code: BB-6 Station: South Dump Area Date: 19 May 75 Tide: 14:40 Wind: SW4 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (C0 (PPT) (PPM) 0 19.9 63 10 17.42 - 20 13.9 - 135 30 11.28 - - 40 10.88 - 101 50 11.02 - 60 11.02 - 161 Station Code: OB-I station: Gum Thicket Bar Date: 19 May 75 Time: 08:20 Wind: NE 3-5 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 17.8 6.4 .63 10 14.9 6.8 - 15 14.2 6.8 - 20 13.8 7.0 82 Station Code: OB-2 station: Brickhouse Bar Date: 19 May 75 Time: 09:30 Wind: NE3 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 17.8 5.2 76 10 17.3 5.2 - 15 15.4 5.3 - 20 14.5 5.5 138 236 Station Code: BB-1 Station: Dump Site Date: 19 May 75 Time: 13:45 Wind: 0 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 19.0 - .73 10 17.26 - - 20 13.88 - 105 30 11.32 - - 40 10.92 - @168 50 1.10.82 173 53 10.78 Station Code: BB-2 Station: East Dump Site (old site) Date: 19 May 75 Time: 14:10 Wind: 0 Tide: Flood D?-pth. Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 19.,2 - 80 10 17.14 - - 20 14.04 - 98 30 11.60 - - 40 10.82 143 50 10.62 176 53 .10.80 Station Code: BB-3 Station: East of Dump (Insbore) Date: 19 May 75 Time: 1500 Wind: SW4 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (co (PPT) (PPM) 19.4 68 0 10 16.22 68 15 15.78 77 Station Code: BB-4 Station: East Exposure:. Site Date: 19 MA7 75 Time: 15:20 Wind: SW5 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0, 19.34 71 10 16.78 - 15 15.22 76 20 15.22 106 237 Station Code: OB-3 Station: Broad Creek Bar Date: 19 14ay 75 Time: 10:20 Wind: NE3 Tide: EBB Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 19.0 5.2 112 10 17.9 5.3 - 15 17.2 .5.3 -1113 Station Code: OB-4 Station: Love Point Bar Date: 19 May 75 Time: 1200 Wind: 0 Tide: Flood Depth TeTp. Salinity Turbidity (C (PPT) (PPM) 0 19.2 63 10 17.7 15 13.3 20 12.8 120 Station Code OB-5 Station: Chester River (Mouth) Date: 19 May 75 Time: 11-.140 Wind: NEI Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 19.7 3.4 93 10 18.9 3.4 - 15 17.2 3.5 118 Station Code: OB-6 Station: Swan Point Bar Date: 19 May 75 Time: 11:05 Wind: NEI Tide: Slack Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PFM) 0 18.6 3.8 96 10 18.3 3.8 - 15 17.3 3.8 110 Station Code: CB-1 Station: Broad Greek Clam Bed Date: 19 May 75 Time: Wind: 0 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (PPM) 0 21.0 3.8 129 10 19.1 4.8 - 13 19.5 5.0 145 238 Station Code CB-2 Station Brickhouse Clam Bed Date: 19 May 75 Time: 15:45 Wind: SW5-8 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (CO) (PPT) (Ppm) 0 20.0 100 10 18.5 - is 18.5 105 Station Code CB-3 Station Pier I Clam Bed Date: 19 May 75 Time: 15:30 Wind: SW5 Tide: Flood Depth Temp. Salinity Turbidity (Co) (PPT) '(PPM) 00 19.4 80 10 ig.4 18,2 7.8 APPENDIX IV: BAR COMPOSITION YIELD SHEET USED BY D.N.R. FISHERIES ADMINISTRATION AND U.M.C.E.E.S. OYSTER BAR COMPOSITION ANALYSIS 240 DEPARTMENT OF CHESAPEAKE DAY AFFAIR'S SAMPLE NO. Dole Location TEMP. SALINItY 0/00 Bottan, Size Semple or No. of Licks, PL@NTfNl, INFOPMATWN Type of I'lonling: Sued bus., Source fro--h Shells Bus.; Dredood Shells Bus.. Roof Shells CIO. Shells Bus.; Bus.; Olhcr Materials Bus.; He J,4.t.,;.l Plonlecl, A N.t.,ol Bat - Date Planted Site of Plcnf;ng . octet; Nwm6of of bushels pot acoo 7- ASSOCIATED ORGANISMS: (SCORE: 0 absent, I few, 2 moder at*, 3 numerous. 4 very abundant) Barnacle Anemones S..?" cl@'rrrs C':Ridulo Algza M. Snails Baring Sp..q. G...s M.Ssels'-_ ki.d C,.bs Bryoloo Bar. Clom Encrus. Si-q. Polynices Hyd'oicls V-us MoIg-Jo Mod Tubes A@ytjlc,psis Sty lqchus Anemia DISTRIBUTION AND CCMPOSITION OF SAR MATERIAL (Cull out st;-s before lo.ing sarr@ple) TALLY SPACE Nwm6er of oysiers (Use for $pal count HO. PER PER in lomple if needed) BUSHEL CENT Market OyslArs 7 (under 3 SPAT 04 SHELL SP AT ON CIN DE R SPAT ON MARKETS SPAT ON SPAT ON SMA Est. the a. .a*. range Est. the overale TOTAL SPAT of tl,. spot like of the spot cou.0 Ur%@no@ft woh Ulcer D'Aled Spot Boxes BOXES Old Oyster Boxes Recent Oyster Boxes C.Pots DRILLS U,osalp;nx Urc,salp;nx Egg Clutches Ewplouto Euplcuro Egg [email protected] A.,,afe Size alffloArt Oy3ters BLANK. SMELLS Very Large Large Medium sn@ali All $iats ovor6*'-- 5"-6"- 4"-S"- 3"-4"--' ovenlymixecl- Typical Sbape and Cha,scler __ Roundish ____ PerAor Single CINDER Dc ep Cup __@_ Thick Shell Flat Thin Shell - Long - Irregular - Cl,-,-,-d Sbell cm.th cnd C.O.di6o. of Oy..rr's DEBRIS (MAKE Average Gm-lh of Bill: E.c.lf.m (over 3/4*1 Good (1/2 - 314") NOTE OF KINP) (Check 0.0) Average (1/4 - 1/2") Poor (0 - V41") Root Each individual, From 0 -'5 CO.J;rjon of Oysters. Fat a Cr;verlo P.Iyj.,a: Actual counted TOTAL OYSTERS oys:ers 3 i1cIII,: the S.30 1-96 Avcrage.Giowth of Sill.. Excellent (over 3/4") .-, Good (1/2 - 3/4") [ Very I .,., 6 Occ. 40,5 Ea-'r., that. *Yale.* (Check C..) A,*,U%e 1/2-) Poor (0 - 1/4--) REMARKS: 241 OYSTER BAR COMPOSITION ANALYSIS. The standard D.N.R. field sheet and procedures for analysis of oyster barswere used with @, bushel samples of shell and living oysters. Number of 4 minute dredge hauls varied due to bar condition and bottom type and number used per bar were given'in bar description. The following summary of field data sheets reflects field observations. Five market oysters were examined for condition, presence Of crystaline style and p6lydora. OB1 Gum Thicket Bar February 19-20, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 50 65 Small oysters 1 - - Spat I Boxes 1 Blank shell - 35 Market oysters Size Large Style (5) present Condition (5) -2+ Polydora (5) <2 per shell Associated Orangisms Barnacle Numerous Mussels Numerous Bryozoa Moderate Anemones Numerous Worms Few OB2 Brickhouse Bar FEBRUARY 19-20, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oyster 67 60 Small oysters 6 6 Spat 0 0 Boxes 4 4 Shell - 30 Market oysters Size Medium Condition (5) 3+ Style (5) present in 4 Polydora per shell (5 OB2 Brickhouse Bar FEBRUARY 19-20, 1975 continued Associated organisms Barnacle Moderate Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Few Anemones Moderate Worms Absent OB3 Broad Creek Bar FEBRUARY 19-2b, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOS ITION Market oysters 83 80 Small oysters 2 1 Spat 0 0 Boxes 2 1 Shell - 18 Market oysters Size Medium Style Condition (5) <2 (5) Present Polydora (5) 3 per shell Associated organisms Barnacle Moderate Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Few Anemones Moderate Worms Few OB4 Love Point Bar FEBRUARY 19-20, 1975 NUMBER- PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 57 60 Small oysters 6 6 Spat 0 0 Boxes .2 4 Shell 30 Market oysters Size Medium Condition (5) 4,3 green body Style (5) present Polydora (5) 4 per shell Associated organisms Barnacle Moderate Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Few Anemones Few Worms Moderate 243 085 Chester River Mouth FEBRUARY 19-20, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 54 45 Small oysters 28 20 Spat 0 -- Boxes 10 5 Shell -- 30 Market oysters Size Small Condition (5) 2 Style (5) 4 present Polydora None Associated Organisms Barnacle Few Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Absent Worms Absent Anemones Absent OB6 Swan Point Bar FEBRUARY 19-20, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT-COMPOSITION Market oysters 45 47 Small oysters 15 6 Spat 0 - Boxes 6 2 Shell - 47 Market oysters Size Medium Condition < 2 not marketable Style , , (5) present in 4 Polydora None Associated Organisms Barnacle Numerous- Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Absent Anemones Few. Worms Few, 244 or OB1 Gum Thicket Bar MARCH 19, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION market oysters 78 q 0 Small oysters 1 Spat 0 .Boxes 5 5 -Blank Shell - 25 Market oysters Size Large Condition (5) 2 Style (5) present Polydora! (5) . 2 per shell Associated organisms Barnacles Moderate Mussels Numerous Bryozoa Few Anemones Moderate Worms Moderate OB2 Brickhouse Bar MARCH 19, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters .60 50 Small oysters 5 5 Spat 0 Boxes 4 5 Shell 40 Market oysters Size Medium Condition (5) 2+ Style 5/5 Polydora (5) 1+/shell per shell Associated organisms Barnacles Numerous Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Few Anemones Moderate Worms Absent OB3 Broad Creek Bar MARCH 19, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 77 80 Small oysters 3 2 Spat 0 - Boxes 1- 2 Shell - 16 245 OB3 Broad Creek Bar continued MARCH 19, 1975 Market oysters Size Medium Condition (5) 4 2 Style (5) @15.prbsent Polydora 2 per shell Associated organisms Barnacles Numerous Mussels Modorate Bryozoa Few Anemones Few Worms Few OB4 Love Point Bar MARCH 19, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 113 80 Small oysters 16 5 Spat 0 Boxes 2 Shell - 15 Market oysters Size Small Condition (5) 2 + Style (5) 5/5 Polydora (5) 2 per shell Associated organisms Barnacles Moderate Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Few Anemones Few Worms Few OB5 Chester River Mouth MARCH 19, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 66 30 Small oysters 55 18 Spat 0 Boxes 19 6 Shell -- 50 246 OB5 Chester River Mouth continued MARCH 19, 1975 Market oysters Size Small Conditions (5) 2 Style (5) 3/5 Polydora None Associated organisms Barnacles Few Mussels Few Bryozoa Absent Anemones Absent Worms Few OB6 Swan Point par MARCH 19, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 66 30 Small oysters 55 25 Spat 0 Boxes 19 (old dredge) 5 Shell 40 Market oysters Size Small Condition < 2 Style (5) 3/5 Polydora None Associated orga nisms Barnacles Moderate Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Absent Anemones Absent Worms Absent 247 OB1 Gum Thicket Bar APRIL 15, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 69 75 Small oysters 2 5 -Spat 1 Boxes 3 5 Shell - 15 Market oysters Size Medium Condition 2 Style Present Polydora 3 Associated organisms Barnacles Moderate Mussels Numerous Bryozoa Few Anemones Numerous Worms Moderate OB2 Brick house Bar APRIL 15, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOMION Market oysters 109 60 Small oysters 21 10 Spat 0 Boxes 4 2 Shell 28 Market oysters Size Medium Condition (5) 3+* Style (5) 5/5 Polydora 1+/shell Associated organisms Barnacles Moderate Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Moderate Anemones Few Worms Absent OB3 Broad Creek Bar APRIL 15, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 81 70 Small oysters 1 1 Spat 1 1 Boxes 3 3 Shell - 25 248 OB3 Broad Creek Bar continued APRIL 15, 1975 market oysters Size Medium Condition 3+ Style 4/5 Polydora 3+ per shell Associated organisms Barnacles Numerous Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Moderate Anemones, Moderate Worms Few OB4 Love Point Bar APRIL 15, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 115 85 Small oysters 5 2 Spat 0 Boxes 5 3 Shell 10 Market oysters Size Small Condition .(5) 1poor -Style (5) 3/5 Polydora (5) 3 per shell Associated organisms Barnacles Numerous Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Few Anemones Few Worms Absent OB5 Chester River Mouth APRIL 15, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSIT10N Market oysters 84 45 Small oysters 4 5 Spat Boxes 4 5 Shell - 45 249 OB5 Chester River Mouth continued APRIL 15, 1975 Market oysters Size Medium Condition (5) 2 Style (5) 3/5 Polydora None Associated organisms Barnacles Few (dead) Mussels Mo*derate Bryozoa Few Anemones Absent Worms Few OB6 Swan Point Bar APRIL 15,.1975 NUMBER PERCFNT COMPOSITION Market oysters 68 70 Small oysters 2 15 Spat 0 0 Boxes 0 0 Shell 15 Market oysters Size Medium Condition ( 2 Style (5) 3/5 Polydora None Associated organisms Barnacles Moderate Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Absent Anemones Absent Worms Absent 250 OB1 Gum Thicket Bar May 19, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 30 50 Small oysters 0 Spat 1 Boxes 0 -- .Blank dhell --- 50 Market oysters Size Large Style (5) present Condition (5) 3 Polydora (5) per shell Associateddorganisms Barnacle Numerous Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Moderate Anemones Numerous Worms Few Hydroids Few OB2 Brickhouse Bar May 19, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oyster 80 85 Small oysters 0 6 Spat 0 0 Boxes 5 5 Shell - 10 Markey oysters Size Medium Condition (5) 2+ Style (5) present in 5 Polydora (5) 2+ per shell Associated organisms Barnacle Moderate Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Moderate Anemones Moderate Worms Present Hydroid Moderate 251 OB3 Broad Creek Bar May 19, 1975 -NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 80 70 Small oysters 3 2 Spat 0 0 Boxes 3 3 Shell -- 25 Market oysters Size Medium Condition (5) 2 Style (5) 1---esent Polydora (5) 3-5 pet shell Associated organisms Barnacle Moderate Mussels Abundant Bryozoa Few Anemones Moderate Worms Moderate Hydroids Few OB4 Love Point Bar NUMBER+ PERCEW COMPOSITION Market oysters 103 92 Small oysters I I Spat 0 Boxes 2 Shell - 6 Market oysters Size Medium Condition (5) 1+(green) Style (5) present Polydora (5) 5 per shell Associated organisms Barnacle Abundant Mussels Moderate Bryozoa Few Anemones Few Worms Moderate 252 OB5 Chester River-Mouth May 19, 1975 NUMBER PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 101 69 Small oysters 1 .5 .Spat 0 Boxes 1 .5 Shell 30 Market oysters Size Medium Cond'ition (5)2(green color) Style (5)*5 present Polydora None Associated Organisms Barnacle Absent Mussels Moderate Bryozoa, Absent Worms Few Anemones Absent Mud Crab Few OB5 Swan Point Bar May 19, 1975 N UM13E R PERCENT COMPOSITION Market oysters 38 28 Small oysters 3 2 Spat. 1 Boxes 9 10 Shell - 60 Market oysters Size medium to small .Condition 1+not marketable Style (5) present in 4 Polydora 2 per sb.ell Associated-organisms Barnacle Numerous Mu ssels Moderate Bryozoa Absent Anemones Few Worms Few Mud Crab Few Rangia Moderate APPENDIX V: NUMBERS OF INDIVIDUAL BENTHIC SPECIES PER SQUARE METER &LNI 1@)LA.Nv brUIL DISPOSAL MOXITORiNG DISTRIBUTION, AND NUMBERS OF BENTHIC SPECIES 254 SAMPLE DATE: 2-19-75 SAMPLE STATION CODE BB-1 BB-2 BB-3 BB-4 BB-5 BB-6 CB-1 CB-2 CB-3 COELENTERATES' Diadumene leucolena 55 40 10 125 CRUSTACEANS Balanus balanoides .5 Callinectes sapidus .Chiridotea coeca Cyathura polita. 1 5- 55 5 Edotea triloba 95 5 1 V) ; I . 10 Coropbium lacustre 5 5 70 75 5 r, n in Leptocbeirus plumulosus 115 15 70 40 25 1995 in .. r. I Monoculoides 25 30 5 5 25 Parahaustorius bolmsi Neomysis americanus Cumacean 5 Gammerus sp. Melita nitida Rhithropabopeus barrisi POLYCHAETES Eteone beteropoda 10 2 r. in inn .195 -Glycinde solitaria 50 an 1 1; in 135 9 Beteromastus filiformis 15 15 290 150 55 37 75 40 N-e-r-eis succinea 530 245 130 565 ISO an 110 -lln Pectinaria gouldii Polydora sp. 10 Prionospio pinnate 565 491 50- 40 -39-30--- Scolecolepides 95 9?5 --10-ZO 295 -14-la --l 80 viridis --255-- 0. Scolplos fragilis - 20- Scoloplos robusta 5 ___@iago chaetae FLATWOPUIS .-Sty-l-(@-cl@-us- ellipticiis 15 5 ------- NEMERTEANS 7n 5 20 -Mi-crura le1qy 25 90 in -- - - _L _j_ MOLLUSCS Brachlodontes recurvus 5 in 10 15 Crassostrea virginica Duridella obscura 260 75 65 15 ,jacoma balthica 10 Macom@ 65 30 -- 9 30 1 4760 440 Mulinia lateraliS 40 _I 35 575 25 25 Mya arenaria* 3015 2965 25 10 1 Tagelus plebius 35 20 45 80 45 Rangia cuneata TOTAL INDIVIDUAL 5840 1786 5300 4840 5880 2800 840 200 -0-45- TOTAL SPECIES 14 17 19 19 17 14 17 15- 14 ,SAMPLE DATE: 3-21-75 255 SAMPLE STATION CODE BB-1 BB-2 BB-3 BB-4 BB-5 BB-6 CB . . ... CB-3S 1 CB-2 COELENTERATES* Diadumene leucolena 105 10 90 10 CRUSTACEANS .Balanus balanoldes 5 85 30 Callinectes sapidus Chiridotea coeca -Cyathura polita 5 Edotea.triloba 5 -Corophium lacustre -11) 10 i80 -Leptoc'beirus plumulosus 45 55 80 20 20 40 5 25 M@onoculoides edwardsi 5 1 10 40 15 5 5 1-5 45 5 Parabaustorius holmsi 60 140 10 210 140 -],,'eQmysis americanus 5 5 15 Cumacean Gammerus sp. Melita nitida Rhithropahopeus harrisl POLYCHAETES Eteone beteropoda- 60 55 145 .25 5 Glycinde solitaria 125 65 25 5 - Beteromastus filiformis 25 40 25 20 30 85 290 Nereis succinea, 480 60 20 560 465 200 65 --Pectinaria gouldii 30 120 Polydora sp- 5 Prioios io innate 3170 25 1525 1360 Scolecolepides viridis -20 3875 730 4725 1195 1150 1460 850 -235- -sc-olplos fragilis Scoloplos robusta-: 5 __A @75 80 110 10 10 -- ----&I-igochaetae FLAT140R.M,S Styloc-hus ellipticus &\j ERTF--kh'S. Micrura leldli___---- 40 5 25 /40 65-- 15 420 30 MOLLUSCS Bracbi6dontes recurvus 5 30 Cressostrea virginica -- Ditridella obscura 10 !-,acoma baltbica 15. 5 15 5 5 1.13coma pbenax 25 15 6690 10 5 Muiinia later'alis 275 5 90 15 15 ---Mya arenaria - - 15 1850 1355 1155 875 2375 Tage2us plebius ---R-angia cuneata 130 90 50 20 --65- INDIVIDUAL 30 8090 3035 6640 3795 10265 3430 2540 3040 TOTAL ---- 3 16 13 16 14 20 18 16 7 TOTAL SPECIES #7 5 5 15@ SAMPLE DATE: 4-16-75 256 S LE STATION CODE- BB-1 BB-2 BB-3 BB-4 BB-5 BB-6 CB-1 CB-2 COELENTERATES Diadumene leucolena IS Ln CRUSTACEANS Balanus' balanoides /in Callinectes sapidus Chiridotea coeca Cyathuia polita Edotea triloba 9 55 Coro2hium lacustre 5 5 140 105 5 15 95 Leptocbeirus plumulosus 5 5 115 25 5 15 5 () I Monoculoides edwardsi 5 10 5 Parahaustorlus holmsi 1; 40 'Neomysis americanus Cumatean Gammerus sp. Helita nitida in Rhithropabo2eus harri.si POLYCHAETES .Eteone heteropoda- 150 25 40 1 nn 9 Glycinde solitaria 15 -.45 10 Betero-mastus filiformis 10 35 285 70 35 155 94n isn Nlereis-succinea- 200 215 955 135 7 5 -30f) -3() 2 Fectinariagouldii 5 25 in 2 Polyd.ora s 10 Prionospio pinnate 140. -1220 50 120 5 Scolecolepides viridis 3485 665 8295 2055 1415 640 345 2895 Scolplos fragilis scoloplos robusta 10- .80 1 35 1 5 20 15 Oligo:cbaetae. 5 5 FLAV.@ORMS Styloc us ellipticus 25 Xi:@NERTEANS .Micrura lei4yi 45 @5 15 5 70 115 110 MOLLUSCS Brachi,odontes recurvus 5 -25- 5 Crassostrea___y_i_Lgi@jica Duridella obscura i*;acoma balthica 15 25 4730 2S 15 20 10 10 630 ,,-!acoma pbenax 5 15 45 905 605 35 10 Mulinia lateralis 1175 1115 5 260 Ilya arenaria ' 15 12750 759 5 15 75 -1.50 F890 Tagelus plebius Rangia cuneata 45 40 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL 5095 3035 L3220 3400 3665 1595 1045 940 5925 TOTAL SPECIES 12 '15 19 17 17 13 14 9 22 E-3 CB-3 201 SAMPLE DATE:. 5-20-75 257 - SAMPLE STATION CODE BB-1 BB-2 BB-3 BB-4 BB-5 BB-6 CB I CB-2 CB -31 COELENTER.ATES' Diadumene leucolena 5 30 115 5 5 CRUSTACEANS. Balanus balanoides 65 175 Callinectes sapidus Chiridotea coeca Cyathura polita 5 15 5 Edotea triloba -10 15 - Coropbium lacustre 5 195 145 lo. 15 25 30 115 - Leptocheirus 'plumulosus 5 60 95 20 -5 10 25 170 - ?Jonoculoides edwardsi 60 10 7D 35 66- Farahaustorius bolmsi 10 35 30 Neomysis americaous Cumacean - 10 Gammerus mucronatus 25 20 - 'Melita nitida 105 20 15 55 Rhitbropabopeus harrisi 5 POL'YiCHAETES Eteone beteropoda 25 45 10 25 25 35 cinde solitaria 15 10 35 15 5 10 Beterouiastus filiformis .5 10 290 45 25 20 175 270 370 Nereis succinea 100 330 195 615 .255 15 210 _1@5 Pectinaria gouldii 5 2-5 Polydora sp. Prionospio -pinnate 280 575 10 915 665 10 Sc)lecolepides viridis 215 775 1715 2930 945 @@60 2270 685 1417o Scolplos fragilis 15 Scoloplos robusta -15- 30 10 Oligo cbaetae 5 FLATWORMS Stylochus ellipticus -E R -TEA N s 85 4U lo 50 60' 60 1,65 i-licrura leidyi MOLLUSCS Brachiodontes recurvus 5 45 110 Crassostr a virginica Duridella obscura 30- 10 - .-'aco;-,a balthica 185 130 25 190 5 15 i2O Macoma phenax 25 10 --@I-,linia lateralis 2840 545 45 10 20 1595 15 Ilya arenaria- 10 1735 1020 10 20 155 2A6-q Tagelus plebius Rangia cuneata 25 50 TO'TAL INDIVIDUAL 3560 2365 4810 4840 2775 -3450 277() __18 3 7-Q TOTAL SPECIES 14 11 18 16 13 15 16 7_ APPENDIX VI CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS IN OYSTERS (ppm DRY WEIGHT) COLLECTED 20 FEB.11975 POOLED SAMPLESS Station Code Cu Zn Fe Cd Mn OB1 333 8,500 173 13 12 OB2 324 9,800 124 15 19 OB3 385 10,200 202 23 19 OB4 586 14,300 254 25 27 OB5 .301 7,500 139 22 11 OB6 559 10,900 154 25 23 BB4Small 544 11,800 175 25 17 Big 1 504 14,100 124 22 10 Big 2 490 13,400 95 21 10 Big 3 505 13,000 112 21 7 Note: FOLLOWINGS METALS WERE AT CONCENTRATIONS BELOW LEVELS NECESSARY FOR ACCURATE DETECTION Pb <60 Co 3 Ni 4-8 Cr. 450 259 CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS IN OYSTER@ (ppm DRY WEIGHT) COLLECTED 28 MARCH 1975 (POOLED SAMPLES) Station Code Cu Fe Cd mh OB1 435 9,000 153 16 12 OB2 474 12s;000. 168 18' 10 OB3 541 12,600 268 20 25 OB4 636 13,900 233 23 22 OB5 420' 9 300 168 22 15 OB6 832 13,400 175 21 22 BB4 #1 451 11,100 174 17 15 BB4 #2 448 11,100 163 18 12 BB4 #3 433 11,000 181 18 12 S-D 540 10,000 90 11 20 CONCENTRATION OF HEAVY METALS IN OYSTERS (ppm DRY WEIGHT) COLLECTED 28 MARCH 1975 (POOLED SAMPLES) Pb <30 Co < 3 Ni 6 Cr <30 260 ,CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY H[ETALS IN OYSTERS (ppm DRY WEIGHT) COLLECTED 15 April 1975 (POOLED SAMPLES) Station Code Cu Zn Fe Cd Mn OB1 430 12,406 220 18 12 OB2 380 9,700 160 19 12 OB3 400 10,100 220 15 19 OB4 65 0 14,800 460 21 37 OB5 550 12,800 150 26 10 OB6 420 8,200 130 30 15 CONCENTRATION OF HEAVY METALS IN OYSTERS (ppm DRY WEIGHT) COLLECTED 28 MARCH 1975 (POOLED SAMPLES Pb < 35 Co 7 Ni 5 Cr < 3 261 CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS IN OYSTERS (ppm DRY WEIGHT) COLLECTED 19, MAY 1975 (POOLED SAN?LES) CU Zn Fe Cd Mn OB-1 289 8400 182 14 10 OB-2 461 11800 196 14 15 OB-3 344 9200 293 19 26 OB-4 825 15100 1319 24 OB-5 582 13400 216 23 22 OB-6' 6 29 12300 168 22 16 SD 540 10000 90 11 20. Following metals were at concentrations below levels necessary for accurate detection. Pb 30 Co < 3 Ni --t 6 Cr 5 262 CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS IN SOFT SHELL CLAMS (ppm DRY WEIGHT) COLLECTED 20 FEBRUARY 1975 POOLED SAMPLES Station Code Cu Zn Fe Mn CB2 54 138 930 240 CB3 40 253 1,380 710 CB4 45 192 3,480 1,070 CB5 44 225 4,390 860 BB3 52 174 1,210 690 NOTE: FOLLOWING METALS WERE AT CONCENTRATIONS BELOW LEVELS NECESSARY FOR ACCURATE DETECTION Co 12 Ni 12 Cr- < 4 Pb /-35 Cd < 263 CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS IN Rang-la ICLAMS (ppm DRY WEIGHT) COLLECTED 20 FEBRUARY 1975. POOLED SAMPLES Station Code Cu Zn Fe Mn CB2 20 71 182 11 BB4 71 482 1,360 203 BB3 22 150 1,130 210 Note: FOLLOWING METALS WERE AT CONCENTRATIONS BELOW LEVELS NECESSARY FOR ACCURATE DETECTION Co < 8 Ni +12. Cr < 4 Cd 3 Pb <35 264 CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS IN SOFT SHELL CLAMS (ppm DRY WEIGHT) COLLECTED 18 April 1975 POOLED SAMPLE S Station Code Cu Zn Fe' Mn CB1 56 170 1000 240 CB2 45 244 2306 540 CB3 47 225 1100 500. CB4 43 274 1750 940 CB5 46 268 355 0 1010 NOTE: FOLLOWING METALS WERE AT CONCENTRATIONS BELOW LEVELS NECESSARY FOR ACCURATE DETECTION Co < 10 Ni. 6 Cr < 5 Pb < 35 Cd <4 265 CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS IN SOFT SHELL CLAMS (ppm DRY WEIGHT) COLLECTED 21 MAY 1975 (POOLEDISAMPLES) Cu Zn Fe Mn CB-1 39 268 1470 840 CB-2 42 229 510 624 CB-3 40 296 430 864 CB-4 47 225 1360 1080 FOLLOWING METALS'WERE AT CONCENTRATIONS BELOW LEVELS NECESSARY FOR ACCURATE DETECTION Co <10 Ni 4 C *r 6 Pb 20 Cd < 3, 266 CONCENMTIONS OF HEAVY ]METALS IN Rangia CLAMS (ppm DRY WEIGHT) COLLECTED 18 April 1975, POOLED SAMPLE S Station Code Cu Zn Fe Mn CB2 13 93 360 26 BB3 ij 105 340, 83 Note: FOLLOWING METALS WERE AT CONCENTRATIONS BELOW LEVELS NECESSARY FOR ACCURATE DETECTION Co < .5 Ni 18 Cr 5 Cd 4 Pb <35 267 CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY 14ETALS IN RANGIA CLAMS. (ppm DRY WEIGHT) COLLECTED 21 MAY 1975 (POOLED SAMPLES) Cu Zu- Fe Mn . CB-1 .14 114 317 39 CB-2 12' 108 280 43 CB-4 15 125 660 57 BB-4 13 104 370 43 FOLLOWING METALS WERE AT CONCENTRATIONS BELOW LEVELS NECESSARY FOR ACCURATE DETECTION Co 5 Ni @t 12 Cr 5 Cd < 3 Pb < 20 APPENDIX VII:. OBSERVATIONS OF SUSPENOED kNII SALINITY 269 STUDY ARE OOB-6 OB-5 0 OB-4 BB-5 CB-4 0 0 Q, C13-1 0 BB-2, 0 BB-3 BB-6 BB-4 OOB-3 oCB-3 CB-2 0 -POB-2 08-1 OB-Oyster Bar CB-Clarn Bed BB-Benthic Community BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STATIONS A Map I I/ J 270 STUDY ARE N - o192 220 0162 182 142 0T6-6- _134 0 0. 328 24 181 1. '1.2 0 ..0.) 156 ;r@ OL _1@4_,' 6180 2381 186 146,-";' 0172 .0 0133 110 fo 162. 15 174 SUSPENDED MATERIAL surface 130 bottom -160 18-19 Feb 75 Wind; O-SW 8 BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STATIONS Map 2 271 STUDY ARE 9.4 -8.4 9.8 0 9.7 8.8 8.8 8.5 9. 10--0 0M. 9.6( 9.4 9. 011.0 .0 09 8.9 110.3 063 la la2 0 10.4 10.4 OL SALINITY surface bottom oi-0-1 9.9 18 -19 Feb 75 Sw 8 k,`,'ind: 0 BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STATIONS Map 3 272 STUDY AREA -N- Ln cj M > A, A -el 306 301 9370 240 242 3240 2 0 20i #194 300 'j6-20 2@!: 019 3 706' @ q 220 300 0194 296 232 0 -io-o 254 0 456 eb 191 0 CA Suspended Material surface bottom 0 27 Feb 75 V.;'Ind: W 6-8 SW 6-10 BI0LOGIC,AL SAMPLING STATIONS Map 4 273 STUDY ARE -N- 0 @n 03.0 5.0 1.9 Cl- 2.9 2.8 2.8 4.2 2.8 291 A.2 3 2.9 .5 2.8 .9 A.4 0 0 5.7 5. .-3 5. 5.3 CZ1, SALINITY surface bottorn 27 Feb 75 Wind: W 6-8 SW 6- 10 BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STATIONS Map 5 1 274 STUDY ARE N - 385 379 Xz -7 228 0200 264 0272 334 292 379 @274 318 1-;- ...I 2920 0, q244 293 294 300 ID j7q -@00 2W 354 1860 ()39 277 CL SUSPENDED MATERIAL surface bottom 248 238 4 Mar 75 Wind: NW 15-24 BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STATIONS Map 6 )V.. 275 STU"Y AREA*%k N- 2.2 C., 03.9 3.9 4.7 .6 4,6 -4.7 04.8 4. 4.7 0 3.3 4.4 4.8 4.8 :'rD 4.5 4.90 04. 4.9 CL SALINITY surface 5.7 bottorn' 0-- 5.7 4 Mar 75 Wind: NW 15-24 BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STATIONS Map 7 A t 7@:Z; '276 STUDY ARE rN- 208 236 226 187 233 230 538 '220 .-m .2-46 1- 23iO 0 449 252 @-:::r276 76 2681 1 7 229 0 0--2-42 258 238 249 2719 0 248 CL SUSPENDED MATERIAL surface 229 bottorn. 02273 14 Mar 75 Wind: NE 14 - 20 BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STATIONS map 8 277 STU Dy AREA -N- 7.5 7.5 m > 7.8 6.9 .,'10.3 2 _f0_4 09.1 9.3 9.6 7.5 1. 0 @-7 09.7 -D 9@- CD 10.1 TO-.2 9.4 SALINITY surface 9.5 bottom -9.6 14 Mar 75 Wind' NE 14-20 STATIONS BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING Map 9 278 STU AR -N- 223 0323 A, rn 0, 1'/ 129 0164 0224 .209 224 1 198 -i4-8 Co 2 "237 29@ 228 0160 2121 10 212 0186 21-i<Z '13i 0 130 ;@.155 9 rb 124 206 0130 En CL SUSPENDED MATERIAL ,surface 179 bottom 21 Mar 75 Wind: NW 2-8 BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING sTA-rIONS Map 10 279 STUDY 4.-2 07.1 C) rn 6.9 0-- 8.7 12.2 6.5 6.@o - - 14.4 7'1 6 7 07 6.8 07.8 9.7 7.40 Ci7@ 7 0 75 rb 81 7.2 01-6.8 6.4 CL SALINITY surface 8.0 bottom 10.3 21 Mar 75 Wind: NW 2-8 BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STA,rIONS' Map 11 280 AREA--' -N- 665 "01 Q. M > A, A rn A. 072 -66- 0 66 89 83 570 086 63 0 71 8 .15 -731159 all -79- 68 v106 0 0 .0,57 61- 75 ID ,w- 540 0 'Y -3 surface bottorn -07-0 84 Suspended Material Wind: NE 15 Apr 75 BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STATIONS map 12 4 @kI 281 AN STUDY AREAAt!@@I@@ -N- 5.3 5.5 rn f- 5.5 6.6 6.2 0- - 6.3 6.3 .6.00 1 '1 ' 3 6.7 6./ o6 .7 06 o 7 73 6.81 3 :77@ 7 24@@, 7.2 7.3 0-7.-7 7.8 eD 8.5 8. 2* 08. 7.0 CX) CX SALINITY surface 7 bottom 7.8 15 Apr 75 Vili n dN E 10-15 E 8-10 BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STATIONS ap @3 M 4i7 282 STUDY ARE -N- 96 110 r? 93 TI-8 63 120 lb@ 190 A29 50 176 63 :7@18 a112 so0 78 138' -LO-0.. 105 SUSPENDED MATERIAL surface bottom 82 Wind: NE 1-5 19 May 75 BIOLOGICAL SAmPLING STATIONS Map 14 283 X STUDY AREA 3.S 3.8 Q M 03.4 3.5 0.1-4 3.6. 3 8 5.0 5.2 vi 5.2 5.3 SALINITY surface bottom 06.4 Wind NE 1-5 ",% 19 May 75 BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STA IONS Map 15 C*:-, SECTION FIVE4@ BACTERIOLOGICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS REPORT ON THE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT OF DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL OPERATIONS AT KENT ISLAND AS MEASURED BY BACTERIOLOGICAL WATER QUALITY, BACTERIOLOGICAL CONCENTRATIONS IN.SHELLFISH,- AND LEVELS OF TRACE METALS AND CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS IN SHELLFISH. OCTOBER .1975 Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Environmental Health Administration Division of General Sanitation TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 Chapter I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Chapter II. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Chapter III. Observations and Discussions . . . . . . . . 292 A. Bacteriological Water Quality . . . . . . 293 B. Bacteriological Concentrations - in Shellstock . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 293 r. Concentrations of Trace Metals and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Shellstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Chapter IV. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 305' Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 1. Daily Precipitation February 1975 March 1975 2. Salinity and Temperature ABSTRACT In accordance with its public health responsibility, the Environ- mental Health Administration monitored the disposal operations of dredge spoil material at the Kent Island Spoil Disposal Site. Bacteriological levels in water and in shellfish were moni- tored to insure that no deviance from public health standards resulted from the disposal operations. Levels of trace metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and chlorinated hydrocarbons were also monitored in shellfish. Water quality was found to exhibit no significant bacterio- logical degradation resulting from disposal operations. Similarly, microbial levels in shellfish demonstrated no siqnificant increase. Levels of trace metals, PCBs and chlorinated hydrocarbons in shellfish did not significantly- increase throughout the study period. INTRODUCTION n__ -a cc o-r-d- a__n_-ce with its responsibility to the public health of the citizen*s of Maryland, the Environmental Health Administration of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene conducted a program of monitoring the Army Corps of Engineers' disposal of dredge spoil material at the Kent Island disposal site. The efforts of the Environmental Health Administration.were in conjunction with those of the Water Resources Administration and the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. The most immediate public health consideration of the dump- ing activities was the possibility of a microbiological loading resulting from sediment bound bacteria being dispersed into surrounding waters, thereby contaminating viable oysters and clams which are commercially harvested in the areas adjacent to the disposal site. To assess the potential health impact of such a loading, the Environmental Health Administration established monitoring sta- tions immediately over and in the surrounding vicinity of the actual disposal site. Information derived from these monitoring stations in conjunction with historical bacterial profiles of the area coming from previously established shellfish waters sampling stations made possible a quantitatively accurate state- ment of the bacteriological impact of disposal activities. Water temperature and salinity measurements were also recorded at these stations. 288 In addition to monitoring water quality, oysters and clams were collected and examined for bacterial concentrations through- out the study. Oysters and,clams were also analyzed for levels of trace metals, polychlorined biphenyls (PCBs) and chlorinated hydrocarbons. These levels were determined both before and after disposal activities. The function of this report shall be to describe the dredge sp6il disposall,,s impact on the public health as measured in terms of: (1) Bacteriological water quality (2) bacteriological concentrations in marketable shellfish, and (3) levels of trace metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons in oysters and clams. 289 METHODS A. Bacteriological Examination of Water and Shellfish Personnel of the Environmental Health.Administration were uti- lized for sampling and transporting samples to the laboratories. Bacteriological examinations were performed at the Department of He-alth.and Mental Hygiene- Central Laboratory in Baltimore and in the Department's branch laboratory in Easton. All sampling and examination procedures were conducted in accordance with Standard Methods for the Analysis-of Sea Water ar@d-Shell'fish, Fourth Edi- tion, 1970, American Public Health Association, Inc. Field methods included standard aseptic collection techniques and icing of samples during transport to the laboratories. Samples of shellfish were collected before, durinq, and after disposal operations using conve Intional dredging equipment. B. Concentrations: of Trace Metals, Rolychlorknated Biphenyls (PCBs), and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Shellstock Shellfish were collected at stations from Swan Point to Bloody Point. These samples were then subject to analysis for trace metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCBs utilizing the following procedures: Metals in:Shellstock 1. Metals 25.000 q portion, previously homogenized, is placed in a pre- weighed 250 ml glass-stoppered digestion flask. 25 mls concentrated 290 nitric acid is added and allowed to sit overnight to prevent frothing upon addition of heat. The sample is then refluxed, attached to a reflux water cooled condenser, for 45 minutes. The cooled sample is filtered through glass wool and brought to volume (100 mls) and processed by atomic absorbtion analysis. 2. Mercury 0.500 g portion is placed in a pre-weighed 250ml glass-stoppered digestion flask. 10-20 mg vanadium pentoxide is added to sample followed by 20 mls (1+1) nitricsulfuric acid mixture. The diges- tion flask containing the sample is than attached to a water cooled reflux condenser and refluxed for ten minutes. 15ml distilled water is added through the condenser. 2 drops hydrogen peroxide are added through the condenser followed by an additional-15ml of distilled water. The sample is then filtered through glass and brought to volume (100 ml). Just before atomic absorption analysis, 20ml stannous chloride reducing solution is added to sample. .Pesticides in Shellstock For a representative,samfkle, 100 qms is taken from the total homogenized sample, 1. Extraction Sample is blended with acetonitrile and filtered. The acetonitrile filtrate contains the pesticide residues which are then partitioned into petroleum ether and cleaned up with water. The petroleum ether is put through a florisil column using the 291 following elutions: a. 200 ml Hexane - the PCBs come out in this elution b. 200 ml 6% ethyl-ether in petroleum ether - this elution brings out chlordane, heptachlor, toxaphe ne, DDD, DDT and numerous other chlorinated hydrocarbons C. 200 ml 15% ethyl ether in petroleum ether - this elution brings out dieldrin, endrin, parathion, etc. Each elution is concentrated to 10 ml and 5 ml or less is injected into the G.C. 2. Gas Chromatographs Barber Colman 5360 column 10% DC 200 on Chromosorb WHP Ni 63 Detector Perkin-Elmer 900 - column 10% DC 200-15% QFI on Chromosorb WHP Ni 63 Detector Tracor 220 - column 3% OV 1 on Chromosorb WHP Flame photometric Detector specific for organo phosphates The Ni 63 detectors are specific for the.chlorinated hydrocarbons. The columns give different separations and one can be used to confirm residues found in the other. Thin layer chromatography is also used as a qualitative confirmatory procedure. 292 OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION A. Bacteriological Water Quality At the time of actual disposal operations, fecal coliform populations at the disposal site were compared to fecal coli- form concentrations in the water at stations ranging from 2.8 nautical miles (5,110 meters). north of disposal site to 4.8 nautical miles (8,890 meters) south of the disposal site. Essen- tially, it was found that waters associated immediately with the disposal site demonstrated no significant difference in water quality when compared to any of the other monitoring stations. The absence of a loading phenomenon is evidenced in Table I which compares median and geometric mean values of fecal coliform organisms CMPN/100ml) at the disposal site to stations adjacent to the disposal site and 9tations located north and, south of the disposal site. Water samples collected from February 27 to March 6, 1975 and on March 25, 1975 as summarized in Table 2, reflect elevated .Concentrations of fecal coliforms at all stations. However, this increase is probably not attributable to disposal activities, but to the runoff resulting from the heavy rainfall during the later part of February (Appendix #1) as recorded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and evidenced by associated decreases in salinity (Appendix #2). In concluding discussion of the bacteriological water quality section of this report, no measured microbiological loading was 293 found to be associated with the disposal operations. B. Bacteriological Concentrations in Oysters and Softshell Clams. As with water, the primary concern with shellfish was the potential transfer of sediment bound bacteria. Bacteriological examination of oysters and softshell clams for fecal coliforms and standard plate counts (S.P.C.). taken from stations located from Swan Point to Kentmoor, before, during and after disposal operations indicate that no significant increase of these indicator organisms had occurred due to disposal operations. Table 3 and 4 summarize the fecal coliform and standard plate counts (S.P.C.) concentrations found in shellfish before, during and after disposal operations. It is significant to note that con- centrations of fecal coliforms in shellfish did not increase with the short term increase of fecal coliform, organisms in water that was associated with.the runoff followinq the rainfall in late February. Th1s i-s most probably due to the reduced pumping rate of oysters at temperatures below 500 F (100 C). C. Concentration of Trace Metals and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Shellstock No significant increase was observed in shellstock samples. for trace metals, PCB and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Tables 5 to 9 summarize the comparison between shellstock sampled before, during and after disposal operations. For no parameter, at any point, was a significant increase in either trace metals or chlorinated hydrocarbons evidenced. 294 SWAN LOVE pf-. S KEINT T.S. Bacteridlogidal Water Sample Stations 295 TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF MEDIAN AND GEOMETRIC MEAN VALUES OF FECAL COLIFORM ORGANISMS (MPN)/100 ml. AT THE DISPOSAL SITE TO ALL OTHER STATIONS DURING THE TIME OF DISPOSAL OPERATIONS Stations at Disposal Site Station Distance from Disposal Median Geometric Mean Number oi Number Site Fecal Coliforms Fecal Coliforms Samples (MPN/lOOml.) (MPN/100ml.) Nautical Miles Meters 5 0 0 *3 3.8 11 6 0 0 3.6 5.9 13 Stations between Disposal Site and Kent Island Shore 4 0.80 1,482 3.6 5.0 13 7 0.70' 1,300 3.6 8.0 13 Stations North of Di"osal Site 8 1.40 3,520 * 3 6.3 13 9 2.80 5,110 * 3 6.5 12 Stations South of Disposal Site 3 2.10 3,890 3.6 5.8 13 2 3.40 6,300 3.6 5.0 12 1 4.80 8,890 3 4.1 12 less than TABLE 2 296 BACTERIOLOGICAL WATER SAMPLE RESULTS (REPORTED IN FECAL COLIFORM ORGANISMS (MPN)/100ml.) (February 19 to March 25, 1975) St ation Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Date 2/19/75 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 Surface Samples *3 57.6 ;37- 73-- 73- *3 *3 Bottom Samples 2/24/75 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 Surface Samples Bottom Samples 2/26/75 3.6 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 Surface Samples Bottom Samples 2/27/75 3,6 3.6 23 43 93 93 93 240 43 Surface Samples Bottom Samples 3/4/75 240 93 93 43 N.S. 93 240 93 93 Surface Samples 23 93 93 Z3 N.S. 39 240 150 240 Bottom Samples 3/5/75 -15 15. 43 93 150 -93 75 43 75 Surface Samples Bottom Samples 3/6/75 43 75 23 43 23 43 43 23 Surface Samples Bottom Samples 3/11/75 3.6 3.6 *3 *3 *3 3.6 9.1 3.6 3.6 Surface Samples Bottom Samples 3/13/75 *3 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 .*3 3.6' *3 Surface Samples Bottom Samples 3/14/75 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 *3 Surface Samples *3 *3 *3. - --iT *3 VJ- -3.6 *3 -T37 Bottom Samples 3/21/75 *3 *3 *3. *3 *3 .*3 *3 - *3 3.6 Surface Samples Bottom Samples 3/25/75 *3 *3 *3 43 3.6 23 23 93 43 Surface Samples *3 -73- -3.6 23 43 -@-3 _75- 75-0 -3 Bottom samples Less than N.S.= no s ample 297 510aN 0 LOVE. KE14T rs. 01 Shells,tock Sampling Stations TABU 3 LEVELS OF FECAL 0OLIFORKS PER 100 GRAMS FOUND IN SHELLSTOCK COLLECTED FRW STATIONS LOCATED FRQM SWAN POINT TO KENTMOOR. (JANUARr 8s 1975 TO MARCH 25, 1975) STATIONS LOCATED NORTH STATIONS LOCATED ADJACENT STATIONS LOCATED SOUTH OF DISPOSAL SITE TO D133POSAL SITE OF,DISPOSAL SITE DATE STATION NUMBER XATION NUKBER STATION NUMBER COLLECTED 8 9 11 12 13 121 4- 2 jj I SHELLSTOCK 1/8/75 Samples not collected 20 210 SAMPLES 1/16/75 Samples not collected 78 45 20 40 *18 45 COLLECTED 1/28/75 Samples not collected 20 45 *18 *18 *18 2o 61 78 PRIOR TO DISPOSAL OPERATIONS 00 SHELLSTOCK 2/24/75 *18 40 48 *18 SAMPLES 2/27/75 *18 *18 COLLECTED 3/4/75 -48 48 *18 20 DURING 3/5/75 -20 *18 *18 DISPOSAL 311V75 *18*18 78 28 OPERATIONS SHELLSTOCK 3/25/75 *.18*18 46 18 -*18 *18 SAMPLES COLLECTED AFTER DISPOSAL OPERATIONS LESS THAN w w TABLE 4 - STANDARD PLATE COUNT (S.P.C.) PER GRAM, FOUND IN SHELLSTOCK COLLECTED FRDM STATIONS LOCATED FROM SWAN POINT TO KENTMOOR. (JANUARY 8, 1975 TO MARCH 25, 1975) STATIONS LOCATED NORTH STATIONSIOCATED ADJACENT STATIONS LOCATED SOUTH OF DISPOSAL SITE TO DISPOSAL SITE OF DISPOSAL SITE DATE STATION NUMBER STATION NU14BER STATION NUMBER COLLECTED 6 9 ll 12 13 0 4 RA ED PA U 2. UA 1 M Q N SHELISTOCK 1/8/75 Samples not collected *3,000 *3,000 SAMPLES 1/16/75 Samples not collected 15j,000 16"000 12,000 8,800 @200 36pOO COLLECTED 1/28/75 Samples not collected 7.,400 18.,000 5,00D *3..OOD 10s ODD 6,400 4ooo 6,200 PRIOR TO DISPOSAL OPERATIONS SHELLSTOCK 2/24/75 *3.,CDO *3,,ODO *3jOO0 46,000 SAMPLES 2/27/75 COLLECTED 3/4/75 *3jpDD *3jOO0 *3,OUD *3,000 *3,, GDO *3,000 DURING 3/5/75 *3,OOD DISPOSAL 3/14/75 *100D *360M *3.,000 *3.,000 *3,a)D 4,800 OPERATIONS SHELISTOCK 3/25/75 *3POO *3.,000 *3,000 *3sOOO 4.,900 *3.,000 SAMPLES COLLECTED AFTER DISPOSAL OPERATIONS LESS THAN TABLE COMPARISON OF TRACE METALS., PCBS AND CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS IN OYSTERS BEFORE, DUIUNG AND AFTER DISPOSAL OPERATIONS AT STATIONS LOCATED BETWEEK'DISPOSAL SITE AND KENT ISLAND SHORE AT SITE BEFORE STATION CHLOR- DIEL- DATE NUKBER Cuo Zn. Cd. Hg. Pb,, Cr. PCB DANE DDT DDD DDE DJU'N ENDRIN BHC 1/8/75 91 8607 2201 3.88 o025 *0,1 *0-1 0.05 0,05 o.oo6 0.005 OoOO5 AT SITE DUKENG 2/24/75 4 82.7 2619 2.55 OX26 *0.1 *0.1 0.03 0.04 oxo6 0,,004 0.003 2/26/75 4 72.3 1830 2.51 0.019 *0-1 *0.1 0.03 0.007 oxo4 .0-003 L46) 3/14/75 4 80.6 2064 2.6 0.013 *0-1 no 0105 0.04 0.007 OoOO3 0 - 0 0 3 cc::)) results AT SITE AFTER 3/25/75 4 85.9 2191 M 0.015 *0-1 no 0.03 0.04 0.005 results LESS THAN NMI= WIMMMM mmmmmm,m m M. m Mon WWWWW ="=mum== amm TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF TPJ.C:& METAIS, PCB., AND CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS IN SOFT CLAMS (MYA ARENARIA) BEFORE AND AFTER DISPOSAL OPERATIONS AT STATIONS LOCATED BETWEEN DISFOSAL SITE AND KENT ISLAND SHORE AT SITE BEFORE STATION CHLOR- DIEL- DATE NUMBER Cu. Zn. Cd. Hg. Pb. Cr. PCB DANE DDT DDD DDE DRIN ENDRTN BHC 1/16/75 FE 11.4 25 0.24 0.016 *0.1 0.4 o.o4 0.01 0.02 0.007 0.003 1/16/75 3-1.1 29 0.35 0.015 *0-1 0.4 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.007 0.004 1/28/75 17.8 28 0.28 0.013 *0-1 0.4 0.03 0.04 o.oo6 0.008 0.004 0.004 1/28/75 17-5 28 0.14 0.021 *0.1 0.4 0.03 0.03 0.005 0.005 0.002 O.oo4 AT SITE AFTER 7/21/75 13.2 26.4 .26 .012 *.1 *.l .04 .03 .009 .007 -003 LESS THAN TABLE 7 COMPANSON OF TRACE METALSs PCBms AND CHLOR1NATHD HYDRDCARBONS IN OYSTERS DUR1NG AND AFTER DISPOSAL OPERATIONS AT STATIONS LOCATED NORTH OF DISPOSAL SITE UPSTREAM: DUIUNG STATION CHLOR- DIEL- DATE NUMBER Cu. Zn. Cd. Hg. Pb. Cr. PCB DANE DDT DDD DDE DRIN ENDRIN BHC 2/27/75 13 103.7 2478 3.07 0.023 *0-1 *011 0103 0.04 0.007 0.002 0.002 2/27/75 9 94.1 2275 3.29 m4o *o.1 *o.1 oA 0.04 0.008 0.002 0.003 3/4/75 3.2 119.2 2663 3.57 0.017 *0-1 *0.1 0.02 0.02 mo6 0.003 0.002 3/W75 13 n8.4 2289 2.9 0.013 *0-1 No o.o4 0.03 0.006 0.003 0.002 Results UPSTEXAM: AFTER 3/25/75 9 89.5 2314 3.2 0.023 0.4 No 0.02 0.02 0.004 Results 3/25/75 11 129.4 2393 3.2 0.019 *0.1 No 0.03 0.03 0.007 Results LESS THAN TABLE 8 - OOKIPARISON OF TRACE METALS, PCBs AND CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS IN OYSTERS BEFORE AND DURING DISFOSAL OPERATIONS AT STATIONS LOCATED SOUTH OF DISFOSAL SITE DOWNSTREAM: BEFORE STATION CHLOR- DIEL- DATE NUMBER Cu. Zn. Cd. Hg. Pb. Cr. PCB DANE DDT DDD DDE DRIN ENDRIN BHC 1/23/75 105.5 2209 3.45 0.013 *-10 *.10 0.05 0.03 0.009 oxo6 mol 0.002 DOWNSTREAM: DU`faNG 3/4/75 1 59.4 1997 2.32 0.025 *0-1 0-1- 0.05 0.03 0.004 0-003 0.002 3/4/75 2 76-0 2334 2.65 0.023 *0-1 0.2 0.05 0.02 0-003 0.004 0.002 3/14/75 1 63.6 1875 2.2 0.016 *0.1. No 0.05 0.04 oxo6 0.005 0-003 Result 3/14/75 2 61.9 1636 2.4 0.021 *0.1 No m6 oA mo6 0.003 0.003 Resub LESS THAN TABLE 9 OOMPARISON OF TRACE METALS., FGBs AND CHLORINATED HrDFDCAMNS IN SOFT CIAMS (MYA ARENARIA) BEFORE AND AFTER DISPOSAL OPERATIONS AT STATIONS LOCATED SOUTH OF DISPOSAL. OPERATIONS DOWNSTREM: BEFORE STATION CHLOR- biEL- DATE NUMBER Cu. Zn. Cd. Hg. Pb. Or. Pf,B DUE DDT DDD DDE DRIN ENDRIN BHC V16175 12.1 26 0.24 0.020 *0.1 0.4 0.03 0.007 0.01 0.005 0.002 1A6/75 M io,4 23 o.i7 o.oi4 *o.1 o.4 0.03 o.oo8 o.oog o.oo4 0.002 1/16/75 131 11.2 24 0.15 o.ol6 *o.1 0.4 0.03 0.008 09005 O-M o.oo6 0.002 1/16/75 Ffil 13 26 0.28 o.ol8 *o.1 0.4 0.04 0,01 0.007 0.01 0.005 0.003 1/28/75 16.2 30 0.20 0.013 *0-1 0.4 o.4 0.03 0.004 0.009 0.003 0,0003 1/28/75 2.4 14 0.25 0.007 0.1 0.4 0 0.02 0.008 0.008 0,004 0.004 1/28/75 18.5 28 0.13 0.014 *0-1 o.4 o.o4 0.03 o.oo6 0.01 0.005 0.004 1/28/75 14.0 30 0.24 0.,014 -*O.l 0.4 0.02 0.02 o.oo4 0,,002 0,003 DOWNSTREM: AMR 7/15/75 E@ 12 23.6 .32 .009 *,1 1 .08 .04 .01 .009 .002 .003 7/16/75 1 14.5 23.6 0.32 0,008 *0.1 *0.1 0.09 o.o4 0.01 0.009 0.002 0.004 7/2-1/75 11.1 2204 0.38 0.018 *-l *.1 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.004 7/22/75 W 13 30.3 026 101 *.1 *.l 009 .04 .009 .009 .002 .004 LESS THAN M m 305 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, the observations of this report support the following statements: (1) Bacteriological water quality, described in terms of organisms of the fecal coliform group, reflected no significant degradation resulting from disposal operations. Runoff occurring after heavy rainfall in late February had an impact upon bacteriological water quality that could have masked the effects of the spoil disposal operation. (2) Bacterial concentrations in marketable shellfish collected throughout the study indicate that no significant bacteriological uptake occurred. (3) Levels of trace metals, PCBs and chlorinated hydrocarbons in shellfish collected throughout the study indicate that no siqni- ficant increase was observed. APPENDIX A -nd fx- -1- 1 NPRTLAND AND DCL-RE D R I L Y PRECIPITRTION FEBRUARY 1975 CrI DRY OF MONTH STRTION CD 31 123 10 111 112 13114- E5 19 120 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 SOZYMEL EASTERN ""T'AND SNORE a, A '06 C:SATE C STATE PARK 4.3 .23 T 0. T 1 40 IS ICLO SONEIS CO@ 2,31 : I. :W L D :R2 :.2 :.1 0 .34 RID 'a OC NOA,E CITY 2.01 .10 .22 :20 "13 22: '3 .09 0 as .1. P P RIKEIRMAX 2.33 .0. . 1. 0 .35 .31 .61 1 .3. SOL Isau 2.01 .05 .03 :29 .05 44 T .10 .19 .05 .10 as .30 .24 .01 .10 0: 1AL115,11 FAA IP 2. Is -IT 24 -.0. .26 .04 T 12 .12 S.@ ,LLA 2. @s .@a .20 T :0.T .21 .03 T .0 :2,c 'a 0 11 .28 CE-1: EASTERN SHORE 02 LAC @AIER REFWE - CAMORS 2. ;03 .70 *20 T 1 .04 0 .02 .3. ." .06 :71 0C.TIA, I I a.:, T o :08 .02 CA% ON POL ICE BARRACKS 2.6, .12 Iwo GO .03 . L', 02 .06 . Iz R2. 112 3 -wslm I s 2.2. .10 Is .Z@ ROYA a- 2:1 10 10 T .02 .09 T .06 DI .35 .t2 :214 a -'3 :1. .05 .17 0 "3 70 LZER SOUT:EQN 03 L. PLOT 1 2,10 9 T 1 3 1 a .2L 02 1. :0 LARDTO- 3 2. a 50 0 .22 .4 :.4 :1,a :02 MEC AMICS@@LLE I V 3 :19 .10 .01 01 .,5 1 :13, .07 :,I@ :,17 32 O.I.QS FERRY L.NDING 2:11 2 IL .2. ..3 0 AR, :,4 MCE FREDERICK I N 2.63 1 T 11 .20 .40 .22 .23 1 05 .25 .0 SOLOMMM 2.15s .@I .2. .03 81 22 T so .0 POLICE UP@R SOUT.ER" 04 ANNAPOLI USH ACADCN@ 2- .0s- Is 1. .64 .20 .03 :ALTI E @O AP4 2- .02 .07 .52 12' .:004 T I T :.3 1. T 70 .20 EL 21 1ILLE 2.0 "Is .51 31 :12 .1% T I :@ ILL ' :.1 :13 2 8CLT E PLANT STA 5 2.S4 3 .10 :@20 :3 Ce, LEGE PARK 2.31 1 ..S I'D .43 .01 :71 : R'. .. D,@ . .26 ..2 D:LE ARLIR AESVA D C 2. SS .05 1: .02 .02 .' - :11 .12 121 *11 DI ..21 ..2 .0 rR, GEORGE G C@ 2 Z..S :a .7 T :. . R , :, :'1'4 1 :@7* ..13 .01 T 36 1" .0 .09 :39 :13 :006 MM OR C BELL STR 2:71 Os L AU ' " - Is 21 T 2Z NAT=- :RZORETUMDC 1 .01 .01 .71 :02 .01 T 22 - T :20 .12 T .2s 12 U. S. SOLDIERS HOME DC2 DO I. S, .03 T 41 1 .0S :a T Is 3 U D : '.17 :Is .25 :25 .15 APE. MARLew. 2.2. :,DoW .05 37 MO;T" EASTERN SMORRE as CE. @UIC 1., :0.1 .03 ss .0% @I .:a T D 12 ::3 :11 0S CHESTER P- .02 .01 :14 .a :OR I ERITE ISLAND 4 1D M MCK 2.:1 0.01 TT 1 .1. MILL INGle. 2. . :13 .08 ..5- .02 .,a 27 .16 MOR-L CENTRAL A4EQ0CCM PMUL IFLO 2.39 .06 .03 .50 .09 1, :1 12 BALTIMORE @O C14 2.SO .01 .15 5 38 GEMSM POLICE BARRACKS 2.70 :05 :3 :2' :13 :11 D4 ., .41 .26 60TOS 2 "W 1,11 .1D .61 21 11 1 ..5 .2@ .03 RA.G.- a- 2..2 .28 .2% Ke .02 1, .61 C TOCTIM MOV"TAI" PAQ% 3 SO 02 .09 07 .6 1 1 : CLAQKS@ILLE I ME R:G. :a, . as T ..a .08 "a :D .19 Z, CONRR@t 0 am 2:11 TI . .: as .08 T D2 .03 .62 .65 :' 2 OAMASC, 2 S. aR. .01 .30 .42 :a T T - T 01 .21 2 .02 CLKIGM 2,91 .06 .01 .65 03 T :51 .2a :01 :54 IS C-1 . 2SE 3:10 110 10 67 .05 :.1.1 :22 .0 'RE RIC' POLICE BRAR I ..1 .0. 1. .07 .1. '1'2 T T I1 :;,0 ..2 rREOC ICK 3 E 2 .31T Go SoT ..a T .2. 1 T .52 . . LOCM -We @ 03:@ 0 .50 'a ,ARKTO" 2 S. 11 2.76 .03 :07 .25 .47 .01 7 @66 .03 .22 .03 .03 ' 'I ::: :D. @ FILTER PLANT 2.10 .1. .10 .01 .01 Re ROC-I L. 3 ME 02- OL .-a IS 0 1 ..2 .20 S3'2 'a :@2 T974a" :1 :*4 :11 .03 :01 T 3 1 T 0 .2s .02 70 2 .0. OAIOA@ILLE 2 OLM 13 :,2 ft .01 :20 0 .02 @L 3K .0. "C5-,-TE4 2 1.21 T.09 OA ..2 .02 :IT .91 .Go .25 WREATON, REGIBAR, PARK a. SO OR .02 .4a .11 .2, .10 .01 DO 0 .41 .0 . 2,91 .04 :Do 1, .7, .07 So .07 :06 Z .50 :60 :04 A.;AL1;MI1; a' ME 2:11 1., :0@1 .21 .1 :06 1 DS OS 05 02 OOON`e"`O I IS 10 : : I'a 2 1 y 1 :309 .00 T 01 10 ; T 2 21 1 AS, Ic. ORAS :I. .,$a .16 ;I ... .0 cwwft..o .02 1 .16 .14 .02 S :13 :2@1 :14 .11 .14 fre=ft = My . GO OR ca .31 T 2 :0-6 6.1. .01 .01 1 1 T 2 2 .02 D1 .10 .01 T .AGEPS 2.;G .20 - 36- .04 :.2.9 :01 T MA"COCK FRO T LAG 2. 0 :N, 3 50 23 1 .00 3 :KO WSTCRJWGR@ UPQC I ... ... :26 Be .43 .03 R', WIL LIANSSMORT 2:6,1 .11 .2. .04 .35 DI .4. .41 K LED,;- TEA, GO 6ITTIAGE a 3.10 Re2 ..1 .2. .22 -1 .11 1. ..3 12 :2 .04 MCWM 2 AM a1 1: a, :S OR DO .10 0 0: :: .16 30 1: , ::2 : '432 :. : ' 'a MERRILL 3:1. . ,,, . I .:2@0 :07 .02 .01 .. .10 .28 .0 :02 .60 3s 0 emaw I SE 4.14 ;28 .21 .30 :04 :" 04 .90 .04 .01 :", . Be :26 :a a0- =26 T SO @2 1 ..2 .32 QI .1. .3. :102' 7 .20 se 10 T Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climatological Data 308 Appendix 1-2 On- DRILY PRECIPITRTION HAn. 1975 Cr ORY'OF MONTH STRTION C) 1 2 3 4 5 6 31 SHOW AS TCAOW 5ME PARK .09 1 1 .01 .32 .40 1 :11 1:- :21 7 CRISFItL SONERS COW :2'7 .16 2o .21 35 1. 99 Go 1, 1:": PoC*"a@ CITY 1. 13 33 :22 .28 - t:.11 1:2 1.27 :.,,2 Do" : , , : , ." HE 1; 25 PAINCEss I.- :.a U 1 36 1 1. 1' 2.21 1 "a I 7.5a 20 .21 25 I-tG 1 2o i.oo SAL IstRav to ..2 1 I.o30 at 2. DO .02 ..a I, SAL ISAIM FAA AP 7. ol, It .I @@I .41 ..3 .76 .14 Is 2 no 12B SHOW HILL 4 A 1.6335 :.& D3 .18 .12 .44 .16 1.46 1@@ 'D'j :;,a Eft;`EA" SHow o2 BLACK ItR REFUGE GS D7 .21 .01 ss ,a :11 1 :@2 .67 cANSAI 4 W I.Q2 Go D7 .2, :1 ..a .1. 1." 1 .43 DEN I a Go :OS Go1 2 1 :as .20 .26 Pak ICE bARRACKS 20 .15 1.18 G2 EASIER, 7 as, .1 .66 is ..a o2 I:0, I Do 4 65 1 2 :'o'T .11 44 Pmes@ I a 5.SG GO GOI .2D .OR :5. 4 .9. .68 1." o2 .07 G4 .11 45 Ao- 0- Go .2. .11 at 14 t.25 . 02 1:.71 1.,. 1 1 a 1 39 VIENNA 13 as .45 .2D 1.04 a 1.91 D4 a% 30 Do ... '.: 3"@ :OG, as LO'& svv@NEAN G3 'A K 5.53 .05 DO7 33 :14 .68 .16 1..2 Di Go 1 D4 - at .46 IGMARD@wh 3 w 3.so I at :as :21 10 .:1 :11 1:10 as :22 NECHANIMILLE 1 M 7.$: :20 ..05 1,1 4.47 1:03 :11 ..a 07 .22 1 as 4.1 13 Do 1 2 so, WINDS rEFAY ANDIM . 1 .17 1 :7' 1. 1.' a PRINCE rarmot" I II is to ..2 ..3 1. ?0 1.21 j,o I Is 2L I.- zs Go :slQ .03 1.60 G4,OMOH5 aso Go Of at NALDROF oftice OAKS 1: :so LONNO't soUTIOr" aq NAM04POL.. US. CNDC ..a. Do, 3 ..1 .25 ..a 1.1: 0 1 72 Ti. 38 bALTIMM w" ap Q 1 :00 :12 47 .4 oG 26 :Dt :17 1 DELIS' LL, 4:17 1 a. 40 VILLE PLANT STA S 4 :35 Go 1 .12 GEL TS .1. ; :1' .7. 27 1.16 it .1 IQ is o2 .. .58 COLLEGE PARK o2 is G3 - -5 a, .55 :86 1 ONt,. 1. "a- . c GO :@14 :0 11 a. 1.22 .48 .04 '1 :6761 a as .6. .03 a.40 FORT OCNW 13 MERGE :oo 2 04 : %2 :.0.1 1:11 : Go a. 40 mc- 9 "LL SIR s.- GO I, .. I a Do 1". .22 .16 G7 .., ... . I::, o, 2 GG - Do .2. -1 02 D3 Do L.75 1- ..2 U. a. SOLvatits, NONE OC .08 .11 . - I - I I D4 I a Gq SO I UPPER MARL68AS 3 Aio@ ::so as :a'. :7'6' -.S3 .-G-1 .51 :36 @.20 1 as :21 AG I .:T.L L. GINNIE GO CENTREVILLE I a .15 .54 12 3.05 .21 ).at I Go cm nvTosav :@17 G2 I .,I :'* :13 1:10 ..a I I:" i .04 EAST" NICK ISLAND 9.333 1 1 .35 1:68 112 .,1 1 so a .02 1 -" :17 as ..3 NORTHERN cE"T2.1, GO ABORDEEN PHIL IPS rLD 3.00 D7 to 3 a. .412 1 1.22 o8 3 .11 .22 .26 bftlrmm wav cl a s.oi as as .29 2 OINSAIN POLICE 6ARRACKS 4. SO I Ias D5 a, :,a. '-7" to o3 2:G 1 .87: .01 1 Go 8810S a I:a I. 1. 11 21 ..a as .03 .45 Q: bqz@ am Do Dto Go .03 1. 1.. :53 :2 CATOCTIN H,UA-j. is I at 1 12 1:67 -G2 1, :13 GO I I., :`G :ft aGO 1 :.6 :'so to I LANA5VILLC 3 NNE s: I :it ..7 ::2 C 4 as 1 y 1.97 1 1'3' alowswA DAM to .02 .14 1..1 1 D@q a am 41. 1 1 OdI 1 .4 a. ...I at I ... I ..'a 4.14 'a 30 02 1 1 .21 Go ELKTON oT :011 @ 1.12 as 1.-. .2. a :to cmiTsom a SE 4..0 Go 1. so -22 rw ft,, POLICE a- I a a ..."4 .., -10, :2.2 :12 D4 : 1". :1 1 `AE" IcK 3 c 4 24 GO - :So is .12 12 IS .8. :20 34 B3 LOCH WH DAM 5.41 7 I.o'i I .3o to ., 21 4 PARKS"T" 2 am 4.62 T ol1 '13 :,o3 ;as DO 41 Is 45 37 1I.Da 2 POTGNAC flL@R PLANT :.'a -Og I' : 'lo4 o4 :.01 ': 0` 1 :35 .1 D2 .02 :D3 o3 :41 US DOCK ILLC 3 HE . 3 a. -a DO 1 TWO@" 6. G4T to UNIONVILLE 7-o' 7.65 7 Go . 45 a at 1:04 :.Do 2 1."1o a, :2 "EtWINSTER a 6" 5: T 3 il 26 Go, TIG T 42 :27 ..q 1.66 it .13 1:41 wte.?" Kot$Nft PARK Do 14"sTOCK ami .11 '"1 0'1' :3"' at .02 to 90 1 to - :": :G3 .15 HOUNTAM a, osoRsems I w 4:11 1 a. .0 .93 T.. @82 to 2 1 07 to L:'I'o - :2V :12 POLICE 12 35 2 :GG :23 1 :21:" ..4 12 1 "t-fintaft a v I I ..? 45 1 .15 as IS IAG as a. 1 ..2 25 rVINT 168 11 ..'1 13 a 4. as a? .61 .29 75 .1. .2. :.3 21 12 .11 Do Go NAOMI'" 4 T .31 is at 31 L-29 a- .11 26 32 .1 NANCOCA rRUIT LA8 4:1. T 1 .20 y 12 14 .30, 2". Is IQ LGREC .:7 GG 66MIDOMMIT 3.37 43 .42 a? :11 :31 Aa .0a I @, ;17 1 .0' .1.3 wiLLIA"wm 6.0 GO .4. .37 .27 "D .so as .18 is 61 ALL"Y ZATCOU 08 01 ?INGODR 2 M .68 28 1 ;.7 .2" ::13 :@I: :11 :01 L4 o' .'2 HC NOya- ji. : I,. as : 2. :.'I'D :222 :201' 1 .04 m@ a, F611*JLL 3.'o .06 a' ja as at 7.66 1 .@4 :1, .2, AS Is 0 1 1". :'3*0 :'1' :a DO 3 OAKLAND a SE .GO 03 :22 so 1 .12 ..2 3 .2o . 4.1o 02 D2 43 .61 . Q22 :37 oa .24 1 .3o o3 .05 DO .21 ..4 swam GIVEN 64" 3.40 1 42 .*2 T T .72 1 a is .22 .3S I o@3 .2. .1. ..13 lot 1 .1. G2 Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climatological Data 4W MARYLAND AND IDELAWARE C., o SIATUTE MILE5 o 3o 4. o 75TH W-RIDIAN TIME ZONE + cmn- I Sil ....... 0 IN o ilr -o- F-N APPALACt 41L/ NOR ERV CENTRAL Fj f -, .1 \, -o- GHENY c 41- F'AA a Fi.-- 3 E -NO HE PLA ASTE HO C@ @) I "y W_ ji_ ------- --- @ 3.11 o MT. -_ IQCE TIl . ...... THERN --y _;p NORTHERIs W- CENTRAL EA F 0 a P-@,,- "fy w ,oo,\ LO ER (D SHOR of + N, 0 1 D C v ti U R o ---9, SN EF N AOUTH @.w ..'i i,l A AL.ERS E..AL AREA Fi.DJECTION STANDARD PARALLELS AT 791'; AND 45q Al .... Illy V- w T111 78' Source: National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration Climatological Data @ U S@bE APPENDIX 2 SAIJNITY CONCENTRATIONS (F.P.T.)_ 2/19/75 to 3/25/7g Station #1 Station #2 Station #3 Station #4 Station #5 station #6 station #7 Station #8 Station DATE T.- B. so B. S, B. S. B,. S. B. S. B. S, Be S. B. - - 2A9/75 10.1 12.4 9.8 n-5 8.9 12.7 8.9 11-9 9.1 8.8 9.4 9.5 9.9 12.3 9.9 7.6 IMO 12.0 2/20/75 10.1 12,4 9-8 3.1.5 8-9 12.7 8.9 il.9 9.1 6.8 9.4 9.5 9.9 12.3 9.0 7.6 10;0 12,0 2/2345 8 8 8 7 9 10 2/24/75 9.4 9.9 9.9 9.1 9 9 9.6 8.0 9,1 2/25/75 9.1 8.9 9.0 904 9.4 8.8 8.9 2/27/75 9.1 7.1 8 4.1 7 3 5.1 5 .2 5.1 FJ 2/28/75----, 9.1 5.8 6.o 8.o 2.8 3.1 6.8 4.0 4-10 3A/75 5.7 5.6 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3/5/75 10.5 5.9 8.1 6.1 5.5 5.2 4.2 3.9 4.1 3/n/75 9.1 9.0 8.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.0 6.3 3/13/75 9 9 8 8.5 7.5 8 9 8 3/14/75 9.5 9.6 94 9.4 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 7,5 7.4 6,9 6.8 10,3 10.4 8.3. 8.1 7.8 7.8 3/21/75 8.0 9.0 7.5 7.5 7.0 7.5 7.0 6.8 7.0 3/25/75 5.8 6.1 5.2 5.4 3.9 4.2 2.2 2.2 3.3 3.6 3.0 3.2 3.8 3.9 2.2 3.9 2.1 2.2 S - SURFACE B - BOTTOM 1-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --- -- - -I 3 6668-14109 8956___rI