[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Site Evaluation Studies of the TD Massa chusetts Bay Disposal Site for Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material prepared by SEP 9 1997 William A. Hubbard Marine Ecologist J. Michael Penko Biologist Terrence S. Fleming Marine Ecologist Environmental Resources Section Impact Analysis Branch prepared for Thomas J. Fredette Senior Project Manager Marine Analysis Unit Compliance Section Regulatory Branch New England Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 424 Trapelo Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02254-9149 July 1988 Property of CSC Library U.S. DEPARMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 TD 763 .H8 1988 my Corps of engineers New England Division SECURITY CLASS?FICATION OF MIS _PAGE Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 0M8 No. 0704-0188 la. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 1b. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS Unclassified a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT Approved for public release; 2b. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDUIF d kl r ibill ion till I hil i'l od 4 PERFORMING ORGANIZAIION REPORT NUMBEWS) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S). 6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION Impact Analysis Branch, NED (if applicable) Marine Analysis Unit, Regulatory Branch Environmental Resources SEc. CENED-PL-I-R New England@Division 6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 424 Trapelo Road 424 Trapelo Road Waltham, MA 02254-9149 Waltham, MA 02254-9149 8a. NAME OF FUNDING /SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ORGANIZATION (if appikable) same 8c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS PROGRAM IPROJECT ITASK WORK UNIT ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. ACCESSION NO. 11. TITLE (include Security Classification) Site Evaluation Studies of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site for Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material 12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) Hubbard, William A.; Penko, J. Michael; Fleming, Terrence S. 13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED T14- -DATE (OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) 15. PAGE COUNT Final Report FROM TO 1988, July, 5 384 + 75 Appendi 16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION 17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number) FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Dredged Material Disposal Site, Physical oceanography, Chemical Oceanography, Biological oceanography, Massachusetts Bay, Stellwagen Basin 19, ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number) The ecology of a deepwater (100 meter) dredged material disposal site is described. The physical, chemical, and biological impacts of disposal are analyzed based on historical data and in-situ sampling. A comprehensive management plan is discussed based on these findings (See also Executive Summary) J2 10 DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED 0 SAME AS RPT. DTIC USERS Unclassified 22a. NAME OF RESPONS18LE INDIVIDUAL I22b. TELEPHONE (include Area Code)I22c. OFFICE SYMBOL OD Form 1473. JUN 86 Previous editions are obsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Unclassified EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction CP The purpose of this action i.s to synthesize the,i:nformation necessary to evaluate the continued use of,,an interim ocean disposal site (Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site) in accordance with the criteria established in the Ocean@Dumping Regulation (40 CFR 228.4 228.6). The site, located in Stellwagen Basin of Massachusetts Bay in approximately 60-100 meters of water, is.an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved interim dredged material ocean disposal site with a circular boundary of two-nautical-miles diameter as identified in the Federal Register as Marblehead (40 CFR 228.4 228.6). The center of the site (formerly referred to as.the Foul Area Disposal Site) is at 42q-25.7' north latitude and 70'1-34.0; west longi@ude, approximately 22 nautical miles'east of Boston. This dredged material disposal site is centered one nautical mile east of an area previously used as a chemical disposal site. The New England Division of the Corps of Engineers has disposed or permitted disposal of approximately'2.8 million cubic yards@of dredged material at the Mass Bay@Disposal Site (MBDS@) over the past twelve years. Consideration of the designation of the site as a permanent Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site will provide the Corps of Engineers and other public and private interests with.a,site of suitable size to accommodate the.,regional disposal,need of;areas generally ranging from Gloucester to Plymouth, Massachusetts, with occasional use by interests from greater distances.- The designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site is the, responsibility of the Administrator of the Environmenta,l,Protection, Agency after consulting with Federal, State-, and local officials, interested members of the general public and the Secretary of the Army. The designation of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site from an interim to a permanent status will be,aided by the technical information contained in this document. The environmental suitability of the area as a permanent dredged material disposal site will be'evaluated by the Administrator using the general and specific criteria established in the EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (33 USC 1401-1435; PL 92-532 as amended) and other pertinent regulations. 1 Since the Massachusetts $,a y Disposal Site is an interim or existing site, the focus of the evaluation is restricted to determining the continuing suitability of FADS as a rvqional disposal site, rather than evaluating alternative ocean disposal options. lt is not the intent of this study to designate any additional areas of ocean bottom to receive dredged material. Only if this study shows that the existing site is unsuitable for continued use will other sites in the area be investigated. The suitability of this site for designation is based on the evaluation criteria of the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 228). The designation of the site does not necessarily imply disposal will occur. All dredged material proposed for ocean disposal will continue to be evaluated on an individual project basis under existing regulatory reviews. Designation simply identifies the ocean disposal site that would normally be used when ocean disposal is determined from the individual-project review to be the best alternative for that project. The New England Division, Corps of Engineers, has been conducting oceanographic sampling of MBDS since 1973. Various scientific organizations have conducted research for the Corps under the management of NED's Marine Analysis Unit, Compliance Section, Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS). This program investigates all aspects of dredged material disposal in New England and actively monitors physical, chemical, and biological conditions at nine disposal sites throughout New England. A review of the DAMOS program reports for MBDS, along with pertinent scientific literature, was conducted to identify data gaps in the oceanographic knowledge of site specific conditions at this site. Extensive site evaluation studies were then contracted to fulfill the criteria of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1973 (40 CFR 228.5-6). Although this report describes the results of these studies, the DAMOS program is continuing to monitor and manage MBDS, and continuing to conduct scientific investigations of the site. The specific site designation study program methods and results can be found in the MBDS Site Designation Studies Data Report (SAIC, 1986). 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Physical Oceanography Temperature and Salinity The physical environment at MBDS is influenced by the coastal New England climate, low riverine inputs to the Massachusetts Bay system and the general circulation pattern of the Gulf of Maine. The water column at MBDS behaves in a manner typical of northeastern continental shelf regions, with isothermal conditions of approximately 5*C during the winter, giving.way to stratified conditions with maximum surface temperatures on the order of 18*C and a strong thermocline 'at 20 meters during the summer months. The water column overturns during the late fall, returning to isothermal conditions. Salinity minima occur in late spring as a result of increased runoff, but vary only a few parts per thousand with most values ranging from' 31 0/00 to 33 0/00. Currents Previous studies and the results of recent investigations in the vicinity,of MBDS indicate that bottom currents are relatively low (< 20 cm/sec) under nearly all conditions, whil 'e mid-depth and surface currents may be higher. During strong northeast winter storms (i.e., approximately once every four years), the bottom currents near MBDS may increase in a southerly direction to maximum speeds of 30 cm/sec in response to sea surface set-up on the western boundary of Massachusetts Bay. The tidal currents at MBDS are characterized by mean.velocites near the surface of 15-20 cm/sOc in NNE-SSW orientation which@ decrease with depth to lower velocity, less periodic currents near the bottom (generally <10 cm/sec). The wave conditions in the vicinity of MBDS result from both local wind wave formation and propagation of long period waves (swell) generated on the adjoining continental shelf. The sheltering provided by the coastline severely limits wave generation from the westerly direction; waves from the westetly quadrants larger than 1.8 m (6 ft) occur only 0.5% of the time on an annual basis, and such waves over 3.7 m (12 ft) are virtually nonexistent. Conversely, waves from the easterly quadrant that are over 1.8 m (6 ft) occur 4.2% of the time, or nearly ten times more frequently, and waves over 3.7 m (12 ft) occur approximately 0.5% of the year. 3 Bathymetry The results of the bathymetry survey show that the topography of the disposal site is characterized by a relatively flat, featureless bottom throughout most of the site with the notable exception of steep shoaling in the northeast and northwest quadrants. The depths throughout the smooth, featureless area are on the order of 85-90 meters, with maximum depths occurring in a broad depression in the south central portion of the site. The shoals in the northeast quadrant, with minimum depths of 57 meters within the site, represent glacially-formed features and are associated with Stellwagen Bank to the east of the site. The smaller shoal in the northwest section of the survey is a small, circular rise which appears to be a single, separate feature, although derived in the same manner as Stellwagen Bank. The bottom in the deeper portions of MBDS is a broad depression with natural sediments composed of fine grained silt. Shoal areas to the north and northeast are covered by coarser deposits. Dredged material has previously been deposited in the site over a relatively large area, but has not been altered or transported to any significant degree during the past several years. Recent disposal operations have shown that with adequate navigation, the spread of material on the bottom is approximately similar to that which would be expected in shallower water. Water Chemistry The water column chemical concentrations of all metals at MBDS were found in concentration below the acute criteria (EPA, 1976) for marine waters. The average water column organic chemical contamination at MBDS exhibits low PAH and PCB concentrations. 4 Sediment Chemistry Recent and historical sediment chemistry determinations have i.d0ritifi-Cd Wir-i-OLIE; areas of Massachusetts Bay as depositional areas for fine-grained particulates emanating from throughout the system (Gilbert, 1976).. Quiescent deepwater basins, such as Stellwagen Basin, are usually such areas. The 1985-1987 chemical sampling program has identified a reference (MBDS-REF) area that is unimpacted by trace metals from dredged material disposal. As would be expected, the disposal point itself (MBDS-ON) within MBDS shows statistically significant elevations in concentrations of chromium, copper, lead and zinc, as compared to the reference area. These metals,reflect the most recent dredged material inputs and are generally in the moderate (Cr, Pb, and Zn) to low (As, Cu, Cd, HG, and Ni) contamination categories of dredged material classification (MDWPCr 1978). The MBDS-OFFarea, within the MBDS boundary but spatially remote from the dredged material disposal point, has levels that are comparable to the reference area. Therefore, significant elevations of metal contaminants are restricted to the point of disposal, and not impacting the MBDS-OFF or reference areas-. Organic chemical investigations at MBDS indicate elevated organic constituents at the disposal area on dredged material, but ambient level concentrations were found at the reference sites and in areas within MBDS but off dredged material. Carbon to nitrogen ratios averaged 11.6 (S.D.= 1.4, n=6) for the disposal point, and 8.6 (S.D.=0.08, n=6) for the reference site, which is relatively equivalent to the unimpacted site within MBDS at 8.7 (S.D.=O, n=3). Oil and grease levels were low (< 0.5%) but statistically (p< 0.05) elevated at the disposal area at 1763.3 ppm (S.D.= 421.6, n=6), in comparison with the reference sediment concentration of 285 ppm (S.D.=87.0, n=5) and unimpacted areas within the site averaging 306 ppm (S.D.=131, n=3). Petroleum hydrocarbons were also quantitatively low but elevated on the dredged material site at 1513 ppm (S.D.=302.6, n=6) compared'to reference levels of 244.4 ppm (S.D.=112.9, n=5) and MBDS-OFF of 327 ppm (S.D.=10, n=3). PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon) compounds were undetectable throughout the;study area except for 0.51 ppm of flouranthene at a site of recent disposal. Phthalate compounds, a plasticizer, was also detectable here at 7.64 ppm. Both of these values are typical of urban estuarine sediments. PCB (Polychlorinated biphenyl) compounds were highly variable in sediment concentration with disposal station values averaging 0.414 ppm (S.D.=403, n=5) and unimpacted areas within MBDS averaging 0.073 ppm (S.D.=0.065, n=5). Reference area PCB concentrations reflected the "settling basin" nature of Stellwagen Basin averaging 0.061 ppm (S.D.=0.062, n=6), quantitatively similar to MBDS-OFF values. 5 Tissue Residue The examination of available polychaete, bivalve and crustacean tissue at MBDS exhibits low levels of metal residues and no statistical elevations over ambient (reference) residues. organic residue levels data were generally highly variable and quantitatively low. One sample of Nephtys incisa tissue from January, 1986, on dredged material, exhibited an elevated PCB concentration of 0.52 ppm wet weight, however previous and subsequent sampling did not reveal similar contamination. PAH contamination was statistically elevated on areas of dredged material, in comparison to reference sites. Quantitatively, PAH levels were low, less than 2.5 ppm dry weight and predominantly influenced by benzo (a) anthracene and chrysene. Benthic Community Structure The analysis of the benthic community structure in the vicinity of the MBDS revbaled assemblages typical of Massachusetts Bay. The 1985 to 1986 sampling program identified the dominant organisms at the reference area to be the polychaete Paraonis gracilis, averaging 29.2% (S.D.=9.3, n=9) of all organisms and the polychaete Heteromastus filiformis averaging 10.1% (S.D.=4.7, n=9) of all organisms. Average overall benthic density for the three seasons investigated was 5,936 organisms per square meter (S.D.=2842.7, n=9) from an average of 44 species per square meter (S.D.=9.5, n=9). The benthic population sampled in September 1985 from a silty area within MBDS, but off dredged material (MBDS-OFF) contained a similar dominance of Paraonis gracilis (18.9%) for its average density of 8746 organisms per square meter from 37 species (n=3). The dredged material station within MBDS was clearly dominated by oligochaetes in September 1985, comprising 24.7% of its 26,548 organisms per square meter from 55 species (n=3). These assemblages are typical for populations colonizing recently disturbed habitat, such as the dredged material, exploiting the available high organic content of the substrate. The sandy reference area east of MBDS (MBDS-SRF) was dominated in September 1985 by the polychaete Exogone verugera, representing 15.4% of its 9190 organisms per square meter from 63 species (n=3). The sand station within MBDS (MBDS-NES) was also dominated by Exogone verugera, at 20.5% of its 4622 organisms per'square meter from 69 species. 6 The results of the benthic population studies indicate the silty reference area and the area within MBDS not directly disposed upon have a similar benthic community structure. The disposal point benthic community is different than the reference area and unimpacted site even though the sediment facies are similar. High densities of organisms are colonizing the disposed dredged material in comparison to the ambient substrate at the silty reference site. Within MBDS, but off dredged material, there are higher densities of oligochaetes than at the silt reference site. This may indicate recruitment from MBDS-ON or another type of perturbation, possibly the-foraging effects of organisms such as schools of dogfish observed in the finfish sampling program. The dogfish may have affected the benthic community structure in a manner similar to disposal 1* e. a temporary perturbation. The sandy area within MBDS was similar to the sandy reference area and both sites have typical Massachusetts Bay benthic communities. Finfish Finfish studies suggest that substantial finfish resources occur in the vicinity of MBDS. The resident finfish community on mud bottdm at MBDS is dominated by American plaice, Hippoglossoides platessoides; and witch flounder, Glyptocephalus cynoglossus. Silver and red hake, Merluccius bilinearis and Urophycis chuss, are adundant, commercially important seasonal migrants at MBDS. Hard bottom communities at MBDS (approximately 25% of total area) are probably dominated by redfish, Sebastes marinus; ocean pout, Macrozoarces americanus; cusk, Brosme brosme; and Atlantic wolffish Anarhichas lupus. BRAT (Benthic Resource Assessment Techniques) studies suggest that some differences exist between fish communities on dredged material versus natural bottom. Food resource availability and food utilization patterns of dominant demersal fi sh may have been altered by previous dredged material disposal. The benthic community colonizing recently disposed dredged material are typically polychaete organisms of small body size, short life cycles and high numbers. These are preferred prey of small (mouthed) finfish in comparison to natural substrates with larger resident benthos. Mammals, Reptiles and Birds Regionally, the Gulf of Maine is within the range of approximately 35 species of marine mammals, four species of marine turtles and approximately 40 species of seabirds. Dedicated aerial studies have been conducted by NED.(MBO, 1987) to assess the site specific mammal, reptile, and seabird use of MBDS. While not exhaustive, the observations represent a characterization of the dominant species occurence in the three ten minute square study area contiguous to MBDS. Threatened and endangered species of marine mammals and turtles, including the Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae; the Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus; and the Right whale, Eubalaena glacialis occur in the vicinity of MBDS. 7 Reptiles that potentially would o ccur at MBDS include the 'threatened loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta; and the endangered Atlantic Ridley's turtle, Lep.idochelys kempi; green turtle Chelonia mydas_; hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata; and leathei-b-a-&-k turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. Site specific scientific studies in 1985-1986 identified non-endangered dominant mar,ine mammals at MBDS to include the minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata; the white sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus; and the harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocena. Non-dominant mammals that may range into the Gulf of aine (extralimitally) include pilot whales Globicephala melaena; grampus, Grampus griseus; killer whales, Orcinus orca; bottlenosed dolphins, Tursiops truncatus; common dolphins, Delphinus delphis; spotted dolphins, Stenella plagiodon; striped dolphins, Stenella coeruleoalba; harbor seals, Phoca vitulina; and gray seals, Halichoerus grypus. Dominant seabirds observed during these studies include northern fulmar, Fulmarus glacialis; shearwaters, Puffinus spp; storm petrels, Hydrobatidae; northern gannet, Sula bassanus; Pomarine Jaeger, Stercorarius pomarinus; gulls, Larinae; and alcids, Alcidae. Endangered Species The Gulf of Maine waters are high-use habitat for fin, humpback and right whales between spring and fall. Winter concentrations of fin and humpback whales are reduced from the other times of the year. Winter distribution and abundance of right whales in the Gulf of Maine are poorly understood. Southwest-Gulf of Maine (Jeffreys Ledge, Stellwagen Bank south along the 100 m contour outside Cape Cod to the Great South Channel) is the subregion of highest use per unit area (greatest density) by large whales between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Nova Scotia. Species of endangered large whales use this area throughout the year, with densest concentrations occurring through fall. The 101 latitudinal block east of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) study area occurs over the northwest corner of Stellwagen Bank, the area Kenney (1985) found to have the highest habitat-use index by cetaceans. The 101 quadrant that MBDS is located in also is ah aiea of high cetaceah use with a habitat-use index > 90-95th percentile. In this 101 square the actual 2 nautical mile diameter site has an areal coverage of approximately 5% of the total. The five species of marine turtles that potentially would occur in the study area include the loggerhead turtle, Atlantic Ridleys turtle, hawksbill turtle, green turtle, and the leatherback turtle. Of these, Massachusetts Bay is considered marginal habitat for loggerhead and Atlantic Ridley's turtles. Green turtles and hawksbill turtles are rare or absent from Massachusetts Bay. The leatherback turtle would be the only species expected to occur in the study area, seasonally in late spring through summer, feeding opportunistically on jellyfish in the water column. 8 Environmental Impacts Physical oceanography Physical alterations in substrate character associated with dredged material disposal are confined within the.site. The MBDS region has been used for disposal of dredged material and other waste products for more than 50 years. Consequently, the center and western areas of the site are covered with dredged material deposits, characterized by a series of low broad topographic features. The dredged material deposits are relatively thin, broad layers consisisting primarily of si'lts and some coarser sediments. There are localized regions with concentrations of cohesive clump deposits in the vicinity of disposal buoy locations. The deposited dredged material appears to be very stable. Samples of material that had been in place for more than two years still displayed the reduced, high organic, black mud charactQristic of dredged material from estuaries in-the region. Side scan sonar and REMOTS surveys also documented the distribution of dredged material and presence of cohesive clumps in areas where disposal had taken place several years earlier. Consequently,.it is apparent that neither physical disturbance from currents and waves, nor bioturbation has significantly affected these deposits.over the past few years. Currents The water column at MBDS is characteristic of the shelf regime throughout New England, with strong stratification near the surface during the late summer and isothermal conditions during the winter. Near-surface currents in the area are dominated by tidal flow in northeast-southwest directions at 15 to 20 cm/sec, with maximum tidal velocities on the order of 30 cm/sec. Based on the results of the current meter deployment in September 1987, the mid-water depths experienced mean current velocities from 10 to 15 cm/sec with a dominant northwesterly flow. At the deeper depths, there was a secondary component to the southeast. Small amounts of fine-grained sediments separate from the dredged material plume during convective descent and remain in suspension. Annually, during periods when a well-developed pycnocline exists, these sediments could be concentrated at that level and potentially be transported away from the disposal point. The actual amount of this material will be determined by the physical characteristics of the sediment, the volume of material disposed, and method of disposal, but it could range from 3 to 5%. When the pycnocline is near the surface, net transport would be in a SW or NE direction. During the remainder of the year (i.e. late fall to mid-summer) the.pycnopline will deepen then disperse with flows predominantly southwest through northwest direction. 9 Near-bottom currents are very low, averaging less than 7 cm/sec. occasional higher velocities reaching up to 20 cm/sec in a westerly direction have been observed in near-bottom waters in response to easterly storm events occurring during the fall or winter. No strong bottom currents were observed as a result of storm events. Based on these data it is apparent that the near-bottom currents at MBDS are not sufficient to resuspend sediments. The wave regime in the vicinity of MBDS is controlled by the lack of fetch from a westerly direction and the fact that storms are duration-limited in their ability to generate waves. Since they generally approach the MBDS region over land from the south and west, northeast storms do not affect the waters of Massachusetts Bay until they are essentially at the site. Consequently the duration of these storms in Massachusetts Bay is quite short (maximum of 1-2 days). These limitations, combined with depth of the site (> 85 m), greatly restrict the generation of waves capable of causing resuspension of dredged material at MBDS. In order to generate waves of sufficient height and period to cause resuspension, an easterly storm must have winds in excess of 50 mph for a period of more than 12 hours. Such storms are uncommon, potentially occurring at a maximum approximately once every four years in the,Massachusetts Bay region. These occurrences are significant regional storms, that generally do not persist. Their effects have been minimal on other disposal sites, e.g. Central Long Island Sound (in 20 meters of water), causing episodes of minor surficial erosion. The combination of wind and wave conditions existing at MBDS and the evidence that previously deposited dredged material has remained unchanged over a several-year period all support the conclusion that MBDS is a containment site. Dredged material deposited at MBDS can be expected to remain in place for extended periods of time although surficial sediments may be resuspended on rare occasions of severe easterly storm events. During these events transport of the resuspended material would be to the west and southwest in combination with resuspended natural sediments. Capping Management of dredged material at MBDS should emphasize navigation control of the disposal,operation. Recent surveys at MBDS have shown that dredged material was restricted to an area with a radius of approximately 500 meters for a deposit of about 250,000 m3 placed in the vicinity of a taut moored buoy. Tighter control of the scows with respect to disposal in close proximity to the buoy could potentially reduce this areal coverage further. Capping of contaminated sediments at MBDS will require point disposal at a taut moored buoy, but it is an effective option for management of contaminated dredged material at MBDS. 10 Chemical Impacts Review of the historical disposal data, the water column chemistry, the within site versus ambient sediment chemistry and the biotic tissue residue levels, indicates that disposal of dredged material at MBDS imparts a chemical signature in a low to moderate (Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn) range for sediments and low range for tissue residue. Water quality impacts are temporally limited to the immediate disposal event. The balance between pre-dispo'sal chemical and biological testing and in situ sampling agrees well and defines correlation in test results. Contaminant levels are being appropriately identified by bulk chemical screening. The statistically significant biological availability of contaminants at the disposal point seems to be restricted to persistent organics, particularly PAHs. However, even though statistically elevated the actual levels are quantitatively low. Benthic Impacts The benthic community of the MBDS reference area (MBDS-REF) is similar to typical Massachusetts Bay and Stellwagen Basin communities (species complexes of Prionos2io / Paraonis spp. and Thyasira sp.), There is a clear impact of dredged material disposal on the benthic community at the disposal point. MBDS-ON (the disposal point) was dominated by oligochaetes and �2@1o pettibonae. These organisms are the pioneers, or rapid recolonizers, of disturbed areas and efficiently exploit substrate niches of high organic content. The summary statistics demonstrate the high oligochaete dominance at the dredged material disposal point. The silty reference area (MBDS-REF) benthic community was-comprised of similar species with a considerably lower density than the disposal point. The area within MBDS, but not on disposed dredged material (MBDS-OFF) was similar in- abundance and composition to the reference site differing predominantly in the presence of oligochaetes. The sandy stations (MBDS-SRF and -NES) had corresponding similar benthic communities for the coarser grained substrate. These benthic studies reflect a change in community structure is generally confined to the disposal_ point within MBDS. Fisheries Impacts The approximately 4.2 square mile MBDS area represents an insignificant percentage (< 1%) of the total area available for ground fishing and shellfishing in Massachusetts Bay. Continued disposal of dredged material at MBDS will have no significant impact on the region's marine resources. Adverse impacts to individual organisms will occur, but be insignificant outside the immediate vicinity of the disposal site. Similarly, any changes in community structure related to impacts on benthic food resources will be highly localized and insignificant to fisheries resources on a regional basis. Plankton Impacts The disposal of dredged material at MBDS will not significantly impact the plankton population,of Massachusetts Bay. Localized (approximately 10-20 hectare) spatial impacts on plankton of short (< 4 hours) temporal duration will potentially result from elevated suspended solids concentration. The elution of chemical contaminants in significant concentrations affecting plankton is highly unlikely. Similarly conservative impact.estimates predict average annual elevations in suspended solid load D100 mg/1) to impact a total of 0.7 square miles for approximately a total of approximately 14 days of the year. Chemical elution and subsequent water column dilutions, are npt expected to yield significant levels and in fact would only exceed the EPA Quality Criteria for Water in a small percentage K1%) of the MBDS water column prior to dilution below criteria. Sedimentary chemical contaminants are disposed'at the site in various concentrations and are only found in low to moderate in situ concentrations.. These results indicate potential interference with phytoplankton and zooplankton productivity would be minimal. Endangered Species The continued disposal of dredged material at MBDS is not likely to have any significant impact on*endangered species prey, critical habitat or the species themselves. In particular, suspended solids and contaminant inputs to the water column do not have the potential to significantly impact the water column outside the disposal si@e boundary. Contaminant levels in-prey species such as sand lance, Ammodytes dubius or A. americanus, are indicative of Massachusetts Bay-wide background contamination. No evidence of significant contaminant remobilization exists with regard to dredged material disposal at MBDS'. Turtle prey items, e.g. jellyfish, crabs etc., are also not anticipated to be significantly impacted due to their remoteness from the point of disposal and the limited spatial and temporal disposal impact persistence. Current vectors have not been identified as having the potential to transport contaminants to any significant endangered species critical habitat. Finally, the tug and barge activity would not be anticipated to interfere significantly with endangered species, given the organisms abilities to avoid the traffic, and the minimal activity at MBDS in comparison to the nearby Boston Harbor traffic lanes. 12 From a physical, chemical, and biological oceanographic standpoint, the designation of MBDS as a disposal site for dredged material would appear to be an appropriate continuing use of this portion of Massachusetts Bay. It is apparent that material deposited at the site will remain in place, and since the area has'previously been used for disposal of dredged material and other waste products, such a designation would not expand the area of the seafloor affected by future disposal operations. In summary, the intensive oceanographic evaluations performed at MBDS throughout this and previous studies indicate that continued use of the site for dredged material disposal will have minimal environmental impacts. As scientific understanding of oceanographic processes evolves and as future DAMOS monitoring results advise, the management of MBDS will be continually reassessed. 13 Table of Contents Chapter Page Executive Summary i 1. Purpose and Need for Action 1 A. General I B. Corps of Engineers National Purpose and Need. 2 C. Corps of Engineers Local Purpose and Need. 2 D. Environmental Protection Agency's Purpose and Need 3 E. Regional Disposal Needs 3 1. Site History 3 2. Composition 4 3. Geographic Extent of Harbors Using the Site. 4 4. Projected Needs for Disposal 4 2. Site Evaluation Studies 9 A. Authority 9 B. General and Specific Criteria for Site Evaluation 10 1. General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5) 10 2. Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6) 11 3. Affected Environment 14 A. Physical Characteristics. 15 1. Climate. 15 2. Oceanography 16 a. Water Masses, Temperature and Salinity 16 b. Circulation: Currents, Tides and Waves 19 c. Bathymetry. 25 d. Sedimentology. 26 B. Chemical Characteristics. 101 1. Water Quality. 101 a. Dissolved Oxygen. 101 b. pH. 103 c. Nutrients. 103 d. Turbidity 104 e. Metals. 105 f. Organics. 108 2. Sediment Chemistry 109 3. Biotic Residues 136 C. Biological Characteristics. 161 1. Plankton. 161 2. Finfish and Shellfish. 164 3. Benthos. 203 4. Mammals, Reptiles and Birds. 214 5. Threatened and Endangered Species. 242 D. Commercial and Recreational Characteristics. 280 1. Fishing Industry. 280 2. Shipping. 285 3. Mineral, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. 285 4. General Marine Recreation. 285 5. Marine Sanctuaries. 285 6. Historic Resources. 285 4. Environmental Consequences. 287 A. Effects on the Physical Environment. 287 1. Short-term Effects. 287 a. Disposal Processes. 287 b. Mound Formation/Substrate Consolidation. 291 2. Long-term Effects. 293 a. Bathymetry. 294 b. Circulation and Currents. 294 c. Potential for Resuspension'and Transport. 295 d. Bioturbation. 299 3. Summary of Physical Effects. .301 B. Effects on the Chemical Environment. 313 1. Water Quality. 313 2. Sediment Chemical Environment. 314 a. Short-term Impacts 314 b. Long-term Impacts 317 3. Summary of Chemical Effects. 318 C. Effects on Biota. 322 1. Pl-ankton. 322 2. Fififish and Shellfish. 324 3. Benthos. 332 4. Mammals, Reptiles and Birds. 336 5. Threatened and Endangered Species. 336 .D. Effects on Human Use. 340 1. Fishing Industry. 340 a. Short-term Effects. 340 b. Long-term Effects. 340 2. Navigation. 340 3. Mineral and Other Resources. 341 4. General Marine Recreation 341 .5. Historic Resources. 341 5. Management Considerations for the Disposal Site. 342 A. Buoy Location. 342 B. Quality Control of Disposal Operation. 342 C. Mitigation Measures. 343 D. Monitoring Program - DAMOS. 346 E. Site Capacity. 346 Fl. Potential Post Disposal Uses. 346 6. References. 349 Appendices 385 2 Table 1-1 Harbors, Rivers and Channels using MBDS 6 Table 1-2 Disposal Volumes and Chemical 7 Characteristics of Material Disposed at MBOS Table 2-1 Site Evaluation Guidance Conflict Matrix 12 Table 3 Field Studies at MBOS 14 Table 3-A-1-1 Summary of Climatic Conditions Over a 93 20 Year Period, Boston, MA Table 3-A.2-1 Temperature (C) and Salinity (o/oo)Data 94 Obtained in the Vicinity of FADS. Table 3-A.2-2 Summary of Current Measurement Statistics 95 during 1974. Table 3-A.2-3 Easterly Storms with Winds in Excess of 96 45 mph in Massachusetts Bay over a 60 year Period from 1920-1980. Table 3-A-2-4 Annual Ocurrence of Wave Height Equalled 97 or Exceeded (percent) in Northern Massachusetts Bay. Table 3-A-2-5 Grain Size Parameters for Sediment 98 Samples Obtained at FADS (June & September, 1985; Febru ary, 1986). Table 3-B.1 Water Chemistry Data 102 Table 3-B-2-1 Sediment Trace Metal Data 126 Table 3-B-2-2 Sediment Organic Data 127 Table 3-B-2-3 Sediment PCB Concentrations 128 Table 3-B-2-4 Sediment PAH Analysis 129 Table 3.B.2-5 Sediment Testing Limits 134 Table 3-B.3-1 Nerbtys Tissue Residue Levels 145 -MBDS-REF Table 3-B-3-2 Nephtys Metal Levels -NBDS- ON 146 Table 3-B-3-3 Nepbtys Metal Levels - MBDS- OFF, 147 Table 3.B.3-4 Nephtys Metal Levels - MBDS - SRF 148 Table 3.B.3-5 Nephtys Residue Levels 149 Table 3.B.3-6 Astarte Metals Levels 149 Table 3.B.3-7 Bivalve Metals Levels 150 Table 3.B.3-8 Shrimp Metals levels 150 Table 3.B.3-9 Nephtys Organic Levels - MBDS - ON 151 Table 3.B.3-10 Nephtys Organic Levels - MBDS - ON 151 Table 3.B.3-11 Nephtys Organic Levels - MBDS - OFF 152 Table 3.B.3-12 Nephtys Organic Levels - NBDS - SRF 152 and NES Table 3.B.3-13 Nephtys 1987 Organic Levels 153 Table 3.B.3-14 Astarte Organic Levels 153 Table 3.8.3-15 Scallop PCB Levels 154 Table 3.B.3-16 Shrimp PCB Levels 154 Table 3.B.3-17 Nephtys PAH Levels - MBDS - OFF and 155 MBDS - REF Table 3.B.3-18 Nephtys PAH Levels 156 Table 3.B.3-19 Detection Limits - Metals 157 Table 3.B.3-20 Instant Operating Conditions 158 Table 3.B.3-21 Mercury Replicate Studies 161 Table 3.C.2-1 Fisheries Studies (1985-1986) 179 Table 3.C.2-2 Gulf of Maine Finfish 180 Table 3.C.2-3 MBDS Finfish 182 Table 3.C.2-4 NMFS and MDMF Species Frequency 183 Table 3.C.2-5 Winter NMFS Trawl Data 184 Table 3.C.2-6 Spring NMFS Trawl Data 185 Table 3.C.2-7 Summer NMFS Trawl Data 186 Table 3.C.2-8 Fall NMFS/MDMF Trawl Data 187 Table 3.C.2-9 Gill Net Data 188 Table 3.C.2-10 Submersible Observations at MBDS 189 Table 3.C.2-11 Gill Net Data FADS - ON 190 Table 3.C.2-12 Bottom Trawl Summary Data 191 Table 3.C.2-13 Average Commercial Fisheries Data 192 Table 3.C.2-14 Life History of Dominant MBDS Finfish 193 Table 3.C.2-15 Fish Egg Densities at New Hampshire 194 Table 3.C.2-16 Fish Larvae Densities at New Hampshire 195 Table 3.C.2-17 Larval Fish at MBDS 196 Table 3.C.2-18 Feeding guilds at MBDS 197 Table 3.C.2-19 Stomach Contents of Finfish at MBDS 198 Table 3.C.2-20 Feeding Strategy Groups at MBDS 199 Table 3.C.2-21 Feeding efficiency of Finfish at MBDS 200 Table 3.C.2-22 NMFS and MDMF Invertebrates 201 Table 3.C.2-23 MBDS Invertebrate Life History 202 Table 3.C.3-1 Historic Data on Benthos of Mass Bay 214 Table 3.C.3-2 Location of Previous Studies Near MBDS 214 Table 3.C.4-1 Common Cetacea in the Gulf of Mexico 237 Table 3.C.4-2 Cetacea Occurring Uncommonly 238 Table 3.C.4-3 Gulf of Maine Marine Turtle Occurrence 238 Table 3.C.4-4 Gulf of Maine Pinneped Occurrence 239 Table 3.C.4-5 Gulf of Maine Seabird Occurrence 240 Table 3.C.5-1 Cetacea of the Gulf of Maine 277 Table 3.C.5-2 Cetaceans Uncommon in the Gulf of Maine 278 Table 3.C.5-3 Marine Turtles Uncommon in the Gulf of 278 Maine Table 3.C.5-4 Pinnepeds Uncommon in the Gulf of Maine 279 Table 3.D.1-1 Finfish Landings in Area 514 283 Table 4.A.1-1 Capping Volume Estimates 310 Table 4.A.2-1 Wave Parameters 311 Table 4.A.2-2 Deepwater Wave Durations 312 Table 4.B.2-1 Chemical Summary of Dredged Material 319 Table 4.B.2-2 MBDS Historic Disposal Volume 320 Table 4.B.2-3 MWRA Effluent Concentrations (2020) 320 Table 4.B.2-4 Average Annual MBDS Chemical Mass 321 Table 4.C.2-1 NBDS Dilution Zones for Suspended 331 Sediments Table 4.D.-1 MBDS Fisheries Catch 341 Table 5-1 Sediment Deposit Thickness 347 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site 8 Figure 3.A.1-1A Fifteen year (1950-64) monthly averaged 32 wind roses, Boston, MA Figure 3.A.1-1B Fifteen year (1950-64) monthly averaged 33 wind roses, Boston, MA Figure 3.A.1-1C Fifteen year (1950-64) monthly averaged 34 wind roses, Boston, MA Figure 3.A.1-2 Characterization of Massachusetts Bay 35 wind condition Figure 3.A.2-1 Location of temperature transects in 36 the vicintiy of FADS. Figure 3.A.2-2 Profile of mean annual temperature (C) 37 cycle at Boston Lightship, southwest of FADS (from Bumpus, 1974) Figure 3.A.2-3 Annual ccycle of salinity (0/00) at Boston 38 Lightship, southwest of MBDS. Figure 3.A.2-4 Temperature (C) transects in the 39 vicinity of MBDS Figure 3.A.2-5 Vertical profiles of temperature (March- 40 June, 1973). Figure 3.A.2-6 Vertical profiles of salinity (March- 41 June, 1973). Figure 3.A.2-7 Surface salinity (0/00) in May, 1986. 42 Figure 3.A.2-8 Surface salinity (0/00) in September, 43 1986. Figure 3.A.2-9 Surface salinity (0/00) in mid-December, 44 1986. Figure 3.A.2-10a Time series of temeprature (C) measured 45 at four depths at MBDS (20 Sept. - 18 Oct. 1985) Figure 3.A.2-10b Time series of temperature (C) measured 46 at four depths at MBDS (12 Sept. - 19 Oct. 1987) 1 Figure 3-A-2-11 Time series of near-bottom (85 m)., 47 temperature ( C) measured at FADS .(19 Feb - 30 March, 1986) Figure 3-A-2-12 The dominant circulation of surface 48 waters of the Gulf of Maine in July and August. Figure 3-A.2-13 The seasonal variation of circulation 49 in the Gulf of Maine. Figure 3-A.2-14 Time series of near-bottom current 50 speed (cm/sec) at FADS (23 May- 10 July, 1978). Figure 3-A-2-15 Generalized response of,bottom currents 51 to strong easterly wind conditions at FADS Figure 3-A.2-16 Three-hour low pass (3-HLP) time series 52 of near-surface (10 m) current speed (cm/sec) and,direction ( M) at FADS (20 Sept - 18 Oct., 1985) Figure 3.A.2-17 Three-hour low pass Q-HLP) time series -53 of near-bottom (82 m)-current speed (cm/sec) and direction ( M) at FADS (20 i Sept - 18 Oct., 1985)@ Figure 3-A-2-18 Three-hour low pass (3-HLP),time series 54 of near-bottom (85 m) current speed (cm/sec) and direction ( M) at FADS (15 Feb. - 2 April, 1985). Figure 3.A.2-19 Three-hour low pass (3-HLP) time series 55 of near-surface (8 m) current speed (cm/sec) and direction ( N) at FADS (12 Sept. 19 Oct., 1987@ Figure 3-A-2-20 Three-hour low pass (3-HLP) time series 56 of mid-depth (25 m) current speed (cm/sec) and direction. ( M) at FADS (12 Sept. - 19 Oct., 1987). Figure 3.A.2-21 Three-hour low pass 1(3-HLP) time series 57 of mid-depth (55 m) c@urrent speed (cm/sec) and direction M) at FADS (12 Sept. 19 Oct., 1987) 2 Figure 3.A.2-22 Three-hour low pass (3-HLP) time series 58 of near-bottom (84 m) current speed (cm/sec) and direction M) at FADS (12 Sept. - 19 Oct., 1987) Figure 3.A.2-23a Comparison of tidal ellipses calculated 59 from near-surface (10 m) and near-bottom (82 and 85 m) current meter data at FADS (20 Sept. -18 Oct., 1985 and 15 Feb. - 2 April, 1986) Figure 3.A.2-23b Comparison of tidal ellipses calculated 60 from data at the four current meter depths at FADS (12 Sept. - 19 Oct., 1987) Figure 3.A.2-24a Forty-hour lwo pass (40-HLP) time series 61 of near-surface (10 m) and near-bottom (82 and 85 m) current meter data collected at FADS (20.Sept. - 18 Oct., 1985 and 15 Feb. - 2 April, 1986). (Note change in Y-axis scale). Figure 3.A.2-24b Forty-hour low pass (40-HLP) time 62 series of current meter data collected at four depths at FADS (12,Sept. - 19 Oct., 1987) (Note change in Y-axis scale.) Figure 3.A.2-25 Surface wave rose representative of 63 Massachusetts Bay Figure 3.A.2-26 In-situ wave height (H /3) and period 64 (sec) measured in Massachusetts Bay (42o26'N, 70o 43'W) compared with average. daily wind speeds (mph)measured at Boston (20 March -3 April, 1974). Figure 3.A.2-27 Major bathymetric features of 65 Massachusetts Bay. Figure 3.A.2-28 Contour chart of bathymetric data 66 collected at FADS (21 May, 1978). Figure 3.A.2-29 Contour chart of bathymetric data 67 collected at Foul Area - South Site (January, 1983). Figure 3.A.2-30 Smooth sheet of depths generated from 68 bathymetric survey of FADS (October, 1985). 3 Figure 3.A.2-31 Contour chart of bathymetric data 69 collected at FADS (October, 1985). .Figure 3.A.2-32 Three dimensional representation of 70 bathymetric data collected at FADS (October, 1985). Figure 3.A.2-33 Comparison of fathometer records 71 recorded over dredged material and natural bottom at FADS (October 1985). Figure 3.A.2-34 Distribution of the percentage of silt 72 sized particles in sediments deposited in Massachusetts Bay. Figure 3.A.2-35 Location of side scan sonar records used 73 to characterize the sediment facies within the FADS region (October, 1985). Figure 3.A.2-36 Type "1" side scan sonar record in the 74 general area of FADS (October, 1985). Figure 3.A.2-37 Type "2" side scan sonar record in the 75 general area of FADS (October, 1985). Figure 3.A.2-38 Type "3a" side scan sonar record, FADS 76 (October, 1985). Figure 3.A.2-39 Type "3b" side scan sonar record in the 77 general area of FADS (October, 1985). Figure 3.A.2-40 Type "3c" side scan sonar record, FADS 78 (October, 1985). Figure 3.A.2-41 Type "3c" side scan sonar record, FADS 79 (October, 1985). Figure 3.A.2-42 Type "3d" side scan sonar record FADS 80 (October, 1985). Figure 3.A.2-43 Type "4" side scan sonar record, FADS 81 (October, 1985). Figure 3.A.2-44 REMOTS image from northeast quadrant of 82 FADS (Station 1-15) showing a dense mat of polychaete tubes overlying coarse sediments. Figure 3.A.2-45 REMOTS image from natural silt bottom 83 at FADS (Station 18-17). Figure 3.A.2-46 REMOTS image from dredged material 84 deposited at FADS (Station 11-07) showing very low reflectance (black) material at depth covered by oxidized sediments# 4 Figure 3.A.2-47 Location of sediment sampling stations at 85 FADS. Figure 3.A.2-48 Distribution of sediment facies at FADS 86 as determined from side scan sonar and REMOTS surveys. Figure 3.A.2-49 Analysis of side scan sonar survey in 87 the vicinity of FADS indicating locations of high reflectance targets probably representing chemical or low-level radioactive waste containers. Figure 3.A.2-50 The apparent distribution and 88 thickness (cm) of dredged material at FADS in June 1985, based on REMOTS data. Figure 3.A.2-51 The apparent distribution and thickness 89 (cm) of dredged material at FADS in September 1985, based on REMOTS data. Figure 3.A.2-52 The apparent distribution and thickness 90 (cm) of dredged material at FADS in January 1986, based on REMOTS data. Figure 3.A.2-53 The apparent distribution and thickness 91 (cm) of dredged material in the vicinity of the "DGD" disposal buoy at FADS in February 1986, bsed on REMOTS data. Figure 3.A.2-54 The apparent distribution and thickness 92 (cm) of dredged material in the vicinity of the "DGD" disposal buoy at FADS in January 1987, based on REMOTS data. Figure 3.B.2-1 Remots survey at MBDS 124 Figure 3.B.2-2 MBDS sampling station 125 Figure 3.C.2-1 Dragging grounds at MBDS 174 Figure 3.C.2-2 Planktonic eggs in Cape Cod Bay 175 Figure 3.C.2-3 Planktonic fish larvae in Cape Cod Bay 176 Figure 3.C.2-4 Invertebrate biomass at MBDS 177 Figure 3.C.2-5 Prey-biomass 178 Figure 3.C.3-1 Benthos at NMFS stations 209 Figure 3.C.3-2 Benthos at NMFS in 1981-82 210 Figure 3.C.3-3 Benthos at MBDS-REF 211 5 Figure 3.C.3-5 Benthos at MBDS-ON and MBDS-OFF 212 Figure 3.C.3-6 Benthos at MBDS-SRF and NES 213 Figure 3.C.4-1 Study area at MBDS 226 Figure 3.C.4-2 Minke whale abundance 227 Figure 3.C.4-3 White-sided dolphin abundance 230 Figure 3.C.4-4 Harbor porpoise abundance 233 Figure 3.C.4-5 Pilot whale abundance 236 Figure 3.C.5-1 Bathymetry of Northeast U.S. 255 Figure 3.C.5-2 MBDS location 256 Figure 3.C.5-3 Humpback whale occurrence 257 Figure 3.C.5-4 Humpback whale- surface feeding 264 Figure 3.C.5-5 Humpback whale calf sightings 266 Figure 3.C.5-6 Fin whale occurrence 268 Figure 3.C.5-7 Right whale occurrence 274 Figure 3.C.5-8 Loggarhead turtle occurrence 275 Figure 3.C.5-9 Leatherback turtle occurrence 276 Figure 3.D.1-1 N.O.A.A. - fisheries statistical area 284 Figure 4.A.1-1 Disposal schematic 304 Figure 4.A.1-2 Disposal plume track 305 Figure 4.A.1-3 Schematic plume comparison 306 Figure 4.A.2-1 Sediment transport curves 307 Figure 4.A.2-2 Bottom velocity curves 308 Figure 4.A.2-3 REMOTS Bioturbation Image 309 Figure 4.C.3-1 Benthic data cluster anal ysis 335 Figure 4.C.4-1 Cetacean habitat use index 339 Figure 5.A-1 Generic decision protocol 348 6 CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION. A. General The purpose of this action is to synthesize the information necessary to evaluate the continued use of an interim 'ocean disposal site in accordance with the criteria established in the Ocean Dumping Regulation (40 CFR 228.4 - 228.6). The information developed in this technical document will be used to designate the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) a$ an area of ocean bottom for receiving dredged material. The designation of this site will confine the impacts of dredged material disposal and associated environmental alterations to a spatially limited area. The site, located in Massachusetts Bay (see Figure 1-1) in water ranging from approximately 60-100 meters deep, is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved interim dredged material ocean disposal site with a circular boundary of two nautical miles diameter as identified in the Federal Register as Marblehead (40 CFR 228.4 - 228.6). The center of the site is at 420-25.7' north latitude and 700-34.0' west longitude, approximately 22 nautical miles east of Boston, 14.5 nautical miles southeast of Manchester Bay, Manchester, 26 nautical miles northwest of Race Point, Provincetown, and ten miles south-southeast of Eastern Point, Gloucester, Massachusetts. This disposal.site has historically been called the "Foul Area" because of the many fishing net "hangs" that could foul the equipment. Open water disposal sites provide an alternative disposal method for dredged material generated from the maintenance of the navigability of ports and waterways and the improvement of harbor and channel facilities. The suitability of these sites is a function of their environmental acceptability and economic feasibility. Designation of a disposal site only results in availability of the site to receive dredged material. Actual disposal of sediments would take place only after the material has been specifically evaluated (see Section 5B, 50 and open-water disposal has been chosen as the best option. B. Corps of Engineers National Purpose and Need. Title I of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, Section 102, requires the Corps of Engineers to evaluate Federal dredged material disposal activity and permit the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of ocean disposal according to the impacts of these activities. This evaluation considers effects on human health, welfare and amenities and impacts on the marine environment, ecological systems, and economic feasibility. One of the missions of the Corps of Engineers is-to maintain the navigability of waterways under authority of the various River and Harbor Acts. -This mission includes the disposal of dredged material in an ecologically and economically acceptable manner., The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site has been designated as an interim dredged material disposal site since 1977 although it has been used for disposal,of various substances since 1940 (see Chapter lEl - Site History). The determination of its environmental acceptability is critical to its designation for permanent status. The permanent designation of this site for dredged material disposal is in the national interest to allow for co'ntinued economical maintenance of navigable waterways. C. Corps of Engineers Local Purpose and Needs (Federal Projects and Private Permits). The harbors of New England require maintenance dredging on a regular basis due to the accumulation of shoaling material. The authority for maintenance dredging is delegated to the Corps under various River and Harbor Acts. Improvement dredging is authorized in response to expanding needs of individual ports. The New England Division of the Corps of Engineers has disposed or permitted disposal of approximately 2.8 million cubic yards of dredged material at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site over the past twelve years. The material was from harbors, rivers and channels between Gloucester and Plymouth, Massachusetts. A majority of this material was silt (60%) while approximately 40% was sand and gravel. The volume and type of material historically disposed here can be pro- jected for future needs. Table 1-1 contains a list of rivers and harbors that have the potential to use this site for disposal of dredged material over at least the next five decades. Designation of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site as a permanent Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site will provide the Corps of Engineers and other interests with a site of suitable size to accommodate the regional disposal need of areas from Gloucester to Plymouth, Massachusetts. Other potential alternatives that could accept the large volumes of sediments that will require disposal are either economically and/or logistically limited for most projects and practical purposes. The next closest interim designated disposal site is Cape Arundel Disposal Site which is 45 milesfrom Gloucester and the closest designated site is the Portland Disposal Site which is 68 miles from Gloucester. There are no regional upland disposal sites that are currently available. To meet a 50-year need of disposal (approximately 15 million cubic yards), upland sites totalling 390 acres would be needed (not including acreage needed for di'@_-es, treatment facilities, etc.) if these sites were to be covered with a layer of dredged material 26 feet deep. Prior studies of available upland disposal sites have identified potential sites that would only accommodate a small fraction of the projected need (Sasaki Associates, 1983). D. Environmental Protection Agenc s Purpose and Need. y The designation of an Ocean Dr@dged Material Disposal Site is the responsibility of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 2 after consulting with Federal, State, and local officials, interested members of the generar public and the Secretary of the Army. The designation of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site from an interim to a permanent status will be aided by the technical information contained in this document. The environmental suitability of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site as a permanent dredged material disposal site will be evaluated by the Administrator using the general and specific criteria established in the EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria.(MPRSA) and other pertinent regulations. E. Regional Disposal Needs. 1. Site History The general vicinity of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) has received industrial waste, e.g. intentionally sunken derelict vessels, organic and inorganic compounds, and construction debris since the 1940's. Earlier disposal actions were not at a specified point, but a considerable distance from,land as judged by the vessel skipper. Most dredged material was disposed at sites closer inshore than MBDS especially at a location called the "Boston Lightship Disposal Site" (see Figure I- 1). some' dredged material that was considered "contaminated" (often without any chemical testing) was disposed in the vicinity of the offshore area eventually termed the "Massachusetts Bay", the subject of this study. The disposal site marker 'W' buoy' was deployed by the U.S. Coast Guard at 420-26.8'N and 700-35.0'W from August 1963 through January 29, 1975. In 1975, at the request of the Corps, the buoy was moved into deeper waters at its present location (420-25.7N and 700-35.0'W). In 1977, the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 220 - 229) established the dredged material disposal site as an overlapping two nautical mile diameter circle centered one nautical mile east (420-25.7N and 700-34.0'W) of the previous industrial waste site (see Figure 1). This reconfigured site is used only for the disposal of dredged material and has received approximately 2,800,000 cubic yards of dredged material between 1977 and 1985, a majority of which came from Boston Harbor dredging projects. 2. Composition Often the material that settles in channels and harbors in New England is fine grained sediments that are not suitable for fill, beach nourishment or other constructive practices. This material is transported by river bedload, storm water runoff, and tidally driven currents to settle in areas of low current velocities. This settling creates shoals that must be periodically dredged to ensure the safety of vessels navigating harbor channels and anchorages. Additional dredging occurs in response to improvement needs of various harbors. The predominantly silt and sandy-clayey-silt that needs to be disposed from Massachusetts harbors must have a low energy environment for 3 stability in containing the disposed material within the designated site. During the past disposal activities at MBDS, 62.1% of all material was silt and clay (greater than 4 phi), 37.3% was sand (@:l to 4 phi), and the remaining 0.6% was gravel (less than -1 phi). Much of the material disposed was a mixture of sandy silt which has been contained in place at MBDS because of the stable nature of this deepwater offshore area. Disposal in shallow nearshore sites could allow storm activity to resuspend dredged silts and clays. Upland disposal sites are few and expensive on this urban coastline. Presently, there are no public access upland or nearshore disposal alternatives in the greater Boston Region, and private alternatives are of limited viability (Sasaki Associates, 1983). Recent investigations by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are determining the feasibility of establishing a dredged material containment island in Boston Harbor. This site, however should only be used for contaminated material that does not pass disposal evaluation testing (i.e. bioassay/bioaccumulation testing - EPA/COE, 1977). Historically, since approximately the 1940's the chemical composition of a majority of materials disposed in the ocean MBDS was not analyzed. Recent practices of testing have revealed that dredged material of varying composition was disposed at MBDS as represented in Table 1-2 since 1976. Caution should be used in interpreting these data, since the perceived need to test material biases the results, i.e. material from non-polluted, and therefore non-tested, harbor areas are not considered in the average. In general, the tests were concentrated on surficial sediments in the most polluted section of project areas. Maintenance dredging usually removes recently accumulated surficial sediments. Improvement dredging projects generally remove deeper layers of uncontaminated materials. The deeper layers generally receive little or no testing and could represent the majority of a project's disposed material. 3. Geographic Extent of Harbors Using the Site. The use of the Massachusetts Bay as a disposal site by dredging projects in specific harbors is dependent on the "zone of economic feasibility" a term used to define an area within economic haul distance to the site. Table 1-1 lists the harbor projects that currently have the potential to dispose of dredged material at MBDS. In general, all rivers, channels and harbors from Gloucester through Plymouth, Massachusetts, that are dredged, have the potential to generate material that would be disposed at MBDS. Historically the majority of material in cubic yardage has come from Boston Harbor (67%) with those harbors south of Boston comprising 20% of the material disposed at MBDS. The remaining 13% was generated from dredging projects in harbors north of Boston to Gloucester, Massachusetts. 4. "Projected Needs for Disposal. The Massachusetts Bay is designated as an interim disposal site and provides a disposal alternative to the dredging needs of the greater 4 Boston region. These dredging projects generate approximately 230,000 cubic yards annually to be disposed at MBDS (see'Table 1-2). Occasionally projects such as Boston Harbor Federal channel maintenance dredging have generated up to 1.6 million cubic yards of sandy-clayey-silt to be disposed at MBDS. IL is anticipaLed that the future needs for disposal of dredged material will be equivalent to the previous regional needs of approximately three million cubic yards per decade. Recent proposals for infrastucture and harbor improvements in the greater Boston area may triple these projections in any one decade. The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site will be evaluated in this document for its suitability in meeting these needs. 5 TABLE 1-1 Harbors, rivers, and channels that have the potential (are within an economically feasible haul distance) to dispose of dredged materi.-il aL MOS. Rockport Harbor and Pigeon Cove Gloucester Harbor Annisquam River and Smith Cove Essex River and Castle Neck River Ipswich River and Eagle Hill River Rowley River Manchester Harbor Beverly Harbor Danvers' Crane, and Porter Rivers Salem Harbor Marblehead Harbor Lynn Harbor Swampscott River. Winthrop Harbor Saugus/Pines River Malden River Mystic River Boston Harbor Chelsea River Fort Point Channel Little Mystic (South) Channel Boston Inner Harbor Charles River Presid'ent Roads Anchorage Reserve Channel Main Ship Channel (Board Sound, North, South, and Narrows Channel) Nubble Channel Island End River Dorchester Bay and Neponset River Weymouth 'Fore,'Town, and Back Rivers Allerton Harbor Hingham Harbor Weir River including Nantasket Channel and Sagamore Cove Cohasset Harbor Scituate Harbor Green Harbor Duxbury Harbor Kingston Harbor Plymouth Harbor and Cordage Channel 6 Table 1-2a. Disposal Volumes (cubic yards and cubic meters) for MBDS (Volumes are barge estimates-in place factor is approximately 0.65 - Tavalaro, 1985) YEARLY TOTALS C.Y. C.M. 1987 118,800 90,834 1986 232,122 177,480 1985 273,355 209,007 1984 226,369 173,081 1983 282,919 216,320 1982 845,819 646,713 1981 315,204 241,004 1980 15,108 11,552 1979 91,908 70,273 1978 33,116 25,320 1977 50,223 38,400 1976 313,558 239,746 GRAND TOTALS 2,798,502 2,139,730 Table 1-2b. Statistical Summary and Weighted Average of all Dredged Disposal at MBDS between 1976 and 1987. Concentrations are in ppm (dry weight) Hg Cd Pb Cr Cu Ni Zn As PCB %Vol %oil AVG. ppm 0.58 2.02 96.50 88.17 65.31 24.08 134.70 8.44 0.25 2.08 1.09 STD 0.90 2.19 106.62 116.32 84.12 .24.28 145.91 11.34 0.62 2.44 1.77 MAX 6.46 8.90 491.50 629.50A48.50 88.83 532.00 52.10 3.00 8.23 7.48 Mass Class III is greater than: 1.50 10.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 100.00 400.00 20.00 1.00 10.00 1.00 Weighted Average 0.68 2.96' 126.84 105.88 104.60 36.76 170.83 12.63 0.22 2.99 2.13 Mass Class II is greater than: 0.50 5.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 50.00 200.00 10.00 0.50 5.00 0.50 Note: Massachusetts Classification guidelines are from 314 CMR 9.00. 7 401 &fit .!Id. 1IVI L Gt Egg Its MANCHESTER 149 COY[: Z! BAY 0 145 leo/ I" VILLAGI Great Mw,,14 H .... III in Hospital Pt 13 159 JU fee W6 0 YJ tj D 131 194 so Bakers 1 12 162 191 165 210 035 Engle I 144 17 to 15? its 181 IS G 206 174 147 204 toy 236 Wet 1 163 196 65 too 197 226 46 194 Halfway Rk MY-228 ZS5 ILO- 38 238 its% Marblehead Neck 1461 V7 Ui 169 04 176 237 114 T264 AM 216 Ti.k.ra 1 102 its -4 49 161 AM 177 251 05 227 Ram 1 137 (01) -1 237 144 As Z 227 136 cc 203 too 14 129 150 IV 23, 24S 0240 240 G"al hK R-ka 130 IST 216 $- L23 132 138 136 (24 ft 204 25t 4: 306 IS? 144 Q It 26? 200 124 ISO or 171 4562 255 246 160 W i2o 151 150 1@ 163 176 00 too 138 loo,32 ISO 0 15 AL 270 290 los too 126 it? 126 26 156 If 101 211 0 lie 121 V2 is 99 124 114 It? 162 131 cc 204 210 219 2?8 274 99 136 117 144 4 IS2 Z28 90 is so 105 117 123 as 130 107 114 78 114 126 120 168 ISO 2 JVe 304 267 75 94 100 104 96 90 foe W432 136 136 M 6 263 265 201 -a" 91 77 99 90 92 85 114 -123 lie 144 216 242 294 C.6 82 112 100 Its 150 LS6 92 55 59 115 67 138 06 1761 196 227 40 251 261 270 Sol g2 93 M) ISSACHUSETTS 114 @. 246 275 264 as 07 54 76 65 96 109 172 140 ISO 237 267 @o 07 91 76 107 . 102 @ 136 )IT k3s MS 259 270 2?6 230 G? 73 W too 90 77 134 138 956 Z27 243 260 276 To 80 72 876 60 909 69 73 114 154 150 17-3 291 Soundings Are In Feet 67. 61 3 741 72 BAY 12 109 44 144 150 ------ Ts 31 73 4: TO 96 0. MASS. BAY DISPOSAL SITE Figure 1-1 Description: This site is a circular area with a diameter of 2 nautical miles and center at 42*-25.7'N, Massachusetts Bay 70*-34.0'W. From the center, the Marblehead Tower bears true 282* at 24,300 yards and Baker Island Disposal Site Horn bears true 3000 at 24,300 yards. The authorized disposal point (within the overall disposal area) is specified for each dredging project in other project documents. Depth Range: 159 to 304 feet MLW -Z-,.o1*7,.,.-0;1-p1 a. 42 /I is 4J 22323. @22 51 OJI I rw/, /'01-0 /I it NOTE: The map depicts the disposal site's location in relation to landmarks. It is not intended for use in navigation, CHAPTER 2. SITE EVALUATION STUDIES A. Authority. The scientific investigations associated with the designation of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site are being conducted in accordance wiLh Lhe requiremenLs of Lhe Marine ProLecLion, Ilesearch and SancLuaries Act of 1972 (86 SLat. 1052) (MPRSA) as amended (33 U.S.C.A. 1401 et seq.) and the EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR 220-229). The site evaluation study.was designed in accordance with the joint EPA and Corps of Engineers draft workbook entitled "Technical Guidance for the Designation of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites" (EPA/COE, 1983). The purpose of the MPRSA is to regulate the transportation of material to be disposed beyond the territorial sea baseline. MBDS position 10 nautical miles off the Massachusetts coast places disposal here in ocean water beyond the territorial sea. Section 102 (a) of this Act establishes the criteria to evaluate the environmental effects from disposal of dredged material and designation of recommended sites. This criteria empowers the administrator of the EPA to designate sites for ocean disposal. Under Section 103 of this Act, the Secretary of the Army may issue permits for the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of disposing into ocean waters, when the Secretary of the Army determines, with the EPA's concurrence, that the disposal will not unreasonably degrade the marine environment. Following the intent of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, the Corps of Engineers, New England Division, has undertaken an extensive oceanographic survey of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. The specific investigations have incorporated interdisciplinary scientific analyses to address the criteria with respect to this law and the guidelines established in the EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR 220-229). The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site is therefore being proposed as a permanent ocean-disposal area for dredged material from Federal navigation projects and from non-Corps dredging projects permitted under the criter.ia established in Section 103 of this Act. The general and specific criteria of the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 228) are addressed below in detail for the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. The guidance given in the EPA/COE Draft Site Designation Workbook (EPA/COE, 1983) offers three phases for the designation process. Phase I is entitled "Collection of Data and Screening". Phase II is "Data Synthesis and Preliminary Decisions" and Phase III consists of the "Technical Guidance".. Since the Massachus,etts Bay Disposal Site is an interim or existing site, the evaluation of its suitability is based on Phase III Technical Guidance. The first two phases involve establishing alternative sites from "zones of feasibility". This process is not applicable to this study since the MBDS site is active. It is not the intent of this study to designate any additional areas of ocean bottom to receive dredged material. Only if this study shows that the existing site 9 is unsuitable for continued use will other sites in the area be investigated for designation. The Phase III portion of the designation process establishes its evaluation criteria from the criteria of-the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 228). B. General and Specific Criteria for Site Evaluation The designation of this interim site must be examined in accordance with the Regulations 40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6. To support continued use of the site for dredged material disposal, scientific analyses must be documented to substantiate these criteria. The purpose of this document is to compile the necessary scientific information to evaluate the interim status of this site. 1. Genera.1 Criteria (40 CFR 228.5) a. The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only at sites or in other areas selected to minimize the interference of disposal activities wi'th other activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial or recreational navigation. b. Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be chosen so that temporary perturbations in water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal operations.anywhere in the sites can be expected to be reduced to normal ambient seawater levels or to undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery. c. If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it is determined that existing disposal sites presently approved on interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet the criteria for site selection set forth in section 228.6, the use of such sites will be terminated as soon as suitable alternative disposal sites can be designated. d. The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to localize for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts to permit the implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-range impacts. The size, configuration, and location of any disposal site will be determined as a part of the disposal site evaluation or designation study. e. EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that have been historically used. 10 2. Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6) The oceanographic program established in 1985 by NED in cooperation with other pertinent groups and agencies to monitor the area and assess impacts of disposal, was initiated to analyze the site in accordance with the following specific criteria: a. Geographic position, depth of water, bottom topography, and distance from coast. b. Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases. c. Location in relation to beaches or other amenity areas. d. Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of and proposed methods or release, including methods of packaging the waste, if any. e. Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring. f. Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing characteristics of the area, including prevailing current direction and velocity, if any. g. Existence and effects of present or previous discharges and dumping in the area (including cumulative effects). h. Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral extraction, desalination, fish, and shell-fish culture, areas of special scientific importance, and other legitimate uses of the ocean. i. The existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined by available data,or by trend assessment or baseline surveys. j. Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance species in the disposal site. k. Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any significant natural or cultural features of historical importance. The evaluation of MBDS, based on all available data, in accordance with these criteria, is summarized in Table 2-1 - Site Evaluation Guidance - Conflict Matrix, as recommended in Reese and Chesser, 1985. Table 2-1 ..Site Evaluation Guidance Conflict Matrix (Reese and Chesser, 1985) C6mpliance Factor of Specific General Consideration Interaction Comments Criteria Criteria 1. Unusual topography NC a,f,j,k a 2. Physical sediment BU Create (rockY compatibility habitat c,d,i @b,c,d, 3. Chemical sediment compatibility PC see 3.B.2 and 4.B.2 c,d,g,i alb,c,d 4. Influence of past disposal BU Cover old disposal evg,i,s a,b,d b,c 5. Living resources of limited distribution NC f,h,k a,b,d 6. Commercial See 3.C.2@,and 4.C.2 fisheries PC b,h, a,b 7. R6creational fisheries NC b,h, a,b 8. Breeding /spawning areas NC b,h, a,b 9. Nursery areas NC b,h, a,b 10. Feeding /passage areas NC b,h, ab 11. Critical habitats of 5.5km from Stel- threatened or en- lwagon Bank dangered species. PC See 3.C.5 and 4.C.5 b,h a,b, 12. Spatial distribution of benthos PC shift to b,h,j a,b, Pioneering sere See 3.C.3 and 4.C.3 13. Marine mammals PC usually mammals avoid barges b,h, a,b, See 3.C.4 and 4.C.4 12 14. Mineral deposits NC a,h a9b,e 15. Navigation hazard NC a,h, a,b,d 16. Other uses of ocean (cables, pipelines, etc.) NC h, a,b,d 17. Degraded areas PC East ofindustrial waste disposal site d,f,g a,b,d See 1.E.1 18. Water column chemical/physical characteristics NC d,f,i a,b,d 19. Recreational uses NC b,h,k a,b,c,d 20. Cultural /historic sites NC k b 21. Physical oceanography waves/circulation NC a,c,,f,g a,,b,d 22. Direction of trans- port potential for settlement NC a,c,f,g a,b,d 23. Monitoring NC e c 24. Shape/size of site (orientation) NC a,d,g d 25. Size of buffer zone NC b,c, d,g,k b,d 26. Potential for cumulative effects NC d,g c,d C = Conflict NC No Conflict PC Potential Conflict BU Beneficial Use 13 CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The New England Division, Corps of Engineers, has been conducting oceanographic sampling of MBDS since 1973. Various scientific organiza- tions have conducted research under contract to NED, including Sub Sea Surveyors, Inc. (1973); Cape Ann Society (1974); Northeastern University (1974); New England Aquarium (1974-1977); Naval Underwater Systems Center (1979); Marine Surveys Incorporated (1985); HMM Associates (1986); and Science Applications International Corporation (1980 to 1987). The studies contracted to these organizations were and are continuing under the management of NED's Marine Analysis Unit, Compliance Section, Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS)(see also Chapter 5). This program investigates all aspects of dredged material disposal in New England and actively monitors.physical, chemical, and biological conditions at nine disposal sites throughout New England. A review of the DAMOS program reports for MBDS,'along with pertinent scientific literature, was conducted to identify data gaps in the oceanographic knowledge of Pite specific conditions at MBDS. Upon completion of this review, extensive site evaluation studies were contracted to fulfill the criteria of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1973 (40 CFR 228.5 - 6). Although this report describes the results of these studies, the DAMOS program is continuing to monitor and manage MBDS, and continuing to conduct scientific investigations of the site. The field operations conducted to supplement the site designation studies are listed in Table 3-1. The specific program methods and results can be found in SAIC 1987 (MBDS Site Designation Studies Data Report). The discussion of these results are included in the following chapters for each discipline. TABLE 3-1 FIELD STUDIES AT MBDS 1985 THROUGH 1987 (For earlier studies see Section 6. References) PHYSICAL Bathymetric Surveys October 1985 January 1987 Current Meters June through August 1985 (deployed) September through November 1985 February through April 1986 October through November 1987 Current Meters June, July, August, October 1985 (Direct Reading DRCM) January, February, March, and April 1986 September and October 1987 Side Scan Sonar Surveys October 1985, November 1987 REMOTS (sediment/water June and September 1985 interface profile camera) January 1987 14 CHEMICAL Sediment Chemistry June and September 1985 (including physical January 1986 analyses) September 1987, Water Chemistry June and September 1985 January and March 1986 Tissue Residues June and September 1985 January 1986 September 1987 BIOLOGICAL Benthic Communip June and September 1985 Structure (0.1m Smith- January 1986 McIntyre) Finfish Sampling June and September 1985 (Trawls and Demersal January 1986 Gill Nets) Benthic Resource September 1985 Assessment Technique (BRAT) GENERAL Manned Submersible June 1986 Observations A. Physical Characteristics This section discusses the physical characteristics of the Massachusetts'Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) and the surrounding environment in terms of its overall setting in the Gulf of Maine and Massachusetts Bay. A thorough review of existing literature relevant to MBDS was conducted, and in-situ measurements were made during the summer and fall of 1985, winter of 1986, and fall of 1987 to supplement this general information with site-specific data. 3.A.1 Climate The climate in the vicinity of MBDS is influenced by three major factors: the prevailing west to east atmospheric flow, northward and southward fluctuations of tropical and polar air masses on this eastward flow, and the location on the east coast. The first two factors create a relatively high degree of variability in the weather patterns as warm, moist air from the south alternates with cool, dry air from the north. Throughout the year, but particularly during winter, the tracks of low pressure systems (northeasters) frequently.follow the coastline, causing rain or snow and gale winds. Heavy fog occurs on an average of two days per month, and prec ipitation occurs on the average of one day in every 15 three. A summary of the climatic conditions over a twenty-year period for the coastline west of the disposal site is presented in Table 3.A.1-1 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1979). The wind systems affecting the region adjacent to MBDS display a regular seasonal variability. Wind data for the Massachusetts Bay Area which are summarized in Figure 3.A.1-1 (Metcalf and Eddy, 1984) indicate that in the winter months (November through March) the dominant wind direction is northwest while during the warmer months the dominant direc- tion is strongly from the southwest. Winds over 25 mph occur most frequently from the northwest between December and March. These prevailing wind patterns are perturbed throughout the year by the passage of short duration, high energy, low pressure storm events which follow the coastal track described earlier. These systems, typically rich in easterly winds generate the highest velocity winds affecting the area. This effect is shown in Figure 3.A.1-2 (Hayes et al., 1973). The wind rose on the left of the figure presents a yearly average of the data presented in Figure 3.A.1-1 and clearly displays the dominance of northwest and southwest winds, with a very small component from the northeast quadrant. However, the maximum wind velocities shown on the right of the figure indicate that nearly all strong winds (in excess of 40 mph) occur from the northeast and easterly directions. 3.A.2 Oceanography The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site is located in the northeast portion of Massachusetts Bay which is considered a western extension of the Gulf of Maine. The oceanography of the area is controlled by three major factors: the climate, as discussed above; the lack of significant river drainage into the bay; and the circulation of the Gulf of Maine. The Gulf of Maine circulation patterns in the vicinity of MBDS are modified to a large extent by the presence of Stellwagen Bank on the eastern margin of the Bay which blocks the exchange of water at depth with the Gulf and the shelf beyond.- The absence of a major source of freshwater means that the water column exhibits characteristics of an open shelf environment. 3.A.2.a Water Masses, Temperature and Salinity The temperature/salinity cycle of Massachusetts Bay is characterized by seasonal variability, with maximum temperatures occurring in a strati- fied water column during August and September and minimum temperatures occurring in an essentially isothermal water column in January and February. Bumpus (1974) presented annual temperature and salinity pro- files from the vicinity of the Boston Lightship (Figure 3.A.2-1) approxi- mately 10 NM southwest of MBDS which demonstrated the structure of the temperature/salinity regime. These data are presented as Figures 3.A.2-2 and 3.A.2-3 The relationship of these data to MBDS is demonstrated through cross sections obtained over the northeast quadrant of Massachusetts Bay as shown in Figures 3.A.2-1 and 3.A.2-4. 16 These data indicate a minimum temperature in an isothermal water column of approximately 50C occurring during the winter months and an extreme high temperature approaching 17-180C in a highly stratified column during the late summer. The thermocline occurs at a depth of approximately 15 meters with the sharpest thermal gradient ranging from 150 to 100C over a 5 meter depth interval to 20 meters. Below 20 meters, the water cools gradually to a nominal bottom temperature of 40 or 50C. The stratification breaks down through vertical mixing during October and the water column is essentially isothermal from November until April. The annual salinity cycle presented in Figure 3.A.2-3 follows the expected pattern with minima in both the surface and bottom waters occur- ring in the late spring. As would be expected, the surface salinities are less than the bottom values and show a much greater range of.fluctuation, particularly in the spring months when variations in the amount of runoff can have an effect. Surface salinities expected at MBDS would have a maximum ranging between 32 and 330/oo during the winter months and minimums on the order of 310/oo during the spring. The bottom water is much more consistent, varying slightly around 320/oo. Bigelow (1927) was the first to document the seasonal cycle of salinity in Massachusetts Bay and Butman (1977) described in detail the changes in water column parameters in the middle of Massachusetts Bay (42,020'N, 70035'W) occurring during the spring runoff of 1973. Figures 3.A.2-5 and 3.A.2-6 indicate vertical profiles of temperature and salinity occurring between March and June of that year. The change from a well mixed water column in March and April to the start of a stratified system with a developing thermocline at 15-20 meters is clearly seen in these figures. The reliability of these data in terms of conditions at MBDS is demonstrated in Figures 3.A.2-7, 3.A.2-8, and 3.A.2-9 which show the distribution of surface salinity on a seasonal basis (Bumpus, 1974). From these charts it is apparent that the salinity gradient parallels the coastline and, as expected, the surface salinities vary from a minimum of 300/oo in May to 320/oo during the winter months. The springtime minimum reflects the increased river runoff prevalent at that time of year, but is not as pronounced as may be .observed at other shelf locations. Prior to this program, the most site specific data obtained at MBDS were collected by Gilbert (1975) at six stations distributed throughout the original "Massachusetts Bay Foul Area". The results of his study, taken during December 1973 and April, July, and October 1974, are pre- sented in Table 3.A.2-1. These data agree quite closely.with the Bumpus (1974) data for the Boston-Lightship except that they are higher in both temperature and salinity during the summer months. Surface temperatures of more than 200C may reflect a small temporal variation in the upper water column during the sampling period and are not abnormally high values. The salinity of 340/oo however, is higher than expected from previous work. Temperature and salinity data obtained with a Neil,Brown Direct Reading Current Meter (DRCM) during this program are presented in Appendix 17 I (Figure I-1) and appear consistent with the expected results. During June a small mixed layer was present to a depth of approximately 10 meters at 120C. The thermocline was beginning to form as a broad temperature gradient between 10 and 50 meters with a minimum temperature of 60C. Below 50 meters, the temperature gradually decreased to a minimum of 50C. During July, August and September 1985 (Figure I-1), the absolute values of the temperature data are correct; however, the gradients appear to be smoothed as a result of the instrument being lowered faster than the response time of the thermistor. The surface temperature in July had warmed to 14.50C and reached a maximum of 170C during August and September. Throughout this period the bottom water remained at 60C. The October profile displays a pronounced mixed layer to a depth of 25 meters with a constant temperature of 140C. Below the mixed layer a sharp thermal gradient can be seen to the maximum depth attained at 50 meters. This cast was taken on a day with strong northwest winds which would have increased the mixing of the upper water column. Finally, during the winter months, the water column was essentially isothermal with the temperature of approximately 5'C. Additional evidence of the stratified thermal structure occurring at MBDS is shown by the temperature data obtained from the current meters deployed at the site during September and October in 1985 and 1987 as shown in Figures 3.A.2-10a and b. In 1985, there was a decrease in both the absolute temperature and the variability of the record from surface to bottom. The temperature decreased from 170C at the surface to approximately 70C at the bottom. The greatest variability in temperature occurred at the 35 meter depth, where small oscillations, induced bl tidal y currents, caused large variability in the temperature record (up to 20C). Because this meter was located in the thermocline, the steep temperature gradient resulted in this characteristic signature. Above and below the thermocline the variability of the temperature was much less. An important observation in this record was the impact of Hurricane Gloria which occurred on 27 and 28 September 1985. The passage of this storm resulted in a decrease of surface temperature and marked increase in subsurface temperatures for a short period of time. This phenomenon is most likely a combination of turbulent mixing near the surface and transport of warmer water into the subsurface layers. The fact that all records returned to essentially pre-storm conditions indicates that no major overturn of theIwater column occurred as a result of this event. In September 1987, additional arrays of current meters were deployed at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. Prior to deployment, a CTD cast was made (Figure 1-2) to document the water column structure and determine the depth of the thermocline for the proper placement of the current meters. The top ten meters of the water column had a temperature of approximately 15.50C to 160C. Below this layer to about 20 m, the temperature decreased sharply to approximately 50C. A temperature of 4.50C was found to be fairly constant to the bottom (92 m). Based on these results, current meters were deployed at 8, 25, 55, and 84 meter 18 depths. The temperatures recorded by the current meters during the first days of deployment compared almost exactly to those obtained with the CTD cast (Figure 3.A.2-10b and Appendix Figure 1-2). This structure was maintained until 20 September when a storm event passed through the area and mixed the upper layer of the water column to below the 25 m current meter, removing the normal tidal fluctuations. This storm began on 18 September when average wind speeds exceeded 20 mph and peak velocities reached 40 mph from the NE and continued until 21 September (National Weather Service, Boston, personal communication). After approximately eight days, the water structure began to recover but never returned to those initial conditions. The effect of this storm at the 55 m depth was observed as tidal fluctuations in the sea temperature caused by the water column mixing. There was no significant effect seen at the bottom. The only temperature record obtained from the winter deployment at MBDS (Figure 3.A.2-11) indicates a bottom temperature slightly above 40C with little variability throughout the record. Again, this is consistent with the expected values as discussed above. The salinity measurements obtained by the DRCM during this study (Figure I-I in the Appendix) also follow the expected distribution and tend to support the observations of Gilbert (1975). During September and October, the salinity increased with depth from 31.50/oo at the surface to 32.50/oo near bottom. During the winter months, the data are essentially constant with depth at 330?oo. These salinities are slightly higher than the values observed by Bumpus (1974), but consistent with those of Gilbert (1975). In summary, the water column at MBDS behaves in a manner typical of northeastern contineintal shelf regions, with isothermal conditions of approximately 50C during the winter, giving way to stratified conditions with maximum surface temperatures on the order of 180C and a strong thermocline at 20 meters during the summer months. The water column overturns during the late fall, returning to isothermal conditions. Salinity minima occur in late spring as a result of increased runoff, but vary only a few parts per thousand with most values ranging from 310/oo to 330/oo. 3.A.2.b Circulation:.,Currents, Tides and Waves Water circulation in Massachusetts Bay is strongly influenced by the counterclockwise flow, or gyre, displayed by the Gulf of Maine (Figure 3.A.2-12) (Bigelow, 1927; Sutcliffe et al., 1976; Brown and Beardsley, 1978; Harris, 1972). Local tidal currents (mean tidal range 2-3 meters) and wind driven currents complicate the normal counterclockwise water movements (Bumpus, 1974; Parker and Pearce, 1973; Padan', 1977). Studies of circulation in Massachusetts Bay (Butman, 1977) have demonstrated the following key features: current speeds are primarily a function of semi- diurnal rotary tides, currents can be dominated by wind stress, particularly in winter, density distributions established during spring runoff can also alter the normal current field. 19 On a large scale, circulation within Massachusetts Bay is one component of the overall Gulf of Maine system (Figure 3.A.2-12). The circulation of the Gulf consists of two circular gyres, one counterclock- wise within the interior of the Gulf, and the second, clockwise over Georges Bank. Massachusetts Bay waters are included as the western portion of the counterclockwise gyre within the Gulf. Previous studies using drift bottles and sea-bed drifters (Bigelow, 1927; Bumpus, 1976) indicated seasonal variability in this circulation under the combined effects of local wind stress and input of freshwater inflows. In general, the circulation gyres are most strongly developed in the summer; during the winter,.the interior gyre tends to move northward'and becomes more diffuse (Bumpus & Lauzier, 1965) (Figure 3.A.2-13).- Modeling efforts (Csanady, 1974) have suggested that the double gyre system can be predicted simply by the effects of surface wind stresses acting in combination with the bottom friction. Furthermore, the strength of the circulation field varies in response to the input of lower salinity waters and vertical mixing rates while the direction is largely dependent on wind direction. As a result of these regional circulation characteristics and the variability of the lo*cal meteorological regime, Massachusetts Bay can be expected to have a general counterclockwise circulation with a moderate degree of temporal and spatial variability. In the immediate vicinity of MBDS, the long term currents would be expected to be generally in a southerly direction. Drifters released near the crest of Stellwagen Bank were recovered along the eastern shore of Cape Cod, while those released on the western margin of the Bank were recovered in Cape Cod Bay (Schlee et al., 1973). In all cases, the drift velocities were very low, ranging from 2 to 10 cm/sec. The low frequency surface currents in the vicinity of MBDS can flow to the northward, during the spring months, because they are on the western margin of a clockwise-flowing gyre surrounding a lens of lighter, fresher water introduced from the eastern side of the basin. This freshwater is not derived from local sources but from the discharge of the Merrimack River into the Gulf of Maine. Shorter time scale.variability is dominated by the semi-diurnal com- ponent of the local tide field in which tidal currents are more developed and stronger within the shallow nearshore area. Riser and Jankowski- (1974) noted that the general trend of tidal flow at the Boston Lightship Dumping Ground was southeasterly after high tide and northwesterly after low tide. These observations agree closely with those of Bumpus (1974) for the entire Massachusetts Bay including the MBDS area. The near-bottom circulation of the Massachusetts Bay varies primarily as a function of topography, with highest values observed over crest regions of topographic features such as Stellwagen Bank and lowest values observed in the depressions located in the central portion of the Bay. 20 Observations by Schlee et al. (1973) indicated velocities on the crest remained below 20 cm/sec. These velocities suggest that winnowing of fine partic,les and/or erosion of coarser sediments can occur on the topogr 'aphic features, but that deposition of fine materials would be expected in the basin areas. Gilbert (1975) observed bottom currents within the MBDS area that were extremely.1 ow (less than 10 cm/sec) but had higher velocities at more shall-ow depths in the water column (Table 3.A.2-2). Butman (1977) deployed a bottom current meter approximately 5 NM south of MBDS and found similar conditions, with average speeds of approximately 5 cm/sec and maximum values less than 20 cm/sec 99% of the time but approaching 30 cm/sec under extreme conditions. Tidal components of these currents reached values of only 6 cm/sec oriented in an east-west direction. Current measurements made under the DAMOS program (NUSC, 1979) also indicated extremely low current velocities, generally less than 10 cm/sec (Figure 3.A.2-14). Butman (1977) deployed several bottom current meters for a one year period throughout Massachusetts Bay and was able to characterize the response of the bottom currents to meteorological events during the winter. During other months of the year, Butman found no relation between bottom currents and meteorological events. During strong easterly storm events, the-response of sea level and of bottom currents are related. The local sea surface setup is toward the west and is superimposed on absolute changes in the level of the Bay, controlled primarily by the response of the Gulf of Maine to the storm. Local sea surface set-up requires approximately one hour, while complete Bay-wide set-up requires 6-12 hours. During this sea surface set-up, the currents flow in the direction of the wind (westward) in shallow near-shore waters and opposite to the wind (eastward) in the deep basin areas. These bottom currents are affected somewhat by the topography of the Bay, in particular Stellwagen Bank, so that they are expected to flow more southeasterly in the vicinity of MBDS. The wind-driven deep currents are established approximately 12 hours after the wind stress is applied and remain essentially constant for the duration of the storm. Measured changes in sea level (Bohlen, 1981) associated with major winter storm events (Table 3.A.2-3) show local set-up of more than 2.5 meters can occur with strong easterly winds in excess of 45 mph. Figure 3.A.2-15 presents a generalized view of the bottom current circulation associated with such easterly storms (Butman, 1977). Note that while.flow on the crest of Stellwagen Bank is in the direction of the wind, the bottom currents in the basin near MBDS are southeasterly with much lower velocity. In summary, previous studies in the vicinity of MBDS indicate that bottom currents are relatively low (<20 cm/sec) under nearly all conditions, while mid-depth and surface currents may be higher. During strong northeast winter storms (i.e., approximately once every three 21 years), the bottom currents near MBDS may increase in a southerly direction to speeds of 30 cm/sec in response to sea surface set-up on the western boundary of Massachusetts Bay. Previous investigations (Metcalf and Eddy, 1984; Butman, 1977; Gilbert. 1975; Bumpus, 1974; and Schlee et al., 1973) in conjunction with the recent NED site investigations indicate MBDS to be a quiescent environment with low bottom currents. The NED sampling conducted during 1985-1987 obtained on-site current meter data for September 1985, February 1986, and September 1987. The fall 1985 deployment successfully measured surface and bottom current velocities and the February deployment successfully measured bottom current velocities. The September 1987 deployment successfully measured current velocities at four depths throughout the water column with duplicate meters at each depth. Because the records at each depth were essentially identical,. they,are discussed as being one record. The characteristics of the current velocity field at MBDS are presented as frequency distribution tables (Appendix Tables I-I to 7) and time series plots of current speed and direction (Figures 3.A.2-16 to 22). For the near-surface (10 m) measurements (Figure 3.A.2-16) taken during the fall of 1985, the mean speed was 22 cm/sec with peak tidal velocities averaging approximately 35 cm/sec, except during Hurricane Gloria. Near bottom (82 m) current speeds for the same period (Figure 3.A.2-17) had a mean value of 7 cm/sec, but had two distinct periods with different characteristics. Prior to Hurricane Gloria on 27 September 1985, the bottom current speeds were oscillatory in nature with mean speeds on the order of 20 cm/sec. Following the storm, the oscillations became less periodic and reduced in speed to an average of 4-5 cm/sec. Near bottom (85 m) measurements made during the winter of 1986 (Figure 3.A.2-18) were similar to the second portion of the fall measurements with very low currents averaging 4 cm/sec for most of the record. During this deployment, two peaks are shown in the current speed reaching 60 cm/sec on 21 March 1986. These data are considered invalid for three reasons: 1) no other measurements in this vicinity (Butman, 1977; Gilbert, 1975; NUSC, 1979; Schlee et al., 1973) have observed maximum bottom currents greater than 30 cm/sec. 2) no significant meteorological event could be correlated-with the high currents. 3) the current meter array was severely damaged and all instruments above the lowest meter were lost, most likely through contact with a trawler. Therefore, it is assumed that the trawler dragged the mooring creating an anomalous reading. This is further confirmed by the 22 temperature record (Figure 3.A.2-11) which displays a rapid increase in temperatureat the same time as the current meter peaks.. This would indicate that the meter was lifted off the bottom into slightly warmer water. The surface current meter record in the fall of 1987 indicates a dominant flow in';'the SW direction approximately 56% of the time with mean velocities of approximately 15 cm/sec. For about 402 of the time, a NE flow occurs with a mean velocity of 11 cm/sec. Peak velocities of 72 cm/sec and 53 cm/sec with very short duration occurred in the SW and NE directions, respectively. On 20 September 1987, the effects of a storm event can be seen as the elimination of the normal tidal oscillations in the surface layer for the next four days. Current velocities reached a maximum value of 72 cm/sec in a SSW direction on 21 September. The Neil Brown Acoustic Current Meter was deployed at the surface during this ifically to eliminate the potential for erroneous current survey speci velocity measurements associated with wave action. Because a winged current meter was deployed at the surface during the 1985 survey, that data may reflect the effects of wave action, especially during Hurricane Gloria, and should be considered less accurate as to the actual conditions. A similar effect of the storm can be seen in the current meter record for the 25 m depth, although the peak velocity was less (56 cm/sec). The dominant flow At this depth was in the SW quadrant for approximately 65% of the time at mean current velocities of 15 cm/sec. For the remainder of the time, current directions-were in the other three quadrants approximately 10% of the time at mean velocities of 10-13 cm/sec. The current meter record for the 55 m depth indicated a dominant flow in the NW quadrant for 46% of the time with mean current velocities of approximately 10 cm/sec. For 30% of the time, a flow in the SE quadrant occurred, also with mean velocities of 10 cm/sec. Peak velocities at this depth of 23 cm/sec occurred during the storm event on 21 September, although tidal oscillations were not significantly affected. At the near- bottom meter (84 m), all current velocities were less than 4 cm/sec for over 85% of the time. A weak but dominant flow occurred in the WNW direction with the secondary flow to the ENE. These data match very closely those obtained during the 1985 deployment. In contrast to the effect of the passage of Hurricane Gloria where tidal oscillations were suspended, the only effect of the present storm event was to reduce the range.of current direction from NW to NE. During all deployments, the three-hour low-pass (3-HLP) current velocity data (Figures 3.A.2-16 to 22) indicate that the short-term current fluctuations are dominated by the semi-diurnal tidal component, as expected, and that the absolute value of the current velocities are greater near the surface than in the bottom waters. Tidal ellipses for all seven records (Figure 3.A.2-23) indicate a strong NE-SW orientation for the surface water. During 1987, this orientation was extremely restricted with no evidence of rotational flow. This feature was 23 originally thought to be an instrument malfunction, but extensive analysis of both meters at the 8 meter depth has determined this data to be valid. Bottom waters have a slight E-W orientation during the fall and a nearly rotational flow during winter. Peak tidal velocities in the surface layer averaged approximately 16 cm/sec, reaching a maximum of 70 cm/sec during the passage of Hurricane Gloria and the storm of 18 September 1987. The expected development of southeasterly bottom currents in response to easterly storm events is not seen in the bottom current meter record during Hurricane Gloria (Figure 3.A.2-17). The'bottom current clearly changes from the initial tidal fluctuations during this period and maintains a westerly flow for approximately a 24 hour period. This is also shown in the forty-hour low pass (40-HLP) vector plot (Figure 3.A.2- 24) which displays a net westerly drift during the period of the storm. Once the storm event passed, the net current transport remained extremely low. During the September 1987 deployment, the strong NE winds created westerly flow in the top 25 m of the water column but had no strong effect on bottom currents. During the winter deployment (Figure 3.A.2-18), several small perturbations to the oscillatory flow occur which may be related to meteorological events. On 16 February 1986, a small peak velocity of 20 cm/sec occurs associated with the only easterly wind activity to occur in February (4 days from 16-20 February; maximum speed-17 mph) which was associated with a low pressure cell passing offshore (NCDC, 1986). A similar storm.occurred,during the, period of 13-17 March (NCDC, 1986), with a low pressure cell passing directly over the MBDS area, which also resulted in bottom current velocities on the order of 20-25 cm/sec. Both of these events generated net southerly drift in the near bottom currents, as shown by the 40-HLP data for MBDS (Figure 3.A.2-24). In summary, the currents at MBDS were characterized by mean tidal current velocities near the surface of 15-20 cm/sec in NNE-SSW orientation which decrease with depth to lower velocity, less periodic currents near the bottom (generally < 10 cm/sec). The wave conditions in the vicinity of MBDS result from both local wind wave formation and propagation of long period waves (swell) generated on the adjoining continental shelf. The most pertinent wave data in the vicinity of MBDS were summarized by Raytheon Company (1974) as shown in Figure 3.A.2-25 and Table 3.A.2-4. The sheltering provided by the coastline severely limits wave generation from the westerly direction; waves from the westerly quadrants larger than 1.8 m (6 ft) occur only 0.5% of the time on an annual basis, and waves over 3.7 m (12 ft) are virtually nonexistent. Conversely, waves from the easterly quadrant that are over 1.8 m (6 ft) occur 4.2% of the time, or nearly ten times more frequently, and waves over 3.7 m (12 ft) occur approximately 0.5% of the year. Raytheon (1974) also obtained in-situ wave measurements at 42026'N, 70043'W, approximately 6 NM west of MBDS during March and April 1974. These data are presented in relation to wind speed in Figure 3.A.2-26. 24 The importance of the easterly component is also demonstrated by these data; only the easterly wind events associated with 21 and 30 March generate significant waves in excess of 0.5 m, although comparable wind speeds from the northwest occurred from 25 to 28 March. The small, long period waves occurring on 24 and 25 March are characteristic of ocean swell generated at-some distance from the site and propagated westward across Massachusetts Bay. The swell condition is demonstrated by the long period (14-16 sec) and low wave height (less than 0.5 m) during periods of low wind velocity (12 mph). 3.A.2.c Bathy metry Massachusetts Bay is bounded on three sides by the Massachusetts coast. On the fourth side, the Bay opens to the Gulf of Maine between Cape Ann and Race Point on Cape Cod. The major topographic features of Stellwagen Basin as shown in Figure 3.A.2-27 (Butman, 1977). The eastern opening is partially blocked by Stellwagen Bank, which rises to within 20 m of the surface. Most of the Bay is less than 80 m deep, although maximum depth in Stellwagen Basin, located in the middle of the Bay immediately west of Stellwagen Bank, is over 100 m (Boehm et al., 1984). The shape of the sea floor is characteristic of an area that has experienced glacial scouring and sediment deposition, as well as post- glacial stream channeling and subsequent modification of bottom contours by advancing post-glacial seas (Padan, 1977). Bathymetric surveys of the general Massachusetts Bay area including MBDS have been conducted by the National Ocean Survey and plotted on an Outer Continental Shelf Resource Management Map (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980). Some bathymetric records were made at MBDS as part of a short-term underwater television survey (SubSea Surveyors, 1973). More detailed bathymetric surveys were made at MBDS under the DAMOS program by NUSC (1979). These surveys (Figure 3.A.2-28) indicated a broad depression in the south central region of the site with shoaling in the northeast area toward Stellwagen Bank, and in the north central region toward a smaller feature possibly associated with the bank. None of these surveys were able to discern any topographic features resulting from previous dredged material disposal (NUSC, 1979). Surveys made as part of the 1983 dredged material disposal operations from Boston Harbor also showed no formation of a disposal mound (SAIC, 1985). Bathymetric surveys were also made at a new site, Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) prior to and following parts of the same disposal operation, and results (Figure 3.A.2- 29) indicated no significant@ topographic expression from-dredged material at this disposal site (SAIC, 1985). On 17 and 18 October 1985, a combined side scan and bathymetric survey was conducted at MBDS to define present conditions and to delineate the detectable spread of dredged material previously deposited within the site. Earlier side scan surveys of this general region had been conducted in the past by EPA and NOAA (Lockwood, et al., 1982) and by the New England Division under the DAMOS Program. A secondar 'y objective of the 25 1985 survey was to compare the present results with the previous surveys and to expand the area of coverage to the east. Earlier surveys concentrated on the disposal site to the west which was used prior to redesignation of the site in 1975. The results of the bathymetry survey (Figures 3.A.2-30, 3.A.2-31 and 3.A.2-32) show that the topography of the disposal site is characterized by a relatively flat, featureless bottom throughout most of the site with the notable exception of steep shoaling in the northeast and northwest quadrants. The depths throughout the smooth, featureless area are on the order of 85-90 meters, with maximum depths occurring in a broad depression in the south central portion of the site. The shoals in the northeast quadrant, with minimum depths of 57 meters within the site, represent glacially-formed features and are associated with Stellwagen Bank to the east of the site. The smaller shoal in the northwest section of the survey is a small, circular rise which appears to be a single, separate feature, although derived in the same manner as Stellwagen Bank. There are no significant topographic features related to dredged material disposal; however, acoustic profiles do show indications of more varied microtopography and greater acoustic reflectivity in areas where dredged material may be expected to occur than in areas of natural silt bottom (Figure 3.A.2-33). 3.A.2.d Sedimentology The sediment composition in Massachusetts Bay as shown in Figure 3.A.2-34 (from Schlee et al., 1973) is dominated by heterogeneous sediments composed primarily of glacial till. This area was glaciated twice during the Ice Age (Willett, 1972; Setlow, 197i). The floor of Massachusetts Bay is characterized by outcroppings of bedrock interspersed with areas of cobble, gravel and sand, with some of the deeper areas grading into fine muds with a high clay content (Willett, 1972; Schlee et al., 1973). Proceeding inshore towards the coastline, spatial variability in grain size increases, with sands dominating along high energy exposed areas and silts and clays within more sheltered embayments. These distributions are interrupted irregularly by glacial till deposits and occasional bedrock outcrops. MBDS is located within the northwestern corner of the Stellwagen Basin, an area dominated by fine silts and clays. Within the site itself, sediments consist primarily of fine-grained silts and clays with moderate to high concentrations of organic carbon, characteristics representative of deposited dredged materials. Immediately adjacent to the site, mean grain sizes increase slightly with silts dominating distributions along a northwest-southeast tending line extending over distances in excess of 10 nm from the site. Along an east-west trending track, the initial dominance of fines changes to coarser-grained materials ranging to glacial gravels on Stellwagen Bank. Overall, the distributions indicate that MBDS 26 lies within the depositional basin in the center of the Bay. Martin and Yentsch (1973) reported that sediment samples taken at MBDS were different from those collected at a reference station north of MBDS. Grayish-green mud, characteristic of depths greater than 80 m, was found to be covered with a fine deposit of black mud. This surface layer was absent at the reference station. Gilbert (1975) described the ocean floor at MBDS as being composed principally of greenish-gray mixtures of fine-grained silt and clay. In the northeast portion of MBDS, the bottom was composed of coarse sand and gravel. Grain size analyses indicated a gradient toward fine-grained sediment in the deeper waters of the site. Based on surveys made under this program during 1985, the bottom in the general area of MBDS was characterized by four distinct facies. These facies can be characterized according to representative side scan sonar records taken from the locations shown in Figure 3.A.2-35 and presented as Figures 3.A.2-36 to 3.A.2-43, Type 1) Hard sand, cobble and gravel bottoms associated with steep topographic rises (Figure 3.A.2-36), Type 2.) Soft smooth sediment with small, high reflectance targets randomly distributed over the bottom (Figure 3.A.2-37), Type 3) High reflectance bottom indicative of dredged material which has specific characteristics including: A - Extremely coarse dredged material with high reflectance and microtopography on the order of one or two meters as evidenced by shadows (Figure 3.A.2-38), B - Isolated mounds or deposits of dredged material at some distance from the major areas of accumulations, often consisting of coarse material (Figure 3.A.2-39), C - Circular high reflectance areas with no relief, frequently adjacent to each other in a consistent linear pattern and sometimes exhibiting crater-like signatures indicative of a specific disposal event (Figures 3.A.2-40 and 3.A.2-42), D - Dredged material with a stronger reflection than natural sediment but less intensity than that described in 3A and lacking the larger microtopographic features (Figure 3.A.2-42), Type 4) Soft, featureless silty bottoms extending over large areas with occasional trawl marks providing small-scale topographic relief (Figure I.A.2-43). Additional information on the characteristics of sediment at MBDS was obtained through photography of the sediment-water interface using a REMOTS camera. The grain size of sediments measured by REMOTS indicated that a sharp gradient existed between those stations in the northeast quadrant and those located in the rest of the site. 27 Those to the north and east consist of coarser sediments ranging from very fine sand (4 - 30) to gravel (0 to -10). Sediments at these coarse bottom stations are generally poorly sorted, with fine to medium sand lying over coarser material. There are relict bedforms in this area, apparently stabilized by dense mats'of polychaete tubes (Figure 3.A.2- 44). The construction of dense polychaete tube fields may have caused the sedimentation and retention of fine-grained particles. The remainder of the site, in deeper areas to the south and west, is characterized by fine silt sediments shown in Figure 3.A.2-45 and deposits of dredged material. The presence of dredged material is indicated in REMOTS images by the following features: sand layers in an otherwise homogeneous mud facies, the presence of buried mud clasts, mottled sedimentary fabrics, the presence of "relict" (i.e. buried) redox layers (Figure 3.A.2-46). It is important to note that the REMOTS technique is capable of detecting dredged material for a longer period of time after disposal than side scan sonar. The primary reason for this is that the sediment surface returns to a natural condition in terms of acoustic reflectivity long before the sediment beneath the surface is fully oxidized. The results of the bathymetric, side scan and REMOTS survey were used to select sample locations to characterize the sediment facies present in the MBDS area. The sample locations are presented in Figure 3.A.2-47 and the results of the grain size analysis are presented in Table 3.A.2-5. Samples were taken at the "MUD" reference station during June-and Septem- ber, 1985 and February, 1986 and all indicated very little variation with the mean grain size indicative of a fine silt, averaging 0.013 mm (60). In nearly all samples from the reference station more than 95% of the sample, by weight, was material of silt size or finer. When these deposits are compared with natural mud samples,from within the disposal. site (Table 3.A.2-5), the sediments are virtually identical. Thus, in. terms of the sedimentation parameters, the reference station is a good representation of the disposal site. A "SAND" reference station was also established outside the bound- aries of MBDS to establish a control for measurements in the northeast quadrant of MBDS, where a natural sand station was also established. Although these stations showed much more variability, they were similar in composition with 94% of the sediment, by weight, representing sand or larger material. The mean grain size for the Sand Reference Station was 2.71 mm (-10) and for the Sand Station was 1.24 mm (00). Samples obtained from the dredged material. deposited at the site were predominantly fine sand and silt with a mean grain size of 0.065 mm (40) and slightly more variability than the natural sediment. In particular, the dredged material contained more sand sized particles than natural sediment. A substantial amount of information concerning the characteristics of the disposal site, the distribution of sediment types and the effect of previous disposal operations can be determined from the data presented in 28 the previous sections. An overview of the sediment characteristics at MBDS, combining the results of all survey procedures, is presented in Figure 3.A.2-48. Of the two types of natural bottoms, the Type 1 areas (hard sand) are located in the northeast portions of MBDS, where the sandy bottom is related to the shoaling t'opography approaching the Stellwagen Bank. To the northwest beyond the margins of the site,. the sand and coarse sediment are associated with an isolated topographic feature which appears to be a relict glacial formation created in the same manner as the Bank. The soft, featureless silty bottoms are found extensively throughout the-southeastern portion of the study area and are the predominant natural bottom throughout the region of the disposal site. The dredged material and other targets are deposited on top of this natural sediment. In the northwest quadrant of the disposal site, extending to the west of the study area, the bottom is covered by small targets which have been identified through underwater television to be canisters and drums deposited on the bottom. It is known that both chemical and low level radioactive wastes have been deposited at the site in the past either in cement canisters or 55 gallon.drums (Lockwood et al., 1982). However, it is impossible to determine which targets represent which type of waste from the side scan record. The previous surveys by NOAA and EPA indicate that these targets are generally concentrated west of the existing disposal site (Figure 3.A.2-49), although it is highly probable that many canisters or drums are covered with dredged material in the west central portion of the site. The dredged material detected by sidescan sonar is generally concen- trated in the vicinity of the disposal buoy placed by the Coast Guard at 42025.66'N, 70035'W, although it has spread over a relatively large area. The major disposal projects at this site during the past several years have been associated with dredging of the Chelsea and Mystic Rivers in Boston Harbor and President Roads at the entrance to the harbor. During 1983, all of the material from t'he rivers was dredged by clamshell techniques and deposited east of the Coast Guard Buoy by scows towed by tugs. Material from President Roads was partially dredged by clamshell and deposited by scows at a taut-wire mooring, located at 42025.39'N, 70034.54'W, approximately 850 m southeast of the Coast Guard Buoy. The remainder of President Roads was dredged by a hopper dredge and deposited at the same location under Loran-C control.. Examining the distribution of dredged material, it is apparent that the high reflectance material with microtopographicfeatures is concentra- ted in the vicinity of the disposal buoy and extends westerly into the historically used site located just west of the existing disposal site. Progressing to the south, the intensity of the dredged material signature decays, althou@h @he sediment present has substantially more reflectance 9 than the natural bottom. To the north, the boundary between the coarse 29 dredged material and natural. bottom is much more pronounced, and material is seen as isolated deposits of coarse material or as the circular deposits with relatively high reflectance. The area to the west of the existing disposal area also exhibits evidence of dredged material and falls within the boundaries of the historical disposal site adjacent to the present site. REMOTS images from that area revealed no evidence of recent disposal activity (i.e. within the last six months) at any of those stations. The material observed appeared to represent relict sediments from past disposal acti vities (greater than 5 cm below the sediment-water interface). Figures 3.A.2-50 and 51 present the distribution and thickness of dredged material at MBDS as measured by REMOTS photography used to generate the map of sediment types presented in Figure 3.A.2-48. It is apparent that the dredged material deposited prior to this study has remained in place And'that there are very few forces acting on that material since it still'retains its distinct signature more than two years after disposal. The dredged material distribution is generally explained by the procedures used in disposal at the site. During the clamshell and scow operations, the tug operators would approach the buoy from the northwest, swing to the east, and dump material as they or the scow passed the buoy. Consequently, there were few dumps to the north, but when they did occur they can now be seen as distinct entities on the side scan record. Coarse .dredged material observed as much as 1000 m to the north of the buoy indi- cates that careful control of disposal was not exercised during the initial disposal operation. As the scow passed the buoy, most of the material was deposited; however, not all of the material may have fallen from the scow at once, and because the tug was moving in a southerly di- rection, the tendency was for some material to be deposited to the south. The effect of disposal control was further emphasized when the loca- tion of the disposal point was moved to the southeast during the President Roads operation. Installation of a taut-wire moored buoy for control of scow operations and use of Loran-C navigation for hopper dredge disposal were two methods implemented to increase the precision of disposal. The distribution of dredged material resulting from that operation covered a substantially smaller area than previous projects (Morton, 1984) and it was apparent that better control of disposal would be necessary to properly manage future projects. A.third disposal point was established in November 1985 at 42025.1'N, 70034.45'W and a taut wire buoy was installed at that location for dis- posal operations during the winter. During February 1986, REMOTS photo- graphs were obtained at the stations established during the 1985 surveys and at 26 stations spaced at 100 m intervals on a cross centered at the new disposal point. The results of the analysis of these photographs are presented in Figure 3.A.2-52 and 3.A.2-53. 30 The dredged material (approximately 197,000 m3 ) deposited during this period covers approximately 400 meters in all directions. To the north, the dredged material apparently overlaps with sediments from past disposal activity. To the west, apparent patches of dredged material are evident as far as 600 meters from the center of the site. Also, at station 250SW (i.e. grid station 16-9), a thick layer of dredged material is evident (greater than 17 cm). The lateral spread of dredged material extending from the disposal buoy was comparable to disposal mounds created in Long Island Sound (i.e. approximately 400-500 meter radius). A recent REMOTS survey aj the same disposal point, following the addition of approximately 94,000 m of dredged material-has further delineated the spread of dredged material and verified the stability of these deposits. The REMOTS images obtained in January, 1987, at the same stations as occupied during the February 1986 survey indicating virtually the same spread of dredged material (Figure 3.A.2-54). In the center of the survey area, near the disposal buoy, two areas of recently deposited dredged material were identified through the presence of a shallow Biogenic Mixing Depth (BMD) and extremely dark reduced sediment. From these data it is apparent that disposal of the new dredged material has been tightly controlled and the effects of disposal have not been expanded beyond the area originally covered. In summary, the bottom in the deeper portions of MBDS is a broad depression with natural sediments composed of fine grained silt. Shoal areas to the north and northeast are covered by coarser deposits. Dredged material pre@riously deposited in the site is spread over a relatively large area, but has not been altered or transported to any significant degree during the past several years. Recent disposal operations have shown that with adequate navigation, the spread of material on the bottom is approximately similar to that which would be expected inmore shallow water. 31 JAN. FEB N N NW NE 3 E W 2.8 E SW SE S 5 IIAR. >25 13-24 4-12 mph APRTL N N W .9 E v 2.4 E S Figure 3.A.I@la Fifteen year (1950-64) monthly averaged wind roses, Boston,, MA. Center circle calm, 00 concentric circles 4t 8, 12 & 16% (from Metcalf Eddy, 1984) 32 MAY JUNE N N NW NE 2. W 2.8 E SW SE S JULY >25 13-24 4-12 mph AUG. N N W 3.6 E W E S Figure 3.A.I-#lb Fifteen year (1950-64) monthly averaged wind roses, Boston, MA. Center circle calm. map concentric circles 4, 8, 12 & 16% (from Metcalf & Eddy, 1984) 33 ,SEPT. OCT. N N NW NE W 3. E W 3.4 E 5W SE S S NOV. >25 13-24 4-12 mph DEC. N N W 3.0 E W 2.6 E S Fic Fifteen year (1950-64) monthly averaged wind gure 3.A.1-Ic roses, Boston, MA. Center circle caln, 011i concentric circles 4, 8, 12 & 16% (from Metcalf Eddy, 1984) 34 % DURATION PER YEAR % DURATION PER YEAR -6 NE 'NW NW .4 4 \4 Ul 3 4--o 4 32-39 MPH 39-46 MPH Sw 5 >46 MPH 6 WIND DIRECTION MAXIMUM WIND VELOCITY Figure 3. A. 1- 2Characterization of Massachusetts Bay wind conditions (from Hayes, Hubbard & Fitzgerald, 1973) 710 50' 40' 30' 20' io' 700 .40 0 C 2 B 30 -61 A 23* 58 59 15 s @i7 fi,( //14 20' 13 B LS 40 Co 10 A - Delaware, Jan. 1958 0 B Physalia, June.. 42 19 4 C Verrill, Se% 19 0 50 40 J: Figure 3.A.2-1 Location of temperature transects in the vicinity Of MBDS (Bumpus, 1974) 36 i F i i S % 1% 16 % % % % % % % I %%% % % 15 %% % 10- %% % 8 7 % %% % % % % % 5 6' %J % 12 % % % % % % % % % % % LJ % % % 20- %% % % % % % % - -------------- A- Figure 3.A.2-2 Profile of mean annual temperature (OC) cycle at Boston Lightship, southwest of MBDS (from Bumpus, 1974) %%%% . J F M A M J J A S 0 N 33 32- "MUM SURFACE MAY 'BOTT MEAN N - CO 30- .29- 28- 'Figure 3.A.2-3 Annual cycle of salinity (o/oo) at Boston Lightship, southwest of HBDS (from Bumpus, 1974) 0 JAN. JUNE SEPT. 13 14 15 56 57 58 59 60 61 24 23 22 13 --5 12 15- 5 10 20 oe >5 40 rz E-4 60 /4 80 100- A Figure 3.A.2-4 Temperature (OC) transects in the vicinity of M@-BDS (from Bumpus, 1974) 39 TEMPE RAT URE (0 C) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 10 x 20 x 9 30 E40 x )k x X 29. MAR 15 APR x a. ; Uj 50 5 MAY x a 15 MAY 60 2 JUNE 70 so Figure 3.A.2-5 Vertical profiles of temperature (March June, 1973) (from Butman, 1977) 40 SALIN ITY 29 30 31 32 33 10 a x a x x 20 x x x 30 3C X X X X Y 29 MAR 40 15 APR 3K 5 MAY 0- N Uj 50 15 MAY a 2 JUNE k 60 at BIC PC VC PC 70 PC So L Figure 3.A.2-6 Vertical profiles of salinity (March June, 1973) (from Butman, 1977) 41 1 710, 50' 40' 30 1 .20, .10, 700 40 30.0 30' 30.6 ?0 '14 B D S 20, )4 \30-8 X 0 io 31.0 31.6( 31.4\ 420 - MAY 50' PHYSALIA MAY 1946 31.0 40 30 Figure 3.A.2-7 surface salinity (o/oo) in May, 1946 (from Bumpus, 1974) 42 710 50' 40' 30 1 20' io' 700 40' 30 M 31.2 M B D S0 20 4P 10, 4 0 2 SEPTEMBER ANTON DOHRN 1946 50 40 30 Figure 3-A-2-8 Surface salinitY Woo) in September, 1946 (from Bumpus, 1974) 43 71c' 50' 401 30, 20 1 10, 700 40' IN. \32.6 100, 30 -M B D S 20, *\\32 .4 10 4 0 2 @3 2.2 32.0 50' DECEMBER ANTON DOHRN 1946 40 30 Figure 3.A.2-9 Surface salinity (o/oo) in mid-December, 1946 (from Bumpus, 1974) 44 20 15- IOM TEMP. 101 (60 0 20. 35m TEMP. *C) 01 ........ 20-. 16- 60m TEMP. 10' (*C) 01 ...... ...... I I 20 82m TEMP. 10' (*C) or) ...... 17-Sep 27-Sep 0 7-Oct 17-Oct Figure 3.A.2-10ji Time series of temperature (OC) measured at four depths at -MBDS (20 Sept. - 18 Oct. 1985) 25 20 8m 15 -1viv YOVA.o@ 10 5 0 TEMP. 25m 20 15 10 v rvwvv@@@ (CC) 5 0 25 20 55m 15 10 5 0 25 20 84m 15 10 5 0 -7 Sept. 17 Sept. 27 Sept. 2 Oct. 12 Oct. Figure 3.A.2-101, Time series of temperature (OC) measured at four depths atkIBDS (12 Sept. 19 Oct. 1987) 46 85M 41 TEMP. 3 (OC) 2 - oil Ti-T--rT . . . I O-Feb 20-Feb 02-Mar 12-Mar 22-Mar 0 1 -Apr Figure 3.A.2-1.1 Time series of near-bottom (85 M) temperature (0c) measured at MBDS (19 Feb - 30 march, 1986) Or .z-;AA) DAY N 0 V A 9 C 0 T I A + + + YurwAndh CAPR $AOL 4.41 43 . .. ............... CA CO 00.0 A. or or Figure 3.A.2-12 The dominant circulation of surface waters of the Gulf of Maine in July and August (from Bigelow, 1927) 48 lop, .1 .1 At 0001. 3- "1, V X Figure '3.A.2-13 The seasonal variation of circulation in the Gulf of Maine. The characteristic counterclockwise current is well developed near the center of the Gulf in spring. As the year progresses, the center of the gyre tends to move northward as the driving forces weaken and the current becomes more diffuse (from Bumpus & Lauzier, 1965). 14, Piz 49., Ia. W 44.1 30.6 AA hAP&AuAAa tuALAAAAA I I v f- T v T'j Iff'; fir, 2.0 4.3 6.8 10.0 a T TiNL (DRYS) 42.8 35 0 C1. AAA M.A. 16.9 10 a 29.0 22.8 24.8 26 M PEI 13 114L DRYS) 40.6 38.0 28 a In a - M.- A WA J A, Mr., '1@1_ &T 32.2 '34. 8 36 5 30.8 48 8 42 9 + TIW (DRYS) Figure 3.A.2-14 Time series of near-bottom current speed (cm/sec) 10 at MBDS (23 May - 10 July, 1'978) (from NUSC, 19,79) 710 50" 40' 30 20' 10' 700 40' 0 1001 30 M BD S 20 j 101 %001 4 0 2 WIND DIRECTION 50 40 0 10 CM/SEC 30 Figure 3.A.2--15 Generalized response of bottom currents to strong easterly wind conditions at MBDS Vectors were constructed from measurements made at different times, but under similar wind conditions during the winter months (from Butman, 1977) 51 HURRICANE GLORIA 200 - 150- 10M 100- CURRENT 50- DIRECTION 0 __@ MAI hJ I WANAAf @@i -cio - -100 - -150- -200- 60- 60- 10M CURRENT 40- SPEED 30 - (CM/8) 20- 10 0 17-SOP 27-Sep 0 7-Oct 17-Oct Figure 3.A.2-1() Three-hour low pass (3-HLP) time series of near-surface (lo m) current speed (cm/sec) and direction (0m) at MIMS (20 Sept.- 18 Oct., 1985) HURRICANE GLORIA 200 150 - 82m CURRENT 100 - 50 - DIRECTION o (degrees) -6o -100 -150 -200 60 - 60 - 82m Lj CURRENT 40 - SPEED 30 - (CM/8) 20 - 10 - Al 11.1.11 I L I 0 17-Sep 27-Sep 07-Oct 17-Oct Figure 3.A.2-17 Three-hour low pass (3-HLP) time series of near-bottom (82 m) current speed (cm/sec) and direction (OM) at MBDS (20 Sept.- 18 Oct., 1985) 200 - 160 - 100 - 5M CURRENT 5o - DIRECTION 0 (degrees) .'60 100 - -160 - -200 1 T-1 60 - so - :5M t-n 40 - X_ CURRENT SPEED 30 - (CM/S) 20 - 10 - A. 1 1L."L IJAIIJ 0- - . . , . 'I'F Mr!1IMI I r I T REIFIRIMMMEW I I II @ . "W" 10-Feb 20-Feb 02-Mar .1 2-Mar 22-Mar 01-Apr Figure 3.A.2-18Three-hour low pass (3-HLP) time series of near-bottom (85 m) current speed (cm/sec) and direction (om) at mBDs (15 Feb. - 2 April, 1985) 200 CURRENT loo.: BM DIRECTION 0 M AAA11 i Inno ni Ai i in n P i I A A i f r I t'r (degrees) -loo -200 _3 80 - CURRENT 60 - 8M 40 SPEED 20 (CM/s) 0 7 Sept. 17 Sept. 27 Sept. 2 Oct. 12 Oc 1. Figure 3.A.2-19 Three-hour low pass (3-HLP) time series of near-surface (8 m) current speed (cm/sec) and direction (OM) at MBDS (12 Sept.- 19 Oct., 1987) nmr 25m 200 CURRENT '00 A LiAAA. DIRECTION 0 (degrees) '00 -200 80 - 60 - 25m U-1 CURRENT 40 SPEED 20 (CM/s) 0 7 Sept. 17 Sept. 27 Sept. 2 Oct. 12 Oct. Figure 3.A.2-20 Three-hour low pass (3-HLP) time series of mid-depth (25 m) current speed (cm/sec) and direction (OM) at MBDS (12 Sept. - 19 Oct., 1987) 55m 200 100 CURRENT 0 DIRECTION (degrees) `00 -200 80 - 60 - 55m CURRENT 40 SPEED 20 - (crn/s) 0 1 I 'row IC11111--f I I I 7 Sept. 17 Sept. 27 Sept. 2 Oct. 12 Oct. Fiqure 3.A.2-U Three-hour low pass (3-HLP) time series of mid-depth (55 m) current speed (cm/sec) and direction (oM) at MBbS (12 Sept.- 19 Oct., 1987) 84m CURRENT wo DIRECTION o A (degrees) -100 pow -200 80 84m CURRENT 60- Ul - SPEED 40 (CM/s) 20- 0 7 Sept. 17 Sept. 27 Sept. 2 Oc t. 12 Oct. Figure 3.A.2-22 Three-hour low pass (3-HLP) time series of near-bottom (84 m) current speed (cm/sec) and direction (OM) at MBDS (12 Sept. - 19 Oct., 1987) -20 -10 20 -20 io 20 MBDS MBDS Near-Surface (10 M) Near-Bottom (82 m) September October 1985 September October 1985 -4 -2 2 4 MBDS Near-Bottom (85 m) February - April 1986 Figure 3.A.2-23a Comparison of tidal ellipses calculated from near-surface (10 m) and near-bottom (82 and 85 z) current meter data at MBDS (20 Sept. 18 Oct., 1985 and 15 Feb. - 2 April, 1986) 59 P12 8m M2 5@m M2 55M M2 84m -15-10 -5 1) 5 10 15 -15-10 1 5 0 15 -16-10 to 15 -15-10 -6 11 5 10 16 I IL L A I-- I 1 -1 1 1-1- 1.1-t I-L" [4AA-A I "A-(@ L-1-11 Figure '3.A.2-23b Comparison of tidal ellipses calculated from data at the four current meter depths at MBDS (12 Sept. 19 Oct. 1987) 60 40 - 10M 20- (CM/S) 0 - _z6111141111 -20- -40 - -60 17-Sep 27-Sep 07-Oct 17-Oct 60 40 - 82m 20- (CM/S) 0 -20 -40 -60 17-Sep 27-Sep 0 7-Oct 17-Oct 20 85M 10- (CM/S) 0 -TIVVIMA -10- -20- 10-Feb 20-Feb 02-Mar 12-Mar 22-Mar 01-Apr Figure 3.A.2-24a Forty-hour low pass (40-HLP) time series of near-surface (10 m) and near-bottom (82 and 85 m) current meter data collected at MBDS (20 Sept. - 18 Oct. 1 1985 and 15 Feb. - 2 April, 1986). (Note change in Y-axis scale). 60 8m 40 20 0 .20 -40 -60 20 _'z 25m 10 @ @\N (CM/S) 0 Nkl /viuma\&I III L' L14 n@'111 I WIV -10 -20 10 55M 0 -5 10 10 84m 5 0 lb- -10 7 Sept. 17 Sept. 27 Sept, 2 Oc t. 12 Oct. Figure 3.A.2-24b Forty-hour low pass (40-HLP) time series of current meter data collected at f our depths at mBDS (12 Sept. 19 Oct. 1987) . (Note change in Y-axis scale.) 62 LEGEND moc SSNO EMMA I >10 6-9 <6 WAVE HEIGHT (ft) N NW E W CALM @E 2.7 5% 10% SW 15%-6- E 20% S Summary of Synoptic Meteorological Observations (U.S. Naval Weather Service Command). Figure .3.A.2-25- Surface wave rose representative of Massachusetts Bay (from Raytheon, 1974). 63 3 2 2b A March 20 - 18 - 16 - 14 12 $4 4) 10 25 45 MarchI >4 NE s 20 E NW tr 10 March 26 A 22 23 24 A A 2) @8 h A 31 f i Apri I Figu@--e 3.A.2-26 In-situ wave height (HI/3) and period (sec) measured in Massachusetts Bay (420261N, 700431W) compared with average daily wind speeds (mph) measured at Boston (20 March - 3 April, 1974) (from Raytheon, 1974) MEWWACK RVER OF + 4d MAINE + q + 3d SSA C US MBDS BLS 0. 0 + + 2U 'tell T BA Y + 40 + POINT CA I@E + + 42*0dN 40 C 0 D + + B A Y SANDWICH + C @' A. p .4U 0 KM 2@O 0 NAUTICAL MILES is L I --- I I I 7toodw to - 7000dw Pigure 3.A.2-27 Major bathymetric features of Massachusetts Bay (from Butman, 1977) 65 IN X WV BN X OM On 3& 50 rm 3sm ON 34. sm mum FOUL AREA :-+ + + 21 MAY 1978 4 IN TERVAL: 2 m 84 as DATUM:MLW so so 82 as 84 90 Be 90 as 90 5MN 92 4+ se I@&@jsw + + + 4+M 500 750 ION 070 37. M V8 X 5MV VO X OOOV 970 35.5W V8 35. OM M 34.5M VO 34. OM Figure 3.A.2-28 Contour chart of bathymetric data collected at MBDS (21 May, 1978) (NUSC, 1979) 0 70 35.0 70 34.8 70 34.6 70 34.4 00 6 BOSTON FOUL GROUND SOUTH % 42 25.2 4A 42 25.2 JANUARY1983 SCALE: 1/4000 INTERVAL: .5 lop ID TOD 9 :> B&I 11 a 00 0 42 25.0- 42 25.1 J ro 0 Be 160 0 SCALE W 0 M r 70 3@ 0 70 34.8 70 34.6 70 34.4 v Figure 3.A.2-2.q'@'Contour chart of bathymetric data collected at MAss. Bay South Site (January, 1983) (SAIC, 1985) -T VO 35. 000W VO 34. NOW VO 33. OM VO 32. OOOW F@UL AREA + 02.7 + + + X4 K 9B. sk 710 M .6 R" 7'K 'a a m in; 12! 7&2 n 7 82- 9 98113 83.4 BIB 92- 8 EMS m2 813 81.8 B& a 813 a 81.9 81.5 I OLD ft 1 8 81.5 82- 0 4 03.1 82.3 GZ5 I I Me ez 87.1 8128 815 88 IL. 67 9 82 814 72.5 82- 4 81.6 8LI 75.3 82- 5 a4 2 70.1 R 8 It 5 74.7 83.8 4 7111 GZ5 eke 83.6 72.7 3 74.1 84.4 a 84.2 Re 77. K4 815 & W61 81.4+ g 89. K2 a 35 81 42*M 84. + 0 K 42 &@M me 88.5 0 81L 7g7.3 aloe BEL V.4 Re m4 79. 9 M 2 a 8 97.4 97 6 M2 m I a 7 S& 4 me 5 97.7 g7: 8 87.3 ft 4 88. 87.4 9L I Re 97.7 5 KZ &3 Re VL 0 Me I -D m V.8 Re M3 82. 2 5 Re eke 84.8 al I 00 5 97.3 K2 K 4 Re eke Me K2 88. 7 OLD gLe 88.0 056 9 K5 a 7 K 8 M7 3 WD Re OU 86.5 9L 01.8 m 4 V.9 BEL 1 84.8 91.8 am* a 6 4 87.7 0 88.8 k BI g a 3 856 3 07.2 80.5 K 7 a a m7 K 3 Re K 0 BEL 8 Re me m 1 7 Re RD K 7 87.3 &1 84.8 7 07.0 a 5 a I a I M 7 84.' 4 M3 K I a 3 U.7 81L 4 87.8 a 8 M2 84.3 m Re 97.0 K 7 88.5 84.7 M5 97.3 5 a 5 85.6 K5 eke K 3 a 2 07.2 Re eke Sk 4 m5 R5 87.1 eke ft 4at 42 @42 25.jM 84.1 8&3 a 1 3 Re + K I an 12 5 R 9 K 5 2 R 4 a 4 Re 9 m 1 98.7 (Re 8k 2 4 RI a 1 9869 1 Ke m 5 97.9 K 7 OIL 9 84.0 017 M2 OLD M 84.0 81L 19 3 87.6 BIB a 9 0 K a Re Ve 817 a I I BIB as t 812 M6 4 me K3 K& I a 817 VI a 012 062 JKL a a 8 83.4 8[701 85, 7 R5 we ft 0me K5 812 we 97.1 013 8U m7 a 'I K3 -IL73 83.1 ne K eve ski 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 VO 36. OOOW 070 35.OOOW 070 ROM VS 33.OM 070 32.OM Figure 3.A.2-30 Smooth sheet of depths generated from bathymetric survey Of MBDS (October, 1985) 070 35. OWW VO 34. OM VO 33. 000W VO 32. 00W @PUL AREA + + + + + 17 OCTOBER 1985 INTERVAL:2m DATUM: MLW 0 AL a SLO -42 M@W 42+OM OLE OLE CaWD ts -42 a* + 42*IM 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 VO 36. OWW VO 35. 000W VO 34. OWW VO 33. ONW VO 32. ONW Figure 3.A.2-31 Contour chart of bathymetric data collected at MBDS (October, 1985) FOUL AREA DISPOSAL SITE 17 OCTOBER 1985 VERTICAL EXAGGERATION: 40X Sol Figure 3.A.2-32 Three dimensional representation of bathymetric data collected at 'RBDS (October, 198.5) NAY7" OOWANY (*4MT 7430-0" 0 FM 7 160 -all no 7 ------ 0 0 -CO to 30 30 F @Xh te r gatin g r t al---- iil@ater a 0 140- -4 j6 ------ nff -r-n-6 t 6 FAAU9. 1-07- 6 t hjV' A 14"A4 - Az _Aj. j Figure 3.A.2-33 Comp arison of fathometer records recorded over dredged material and natural bottom at MBDS (October, 1�85) <017 -lot& 42 20 8 (@6 1> C> -4 20 1 Cf C> 7 0* 4 0" 700 20" % SILT 60-80 40-60 20-40 10-20 <10 Figure 3.A.2-34 Distribution of the percentage of silt sized particles in sediments deposited in Massachusetts Bay (from Schlee et al., 1973) 72 V8 35. OMW VO 34. BM 970 33. IM F8 32- 8M F@DS + + + 1.2-37 MU. 1.2 -4 7& AN 42 1.2-38 (1.2-41 ,1.2 2 42 I ZM 5M H-0 1 15M 1750 Note Ve 31L M VO 35. BM VS 34. @WV V1 33. M V8 32. M I Figure 3.A.2-3-S Location of side scan sonar records used to characterize the sediment facies within the MBDS region (October, 1985) 4W 3- we jP Figure 3.A.2-36 Type 'Ili' side scan sonar record in general area Of 14BDS (October, 1985) Hard bottom with sand, gravel and exposed rock associated with shoaling in the northeast quadrant of the site. V 6'_Y@ _77 @Wii me J_"" 7W ';Z Wal 'SA t_n A zi- "t, k2 va, Figure 3.A.2-37 Type 11211 side scan sonar record in general area of MBDS (October, 1985) Soft, natural silt bottom with distinctive acoustic targets, probably caused 1, by chemical or low-level radioactive waste containers (indicated by arrows). 774' T 4 d.' @ix A," ON !VT 4f IP Figure 3.A.2-38 Type 113a" side scan sonar record, MBDS (October, 1985) Coarse dredged material deposit near the disposal buoy with accumulation of large cohesive clay clumps (identified by white shadows as indicated by arrows). i"7 S Ak AIR NVIT Figure 3.A.2-39 Type 113b" side scan sonar record in general area of MBDS (October, 1985) Isolated mounds of coarse dredged material at a significant distance (1500 m) from the disposal buoy. Acoustic targets, probably caused by chemical or low-level radioactive waste containers (indicated by arrows) are present in this area, some of which are most likely covered by dredged material. @"Zt @.x 00 Figure 3.A.2-40 Type 113c" side scan sonar record, MBDS (October, 1985) Circular, high reflectance areas in a linear pattern are indicative of dredged material disposal activity. Acoustic targets, probably caused by chemical or low- level radioactive waste containers (indicated by arrows) are present in this area, some of which are most likely covered by dredged material. -'I oil J A- . . . . . . . . . . o-@ =0 E-7 171: '7'Aw"W Figure 3.A.2-41 Type 113c" side scan sonar record, MBDS (October, 1985) Circular, high reflectance areas in a linear pattern are indicative of dredged material disposal activity. TIT "I J@;4 14 -za 6; ILL 77R-v. 14 PF Co C) is Pigure 3.A.2-4,2 Type "3d" side scan sonar record, MBDS (October, 1985) Dredged material deposit with less intense acoustic reflection indicating margins of dredged material deposits. jv@ @i- mxt- i4 im @'W - VAW @Wtf'--' 7@i -Air Co Figure 3.A. 21-0 Type 11411 side scan sonar record, MBDS (October, 1985) Soft, natural silt bottom with low acoustic reflectance. IA Figure 3.A.2-44 REMOTS image from northeast quadrant of MBDS (Station 1-15) showing a dense mat of polychaete tubes overlying coarse sediments. 8 2 0.4 % Figure 3.A.2-45 REMOTS image from natural silt bottom at MBDS (Station 18-17) 83 --rz. @F, 610- Ao Figure 3.A.2-46 REMOTS image from dredged material deposited at 11BDS (Station 11-07) showing very low reflectance (black) material at depth covered by oxidized sediments 1W 84 070 35.OOOW 070 34.M0W 070 33.OOOV UM 32. OW F@UL AREA + + + + SAND SITE (6-9) v M-.@ffl _rD-2 + NO MUD S4 ON DREDGED MATERIAL RN -3& A' Buoy (9-8) R N D,@- 6 a R N 4 RNe-5 SAND REF 00 RND-7 RND-B 'DGD* Buoy RND-9& &I MUD SITE 0+. R"D D GED MATERIAL MUD REF 0 250 5W 750 1 1 ig '17W Meters 070 3B.000111 070 35.00W 070 34.0= an M.00MI 07032.000 Figure 3.A.2-47 Location of sediment sampling stations at MUS TO as To T of TO 34 70 so TO as To 81 42 Z7- 42 27 7 ............ ... ......... 0 0 0 ............ . .... ....... ,P 0.%0.0 00P. 0 0 .................... 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 a 42 26 -42 25 a 0 0 .. .. ...... 00 CN -42 25 42 25- & REMOTS AND SIDE SCAN SONAR RESULTS w- 750 M 00 500 175A & ItEMOTS STATION LOCATIONS To 37 TO so To $6 70 34 70 1 03 70 3* 70 31 TYPE 3A 7 -0 1 TYPE 3C TYPE 4 TYPR I LU*=- TYPE 2 TYPE 38 TYPE 3D F1 I I 111 Figure 3.A.2-48 Distribution of sediment facies at MBDS as determined from side scan sonar and REMOTS surveys. '(See section 1.2.4 of report for detailed description of sediment types.) 10 0 1 (P,.Pa t 40 X, 10 'WX 1A OX X I XXXf -42v- 7'M X X X @@ -0 X X X XXX X, X TV "m CaNcorrUTMM cr 1428M X Limit o OCAU Existing Designated Site 500 X 75' - 35.OV southern boundary of uniform bottom containing a large number of hard targets. XXXXX northern boundary of uniform bottom containing a few dredged material deposits.. areas of medium to high densities. oftargets. Figure 3.A.2-49 Analysis of side scan sonar survey in the vicinity Of MBDS indicating locations of high reflectance 87 FM V- ON FM 3rL Mv VI X w F@UL AREA + . I + +& Mercator Projection A Soole: 1124000 Skew 000 deg 6 A A a A q.- A 16. a.37+ ,e a* 8 .7 .5+ A+ A + 10 A A A oo-@ 10.22+ 10.6+ 12.55+ to.7+ 8.4+ 39 10.5+ 11.06+ 11.6+ 16.5+ 18.56+ 12474+ 00 00 12 17.04+ 9,08+ IIL4 11t.fi+ IdL 2 2+ A 14 19.07 & 9.151, 42 25* 16 A & A "A" Buoy 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 FM X MV rM MM M 34. 00 M 33. 00 V- SM Figure 3.A.2-50 The apparent distribution and thickness (cm) of .7 @- dredged material at MBDS in June 1985, based on REMOTS data. (+ indicates dredged material thicker than the REMOTS prism penetration depth) (Contour indicates limit of dredged material) 7- 070 35.00W 070 XM 070 33.0= 0" 32. F@UL ARE,A I A A+ A A + + + + e@?- OWN Mercator Projection , A A A Scale: 1124009 A A a Skew: 00.0 deg,, A A A A A 3.81+ A 6 A A 8.31 14 23+ ISL82+ C9,6 + 61 1 A I+ A -4226+ .124 .3 O=_ A A A A A 12.43 8.77+ A A A 8.2% 9.47 9 1+ 17N8 A a A AIO.3+ A A A A 12 15.86+ 9.16 10.83+ A A A A A A A A 10 5.57 9.53+ 2. 11t2l+ 9.13 A A A A A A A A 14.87+ 18.23+ 1611+ 14 A A A A A A nA A A A A a 13.89 A A A A A A A 42 25*. 16 'L A+ A A A A +A a A A A A A A /A A a A A 20 A A A A A A A A A a A 3c "A" Buoy A B 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 070 36. OW 070 35.0W 070 34AN 070 33.0= 070 MAW Figure 3.A.2-51 The apparent distribution and thickness (cm) of dredged materiai at MBDS in September 1985, based on- REMOTS data. (+ indicates dredged material thicker than the REMOTS prism penetration depth) (Contour indicates,limit of dredged material) ON 3& OM OM XM M UOM ffm W-M F @UL AREA + + + + + 4 A 6 A A A -42 24M 8 + A182P A17.39+ A10.34 A+ A A 19.22 * A14.19 + A A 10 A 17.29+ A 19.55+ A 18.38+ A A 31 + A13.04+ A 4.65+ A 16.06+ A A A 14.9 A A 19.03+ A 17.3+ A A A 12 A A 12.81 + A 19.3+ A A A A A A A 14 A A AAAAAAAAAAAA A A A 42 a@W + A A A A A 16 A A A A A 18 A A A 3 5 7 9 11 14 17 V *A" Buoy 1 256 M AM ve 3LM ffffl 34. aw OM 33. M IM 3EM f- Pigure 3.A.2-52 The apparent distribution and thickness (cm) of dredged material at MBDS in January 1986, based on REMOTS data. (+ indicates dredged material thicker than the REMOTS prism penetration depth) (Contour indicates limit of dredged material).. ffM 34.75W UM 34. 50 V9 34-250 VO 34. OW FADS Mercator Projection 500" Skevr 000 deg 40ON a too 22,00 3M 400 a Veto 7.32* + 30ON A -iv a 2SM 4n 2W + 10.14+ + 250N/2509 200M 8.53 5.42+ loon 0=/BLE A \P(ATCHES 5.72+ OF DN 1009 2009 3009 4009 5009 60619 60,OW 500W 40ON 300M 20ON 100W CTR 7008 A & A 06 a & a A A A a A A PATCHES 4.42 10.16 13.58+ 11.56+ 3.05+ 9.7+ 11.87+ 7.45 6.79 3.89 um WDR %D or loos No DATA + + 200S + 4a a ow 250S/250W & A 25OS/2509 17.25+ 300S 9.79 a 6.33 400S NDM/POSSIBLE PATCHES OF DW 500S NDM 600S -+14.750 + + + NDX + + -tv 24.75M VI 35. OW V0 34.750 M 34. SM 9M 34.250V 070 34. MV Figure 3.A. 2-53 The apparent distribution and thickness (cm) of dredged material in the vicinity of the IIDGDII 17 * 25+ disposal buoy at mBDs, in February 1986, based on REMOTS data. (+ indicates dredged material thicker than the REMOTS prism penetration depth) (Contour indicates limit of dredged material). V8 34.75ft ON 34. SM 9M 34.29V VM 34, MW rM 31 7w A17.92+ FADS 1/30/87 NDM ND A16.82+ A18.90+ &17.31+ NDM + + A12.27+ a11.78+ 20.86+ (FRESH CLAY CLASTS) PATCHY NRM NqM NRM 20.29+ 18.16+ 20.21 20,LO9+ [email protected]+ , DMj? Nt),V N rim t4;LM 19.31+ 13.09 1 .29+ 18,96+ 9.47 20.13+ 4+M I + + + 42 2S M04 + 20.05+ AL 20.62+ A21,25+ 0.96+ 20.38+ NDM NDM NDM A Q-jk7M + &NDM + LEGEND Q 24. rjw4 DM - D GED MATAARIAL &NDM 1111 = 1,40" REDGED TIRIAL NICI(Nr SS jCM) + = [ @HJCKUESS tXCEED., PENETRA- &NDM TION VEPTH 0 - ARE ASWITH 'FRESH' I)M to 201 300 M 5M Note V6 X 73N 9M KM IM X 20 MxM FS U 79N Figure 3.A.2-54 The apparent distribution and thickness (cm) of dredged material in the vicinity of the 11DGD11 disposal buoy at MBDS in January 1987, based on REMOTS data. (+ indicates dredged material thicker N M VM g416 @ASTS) 1 .2 than the REMOTS prism penetration depth) (Contour indicates limit of dredged material)(hatched areas represent indications of recently deposited dredged material) TabIP- ' 3. A. 1 -'1 Sunnary Of Climatic Conditions, Boston, Massachusetts (U.S. Department Of Caumerm, 1979) Wind Mean Mean Precipitation Mean Maximt= Month IN= In Inches Speed m.v.h. Direction gpggd m. v. h. Direction 1 29.2 3.69 14.2 NW 61 NW F 30.4 3.54 14.1 WNW 61 NE M 38.1 4.01 13.9 NW 60 NE A 48.6 3.49 13.3 WNW 52 NW M 58.6 3.47 12.2 Sw 50 NE 1 68.0 3.19 11.4 Sw 40 NW 1 73.3 2.74 10.8 Sw 46 N A 71.3 3.46 10.7 Sw 45 Sw S 64.5 3.16 11.2 Sw 57 S 0 55.4 3.02 12.1 Sw 45 NW N 45.2 4.51 12.9 Sw 54 NE D 33.0 4.24 13.8 WNW 49 NW YR 51.3 (MEAN) 42.52 (TMAL) 12.6 (PEW SW (NEAN) 61 (MX) NE (rMX) Table 3.A. 2-1 (Gilbert, 1975) Teqperature And Salinity Data Obtained At The I%assadmsetts Bay Foul- Axea" station # December 1973 April 1974 July 1974 Octcber 1974 Depth (m) TO-C S 0/00 T*C s 0/00 T*C S 00 VC a-0zq0- -0/ 0 1-S 6.3 31.5 5.0 31.5 20.0 33.0 11.4 32.0 1-30 6.3 32.0 4.6 31.5, 10.4 33.0 9.7 32.0 1-60 6.9 32.5 4.7 32.5 9.2 33.5 8. 7 32.0 1-80 7.3 32.5 4.6 32.0 -7.1 34.5 9. 2 32.0 2-S 6.8 31.5 5.1 32.0 20.5 33.0 11.6 31.5 2-30 6.8 33.5 4.4 31.5 9.4 35.0 10.6 32.0 2-60 6.9 32.0 4.5 31.5 8.2 34.0 8.2 32.0 2-80 7.3 32.0 4.7 32.0 6.7 34.0 8.5 32.0 3-S 7.1 32.0 4.6 31.5 21.5 33.5 11.4 33.0 3-30 6.7 32.0 4.6 31.0 8.9 34.0 11.2 32.0 3-60 7.6 32.5 4.7 31.0 8.1 34.0 8.5 33.5 6.4 34.0 8.3 33.0 3-80 7.6 32.5 4.7 32.0 4-S 7.1 31.8 5.8 32.5 20.8 32.5 11.3 32.5 4-30 7.1 32.2 4.4 33.5 10.3 34.0 10.9 33.0 4-60 7.8 32.0 4.2 34.0 7.3 34.0 8.5 32.0 4-80 7.6 32.0 4.5 33.5 6.5 35.0 8.4 M.5 5-S 7.0 32.5 6.1 31.5 21.5 34.5 11.2 31.5 10.7 32.0 5-30 7.0 32.5 4.6 34.5 13.6- 3440 5-60 7.1 32.5 4.7 34.5 8.2 36.0 8.8 33.0 5-80 7.6 33.0 4.6 31.5 6.4- 34.5 9.1 32.0 6-S 7.3 31.8 6.4 32.0 20.9 34.5 11.2 32.0 6-30 7.1 33.0 4.5 32.5 10.0- 35.0 11.1 32.0 6-60 7.6 32.0 4.2 31.5 8.8 34.5 8.3 32.5 6-80 7.5 32.0 4.6 32.0 7.2 35.5 8.2 32..0 Mean -S 6.9 31.8 5.5 31.8 20.8 33.5 11.3 32.1 30 6.8 32.5 4.5 32.4 10.4 34.1 10.7 32.1 60 7.3 32.2 4.5 32.5 8.3 34.3 8.5 32.5 80 7.5 32.3 4.6 32.1 6.7 34.5 8.6 32.2 Ibtal 7.1 32.2 4.7 32.2 11.5 -34.1 9.7 32.2 Table 3.A. 9-2 Summary of Current Statistics for 1974 (Gilbert, 1975) Location In Water July Column January April June August Sei)tember October Upper Mean Speed 9 12 10 10 (cm/sec) Middle Mean Speed 8 9 6 7 (cm/sec) Lower Mean Speed 4 4 5 5 (cm/sec) Upper Maximum Speed 21 44 30 28 (cm/sec) Middle maximum Speed 20 26 19 22 (cm/sec) Lower Maximum speed 15 17 15 17 (cm/sec) *No data coverage. Upper = 15.2m Middle = 61.Om Lower = 84.2m These values are all relative to Mean Low Water (MLW) . (The upper current meter was moved to a depth of 30.5m after the initial deployment.) 95 Table 3.A. 2-3 Easterly Storms in Massachusetts Bay (Bohlen,@ 1981) FASTEST MILE Observed Change In Maximum Sea Level Wind In Boston Date Speed (mph) Direction Harbor (m) November 23, 1920 59 NE April 9, 1935 63 NE November 17, 1935 60 NE November 5, 1939 62 NE September 14,1944 72 NE November 30, 1944 66 NE 2.8 November 29, 1945 68 NE March 3, 1947 73 NE November 7, 1953 67 NE April 8, 1956 58 ENE 2.6 February 4, 1961 49 ENE September 21, 1961 45 NE September 28, 1962 47 NE December 24, 1966 47 NE May 25, 1967 so NE 2.7 November 12, 1968 54 NE November 8, 1972 48 NE March 22, 1977 60 NE May 9, 1977 44 NE February 6, 1978 61 NE January 25, 1979 45 E October 25, 1980 48 SE 96 Table 3.A-2-4' Annual Occurrence Of Wave Height Fqlalled Or Eweeded (Percent) In Northern Massachusetts Bay (Fran Raytheon, 1974) Wave Height 12 Feet 10 Feet 8 Feet 6 Feet (3.7 meters) (3.0 meters) (2.4 meters) (1.8 meters) SSMD SSH3 SSMO SSM Direction Data Data Data Data N 0.0 0.0 0.001 0.009 NE 0.176 0.355 0.709 1.673 E 0.334 0.490 0.723 1.669 SE 0.032 0.078 0.149 0.706 S 0.008 0.035 0.142 0.49 Sw 0.002 0.01 0.05 0.30 w .0.001 0.005 0.027 0.167 NW 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.026 All Directions 0.553 0.973 1.831 5.04 Sumury of Synoptic Meterological Observations (US Naval Weather Service Cmnand). Table 3..A. 2-5 Grain size parameters of sediments sampled from t1w Ma'-sach"seLL,, Bay Dlsposzil Sitt, at stati6n locations shown in Figure 1.2-50 "MUD" REFERENCE STATION DATE MEAN SAND SILT GRAIN SIZE OR COARSER OR FINER June 1985 .011 2 98 .010 5 95 .015 3 97 .013 3 97 .010 3 97 .017 2 98 Mean .013 3 97 September 1985 .018 1 99 .016 1 99 .013 1 99 .016 1 99 January 1986 .012 1 99 .009 1 99 .008 1 99 .010 1 99 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NSAND" REFERENCE STATION DATE MEAN SAND SILT GRAIN SIZE OR COARSER OR FINER September 1985 1.96 95 5 @j 1.19 96 4 0.58 92 8 1.24 94 6 January 1986 0.43 82 is 1.92 85 15 0.42 80 20 0.92 82 18 98 Table 3.A.2-5 (cont.) NATURAL SILT STATIONS DATE MEAN SAND SILT GRAIN SIZE OR COARSER OR FINER September 1985 .021 2 98 .012 1 99 .015 1 99 .016 1 99 January 1986 .016 54 46 .010 2 98 .009 2 98 .010 2 98 .009 2 98 .011 12 88 Apparent outlier at station north of others and close to change in depth and substrate. ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATURAL SAND STATION DATE MEAN .% SAND SILT GRAIN SIZE OR COARSER OR FINER September 1985 0.92 95 5 3.68 93 7 3.53 93 7 2.71 94 6 99 Table 3.A.2-5 (cont.) DREDGED MATERIAL STATIONS DATE MEAN SAND SILT GRAIN SIZE OR COARSER OR FINER 'September 1985 .021 20 80 .023 10 90 .016 12 88 .020 14 86 January 1986 .052 36 64 .072 47 53 .064 '38 62 .028 23 77 .061 25 65 .092 36 64 100 B. Chemical Characteristics 1. Water Quality The disposal of dredged material has the potential to impart a chemical signature of the dredged area on the water column, sediment, and biota of the disposal site. The chemical characteristicswithin the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site were analyzed,by studying selected. chemical concentrations within samples of the water column taken at 3 depths during cruises in June and September 1985, and January 1986. Total data recovered represents 340 chemical determinations, raw data are available in SAIC, 1987. a. Dissolved Oxygen Measurements of water column dissolved oxygen levels represent various biological processes that balance the production and atmospheric dissolution of oxygen with metabolic consumption. Photic depth and seasonal variations alter these processes and ultimately impart spatial and temporal fluctuations in water column concentrations. In general levels below 6.0 ppm would be of concern, with EPA water quality criteria (EPA, 1976) at 5.0 ppm. Recent NED sampling (SAIC, 1987) is in agreement with various historical investigations that describe concentrations in the vicinity of MBDS (Gilbert, 1975; Frankel and Pearce, 1974; Riser and Jankowskie, 1974). The levels of water column dissolved oxygen at MBDS were sampled at three depths in each of-three seasons and exhibited typical-variations for an open water environment. The lowest oxygen concentrations recorded were 7.8 ppm in June for near bottom water column and 7.9 ppm in September for surface concentrations. The highest of the nine sampling points was 12.3 ppm in September 1985, for the mid-water sample with the depth averaged value of all seasons being 9.5 ppm (Standard Deviation = 1.45). Gilbert (1975) identified'a range of 6.82 ppm to 12.88 ppm, averaging (n=79) 9.1 ppm (S.D. 1.52) in the vicinity of MBDS. The oxygen levels are generally saturated, i.e. at maximum dissolved concentrations based on temperature and salinity (Kester, 1975) or near saturation as in bottom samples for the June (79% saturated) and February (89% saturated) samples. b. pH The measurement of pH in the water column is the determination of the hydrogen ion activity representing the basic or acidic characteristics of the sample as governed by the seawater carbonate system. Seawater pH concentrations of 6.5-8.5 are generally acceptable (Thurston et. al, 1979) and within the range of EPA (1976) marine aquatic life criteria. Sampling in support of this site designation document identified a pH range at MBDS between 7.4 and 8.0, for three seasons and three depth strata, and averaged (n=9) 7.81 (S.D.=0.282). Metcalf and Eddy (1984) and Cilbert (1975) found similar pH values in the vicinity of MBDS, the latter identifying a pH range of 7.32 to 8.2, averaging (n=80) 7.87 (S.D=0.16). 101 TABLE 3Bl Average of all Water Chemistry Data Points from June and September 1986 and January 1987, MBDS (Surface, mid-depth and bottom averages incorporated instrument detection limits as whole values) EPA Criteria Average Standard Number of Parameter Acute (Chronic) Deviation Samples PH 6.5-8.5 8.0 0.282 9 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l 5.0 9.5 1.45 9 Total Phosphorous, ppm 0.1 0.035 0.023 33 Nitrates, ppm - 0.134 0.1 30 Ammonia, ppm - 0.28 0.08 31 Cadmium, ppb 43 (9.3) <0.2 - 9 Chromium, ppb 1,100 (50) 0.412 0.264 34 Nickel, ppb 75 (8.3) 5.0 - 12 Copper, ppb 2.9 (2.9) 2.82 1.3 29 Zinc, ppb 95 (86) <20 - 36 Arsenic, ppb 69 (36) 2.80 1.235 32 Mercury, ppb 2.1 (0.025) 1.35 0.82 33 Lead, ppb 140 (5.6) 1.77 0.34 30 PAH, ppb 300 <20 - 3 PCB, ppb 10 (0.03) 0.012 0.022 10 102 C. Nutrients Nitrogen and phosphorous compounds are essential nutrients that are metabolized by primary producers (e.g. plankton, algae) in photosynthetic processes. It is this primary production that forms the lowest trophic level of marine food web. Excess nutrients can cause eutrophication (over-enrichment)-in closed systems and imbalance population dominances in open water areas. Frankel and Pearce (1973) described nitrate as the limiting nutrient in Massachusetts Bay. Water column analyses of nutri- ents (ammonia, nitrates and phosphorous) were obtained in June and September 1985 and January 1986 from surface, mid-water (50m) and bottom (99m filtered and unfiltered). Nutrient concentrations varied seasonally with highest concentration in the winter. Ammonia is a nitrogenous compound common in the water column as a result of biological degradation of organic matter. The toxicity of ammonia is influenced by the pH, temperature, and salinity of its solu- tion. Highly alakaline conditions necessary to render low concentrations of ammonia (NH3).toxic to biota typically are not present in the marine environment because of'the carbonate buffering system of seawater,,and therefore ammonia water quality criteria are pH and temperature dependent (EPA, 1987). MBDS water column ammonia concentrations ranged from a low of 0.18 ppm (n=3, S.D.=0.17) in June 1985 unfiltered surface waters to a high value of 0.46 ppm (S.D.=0.01) from two replicates at 99 meters (unfil- tered) in January 1986. The average ammonia concentration from,31,samples from MBDS was 0.28 ppm (S.D.=0.08). Past nutrient investigations at MBDS exhibit both seasonal and depth dependent concentrations (Gilbert, 1975), varying with blooms of phyto- plankton. The 1973-1974 ammonia data (n=79) in the vicinity of MBDS showed ammonia concentrations varying from 0.022 to 0.112 ppm with an average value of 0.045 ppm (S.D.=0.018). During a July 1974 disposal operation of sediments from Boston Harbor, ammonia concentrations ranged from 0.046 ppm to 0.127 ppm in the water column (Gilbert, 1975). Both values are lower than the recent NED averages. These values are indicative of the state of biotic (e.g. phytoplankton) activity and uptake of nitrogenous compounds, as well as nitrogen inputs to the system. Nitrate concentrations in seawater are also affected by photosyn- thetic processes (ie protein synthesis). Higher temperatures and associated biotic metabolism could account for the general seasonal trends of low spring/summer concentrations of nitrogen. EPA Water Quality criteria do not exist for nitrates in seawater since it is recognized that toxic effect concentrations could rarely occur in the natural environment (EPA, 1976). The 30 samples of nitrates at MBDS showed a low concentration in unfiltered surface water of June of 0.01 ppm (n=3, S.D.=0.014) to a high 103 concentration of 0.28 ppm (n=3, S.D.=0.005) in unfiltered bottom waters in September of 1985. The average nitrate concentration was 0.134 ppm (S.D.=0.100) from the 30 samples. These results are slightly higher than earlier studies (Gilbert, 1975) which ranged from a,high of 0.256 ppm and a low of <0.1 ppm. The average concentration in the vicinity of MBDS (n=80) in 1973-1974 (Gilbert, 1975) was 0.105 ppm (S.D.=0.073). Phosphorous occurs in two different forms in the marine environment. Elemental phosphorous, a toxic substance, regulated by an EPA Water Quality.Criteria for marine continuous discharge concentrate- tions of 0.1 ppm. Phosphate phosphorous is a natural compound that is nutritive to primary productivity. Although no phosphate EPA criteria exist (EPA, 1987), this nutrient often is the causative agent in eutrophication (Thurston, et. al., 1979). Analyses performed by NED detect total phosphorous concentrations, but as described below, were well below even the elemental phosphorous criteria. The lowest occurrence of total phosphorous in the MBDS water column was in June 1985 surface waters (unfiltered). Total phosphorous values were below instrument detection limits (<0.01 ppm) for all three repli- cates. The highest concentrations occurred in January 1986 mid- water column unfiltered samples of 0.083 ppm (n=3, S.D.-O.042), also below EPA elemented phosphorous criteria. The average total phosphorous water column concentration was 0.035 ppm (S.D.=0.023)'from 33 samples. This value is higher, but within the range of previous studies (Gilbert, 1975) that found an average concentration of 0.026 ppm "(S-.D.=0,' .015) from,80 water column samples that ranged from 0.00). to 0. ppm. d. Turbidity Turbidity affects the depth of light penetration and therefore primary productivity in the water column. Particulate material suspended in the water column contributes to turbidity. Although not equivalent, turbidity is often measured by concentrations of suspended solids in grams/liter. There are no EPA Water Quality Criteria for suspended solids in marine or estuarine waters (EPA, 1987). The 1973-1974 suspended solids concentrations at MBDS were reported (Gilbert, 1975) as ranging from a low of <0.1 mg silica/liter in 30 meters of water for October 1974 and a high of 11.2 mg silica/liter in 86 meters (bottom) for December 1973. The average concentration for 79 analyses was 1.912 mg silica/liter (S.D.=1.7). These values exhibited increases during a 1974 disposal operation of 1.1 (60 meters) to 19.3 (30 meters) mg silica/liters with an average of 10.0 mg silica/liter (n=4, S.D.=8.5). e. Metals Metals in solution such as copper (Cu), iron (Fe), and Zinc (Zn) are essential elements for biochemical processes, where cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), chromium (Cr), and lead (Pb) have no established biological funct- ions (Viarengo, 1985). Seawater contains varying concentrations of 104 essential and non-essential metals that could be considered contaminants in elevated concentrations. The water column at MBDS was sampled (3 re- plicates) in three seasons at three depths for cadmium, chromium, nickel, copper, zinc, arsenic, mercury, and lead using methods described in Plumb (1981). These metals are typically of concern in dredged material. Cadmium Cadmium is a non-essential element with a potential toxicity to marine biota in elevated concentrations. It has the potential to bio- concentrate in biota and is commonly found in wastes from electroplating plants and dye, textile and chemical industries. EPA (1987) sets a marine water quality acute (I hour average) concentration criteria at 43 ppb and a chronic (4 day average) criteria at 9.3 ppb. Cadmium was analyzed in the MBDS water column in January with concentrations below the analytical detection limits of 0.2 ppb (unfil- tered) and 0.5 ppb (filtered). EPA (1976) reports average.seawater cadmium.concentrations of 0.15 ppb; Gilbert (1975) reported MBDS 1973-1974 water column cadmium concentrations ranging from alow of 0.03 ppb,in July 1974 at 30 meters to a high of 1.0 ppb in December 1973 surface waters, with an average concentration of 0.295 ppb (n=77, S.D.;*0.231). Chromium Chromium, although abundant in the earth's crust, is usually found in very low concentration in marine waters. Chromium is commonly used in industrial processes (salts) and for corrosion control (chromate compounds) in cooling waters. EPA (1976) reports below detectable (< 0.1 ppb) natural seawater concentrations and recommends a criteria (hexavalent) of 50 ppb (chronic) and 1,100 ppb acute levels (EPA, 1987 and EPA, 1985). Twenty-four (24) of the 34 chromium analyses performed.by NED were below detection limits which ranged from 0.3 to 1.5 ppb. Equating the chromium detection limits (e.g. <0.3=0.3 ppb) yields an average water column value of 1.1 ppb (S.D.=0.64). These ranged from a low of <0.37 (n=3, S.D.=0.06) for surface water in January 1986 to a high of 2.5 ppb (n=3, S.D.=O) in June 1985 surface waters. These values are well below EPA criteria and above the range of previous (1973-1974) MBDS sampling (Gilbert, 1975) which showed a low chromium value of <0.05 ppb in April at various depths and a high of 1.1 ppb in October surface waters. The average concentration reported was 0.41 ppb (n=76, S.D.=0.264). Nickel Nickel is discharged into the marine environment from ore leachate, industrial processes and alloy corrosion. Nickel is found in seawater in the 5-7 ppb range (EPA, 1976). Nickel water quality criteria are 75 ppb for acute concentrations and 8.3 ppb of chronic concentrations. 105 The 1985-1986 NED sampling program revealed a nickel water column concentration averaging (with a 5 ppb detection limit) 5 ppb (S.D.=O) from 12 samples. The maximum concentration detected was 5 ppb (n=6, S.D.=O) from the bottom water samples, filtered and unfiltered. This value is below the criteria and reflective of natural seawater concentrations. The 1973-1974 samples taken by Gilbert (1975) were similar with a lowest detection of 0.2 ppb found in October 1974 at 76 meters and a high value of 6.5 ppb in December 1973 at 60 meters. The average concentration for all depths/seasons was 2.83 ppb (S.D.=1.50 from 79 replicates. Copper Copper is an essential trace element required for chlorophyll synthesis in plants and hemoglobin formation in som'e animals. Copper may be present in the environment naturally or as a result of industrial use or use as a biological control. Natural levels of seawater copper are approximately 3 ppb (EPA, 1976). EPA (1987) water quality criteria indicate 2.9 ppb marine chronic and acute concentrations. The 1985-1986 NED sampling found,copper as low as <1.4 ppb in January 1986 bottom samples and as high as 2.7 ppb (n=3, S.D. = 0.45) in January surface waters. The average water column copper concentration (equating values to detection limits) at MBDS was 2.82 ppb (S.D. =1,1.3) from 29 samples. This is slightly below EPA (1987) criteria, actual values would be lower due to equating instrument detection limits to whole value, but in general these data agree with earlier studies. The 1973-1974 studies (Gilbert, 1985) found the average copper concentration in the water column .from the vicinity of MBDS to be 2.3 ppb (S.D. = 1,35) from 80 samples.' The maximum recorded concentration was 7.0 ppb from surface waters in October 1974 and a minimum of 0.3 ppb from 60 meters in April 1974. Zinc Zinc is an essential trace metal that occurs in the environment primarily as a result of industrial applications and corrosion control processes of brass and iron. Zinc is reported (EPA, 1976) to occur, at a maximum, in seawater at 10 ppb. EPA water quality criteria (EPA, 1987) are 95 ppb for acute toxicity and 86 ppb for chronic toxicity. 0 The 1985-1986 NED sampling indicated zinc was below the 20 ppb instrument detection limit for all 36 samples. This is lower than the previous studies that measured zinc at MBDS in 1973-1974 (Gilbert, 1975) as having a maximum concentration of 69 ppb at 60 meters during October 1974 and a minimum of 2 ppb in bottom water during the April 1974 sampling. The average concentration was 21.9 ppb (S.D. = 13.8) for 65 samples. 106 Arsenic Arsenic is ubiquitously present in the environment in pentavalent and trivalent forms, inorganic forms of the latter are more toxic than the former. Typical seawater concentrations of arsenic are 2-3 ppb. Arsenic is also discharged into the environment as an industrial by product and from insecticide applications (EPA, 1976). The EPA (1987) marine water quality criteria recommends chronic discharge limits at 36 ppb and acute limits at 69 ppb. At the MBDS, 29 of 32 analyses were below instrument detection limits of 2-3 ppb. The January 1986 midwater sample contained an average arsenic concentration of 6.4 ppb (n=3, S.D. = 0.61). Equating the instrument detection limit to a measured value, the average seawater concentration of arsen.ic at MBDS was 2.80 ppb (n=32, S.D. = 1.235). This value is within the natural range for arsenic in seawater. Mercury Mercury is biologicaily'a nonessential element. Mercury has been widely used in the environment as a germicidal or fungicidal agent. EPA (1976) reports seawater to contain 0.03 to 0.2 ppb of mercury. EPA (1987) water quality criteria describe an acute concentration criteria of 2.1 ppb and a chronic criteria of 0.025 ppb. Twenty.-four of the 33 samples taken at MBDS were below the instrument detection limits of 0.5 to 2.0 ppb. In January, 1986 all nine replicates exhibited the presence of mercury at all three depths (surface, middle, and bottom), averaging 2.43 ppb (S.D. = 0.56). Equating detection limits to whole values reveals an overall water column mercury average of 1.35 ppb (n=33, S.D. = 0.82). This is below the acute concentration criteria, (2.1 ppb) but above the 0.025 chronic concentration criteria, but given the high instrument detection limits (above chronic criteria), the summary statistics are misleading. Mercu ry can be termed variable in concentration, at MBDS with elevated levels (2.43 ppb) detected in January. Lead Lead occurs naturally in the environment and as a result of industrial, mine or smelter discharges and runoff of fuel additives. The marine water quality criteria is set at 140 ppb acute and 5.6 ppb chronic .(EPA, 1987). At MBDS, 27 of the 30 lead water samples were below detection limits of 1.4 to 2.0 ppb. The three replicates in January 1987 analyzed lead in the 1,.7 to 3.0 ppb range. Equating detection limits to whole values, lead averages 1.77 ppb (S.D. = 0.34) at MBDS. This agrees with earlier studies Gilbert (1975) that found a maximum lead value of 14 ppb at 60 meters in July 1974 and a minimum value of <0.1 ppb at surface waters in October 1974. The average 1972-1973 lead value was 2.3 ppb (S.D. 2.71) from 79 samples. 107 Summary In summary, the water column chemical concentrations of metals at MBDS was found in concentrations below the acute criteria (EPA, 1976) for marine 'waters. The only violation of the chronic concentration criteria was for the January 1986 mercury analyses. This 'showed elevated mercury throughout the water column averaging 2.43 ppb (S.D. = 0.56) with the EPA Marine Chronic Criteria at 0.025 ppb. The remainder of the samples were below detection. f. Organics Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Polycyclic (or Polynuciear) Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) is a general- ized term for a large group of petroleum compounds. They are hydrophobic organic compounds that have a high affinity for organic matter and fine grained sediments. The presence of PAHs in the environment is the result of petroleum spills, runoff, and combustion,@as well as biotic and abiotic degradation in the environment. The EPA'(1987) marine acute water quality criteria listed 300 ppb as the lowest observed effect level (L.O.E.L.) for Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, while'listing this effect level, the EPA identifies that there is insufficient data to develop criteria. Unfiltered bottom water samples from MBDS in June 1985 showed a concentra- tion of PAH less than detectable at 20 ppb. Due to their hydrophobicity, the compounds would be associated more with sediments than in solution. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Compounds Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) are a group of man-made organic compounds, isomers of which have varying toxicity to biota (McFarland, 1986). These compounds are chemically stable, non-flamable, hydrophobic, highly dielectric and have a high boiling point. These same qualities make this compound environmentally persistant. The manufacture of PCB was banned in 1977 in recognition of the environmental persistence and toxic potential of PCB. From 1929 to 1977 PCBs were produced for use in electric trans- formers, flame retardants, hydraulic fluids, lubricants, inks and other industrial uses. Various pathways of runoff and disposal of PCB introduce this chemical into the marine environment, often associated with fine particulates, and potentially available for biological uptake. The EPA (1987) water quality criteria for chronic PCB concentrations is 0.03 ppb with the acute concentration criteria established at 10 ppb. PCB is not normally found in seawater since it is a man-made synthetic. The 1985-1986 NED sampling program at MBDS measured PCB in both dissolved and particulate associated concentrations in bottom water 108 samples. The dissolved,conc'entrations were 0.006 ppb in June 1985, 0.075 ppb in September 1985 and 0.11; <0.006; <0.006 ppb in January 1986. The September 1985 sample and one replicate from January 1986 were above the EPA chronic criteria, but below the acute level of 10 ppb. The particulate associated PCB was <0.005 ppb in'June 1985; 0.007 ppb in September 1985 and 0.005; 0.006; and 0.006 ppb in January 1986, all below EPA criteria. Equating instrument detection limits to whole values gives an average particulate and dissolved bottom seawater concentration of PCB at MBDS of 0.012 ppb (S.D. = 0.022) from 10 samples below the 0.03 ppb chronic criteria. Summary The water column organic chemical contamination at MBDS exhibits low PAH concentration and occasional PCB concentrations above chronic criteria, but below acute levels. The average PCB seawater concentration is 0.012 ppb, below the 0.03 ppb chronic criteria. 3.B.2. Sediment Chemistry Disposal of dredged materials from urban harbors often imparts a chemical signature on the substrate that is different from the ambient conditions of the disposal site. This chemical signature is representative of the pollutant input to the harbors that are dredged. Industrial discharges, wastewater treatment systems, and non-point source runoff all contribute chemicals in solution and adsorbed to solid particles that ultimately reside in the sediments on harbor bottoms. The routine monitoring of disposal sites, and in particular the oceanographic sampling of MBDS in support of this site evaluation docu- ment, incorporates 'Various sampling of the chemical concentrations of the substrate within and adjacent to the site. This chemical sampling program allows the site managers to evaluate the spatial distribution of chemical contaminants within the site, the magnitude of this contamination, and the ambient (reference) substrate chemical fluctuations. It also allows a comparison of the accuracy of predisposal testing in predicting the chemical quality of the material that would ultimately reside at the disposal site. In Chapter 4, a comparison is presented of chemical analyses from all dredged material disposed at MBDS and the predicted annual secondary out- put from only one of the many wastewater treatment systems in the Massa- chusetts Bay system. (Secondary treatment removes much greater quantities of contaminants than the currently used primary systems.) It is inherent- ly logical that the material dredged from estuarine basins (channels, anchorages, berths, etc.) will have a chemical composition proportional to the pollutant influx into the estuarine systems. A goal of pollutant abatement efforts in Massachusetts Bay is to modify all treatment systems to at least secondary levels. Realization that dredged material disposal at the MBDS is minor compared to current and even projected treatment 109 plant inputs to the bay then produces confidence that the ocean disposal alternative afforded users by MBDS allows removal of shoal material, and its associated contaminants, from estuarine navigation areas with minimal disposal. impacts. This also allows removal of contaminants from potential storm surge resuspension in the shallow nearshore zone. Sediment chemistry has previously been analyzed at MBDS by New England Division (1982-3) DAMOS studies (SAIC, 1985). Recent investiga- tions (1985-1987) of sediment chemistry (trace metals and organics) were conducted in support of this site evaluation document. Sampling protocol was established based on previous chemical samples and a series of sediment-water interface profiles (RENOTS photographs) that generated sediment physical characteristics (grain size, boundary roughness, etc.) throughout the site. In June of 1985, an area of fine-grained sediment southeast of MBDS (see Figure 3.B.2-1) was sampled physically, biologic- ally and chemically (3 replicates) to determine if it would be an adequate Reference Site (MBDS-REF). It was determined that this site was repre- sentative of the ambient conditions of Stellwagen Basin and unimpacted by disposal of dredged material. In September of 1985 three stations (three replicates (n) each) within MBDS were sampled along with an additional reference area (n=3) northeast of MBDS on sandy substate (MBDS - SRF or Sand Reference). The three stations within MBDS represent the sediment facies identified, ioe. an unimpacted area in the north and northeastern section of MBDS that is coarse grained with sand (MBDS-NES or North Eastern Sand); an area in southern and eastern MBDS that represents unimpacted fine-grained substrate "off" dredged material (MBDS-OFF) and that area of MBDS impacted by disposal of dredged material (MBDS-ON). Each of these three areas comprise approximately one third of the 3.7 kilometer (two nautical mile) diameter site or, conceptually, a subcircle with approximately a 1.07 kilometer radius. Grain size-analysis showed MBDS-SRF and MBDS-NES were composed of coarse-grained material with insufficient fines to analyze for chemical contaminants. In January of 1986 the MBDS-REF station was resampled (n=3) to measure chemical seasonality, along with MBDS-ON (n=3). Additionally in January 1986, five (5) stations were sampled randomly from within MBDS on the dredged material and five (5) random stations off dredged material but within MBDS fine-grained facies were also sampled. This sampling was designed to analyze spatial variability in PCB concentrations and therefore only quantified PCB levels. In September 1987, nine siies throughout MBDS (see Figure 3.B.2-2) at the site boundary and in various distances from the site, were analyzed for chemistry with particular emphasis on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. The results of trace metals analyses can be found in Tables 3.B.2- 1. Table 3.B.2-2 contains the results of organic analyses and Table 3.B.2-3 contains the random PCB sampling results. The PAH (base/neutrals and acids) results are in Table 3.B.2-4. The analysis methods used in this program conform with EPA guidelines as listed in Table 3.B.2-5. 110 Each of the sampling stations were analyzed for ammonia, petroleum hydrocarbons, oil and grease, mercury (Hg), lead (Pb), Zinc (Zn), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), % carbon, % hydrogen, % nitrogen, DDT (Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane) PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon) and polychlorinated bipheyl compounds (PCB). a. Metals The results of the chemical sampling program for metals are described below. In June, 1985 the MBDS-REF area was sampled to determine its suitability as a chemical reference station. The purpose of sampling in September, 1985 was to compare dredged material MBDS-ON to an area within the MBDS boundary, but off of dredged material (MBDS-OFF). In the January 1986 sampling, concentrations at MBDS-ON were compared to concentrations at the reference area outside of the designated MBDS boundary (MBDS-REF). Pairwise statistical comparisons between stations (MBDS-ON vs MBDS- OFF and MBDS-ON vs MBDS-REF) for each contaminant were made using the Mann-Whitney U-Test. In addition, the sampling design allowed seasonal comparison to be made at the MBDS-ON station (September, 1985 vs January,1986) and at the MBDS-REF station (June, 1985 vs January, 1986). Arsenic Arsenic is released into the marine environment through mineral dissolution, industrial discharges or pesticide applications. Typical sediment concentrations average 6-13 ppm (Barr, 1987). Concentrations of arsenic in dredged material are considered low in the <10 ppm range and high in the >20 ppm range (MDWPC, 1978). The 1985-1987 sampling program measured arsenic at the reference area (MBDS-REF) to measure 11.3 ppm (S.D. = 2.28) in June of 1985 and 12.1 ppm (S.D. = 1.3) in January of 1986. Arsenic values at the disposal point (MBDS-ON) were 12.0 ppm (S.D. = 4.0) in September 1985 and 13.3 ppm (S.D. = 0.7) in January 1986. The area within MBDS boundary, but off dredged material (MBDS-OFF) averaged 10.0 ppm (S.D. = 1.0) in September 1985. Averaging all values, the arsenic concentration at MBDS was determined to be 11.5 ppm (S.D. = 1.9, n=15). There were no statistical differences in the concentration of arsenic between MBDS-ON and MBDS-REF on January or between MBDS-ON and MBDS-OFF in September, or in seasonal variation. No other data for background levels of arsenic in the vicinity of MBDS has been identified (NMFS, 1985; Cilbert, 1976). The typical levels reported by Barr (1987) of 6-13 ppm is in good agreement with the 11.5 ppm average for MBDS. Arsenic concentrations within the disposal area were similar to ambient concentrations. Cadmium Cadmium enters the marine environment through deterioration of galvanized pipe or indtisLrial discharges. Gilbert (1976) reporl.ed c.-idmitim metal concentrations in Lhe vicinity of MBDS at the 30 cm delfth sLr.ILA (approximately 300-500 years old) as averaging 0.87 ppm (S.D. = 0.54, n=10). Barr (1987) indicated typical concentrations in unpolluted estuaries are <1 ppm and moderate levels for dredged material disposal (MDWPC, 1978) range from 5-10 ppm. MBDS-REF in both June 1985 and January 1986 was below instrument detection limits of <3-4 ppm. MBDS-ON in September 1985 (.the disposal area) showed cadmium levels of 3 and 4 ppm for two replicates and <3 ppm at the third replicate. In January 1985 MBDS-ON samples were below the <3 ppm instrument detection level. The MBDS-OFF September 1985 data were also below the <3 ppm detection limit. Therefore, the cadmium levels within MBDS and at the reference area can be categorized as below instrument detection levels of 3-4 ppm, except for the two replicates, on dredged material that averaged 3.5 ppm (S.D. = 0.71). Cadmium concentrations were generally below detection. Sampling by the National Marine Fisheries Service (Table AI-I) at a station 10 km (Appendix II- Table AIII) south-southwest of MBDS revealed cadmium levels were 0.27 ppm (S.D. = 0.05, n=20) (NMFS, 1985). Gilbert (1976) reported cadmium levels to be highly variable at 32 station, throughout Massachusetts Bay, ranging from 0.09 ppm to 3.59 ppm. In the vicinity of MBDS cadmium levels averaged 0.8 ppm (S.D. = 0.77, n=10). Gilbert (1975) reported reference area cadmium levels as 5.8 ppm (surface of substrate), 6.4 ppm (0-5 cm strata) and 2.9 ppm (20-25 cm strata). Within MBDS, surficial cadmium levels were 3.36 ppm (S.D. = 0.59, n=5) Continental shelf cadmium levels (Bothner et al., 1986) were generally lower than the Massachusetts Bay (Gilbert, 1976) values at 0.029 ppm (S.D. = 0.019, n=8), well below the detection limits employed at MBDS. Larsen et al. identified average cadmium levels in Penobscot Bay as 0-.44 ppm; Mystic Tiver Estuary as 0.41 ppm (from Lyons and Fitzgerald, 1980); Branford Harbor, CT as 1.16 (from Lyons and Fitzgerald, 1980); and eastern Long Island Sound as 2.7 ppm (from Greig et al., 1977). In summary, cadmium levels were below detection limits at MBDS-REF and MBDS-OFF, and were in low concentration on the dredged material mound. Other studies agree with these values as generally indicative of typical Massachusetts Bay levels of cadmium, at the 0-4 ppm levels; with pristine levels in the 0-1 ppm level. MDWPC (1978) classifications would rank all of these values as low or Class I since they are <5 ppm. Chromium Chromium enters the marine system from industrial waste (salts) and from corrosion control (chromate compounds) in cooling waters. Gilbert 112 (1976) reported chromium trace metal concentrations in the vicinity of MBDS at the 30 cm strata Capproximately 300-500 years old) as averaging 46.4 ppm (S.D. = 14.7, n=9). Barr (1987) indicated concentraLions of chromium in "clean sediments" as 63-100 ppm and moderate levels for dredged material disposal (MDWPC, 1978) range from 100 to 300 ppm. MBDS-REF chromium concentrations; in June 1985 were 70.3 ppm (S.D. 2.08, n=3),which were significantly (p <0.05) higher (Mann-Whitney U-test) than the January 1986 average of 64.3 ppm (S.D. = 0.58, n=3). This statistical significance represents the low relative percent variability in replicates 0.0% in June and 0.9% in January), and the 70.3 ppm and 64.3 ppm concentrations are quantitatively similar. In January, 1986 the chromium concentrations at MBDS-ON stations were statistically higher (p >0.05) than the reference samples. MBDS-OFF chromium concentrations were quantitatively similar to the reference area, averaging 72.0 ppm. (S.D. 1.0, n=3). Additionally, MBDS-OFF was not statistically different than MBDS-ON. The 1982 and 1983 MBDS reference sampling ranged 61-75 ppm. The 1982 reference samples averaged 68.5 ppm (S.D. = 5.4, n=6) and 1983 samples were 70.0 ppm (S.D. = 0, n=2). The six sampling cruises conducted by NMFS during 1979 to 1982 (NMFS, 1985) averaged 35.2 ppm (S.D. = 8.41, n=20) for chromium from an area approximately 10 kilometers south-southwest of the MBDS-ON station. Gilbert (1976) reported Massachusetts Bay chromium concentration ranging from 3-126 ppm. Stellwagen Basin samples from this study averaged 85.9 ppm (S.D. = 22.0, n=10). Gilbert's (1975) reference station had a 73 ppm chromium surficial concentration, 111 ppm at the 0-5 cm strata and 53 ppm in the 20-25 cm strata. Bothner et al. (1986) identified outer continental shelf levels of 50.9 ppm (S.D_.= 11.1, n=8). Larsen et al. (1983) identified chromium levels from 12 studies throughout New England as ranging from 16 ppm to 274 ppm. In summary, the dredged material disposal area at MBDS-ON had elevated chromium concentrations (115 ppm, S.D. = 22.4, n=5) compared to reference values. The statistically elevated MBDS-ON chromium value of .115 ppm falls into the moderate (100-200 ppm) category for dredged material classification. The reference area and the MBDS-OFF area (within MBDS but off dredged material) appears to be unimpacted by disposal, having an average value of 67.3 ppm (S.D. = 3.6, n=6). Copper Copper enters the marine system from industrial uses and applications as a biological control. Gilbert (1976) identified levels from the pre- industrial sediment strata (300-500 years old) at 30 cm as having an average copper value of 13.1 ppm (S.D. = 6.48, n=10). Barr (1987) 113 identified typical nearshore concentrations averaging 48 ppm, "clean" estuaries at 10 ppm, and polluted estuaries at 37-225 ppm. The MDWPC �r (1978) moderate dredged material classification is 200-400 ppm. MBDS-REF June 1985 copper data averaged 18.0 ppm (S.D. = 1, n=3); which was statistically, significantly lower than (Mann-Whitney U-test, p <0.05) the January 1986 MBDS-REF average of 26.7 ppm (S.D. = 0.57, n=3). Both values are quantitatively similar to the pre-industrial (Gilbert, 1976) range of 5.8 ppm to 26.2 ppm and are probably statistically different because of the low intrastation variability. MBDS-ON copper values ranged from 44 to 95 ppm with a mean of 69.8 ppm (S.D. = 18.6, n=6). The MBDS-OFF copper concentrations in September were significantly lower (Mann-Whitney U-test, P <0.05) than at MBDS-ON and similar to MBDS- REF, averaging 23.3 ppm (S.D. = 1.53, n=3). The January sampling however revealed that MBDS-ON concentrations were significantly higher than at MBDS-REF. .Copper values from the 1982 NED reference sampling ranged from 17 to 25 ppm, with an average of 20.5 ppm (S.D. = 2.7, n=6). The 1983 NED sampling reported reference values averaging 21.5 ppm (S.D. = 0.71, n=2). NMFS (1985) sampling program occupied stations 10 kilometers south- southwest of MBDS-ON sampled stations (1979-1982) which averaged 7.78 ppm (S.D. = 1.53, n=20) for copper. Gilbert (1976) identified copper values throughout Massachusetts Bay as ranging from 2.6 to 36.0 ppm, and average values for Stellwagen Basin were 20.3 ppm (S.D. = 7.28, n=10). Gilbert's (1975) Reference Station had a surficial copper concentration of 30 ppm, a 0-5 cm strata average of 49 ppm and 20-25 cm strata copper value of 14 ppm. Bothner et al. identified outer continental shelf copper values averaging 11.0 ppm (S.D. = 3.8, n=8). Average Penobscot Bay copper concentrations from 55 stations were 14.1 ppm (Larsen et al., 1983). In general, copper concentrations at MBDS-REF averaged 22.3 ppm (S.D. =48, n=6), comparable to-other studies of unimpacted areas and to the 300- 500 year old sediment strata value of 13.1 ppm (S.D. = 6.48, n=10) reported by Gilbert (1976). The dredged material disposal mound sediment copper concentration was statistically elevated in comparison to the reference area, having a 69.8 ppm (S.D..= 18.6, n=6) average. Copper concentrations at the unimpacted silty substrate within MBDS (MBDS-OFF) were significantly lower than at MBDS.-ON and comparable to the reference site, suggesting no impact from disposal activities within the site. All of these values including samples on the dredged material, fall into the low or Class I category of <200 ppm (MDWPC, 1978). Lead Lead enters the Massachusetts Bay system from industrial, mine or smelter discharge, and from combustion of leaded fuels. Pre-industrial 114 levels (30 cm strata) in the vicinity of MBDS (Gilbert, 1076) were estimated to be 31.1 ppm (S.D. = 25.3, n=10). Barr (1987) reported average nearshore lead concentrations as 20 ppm and "clean" estuary levels as 37 ppm. The Massachusetts guidelines for dredged material classification (MDWPC, 1978) identify moderate levels of lead in dredged material to range 100 to 200 ppm. MBDS-REF June 1985 lead concentrations averaged 41.3 ppm (S.D. 1.15, n=3) and the January 1986 average concentration was 97.0 ppm (S.D. 3.0, n=3). Statistical analysis (Mann-Whitney U-test) showed the June concentration to be,significantly (p <0.05) lower than the January concentrations. The intrastation variabilities do not account for this anomally, but the material in January still averages in Class I (MDWPC, 1978). MBDS-ON station lead concentrations within the area of dredge'd material disposal, were not temporally variable (Mann-Whitney U-test) averaging 156.8 ppm. (S.D. = 15.5, n=5) for June 1985 and January 1986 samples. Statistically this value is significantly (P <0.05) elevated in comparison with the reference area. MBDS-OFF (the station within MBDS boundary, but unimpacted by disposal) lead values are quantitatively similar to the reference areas, averaging 58.3 ppm (S.D. = 6.5, n=3). The September, 1985 sampling revealed no significant difference in lead. concentration between MBDS-ON (151 ppm) and MBDS-OFF (58 ppm). The January 1986 sampling indicated that the lead concentration at MBDS-ON (161 ppm) was significantly higher than at the MBDS-REF station (97 ppm). The 1982 NED reference sampling lead concentration averaged 37.0 ppm (S.D. = 16.8, n=5). NMFS (1985) sampling 10 kilometers south-southwest of MBDS-ON averaged 20.02 ppm. (S.D. = 3.67, n=20). Gilbert (.1976) identi- fied lead levels in Massachusetts Bay ranging from 6.0 ppm to 149.0 ppm from 32 stations. Average surficial lead concentrations in the vicinity of MBDS in that study were identified as 59.6 ppm (S.D. = 23.9, n=10). The Gilbert (1975) reference area approximately 2.5 kilometers south- southwest of MBDS contained a surficial lead concentration of 85 ppm; the 0-5 cm strata was 52 ppm and the 20-25 cm strata was 51 ppm. Bothner et. al (1986) reported outer continental shelf lead levels (Lydonia Canyon) as averaging 10.2 ppm (S.D. = 1.5, n=8). Larson et al. (1983) reported Penobscot Bay lead levels as averaging 23.5 ppm from 55 stations. In summary, lead levels are significantly elevated at the disposal area (MBDS-ON), averaging 156.8 ppm (S.D. = 15.5, n=5).as compared to the reference site. The reference sampling results indicate highly variable concentrations with regards to seasonality. The June 1985 MBDS-REF average of 41.3 ppm (S.D. = 1.15, n=3) and September 1985 MBDS-OFF average of 58:3 (S.D. = 6.5, n=3) appear to be unimpacted by dredged material disposal. The elevated MBDS-REF January 1986 lead concentration of 97.0 ppm (S.D. = 3.0, n=3) is anomonously elevated but within the Massachusetts Bay wide variability identified by Gilbert (1976), which ranged up to 149 ppm 20 kilometers south-southwest of MBDS. Comparing these values to the 115 MDWPC (1978) classification, the references area and the unimpacted area within MBDS would average Class I, while the dredged material area would fall into the Class II category. Mercury Mercury enters the marine system as organic and inorganic salts, often bound to organic matter and historically it was used in vessel bottom paints as a biological (fouling) control. Gilbert (1976) reported the 30cm horizon levels in the vicinity of MBDS (i.e. pre-industrial levels from 300-500 years ago) averaged 0.31 ppm (S.D. = 0.35, n=10) and the detection limit of 0.01 ppm was averaged as a whole value when exceeded. Barr (1978) reports average nearshore concebtritions of 0.1 to 0.4 ppm. MBDS mercury values for almost all stations were below instrument detection levels of 0.1 ppm to 0.05 ppm. The only detectable mercury levels determined in the 1985 to 1986 sampling pr ogram were in the January 1986 MBDS-ON samples. These were generally at or just above detection limits averaging 0.14 ppm (S.D. = 0.08, n=3). Similar results were obtained in the 1982 sampling by NED. Gilbert (1986) found mercury throughout Massachusetts Bay to range from below a 0.01 ppm detection limit to 5.5 ppm for 32 sites. That study averaged surficial mercury concentrations in the vicinity of MBDS as 0.21 ppm (S.D. = 0.1, n=10). Gilbert's (1975) reference area measured mercury in the 0-5 cm sediment strata as 1.2 ppm and as 0.32 ppm in the 20-25 cm strata. Bothner et al. measured outer continental shelf mercury as averaging 0.02 ppm (97D. = 0.007, n=8). In summary, mercury levels within MBDS and at adjacent reference areas were at background levels. MDWPC (1978) classification for dredged material would place all sites in the low or Class I category. Nickel. Nickel is-commonly used in industrial processes, herbicides and wood preservatives, or released through lead and copper alloy corrosion. Gilbert (1976) reported levels at the 30 cm sediment strata (300-500 year old strata), these data averaged 29.9 ppm (S.D. = 12.6, n=10). Barr (1987) reported average sediment nickel concentration to be 6-13 ppm. The MDWPC (1978) classifi'cation of.dredged material indicates 50 to 100 ppm is considered a moderate concentration. MBDS-REF sediment nickel concentrations averaged 33.3 ppm (S.D 1.5, n=3) in June of 1985 and was less than the 24 ppm detection limit in January 1986. MBDS-ON sediment samples had a September 1985 nickel average of 31 ppm (S.D. =,1.0, n=3) while in January 1986 this station had a <24 ppm replicate and replicates of 25 and 26 ppm. MBDS-OFF in September 1985 had all three replicates <24 ppm. 116 The NMFS (1985) sampling in the vicinity of Stellwagen Basin nickel sediment concentrations averaged 11.04 ppm (S.D. = 2.43, n=20). Cilbert (1976) identified nickel surficial sediment concentrations throughout Massachusetts Bay ranging from 3.7 ppm to 55.9 ppm at 32 stations. In the immediate vicinity of MBDS, surficial concentrations were identified by Gilbert (1976) as 32.8 ppm (S.D. = 12.8, n=10). Gilbert's (1975) reference site had surficial nickel concentrations of 57 ppm, 0-5 cm strata concentrations of 33 ppm and 20-25 cm strata concentrations of 31 ppm. Bothner et al. identified outer continental shelf nickel values that averaged 12.1 ppm@_(S.D. = 7.1, n=8). Larsen et al. identified nickel levels in Penobscot Bay as averaging 26.1 ppm-fr-om 55 stations. In summary, nickel values at MBDS-REF are within ambient ranges, pre- dominantly below the 24 ppm detection limit. This agrees with pre- industrial (300-500 years ago) sediment levels in Stellwagen Basin vicinity averaging 29.9 ppm (S.D. = 12.6, n=10). MBDS-ON is also at these levels. These results place all nickel data in the MDWPC (1978) low or Class I category. Zinc Zinc enters the marine environment from corrosion of galvanized iron and brass and from industrial discharges. Deeper sediments may release zinc from complexes with Fe and Mn (Barr, 1987). Gilbert (1976) reported zinc values from the 30 cm horizon (300-500 years old) in MBDS vicinity that averaged 128.6 ppm (S.D. = 89.5, n=10). Barr (1987) reported average nearshore concentrations as 55 ppm and "clean" estuary at 38 ppm, in contrast to a "polluted" estuary range of 50-600 ppm. MDWPC (1978) classification of dredged material lists 200-400 ppm as the moderate range. Statistical analysis identified that there was no significant difference (p <0.05) between sediment zinc concentrations at MBDS-REF in June 1985 and January 1986. The average zinc concentrations at MBDS-REF in 1985-1986 was 102.8 ppm (S.D. = 18.8, n=6). The January analysis revealed MBDS-ON zinc concentrations to be significantly elevated in both seasons in comparison to MBDS-REF. The average MBDS-ON zinc concentration for both September 1985 and January 1986 was 219.7 ppm (S.D. = 42.0, n=6). The MBDS-ON value was statistically higher than MBDS-OFF which averaged 105.0 ppm (S.D. = 2.0, n=3). The 1982 NED sampling at MBDS reported a reference area zinc sediment concentration averaging 159.8 ppm (S.D. 36.1, n=6). The 1983 NED reference sites averaged 160 ppm (S.D. 11.3, n=2). The NMFS (1985) data from an area iO kilometers south-southwest of MBDS averaged 37.12 ppm (S.D. = 5.49, n=20). Gilbert (1976) reported zinc concentrations throughout Massachusetts Bay as ranging from <9 ppm to 399.7 ppm (the latter in Cape Cod Bay). In MBDS vicinity, surficial sediment concentra- tions from Gilbert (1976) averaged 154.9 ppm (S.D. = 141.4, n=10). Gilbert (1975) reported reference area surficial zinc concentrations at 117 173 ppm; 0-5 cm strata at 165 ppm and 30-25 cm strata at 115 ppm. Bothner et al. (1986) reported outer continental shelf zinc values that,averaged 37.1 ppm (S.D. = 10.2, n=8). Larsen et al. (1983) reported Penobscott Bay zinc concentrations to average 78.3 ppm from 55 stations. In general, zinc concentrations at MBDS reference site are in good agreement with ambient Stellwagen Basin levels (Gilbert, 1976) averaging 102.8 ppm (S.D. = 19.8, n=6). The dredged material area (MBDS-ON) has a statistically significant higher concentration of zinc, averaging 219.7 ppm (S.D. =42, n=6), than the reference area and the unimpacted area within the disposal boundary (MBDS-OFF). MBDS-ON average concentration would be classified as moderate or Class 11 (200-400 ppm) according to the dredged material classification guidelines of MDWPC (1978). Summary - Metals Recent and historical sediment chemistry determinations have identified various areas of Massachusetts Bay as depositional areas for fine-grained particulates eminating throughout the system (Gilbert, 1976). Quiescent deepwater basins, such as Stellwagen Basin, are usually such areas. The 1985-1987 chemical sampling program has identified a reference area (MBDS-REF) that is unimpacted by trace metals from dredged material disposal. The disposal point itself (MBDS-ON) from within MBDS, shows statistically significant elevations in concentrations of chromium, copper, lead and zinc, as compared to the reference area. These metals reflect the most recent dredged material inputs and are generally in the moderate (Cr, Pb, and Zn) to low (As, Cu, Cd, Hg, and NO contamination categories of dredged material classification (MDWPC, 1978). The MBDS-OFF area, within MBDS boundary but spatially remote from the dredged material disposal mound, has levels that are comparable to the reference area. Therefore, significant elevations of metal contaminants are restricted to the point of disposal, and not impacting the FAD-OFF or reference areas. b. Organic Chemicals Carbon (total organic), DDT (Dichloro Diphenyl-Trichloroethane), hydrogen, nitrogen, oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons), and PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyl Compounds) were measured at MBDS during the various sampling cruises (Table 3.B.2-2). Ammonia, Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen Total organic carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and ammonia are indicative of the organic state of the substrate. Ammonia concentrations were measured at 189.0 ppm (S.D. = 8.0, n=3) at MBDS-REF in June 1985. Total organic carbon values at MBDS-REF in June 1985 and January 1986 averaged 2.67% (S.D. = 0.06, n=6). MBDS-ON in September 1985 and January 1986 averaged 3.05% (S.D. = 0.26, n=6). MBDS-OFF was similar to MBDS-REF with the average total organic carbon being 2.70% (S.P. 0.01, n=3). These 118 values are in good agreement with Boehm et al. (1984) who described total organic carbon within MBDS as 2.75% (S.D. = 0.13, n=5), but elevated in comparision with the rest of Massachusetts Bay values in that study. The Boehm et al. (1984) station 11 kilometers south of MBDS averaged 1.7% (S.D. = 0.12, n=5) and another station 18.5 kilometers southeast of MBDS averaged 0.96% (S.D. = 0.13, n=5). Low carbon to nitrogen ratio's are indicative of the quality of organic matter available for biotic metabolism. MBDS-REF (June 1985 and January 1986) C:N averaged 8.6 (S.D. = 0.08, n=6), lower than MBDS-ON (September 1985 and January 1986) average value of 11.6 (S.D. = 1.4, n=6), but in good agreement with MBDS-OFF (September 1985) C:N of 8.7 (S.D. = 0, n=3). The April 1983 NED reference sampling exhibited similar results with an 8.8 (S.D. =0, n=2) C:N ratio and the 1982 reference data were intermediate with an average of 10.2 (S.D. =0.32, n=6). Oil and Crease Oil and grease determinations are a general measure of biological lipids and mineral (biological and petroleum) hydrocarbons that are soluble in trichloro-trifluoroethane. This is a parent group of organic hydrocarbons. Dredged material is considered as having a moderate contaminant levels of these compounds when composed of 0.5-1.0% (5,000 - 10,000 ppm) oil and grease (MDWPC, 1978). MBDS-REF oil and grease sediment values in June 1985 and January 1986 averaged 285 ppm (S.D. = 87.0, n=5). Statistical analysis revealed MBDS- -ON September 1985 and January 1986 oil and grease to be statistically elevated (p<0.05) in comparison to MBDS-REF. MBDS-OM sediment oil and grease averaged'1763.3 ppm (S.D.=421.6, n=6). MBDS-OFF, the area within MBDS boundary but off dredged material, was statistically (p<0.05) similar to MBDS-REF having an average of 306 ppm (S.D. = 131, n=3). The April 1983 NED sampling of MBDS had a reference area oil and grease average of 262 ppm (S.D. = 28.3, n=2). Gilbert (1975) reported a reference area surficial oil and grease concentration of 170 ppm, an anomalously high 0-5 cm strata concentration of 1,070 ppm and a 0-25 cm strata concentration of 880 ppm. In general, the disposal area is characterized by statistically significant (p <0.05) elevations of oil and grease (avg. = 1763.3 ppm, S.D. = 421.6, n=6) in comparison to the reference area (avg. = 285 ppm, S.D. = 87.0, n=5). The area within MBDS but off dredged material averaged 306 ppm (S.D. = 131, n=3) indicating this area is statistically (p <0.05) similar to the reference site and both are generally unimpacted by disposal of dredged material. All samples from MBDS fall within the low or Class I (MDWPC, 1978) oil and grease classification of <0.5%. 119 Petroleum Hydrocarbons Petroleum hydrocarbons are a subset of oil and grease determinations, specifically those organic compounds of petroelum origin. A majority of sediment oil and grease determinations can be expected to be of petroleum origin in combination with biological iipids. MBDS-REF petroleum hydrocarbon levels averaged 244.4 ppm (S.D. 112.9, n=5). MBDS-ON had statistically (Mann-Whitney U Test, p <0.05) a higher average of 1513 ppm (0.15%, S.D. = 302.6, n=6). MBDS-OFF was similar to the reference area at 327 ppm (S.D. = 10, n=3). The petroleum hydrocarbon levels at the reference area and MBDS-OFF are in good agreement with other data from unimpacted New England areas. Sites in lower Narragansett Bay/Rhode Island Sound had levels reported in the range of 100-300 ppm (Pruell and Quinn, 1985; Wade and Quinn 1979, Boehm and Quinn, 1978). The disposal area is impacted with statistically elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, but, as indicated by the MDWPC (1978) classification of oil and grease, the petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations are quantitatively low. PAH .Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) are a measure of the aromatic fraction of the petroleum hydrocarbons. PAH, by definition, are molecules composed of carbon and hydrogen atoms arranged in one or more six-carbon rings. As such, this grouping encompasses a large family of compounds, 16 of which are considered priority pollutants. Concentrations of total PAHs were below detection levels at MBDS-REF in June 1985. In October, 1987, a priority pollutant scan, including base/neutrals and acids (see Table 3B.2-4) was conducted for nine sites across MBDS (see Figure 3.B.2-2). Of the 603 chemical determinations (including 16 priority pollutant PAH), only fluoranthene was detected, at 0.51 ppm at one station (detection limit =0.33 ppm), the site of most recent disposal. Additionally, at this station,the plasticizer Di-n-butylphthalate was present at 0.44 ppm (defection limited = 0.33 ppm) and Bis (2 ethylehexyl) phthalate at 7.2 ppm (detection limit = 0.33 ppm). Boehm et al. (1984) identified total PAH levels within MBDS as averaging 3.5 ppm (S.D. = 1.0, n=5). At a station 11 kilometers south of MBDS PAH concentrations were 1.5 ppm (S.D. =0.1, n=5) and 18.5 kilometers southeast of MBDS,. PAH levels were recorded at 1.9 ppm (S.D. = 0.1, n=5). Worldwide, PAH determinations are being conducted as a measure of anthropogenic stress on the marine environment (Smith, 1985). PAH concen- trations are directly related to grain size and total organic carbon con- tent of the sediments (Larsen et al., 1986). Johnson and Larsen (1985), identified total PAH concentraTTo'ns from 49 stations in the Penobscot Bay region of the Gulf of Maine as ranging from 0.286 to 8.784 ppm. Offshore 120 PAH concentrations from 19 stations in the Gulf of Maine ranged from 0.010 to 0.512 ppm (Larsen et al., 1986.) with basin areas (Wilkinson and Jordan) acting as accumulation areas. Two transport mechanisms for PAH into the marine system are offered by Windsor and Hites (1979) as sediment resuspension and transport and atmospheric transport. Hite (1979) identified total PAH levels ranging from 0.018 ppm for deep ocean sediments to 120 ppm. for sediments in Boston Harbor (Charles-River vicinity). That study also identified elevated levels of PAH in Wilkinson Basin, attributing it to the fine particulate settling nature of the basin. This is the same hypothesis Gilbert (1976) put forth on Stellwagen Basin, i.e., metals would be elevated due to the fine particulate "sink" that basin areas represent. Acey et al. (1987) and Pruell and Quinn (1985) describe di-n-butyl phthalate TD-k-BP) and di-ethylhexyl phthalates as the predominant molecular forms of Dialkylphthalates, widespregd in the environment with annual worldwide production rates of 5 x 10 kg/yr. This study also describes .embryonic sensitivities to certain phthalates in solution, low toxicities to adult organisms and a biomagnification potential. The impact/importance of the levels reported for dredged materials of MBDS are not known. Biotoxicity tests performed prior to any disposal activity are used as safeguards against DNBP and synergistic effects. In summary, PAH compounds were not detected in significant levels at the reference station for MBDS in June 1985 or October 1987. Testing of sediment samples on dredged material and at nine different sites through- out MBDS only revealed PAH at the site of recent dredged material disposal, 0.51 ppm of flouranthene. Additionally this site contained 7.64 ppm of phthalate compounds. PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls are organic compounds manufactured industrially between 1929 and 1977. Their chemical stability made them an attractive industrial dielectric coolant and lubricant, as well as giving them environmental persistence. There are approximately 210 different chemical isomers that were commercially combined to form "Arochlors", a commercial U.S. trade name. PCB levels in dredged material are considered by DWPC (1978).as moderate in the 0.5 ppm to 1.0 ppm range. Historical levels of sediment PCB would be zero since it is a man made compound. PCB levels analyzed at MBDS-REF in June 1985 and January 1986 averaged 0.061 ppm (S.D. = 0.062 ppm, n=6) indicating a highly variable (and low) concentration. PCB levels were statistically elevated (ANOVA, p <0.05) on the disposal mound, MBDS-ON in September 1985 and January 1986 averaging 0.784 ppm (S.D. = 0.559, n=6), also highly variable data. Statistically, (ANOVA, p <0.05) the September 1985 samples were higher in 121 PCB concentrations than the January 1986 sample. Within MBDS but off dredged material (MBDS-OFF) showed similarly variable data to the Is reference area, although it is quantatively elevated, averaging 0.336 ppm (S.D. = 0.3745, n=3). The variability of PCB values have been well documented in other NED studies (SAIC, 1985). A specific question was raised in the course of this program as to whether the PCB levels on dredged material (in the vicinity of MBDS-ON) was statistically elevated in comparison to those levels off dredged material, but within the boundary of MBDS (in the vicinity of MBDS-OFF). Five random samples from each site were analyzed and the non-impacted region of MBDS averaged 0,073 ppm: (S.D. = 0.065, n=5), while the area impacted by dredged material averaged 0.414 ppm (S.D. 0.403, n=5). Statisticallyq there was not' a difference in concentration between the sites (p =.0.65 on log transformed data)i because of the high variability (89.0% and 97.3%, respectively). Gilbert (1976) identified PCB ranges throughout,the,Mass/Cape.Cod Bay System as ranging from <0.00032 ppm to 0.018 ppm from 32 stations. Surficial sediment PCB concentrations reported by Gilbert (1976) in the vicinity of MBDS averaged 0.0061 (S.D. = 0.0052, n=10) also having highly variable (85.2%) data. Gilbert (1975) identified surficial PCB levels at 0.021 ppm; 0-5cm strata 0.030 ppm and the 20-25 cm strata at 0.009 ppm. Boehm et al. identified PCB levels within MBDS as averaging 0.0829 ppm@(S.D. =@_0.6116, n=5); an area 11 kilometers south of MBDS averaging 0.0253 ppm (S.D. = 0.0036, n=5) and an area 18.5 kilometers southeast of MBDS averaging 0.007 ppm (S.D. = 0.0021, n=5). In summary, PCB levels are highly variable throughout MBDS. Reference levels averaging 0.061 ppm (S.D. = 0.062 ppm, n=6) are indicative of ambient Stellwagen Basin values. The disposal area (MBDS- ON) contained elevated PCB concentrations of 0.784 ppm (S.D. = 0.559, n=6). Sampling to date has not resolved whether there is a statistical difference between MBDS PCB levels on or off dredged material within MBDS, owing to the variability in data. It is quantatively probable that the 0.414 ppm (S.D. = 403, n=5) PCB level on dredged material is elevated in comparison to the 0.073 ppm (S.D. = 0.,065, n=5) value off dredged material, but within MBDS. Overall, the reference area and MBDS would be well within the low or Class I MWPC (1978) category. The disposal mound average of 0.41.4 ppm is also Class I, but its range has one replicate at 1.04 ppm, or Class III value. Summary - Organics Organic chemical investigations at MBDS indicate elevated organics constituents at the disposal area, but ambient concentrations at the reference sites and in areas within MBDS but off dredged material. Carbon to nitrogen ratios averaged 11.6 (S.D. = 1.4, n=6) for the disposal mound, and 8.6 (S.D. 0.008, n=6) for the reference site, which was equal to the 122 unimpacted site within MBDS at 8.7 (S.D. = 0, n=3). Oil and grease levels were low (<0.5%) but statistically (p <0.05) elevated at the disposal area at 1763.3 ppm (S.D. = 421.6, n=6), in comparison with the reference sedi- ment concentration of 285 ppm (S.D. = 87.0, n=5) and the unimpacted area within the site averaging 306 ppm (S.D. = 131, n=3). Petroleum hydrocar- bons were also quantitatively low but elevated on the dredged material site at 1513 ppm (S.D. = 302.6, n=6) compared to reference levels of 244.4 ppm (S.D. = 112.9, n=5) and MBDS-OFF of 327 ppm (S.D. = 10, n=3). PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) compounds were undetectable throughout the study area except for 0.51 ppm of flouranthene at a site of recent disposal. Phthalate compounds, a plasticizer was also detectable here at 7.64 ppm. PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) compounds were highly variable in concentration with disposal area values averaging 0.414 ppm (S.D. = 403, n=5) and unimpacted areas within MBDS averaging 0.073 ppm (S.D. = 0.065, n=5). Reference area PCB concentrations reflected the "settling basin" nature of Stellwagen Basin averaging 0.061 ppm (S.D. 0.062, n=6) quantitatively similar to MBDS-OFF values. 123 on nAM 070 N.M MASS. BAY -t- I . I+ & & + + + Mercatw Pi%ojection . Scale.- 1124000 '7 Skew. 000 deg& & '7 + 14 ib 18 110 1 A 3 5 7 9 11 13 Is 17 19 N J.M on 34.M oil 1.0m Figure 3.B.2-1 W'S LI 1. ti Of the "quickllook" REMOTSCd survey. The-circile encloses the S 1) C),3,1 1 a r e a .The hatched area represents the distribution of observed I exhibiting Stage I dredqed iraterial and the dashed lines enclose regions serC"s. Stations identified for box cores (BRAT studies) are enclosed in a square; benthic community sample locations are indicated by a large triangle. The southeast reference site is marked with an x (18-17). A)SAI Figure 3.B.2-2 MBDs BoundarU F01 F02 F03 F04 F05 F07 0* F06 F011 0 FGIO FOS D BUDY BHJ M81 M82 17-1 F012 F013 Fft F015@ AM F016 F014 F018 F01 9 F021 F017 00 FM F024 F020 AON EPA Sediment Stations COE Sediment Stations M Body Burden Stations 42*20: N 'A 700M V rF;F; F 125 Table 3.B.2-1 Trace Metal Concentrations in MBDS Sediment Samples Concentrations as ppm Dry Weight MBDS - REF MBDS-REF MBDS-OFF MBDS-ON MBDS-ON June 1985 January 1986 September 1985 September 1985 September 1985 Arsenic 11.3 + 2.31 12.1 + 1.3 10 + 1 12 + 4 13.3 + 0.7 Lead 41.3 + 1.2 97 + 58 + 7 1512 161 +-17 Zinc 95.3 + 6 110 + 28 105 + 1 233 + 15 206 + 60 Chromium 70.3 + 2.1 64 + 1 72 + 1 134 102 + 9 Copper 18.0 + 1.0 27 + l 23 + 2 75 + 27 64 + 5 Cadmium <4 <3 <3 4 <3 Nickel 33.3 + 1.5 <24 <24 31 + 1 26 Mercury <0.05 N.A. <0.1 <O.Ul N.A. Mean + standard deviation of 3 analyses. 2 Mean of duplicate analyses, one replicate an apparent outlier. N.A. Not analyzed. 126 Table 3.B.2.-2 organic Analysis Results of MBDS Sediment Samples Concentrations As Dry Weight MBDS - REF MBDS - REF MBDS - OFF MBDS - ON MBDS ON June 1985 January 1986 September 1985 September 1985 January 1986 Total Carbon, % 2.54 + 0.01 2.69 + 0.09 2.70 + 0.01 3.17 + 0.36 2.94 + 0.05 Total Hydrogen, % 0.71 + 0.05 0.72 + 0.02 0.67 + 0.01 0.61 + 0.06 0.68 + 0.04 Total Nitrogen, % 0.31 + 0.00 0.31 + 0.02 0.30 + 0.00 0.25 + 0.03 0.28 + 0.01 Ammonia,- ppm 189 + 8 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Oil and Grease, ppm 201 341 + 28 306 + 131 1960 + 480 1560 + 300 Petroleum Hydrocarbons, 2 PPM 121 327 + 10 195 + 55 1640 + 390 1390 + 172 PAH, ppm <3 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. PCB, ppb 75 + 92 48 + 30 4952 1240 + 400 329 + 26 DDT, ppb <1 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. See Table 3.B.2-1 for explanation of notes. 127 Table j.B.2-3 Total PCB Concentrations In Randomly Selected Sediment Samples From MBDS, January 1986 Concentrations As ppb Dry Weight On Dredged Natural Soft Bottom Material 29 66 151 54 136 490 30 1040 20 420 73 + 651 414 + 403 Mean + Standard Deviation. 128 Table 3.B.2-4 PAH (Base/lieutrals and Acids) Analyses from MBDS and Ambient Areas (Note: 14-9 is an area of recent deposition of dredged material) DAMOS - MBDS 1987 Detection FG-23 FC-9 12-0 FC-11 MBDS-REF 17-14 SE 14-9 16-11 Parameter Limits 2953 2955 2958 2961 18-17 2991 3004 3008 3013 ug/Kg Phenol 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 'Bis (2-chlor- oethyl) ether 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2-Chlorophenol 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzyl alcohol 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2-Methylphenol 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 440 ND Bis(2-chloro- isopropy)ether 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 510 ND 4-Methylphenol 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND N-Nitroso-di-n- propylamine 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 129 Hexachloroethane 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Nitrobenzene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Isophrene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND .2-Nitrophenol 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 7200 ND 2,4-Dimethylphenol 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzoic acid 1600 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Bis(2-chloro ethoxy)methane 330 ND ND ND- ND ND ND ND ND ND 2,4-Dichlorophenol 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,2,4-Tri-chlorobenze 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Aniline 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Napthalene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 4-Chloroaniline 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND @ND Hexachlorobutadiene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 4-Chloro-3- methylphenoi 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2-Methylnapthalene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Hexachlorocyc- lopentadiene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 130 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 1600 ND ND ND ND ND ND @ND ND ND 2-Chloronaphthalene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2-Nitroaniline 1600 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dimethyl phthalate 330 ND ND. ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Aceaphthylene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 3-Nitroaniline 1600 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND RD ND Acenaphthene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2,4-Dinitrophenol 1600 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 4-Nitrophenol .1600 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dibenzofuran 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2,6-Dinitrotoiuene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Diethylphthalate 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 4-Chlorophenyl- phenylether 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Fluorene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 4-Nitroaniline 1600 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 4,6-Dinitro-2- methylphenol 1600 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 131 N-Nitrosodip- henylamine 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 4-Bromophenyl- phenylether 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Hexachlorobenzene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Pentachlorophenol 1600 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Phenanthrene 330 ND ND ND @ND ND ND ND ND ND Anthracene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Di-n-butylphthalate 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Flouranthene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND N-Nitrosodimethylamine 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Pyrene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Butylbenzylphthalate 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 660 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzo (a) anth.racene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Bis (Bethylhexyl) phthalate 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Chrysene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Di-n-octyl phthalate 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzo (b) fluoranthene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 132 Benzo (k) fluoranthene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzo (a) pyrene 3.30 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dibenz (a, h) anthracene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzo (g, h, i) perylene 330 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND = not detected Cannot be separated from diphenylamine 133' Table 3.B.2.-5 BULK SEDIMENT TESTING PARAMETER METHOD DETECTION LIMIT Total Organic Carbon Total Organic Carbon Analyzer 1.0% Water Gravimetric 1.0% Volatile Solids NED 1.0% Petroleum Hydrocarbons Freon Extraction, Infrared 0.01% Oil & Grease Freon Extraction, Infrared 0.01% Mercury - Hg Acid Permanganate Digestion, 0.1 ppm Flameless Atomic Absorption Arsenic - As Gaseous Hydride, Atomic 1.0 ppm Absorption Spect. Lead - Pb Acid Peroxide Digestion, 20.0 ppm Atomic Absorption Spect. Zinc - Zn Acid Peroxide Digestion, 20.0 ppm Atomic Absorption Spect. Cadmium Cd Acid Peroxide Digestion, 1.0 Ppm Atomic Absorption Spect. Chromium Cr Acid Peroxide Digestion, 20.0 ppm Atomic Absorption Spect. Copper - Cu Acid Peroxide Digestion, 20.0 ppm Atomic Absorption Spect. Nickel - Ni Acid Peroxide Digestion, 30.0 ppm Atomic Absorption Spect. Total PCB's Extraction, Cas Chromatography 0.05 ppm Grain Size Sieves #4, 10, 40, 200 0.1% Reference: Plumb, A.H., Jr., 1981. "Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediments and Water Samples," Technical Report EPA/CE-81-1, prepared by Great Lakes Laboratory, State University College at Buffalo, N.Y., for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material. Published by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg Mississippi. Bulk sediment metals and PCB data are expressed in ppm or ppb based on dry weight of sample. 134 3.B.2.C Grain Size Grain size analysis of" sediments at. MBDS was performed on each biological grab obtained. This a[Lowed for repticaLe sediment. grain sive resutts, as well as identifying reasons for excessive intrastation biological variability, if any was encountered. The median sediment grain size for 12 samples taken at the reference site (MBDS-REF), in 86.7 meters of water, was 0.013mm. (S.D.=0.003). This represents a substrate composed (98%) of medium to fine silt (6-;7 phi). The natural bottom station within MBDS, but off any disposed dredged material (MBDS-OFF), in 87.9 meters of water, exhibited a median grain size from 7 samples of 0.012mm (S.D.=0.004). This is also a substrate composed (98%) of medium to fine silt (6-7 phi). The substrate in the dredged material disposal area consisted of sediments representative of' the most recent deposition from various New England harbors. The median grain size from the station located on dredged material (MBDS-ON), 85.5 meters deep, was 0.042mm (n=8, S.D.=0.022). This represents a coarse Silt substrate (4-4.5 phi). In September 1985, the disposal area had a 14% sand or coarser composition (n=3, S.D.=5.3), while in January 1986, the sand or coarser composition was 35.8% (n=5, S.D.=8.6). This phenomonon can be attributed to microscale sampling variability, bioturbation, or subsequent disposal occurrences, given the quiescent nature of the currents and the consistency of grain size at MBDS-REF and MBDS-OFF. The sandy area in the shallower (65.1 meters deep) northeast quadrant of the disposal circle (MBDS-NES) had a median grain size of 2.71 mm (n=3, S.D.=1.6). This represents a granular substrate (-1.25 to -1.5 phi). The sand reference (MBDS-SRF) station east of the disposal site boundary in 46 to 66 meters of water, had a median grain size of 1.1mm (n=6, S.D.- 0.72). This variable sand/granule area has a very coarse sand composition (0 to -0.25 phi). Two stations sampled by New England Aquarium (NEA) in 1975 (Gilbert, 1976) had similar depth and grain.size distribution as onsite and the reference area at MBDS. These stations, NEA 9 and NEA 12 were respectively located 5.5 km northwest and 6 km south-southwest of the center of MBDS, or approximately 4krn outside of the MBDS boundary. Station NEA 9 was in 76.5 meters of water and NEA 12 was in 79.5 meters of water, each having a predominant grain size greater than 5.0 phi. The control station (NEA-6) sampled by New England Aquarium in 1974 (Gilbert, 1975) had a sediment composition of 30% fine sand (4 phi) and 70% silts (greater than 5 phi) for the 20 to 25 cm strata; and 15% 4 phi and 85% greater than 5 phi in the 20 to 25 cmm strata. This station was located approximately 3.5 km southwest of the center of MBDS, 1.5 km southwest of the site boundary. 135 3.B.3. Biotic Residues The uptake of contaminants from the abiotic environment (sediment and water column) into the tissues of indigenous organisms results from trophic (feeding) uptake or biomagnification, and direct contaminant ingestion or passive absorption (bioconcentration). This bioaccumulation of contaminants was measured at MBDS by examining the tissue concentration (residue) of contaminants in various organisms. The results and values are an indication of the ultimate mobility of the contaminants from the disposed dredged material into the biotic environment. The rates and mechanisms of uptake vary differently from species to species and therefore values reported here should only be considered as broadly indicative of contaminant bioavailability to a particular species of a certain feeding mode. The target species analyzed at MBDS were the result of their presence in sufficient biomass density to allow a reasonably efficient collection. The suite of chemicals analyzed required approximately 15 grams wet weight of tissue for each speciIs at each station. This resulted in a 150-200 grab sample (0.01 m Smith-McIntyre) per station effort to obtain sufficient tissue for analysis. Even this sampling effort failed to produce all samples and replicates optimally desired. At MBDS the species analyzed at each station were the polychaete Nephtys incisa and the bivalve Astarte spp. (Astarte undata and Astarte crenatus) except for MBDS-ON which did not contain any Astarte sp. Additionally opportunistic samples of shrimp, Pandalus borealis and scallop Placopecten magellanicus were analyzed. Nephtys incisa is a free- burrowing, non-selective deposit feeder that ingests sediment as it moves through the substrate. Astarte sp. burrow to just under the sediment s@rface and filter feed using short siphons to ingest and expel food items in the overlying water column. Both can be considered residents of the sampling stations. Neither were the numeric dominant in terms of benthic community structure (see Section 3.0, but as stated previously, they were present in sufficient biomass density to analyze. The shrimp and scallops were analyzed to be,representative of commercially important organisms that use the basin and general disposal site vicinity. Samples were collected and analyzed using methods similar to the procedures recommended for bioassay/bioaccumulation testing required to obtain an ocean disposal permit for a particular project (EPA/COE, 1977). Some modifications were employed, to increase accuracy, as outlined in Tables 3.3.3 - 19 and 20. The partitioning of chemicals into biotic tissue in the environment is a highly variable phenomenon. It is inherently dependent on the age, 136 physiological metabolism, reproductive status and lipid content of the organisms analyzed. The analytical limitations also impart variability to the data. For these reasons, statistical analyses of the biotic residue results at MBDS are minimal, and quantifications are generalized. The large replicate variabilities (in general) forbid strict statistical interpretation, since interstation results would be easily correlated. Metals Approximately 200 chemical determinations of tissue trace metal content in Nephtys incisa were obtained (see Tables 3.B.3-1 through 5). These are triplicate analyses, where possible. The bivalves Astarte sp. and Platopecten sp. were analyzed by 54 data points (Tables 3.B.3-7 and 8) and shrimp Pandalus borealis by 18 data points. Scheffe test results of ANOVA statistics, however, on log transformed data only indicated cadmium tissue levels at the sand reference site in September were statistically higher than the other stations. This value however was the mean of a duplicate anlaysis. Arsenic Reference area (MBDS-REF) arsenic residue in Nephtys incisa ranged from 5.03 ppm to 89.7 ppm dry weight. The MBDS-ON data were lower at 17.7 ppm to 18.9 ppm and MBDS-OFF analysis reported 31.0 ppm. Sandy reference substrate (MBDS-SRF) Nephtys incisa had values in the 21.2 ppm to 58.7 ppm range and MBDS-NES averaged 36.5 ppm. Bivalve arsenic concentrations ranged from 6.16 ppm (scallop) to 23.6 ppm (Astarte sp) and shrimp tissue ranged from 0.15 ppm on dredged material (MBDS-ON) to 0.29 ppm for MBDS- REF. These ranges indicate no quantitative differences in the arsenic residue levels from organisms on dredged material in comparison to various reference locations. The highest reported value of 89.7 ppm (S.D.=6.7, n=3) dry weight convert to 17.8 ppm (S.D. = 0.3,,n=1) wet weight for Nephtys incisa, at MBDS-REF in January 1986. These values are all quantatiTe-lylow, with Murray and Norton (1982) reporting invertebrate arsenic levels in the 0.6 to 150 ppm wet weight range, and finfish at <0.2 ppm to 26 ppm. Maria et al. (1986) reported arsenic residues in molluscs ranging from eight to T2 -ppm dry weight and in finfish of 0.6 to 6 ppm dry weight. EPA (1985) health assessment documentation for inorganic arsenic lists 50 ug/day as typical dietary intakes. .In summary, arsenic levels in biotic tissues from dredged material disposal areas are not elevated above ambient concentrations at MBDS. The levels recorded for this study are not quantitatively elevated in comparison to other data. Arsenic tissue residues in invertebrates ranged from 3 to 18 ppm wet weight. 137 Lead MBDS-REF lead levels in Nephtys incisa ranged from 3.84 to 4.54 ppm dry weight. On dredged material, lead residues ranged from 3.27 to 6.08 ppm MBDS-OFF ranged from 4.69 to 9.6 ppm while the sand reference organisms ranged 1.01 ppm to 7.56 ppm with MBDS-NES at 7.6 ppm. Analysis of Nephtys incisa from recently deposited material showed on dredged material averaging 6.93 ppm (S.D. = 3.54, n=3) with remote areas ranging from 5.93 to 6.23 ppm dry weight. Bivalves contained lead levels on and off MBDS in the 0.245 ppm to 1.76 ppm range, the lower value from one scallop sample obtained on dredged material. The highest lead value reported was off dredged material (MBDS-OFF) in September 1987, at 9.6 ppm dry weight. The 6.08 ppm dry weight value from MBDS-ON in September 1985 converts to 1.09 ppm wet weight. Gilbert (1976) reported Nephtys lead concentrations from 19 stations throughout the Gulf of Maine as ranging from 5 to 24 ppm wet weight with stations in the vicinity of MBDS averaging 8.67 ppm (S.D. = 0.58, n=3). The bivalve Arctica islandica was measured by Phillips et al. (1987) to contain 0.103 ppm to 7.86 ppm dry weight from the outer continental shelf. Lead residues ranged from <0.2 ppm wet wieght to 1.2 ppm wet weight in invertebrates (shellfish) from coastal England And from <0.1 to 0.2 ppm wet weight for finfish there (Murray and-Nortono 1982). In summary, there were no significant differences among lead residue levels for the reference areas versus the dredged material disposal areas. Generally invertebrate tissue levels were all in the 0.7-1.2 ppm wet weight range. Zinc MBDS-REF zinc tissue residue data ranged from 177 to 202 ppm dry weight with MBDS-ON ranging from 181 to 216 ppm. MBDS-OFF zinc dry weight concentration was 233 ppm, while sand stations in the vicinity had Nephtys incisa zinc residues of 58.8 to 244 ppm dry weight. Bivalves ranged 59.8 to 89.3 ppm in dry weight tissue levels. Gilbert (1976) identified zinc residues in Nephtys incisa at 19 stations throughout Massachusetts Bay as ranging from 31 to 137 ppm wet weight. In the vicinity of MBDS, wet weight values from Gilbert (1976) were identified as averaging 51 ppm (S.D. = 10.6, n=3). Phillips et al. (1987) identified zinc residues (dry weight) in Arctica islandica as ranging from 71.5 to 172 ppm. Murray and Norton (1982 listed invertebrate zinc wet weight as ranging from 15 to 410 ppm and finfish residue from 2.9 to 6.5 ppm. In summary, zinc tissue residue levels are not different from organisms off dredged material in comparision to organisms on dredged material. Zinc residue levels are generally from the range of 30 to 40 ppm wet weight or 60 to 240 ppm dry weight for Nephtys incisa. Bivalve concentrations ranged 60 to 90 ppm dry weight. 138 Chromium MBDS-REF chromium levels in Nephtys incisa ranged from 0.54 to 0.69 ppm dry weight (0.12 to 0.18 ppm wet weight). On dredged material chromium residues ranged from 0.8 to 1.4 ppm dry weight (0.16 to 0.25 ppm wet weight). MBDS-OFF had dry weight chromium levels at 0.65 ppm while the MBDS-SRF and MBDS-NES ranged from 0.8 to 0.93 ppm. Bivalve chromium levels at MBDS ranged 0.8 to 2.1 ppm dry weight. Gilbert (1976) identified Nephtys sp. chromium tissue levels throughout Massachusetts Bay as ranging from 1.1 to 4.8 ppm wet weight and stations in the vicinity of MBDS as,having an average of 1.7 ppm (S.D. 0.2, n=3) value. Phillips et al. identified outer continental shelf bivalve (Arctica islandica) concentrations ranging from 1.22 to 4.45 ppm dry weight. In summary, the 0.12 to 0.65 ppm wet weight concentrations in Nephtys incisa are characteristic of low chromium concentrations. Dry weight ranges were from 0.64 to 1.39 ppm in Nephtys. Organisms sampled from dredged material do not exhibit any significant elevation over organisms from reference-areas. In comparision to earlier work (Gilbert, 1976) the present values are lower than historic ones, which could be a function of analytical advances. Copper MBDS-REF copper residue concentrations in Nephtys incisa ranged from 6.30 ppm to 9.75 ppm dry weight. MBDS-ON had similar levels ranging from 9.66 to 15.7 ppm dry weight. MBDS-OFF ranged from 7.8 to 14.1 ppm while the sandier stations ranged from 7.42 to 10.1 ppm. The September 1987 sampling of Nephtys incisa from recently deposited dredged material had 7.3 ppm (S.D. = 1.31, n=3) concentration, while areas I and 4 kilometers remote from MBDS had dry weight values of 11.9 ppm (S.D. = 2.1, n=3) and 13.4 ppm (S.D. = 2.57, n=3) respectively. Bivalve levels ranged from 0.87 ppm to 14.2 ppm dry weight, urith the former representing scallop concentrations on dredged material and the latter value is Astarte spp. at MBDS-REF. Gilbert (1976) identified Nephtys sp. wet weight tissue.concentration of copper at 19 stations throughout Massachusetts Bay as ranging from 1.0 to 8.6 ppm, with stations in the vicinity of MBDS having an average of 2.3 ppm (S.D. = 0.66, n=3). Arctica islandica dry weight concentrations from the outer continental shelf (Phillips et al. 1987) ranged from 4.19 to 13.6 ppm. Murray and Norton (1982) descrTbed coastal invertebrates from England as having a 1.3 to 254 ppm dry weight copper concentration, with finfish ranging 0.4 to 1.4 ppm. In summary, MBDS-REF Nephtys incisa tissue residue copper levels of 1.3 to 2.5 ppm wet weight are quantitatively similar to those organisms from MBDS-ON, 2.00-2.76 ppm and other stations in this study. These 139 values are in good overall agreement with Gilbert's (1976) range for Massachusetts Bay and Phillips (1987) outer continental shelf bivalve concentrations. Cadmium MBDS-REF cadmium residue in Nephtys incisa tissue ranged from 0.68 ppm to 1.12 ppm dry weight. MBDS-ON tissue residue ranged from 0.97 ppm to 0.713 ppm. and MBDS-OFF ranged from 0.67 ppm to 0.776 ppm. Tissue levels from MBDS sand reference site was 2.94 ppm dry weight from duplicate analyses in September 1985 and 4.72 ppm for a single analysis in January 1986. The MBDS-NES site single analysis was 1.44 ppm dry weight in September 1986. On recently deposited dredged materialsq cadmium was 0.53 ppm. dry weight (S.D. = 0.06, n=3); I kilometer southwest, Nephtys incisa residue levels averaged 0.6 ppm (S.D. = 0.2,,n=3); and 4 kilometers south of MBDS Nephty incisa tissue cadmium residues were 0.8 ppm dry weight (S.D. = 0.17, n=3). Cadmium levels for Astarte sp. ranged from 4.15 ppm to 7.26 ppm dry weight and scallop tissue (single sample) had a 3.45 ppm dry weight level. The 5.42 ppm MBDS-SRF September 1985 was statistically higher than other samples, but this is a statistical artifact of comparing single samples since quantitatively this is not an unreasonable value. Shrimp tissue, Pandalus borealis, had 0.17 ppm (S.D. = 0.02, n=3) to 0.29 ppm (S.D. = 0.05, n=3) September 1985 and January 1986 values while the MBDS- ON samples were lower at 0.15 ppm (S.D. = 0.02, n=3), all wet weight analyses. Gilbert (1976) identified Nephtys sp. cadmium tissue levels throughout Massachusetts Bay as ranging from 0.31 to 2.71 ppm wet weight, with stations in MBDS vicinity having an average of 0.387 ppm (S.D. = 0.065, n=3). Phillips et al. (1987) reported dry weight bivalve (Arctica islandica) concentration ranging from 0.458 ppm to 6.97 ppm. Invertebrate concentrations in coatal England were reported by Murray jand Norton (1982) as <0.2 to 12 ppm wet weight, with shrimp at 0.3 ppm, and finfish cadmium levles ranging from <0.1 to 0.2 ppm. wet weight. In summary, MBDS-REF Nephtys incisa cadmium tissue range of 0.68 to 1.12 ppm dry weight (0.123 ppm ot 0.2 ppm wet weight) is in generally good agreement with the literature. No significant elevations in stations on dredged material or in the vicinity of MBDS have been reported for cadmium in Nephtys incisa, shrimp, or scallop. Mercury Mercury (along with PCB -2 ppm) has a FDA action limit residue level established for the human consumption of fish at 1.0 ppm wet weight (CFR 22 May 1984-FDA Compliance Policy Guide). MBDS-REF mercury residue in tissue of Nephtys incisa ranged from 0.028 ppm to 0.074 ppm dry weight and from 0.005 ppm to 0.015 ppm wet weight. MBDS-ON dredged material site 140 ranged from 0.082 to 0.074 ppm dry weight. MBDS-OFF dry weight mercury concentrations had a range of <0.04 to 0.034 ppm dry weight. The Nephtys tissue from the sandy stations had dry weight mercury values ranging from 0.088 to 0.565 ppm (0.011 to 0.079 ppm wet weight). Other Nephtys incisa tissue on recently deposited dredged material and two stations outside MBDS boundary was <0.03 ppm dry weight. These mercury data sets were highly variable due to low sample tissue weight, but all values are quantitatively very low. Bivalve mercury data showed Astarte sp. ranging from 0.380 to 0.609 ppm dry weight, and a scallop sampled from MBDS-ON had 0.222 ppm dry weight value. Shrimp ranged from 0.047 ppm to 0.11 ppm wet weight at MBDS-REF with MBDS-ON residue intermediate at 0.056 ppm (S.D. 0.002, n=3) wet weight. Gilbert (1976) identified wet weight mercury levels in Nephtys sp from 19 stations-throughout the Massachusetts Bay systems as ranging from <0.01 ppm to 0.130 ppm. In the vicinity of MBDS, Gilbert (1976) recorded mercury residues at <0.020 ppm. Phillips (1987) presents outer continental shelf mercury residue in the bivalve Arctica islandica as ranging from 0.004 ppm to 0.079 ppm dry weight. Tn-vertebrate data from Murray and Norton (1982) presents a mercury residue range of <0.01 to 0.29 ppm, wet weight and a finfish tissue range of 0.05 ppm to M6 ppm wet weight. In summary, the 0.005 to 0.015 ppm wet weight range for Nephtys incisa mercury residues,at reference areas at MBDS and on dredged material areas are in low concentration relative to the 1984 FDA guidelines fo 'r seafood. Similarly, bivalve and shrimp residue levels are also low. No significant differences are evident on or off dredged material. Iron Iron was analyzed in Nephtys incisa tissue to allow a level of comparison of the potential for excessive gut sediment levels if disparate or anomolous data was obtained. Iron ranged from 175 ppm dry weight to 1341 ppm dry weight for all stations. No significant correlations with residue levels versus iron levels are obvious. Organic Residue Levels Organic residue levels in and near MBDS were measured in 32 Nephtys incisa samples one scallop (Plactopecten magellanicus) and nine shrimp (Pandalas borealis) samples for PCB at various seasons. DDT was measured in three Nephtys incisa and two Astarte sp. samples from reference areas in June 1985. PAH levels were measured in 24 samples, 15 of which were analyzed for 12 specific compounds in addition to totai PAH residue. Organic residue levels in biotic tissue are particularly variable in accordance with whole body lipid content. The reproductive state of the organisms analyzed can have significant influence on the organic residue levels. The overall low (and below detection) levels reported here are 141 not classifiable into seasonal components because they are predominantly at or below instrument detection limits. DDT DDT was measured for MBDS reference area and was found to be below instrument detection limits of 0.028 to 0.079 ppm dry weight (0.005 to 0.012 ppm wet weight) for five Nephtys incisa samples. PC3 The FDA action level for PCB in edible tissues of finfish is currently placed at 2.0 ppm. wet weight (CFR 22 May 1984 - FDA Compliance Guidelines). PCB residue concentrations from NeRhtys incisa at MBDS-REF, MBDS-OFF, MBDS-SRF and MBDS-NES were below instrument detection limits for samples obtained during June 1985, September 1985 and January 1986 (instrument detection levels ranged from 0.006 to 0.150 ppm wet weight). At MBDS-ON, Nephtys incisa PCB tissue residue were below a 0.84 ppm dry weight (0.15 Opm wet weight) detection limit in September 1985. In January 1986, one sample of Nephtys incisa tissue was obtained and it had a PCB residue level of 2,500 ppm dry weight (0.519 ppm wet weight). Subsequent studies were conducted at MBDS and remote to MBDS in September 1987 to analyze PCB tissue residues using substantially lower detection limits, The average MBDS-REF dry weight PCB tissue concentration was 0.2921 ppm (S.D. 0.1828, N=3). MBDS-OFF dry weight PCB residue averaged 0.06675 ppm (S.D. 0.3526, n=3). Samples from a recent dredged material disposal area averaged 0.03486 ppm (S.D. = 0.3196, n=3); while an area I kilometer southwest of the disposal area averaged 0.7852 ppm (S.D. = 0.7363, n=3) dry weight. Four kilometers southwest of MBDS Nephtys incisa PCB residues averaged 0.1480 ppm (S.D. = 0.00931, n=3) dry weight. All of these values are highly variable (6% to 94% intrastation variability). Caution should be used in interpreting these variable data, but they generally are greater than previous investigations placing PCB concentra- tions at or below the 0.15 ppm dry weight level, but still they are all quantitatively low and translate to very low wet weights. Bivalve PCB levels (Astarte sp. from MBDS-REF, MBDS-SRF, and MBDS- NES; and one Plactopecten magellanicus at MBDS-ON) in tissue's at MBDS were all below instrument detection Tevels in the 0.08 to 0.28 ppm wet weight levels. Shrimp, Pandalus borealis, level in September 1985 MBDS- REF was 0.09 ppm (S.D. = 0.01, n=3) wet weight, while MBDS-ON was 0.17 ppm (S.D. = 0.07, n=3). In January 1986, MBDS-REF shrimp tissue PCB residue was 0.08 ppm (S.D. = 0.02, n=3) wet weight. Studies sponsored by the Corps of Engineers have found Nephtys incisa PCB tissue levels in Long Island Sound to vary from 0.2-0.3 ppm dry weight at "reference" areas to 1.2 ppm dry weight for areas impacted by dredged 142 material disposal. PCB concentrations from areas in the Gulf of Maine around the Cape Arundel Disposal Site were generally below the 0.2-0.4 ppm detection timit. Swart (1987) examined PCB concentration in various species from Massachusetts Bay. He reported wet weight concentrations of winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, ranging from 0.05 ppm to 0.17 ppm; lobster, Homarus americanus, ranging from 0.24 ppm to 0.88 ppm; surf clam, Spisula solidissima from 0.0 to 0.02 ppm; black clam, Arctica islandica, from 0.0 to 0.5 ppm blue mussel; Mytilus edulis, from 0.0 to 0.48 ppm; and hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria at 0.13 ppm. Boehm (1984) studing organic contaminants throughout Massachusetts Bay lists PCB wet weight levels for jonah crab, Cancer borealis, as ranging from 0.065 ppm to 0.279 ppm; winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, as ranging from 0.090 ppm to 0.135 ppm and dab, Hippoglossoides plattesoides, ranging from 0.010 ppm to 0.034 ppm. Shrimp from European (North Sea) waters were reported as having PCB residues in the 0.048 ppm to 0.180 ppm range, while polychaete (Arenicola marina) wet weight concentrations of PCB ranged from 0.05 ppm to 0.091 ppm at a reference station (Goerke et al., 1979). Invertebrates around coastal England had PCB residues ranging from <0.01 to 0.16 ppm and finfish ranging from 0.01 ppm to 0.15 ppm wet weights (Murray and Norton, 1982). In summary, the levels of PCB residues recorded at MBDS were generally very low, all less than 0.52 ppm wet weight. The presence of PCB, a xenobiotic in biotic tissues indicates contamination of the ecological system. The most recent sampling efforts at MBDS using lowered PCB detection limits indicates all locations in Stellwagen,Basin are impacted by PCB, but the uniform spatial distribution in the 0.009 ppm (4 kilometers southwest of MBDS, a reference site) to 0.8 ppm 0 kilometer southwest of Disposal Buoy, an old disposal point) dry weight concentrations, does indicate elevated PCB contamination on dredged material. The values are low, and represent background c9ntamination, as indicated by other sampling throughout Massachusetts Bay,'plus a potential elevation attributable to dredged material disposal on the disposal mound. The reference dry weight value of 0.2921 ppm (S.D. = 0.1828, n=3) may be representative of basin wide conditions (for fine silt su@strate), while samples from within MBDS (MBDS-OFF) averaging 0.6675 ppm (S.D. 0.3526, n=3) and in older deposits southwest of MBDS averaging 0.7852 ppm (S.D. = 0.6802, n=3) dry weights, may represent disposal influence. PAH In September 1985 and January 1986, a total of nine Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon samples were obtained at MBDS. These values were reported as total PAH levels in shrimp (Pandalus borealis) tissue. MBDS- REF PAH residue averaged 0.09 ppm (S.D. = 0.02, n=3) wet weight in September 1985 and 1.4 ppm (S.D. = 0.7, n=3) wet weight in January 1986 PAH tissue residue levels in shrimp at MBDS-ON averaged <0.10 ppm wet weight. 143 Additional PAH residue analyses in Nephtys incisa were performed in September 1987, analyzing for specific compounds as recommended in Clarke and Gibson (1987). rhese results showed MBDS-REF PAII LoLals averaping 0.3564 ppm (S.D. 0.130, n=3) dry weighL. An area four kilometers south of MBDS averaged 0.1746 ppm (S.D. 0.047, n=3) for PAH residue. MBDS-OFF, that area within MBDS unimpacted by dredged material disposal, had highly variable results averaging 0.7741 ppm (S.D. = 0.9144, n=3) dry weight. Analysis of Nephtys incisa on the dredged material'disposal area revealed a significant increase in total PAH; averaging 2.4767 ppm (S.D. = 0.2949,n=3). An area 1 kilometer south- west of the disposal buoy, but on dredged material disposed in prior years averaged 2.1962 ppm (S.D. = 0.7794, n=3) dry weight. The lowest concen- tration area (0.1746 ppm) 4 km south of MBDS was dominated by phenanthrene (36.8%); pyrene (28.9%) and floranthene (25.6%). The MBDS-REF area (0.3564 ppm) was dominated by benzo (a) anthracene and chrysene (33.2%), pyrene (16.3%), benzo(a) pyrene (15.1%) and fluoranthene (14.6%). MBDS- OFF (0.7741 ppm) was dominated by benzo(a) anthracenes and chrysene pyrene (20.4%) and fluoranthene (18.0%). At the dredged material disposal site (2.4767 ppm) the dominant PAH compounds in Nephtys incisa tissue were benzo(a) anthracene and chrysene (44.0%); fluoranthene (16.5%) and pyrene (14.7%). One kilometer southwest of the disposal buoy (2.1962 ppm) the total PAH levels in Nephtys incisa was dominated by benzo(a) anthracene and chrysene (54.3%); benzo(a) pyrene (18.0%) and pyrene (14.9%). Boehm (1984) reported dry weight total PAH tissue residue for PAH in jonah crabs from Boston Harbor/Mass/Cape Cod Bay as ranging from 0.007 ppm to 0.457, dab from <0.001 ppm to 0.012 ppm and flounder from <0.001 ppm to 0.010 ppm. Although little comparative literature in availableregarding Nephtys incisa PAH tissue levels, this study showed elevated PAH tissue levels at areas impacted by dredged material. The dominant specific compound group was benzo(a) anthracene and chrysene. Stations sampled that were impacted by dredged material had a total PAH range from 2.2 ppm to 2.5 ppm dry weight. @ Areas 'not significantly impacted by dredged material had total PAH ranges from 0.17 ppm to 0.77 ppm dry weight and were not heavily dominated by any one compound, but generally impacted by phenathrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, and benzo(a) anthracene and chrysene. Summary - Tissue Residues The examination of available polychaete, bivalve and crustacean tissue at MBDS exhibit low levels of metal residues and no statistical elevations over ambient (reference) residues. Organic residue levels data were generally highly variable and quantitatively low. One sample of Nephtys 'incisa tissue from January, 1986, on dredged material, exhibited an elevated PCB concentration of 0.52 ppm wet weight, however previous and 144 subsequenL sampling did noL reveal simitar contamination. PAH conLamina- tion was statistically elevated on areas of dredged material, in compar- ison to reference sites. Quantatively, PAH levels were less than 2.5 ppm dry weight and predominantiy influenced by benzo (a) anthracene and chrysene. Table 3.B.3-1 Trace Metal Concentrations in Nephtys incisa From MBDS reference Station (MBDS-REF) Concentrations as ppm June 1985 September 1985 January 1986 September 1987 Arsenic -D 50.3 (2.44)' 67.0 (22.7) 89.7 (6.7) NA -W 9.15 (1.27) 12.1 (4.,0) 17.8 (0.3) Lead -D 3.84 (0.84 4.27 (0.83) 4.54 (0.15) 4.6 (0.86) -W 0.70 (0.21) 0.77 (0.16) 0.90 (0.03) Zinc -D 202 (14) 223 (52) 177 (3) NA. -W 36.7 (5.5) 41 (9) 35 (1) Chromium -D 0.66 (0.12) 0.99 (0.07) 0.639 (0.104) NA -W 0.12 (0.03) 0.18 (0.01) 0.127 (0.021) Copper -D 8.22 (1.81 9.37 (2.21) 6.30 (0.24) 9.75 (1.25) -W 2.49 (0.36) 1.70 (0.40) 1.25 (0.05) Cadmium -D 1.12 (0.38) 0.680 (0.162) 0.72 (0-155) 0.7 (0.1 -W 0.20 (0.60 0.123 (0.028) 0.144 (0.031) Mercury -D 0.0282 0.072 (0.010) 0.074 (0.04) <0.03 -W 0.005 0.013 (0.002) 0.015 (0.001) Iron -D N.A. 963 (38) 945 (21) 1158.3 (573.1) -W 175 (9) 188 (4) 1 - Mean (Standard Deviation) of 3 Analyses. 2 - Single Analysis N.A. - Not Analyzed. ,D - Dry Weight W - Wet Weight 145 Table 3.B.3-2 Trace Metal Concentrations in Nephtys incisa from MBDS on Dredged Material Concentrations as ppm MBDS-ON MBDS-ON September 1985 January 1986 Arsenic -D 19.71 18.91 -W 3.53 3.92 Lead -D 6.08 3.27 -W 1.09 0.68 Zinc -D 216 181 -W 38 38 Chromium -D 1.39 0.776 -W 0.248 0.161 Copper -D 15.7 9.66 -!W 2.76 2.00 Cadmium -D 0.97 0.713 -W 0.173 0.148 Mercury -D 0.082 0.074 -W 0.015 0.015 Iron -D 833 696 -W 148 144 1. mean of duplicate analysis 2. mean (std. dev.) of 3 Analyses 146 Table 3.B.3-3 Trace Metal Concentrations in Nephtys incisa From MBDS Concentrations As ppm MBDS-OFF MBDS-OFF September 1985 September 1987 Arsenic -D 31.01 NA -W 5.3 Lead -D 4.69 9.6 (2.7)3 -W 0.80 Zinc -D 233 NA -W 40 Chromium -D 0.652 NA -W 0.112 Copper -D 7.18 14.1 (1.9) -W 1.22 Cadmium -D 0.776 0.67 (0.06) -W 0.132 Mercury -D 0.034 <0.04 -W 0.006 Iron -D 749 1341 (687.4) -W 128 1 - Mean of Duplicate Analysis 2 - Single Analysis 3 - Mean (standard deviation) of 3 analyses 147 Table 3.B.3-4 Trace Metal Concentrations in Nephtys incisa from MBDS. Concentra@@I-ons As ppm, MBDS-SRF MBDS-NES MBDS-SRF 'September 1985 September 1985 January 1986 Sand Ref Arsenic -D 58.71 36.52 21.2 -W 8.77 4.39 2.94 Lead -D 7.56 7.60 1.01 -W 1.12 0.92 0.141 Zinc -D 244 239 58.8 -W 36 29 8.21 Chromium -D 0.827 0.797 0.93 -W 0.123 0.096 0.13 Copper -D 10.1 8.68 7.42 -W 1.39 1.05 1.04 Cadmium -D 2.94 1.44 4.72 -W 0.435 0.173 0.66 'Mercury -D 0.467 0.088 0.565 -W 0.069 0.011 0.079 Iron -D 539 344 -W 99 65 48 1 - mean of duplicate analysis 2 - single analysis 3. mean standard deviaiton of analyses 148 Table 3.B.3-5 Trace Metal Concentrations in Nephtys incisia within and Remote from MBDS. September 1987 On Dredged lkm 4km Material Southwest South (Old Dredged Material) Arsenic -D 6.93 (3.54 5.93 0.59) 6.23 (1.64) Copper -D 7.3 (1.31) 11.9 (2.1) 13.4 (2.57) Cadmium -D 0.53 (0.06) 0.6 (0.2) 0.8 (0.17) Mercury -D <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 Iron -D 796.3 (107.6) 11T5 (212.8) 1231.3 (295.8) mean (std. dev.) of three replicate analyses Note: See also MBDS-REF and MBDS-OFF data for September 1987 in Tables 3.B.3-1 and 3.B.3-3. Table 3.B.3-6' Trace Metal Concentrations in MBDS Benthic Organisms From MBDS-REF, June 1985 Concentrations as ppm Astarte .Small Large Arsenic -D 23.6 17.8 Lead -D 1.76 1.48 Zinc -D 65.2 89.3 Chromium -D 1.45 0.79 Copper -D 12.3 14.2 Cadmium -D 7.26 5.13. Mercury -D 0.380 N.A. N.A. Not Analyzed Due To Insufficient Tissue Mass. 149 Table 3.B.3.7 Trace Metal Concentrations in Bivalve Tissue (Astarte spp. and Plactopecten megellanicus) Collected at MBDS Concentrations as ppm Astarte SPP. Plactopecten MBDS-SRF MBDS-NES MBDS-SRF MBDS-ON September 1985 September 1985 January 1986 September 1985 Arsenic -D 13.01, 9.57 (2.67)2 21.21 6.161 Lead -D .583 .786 (.136) 1.01 .245 Zinc -D 69.7 67.0 (8.46) 58.8 88.9 Chromium -D 1.98 2.09 (0.26) 0.929 .278 Copper -D 11.9 13.4 (1.97) 7.42 .867 Cadmium -D 5.42 4.15 (0.42) 4.72 3.45 Mercury -D .609 .481 0.565 .222 Iron -D 696 506 (90) 344 22.4 1. Single analysis 2. mean (std. dev.) of three replicate analyses Table 3.B.3-8 Trace Metal Concentrations In Shrimp Pandalus borealis, From MBDS Concentrat@ions as ppm Wet Weight MBDS-REF MBDS-ON MBDS-REF September 1985 September 1985 January 1986 Cadmium 0.17 (0.02) 0.15 (0.02) 0.29 (0.05) Mercury 0.047 (0.002) 0.056 0.11 (0.01) 150 Table 3.B.3-9 Trace Organic Concentrations in Nephtys incisa from MBDS Concentrations in ppm MBDS-REF June 1985 September 1985 January 1986 September 1987 PCB-D <0.146 <0.440 <0.360 0.1123 <0.157 <0.200 <0.490 0.2862 <0.136 <0.250 <0.500 0.4748 (avg. 0.2921 S.D. 0.1828) -W <0.026 <0.080 <0.072 <0.026 <0.036 <0.097 <0.027 <0.046 <0.099 DDT-D <0.028 <0.030 <0.030 -W <0.005 <0.005 <0.006 -D = Dry Weight -W = Wet Weight Table 3.B.3-10 Trace Organic Concentrations in Nephtys incisa from MBDS Concentrations in ppm MBDS-ON September 1985 January 1986 PCB-D <0.700 20500 <0.840 -W <0.121 0.519 <0.150 -D = Dry Weight -W = Wet Weight 151 Table 3.B.3-11 Trace Organic Concentrations in Nephtys incisa from MBDS Concentrations in ppm MBDS-OFF September 1985 September 1987 PCB-D <0.430 0.3571 <0.500 0.5945 1.0509 (avg = 0.6675 S.D.=0.3526) -W <0.075 <0.083 Table 3.B.3-12 Trace Organic Concentrations in Nephtys incisa from MBDS Concentrations in ppm MBDS-SRF MBDS-NES September 1985 September 1985 PCB-D <0.250 <0.330 <0.240 -W <0.036 152 Table 3.B.3-13 Trace Organic Concentrations in Nephtys incisa from MBDS Concentrations in ppm September 1987 1 kilometer 4 kilometers On Dredged Southwest of Southwest of Material@ Disposal Buoy Disposal Buoy (On Old Dredged Material) PCB-D 0.6895 1.5683 0.1582 0.3004 0.1070 0.1457 0.0558 0.6802 0.1400 avg = 0.3486 0.7852 0.1480 S.D. = 0.3196 0.7363 0.00931 Table 3.B.3-14 Trace Organic Concentrations in Astarte spp From MBDS Concentrations are in ppm MBDS-REF MBDS-SRF MBDS-NES MBDS-SRF June 1985 September 1985 September 1985 January 198@ PCB Dry Weight <0.414 <[email protected] <1.700 <0.570 <1.000 <1.900 <1.900 <2.200 Wet Weight <0.063 <0.270 <0.260 <0.080 <0.150 <0.280 <0.210 <0.270 DDT Dry Weight <0.079 NA NA NA Wet Weight <0.012 NA NA NA 153 Table 3.B.3-15 PCB Concentrations in the Bivalve Plactopecten megellanicus Collected at MBDS September 1985 Concentrations As ppm.Dry Weight MBDS-ON PC3 Concentrations Plactopecten megellanicus <0.210 Table 3.B.3-16 Trace Organic Concentrations In Shrimp Pandalus borealis, From MBDS. Concentrations As ppm Wet Weight MBDS-REF MBDS-ON MBDS-REF September 1985 September 1985 January 1986 Total 0.09 + 0.01 0.17 + 0.07 0.08 + 0.02 PCBs 154 Table 3.B3-17 Polycyclic Arcmatic Hydrocarbons Concentrations in Nephtys incisa at MBDS Note: Concentr'ations as ppb - Parts Per Billion Sarrple ID Replicate Wight FL PH A F P B(a)A+CH BMF MW B(a)P TP R(ghi)PE D(ah)A Wbt Dry MBDS-OFF 1 1.7692 0.3271 17.5 30.0 91.3 139.6 158.3 764.9 35.0 ND(O) 173.6 ND(O) 49.8 NDM) avg (S.D.) 2 1.9854 0.3671 ND(<2) ND(<2) 207.7 ND(<4) NT)(<4) ND(<4) ND(<4) RD(<4) NDM) 3 2.5780 0.4767 ND(<2) (12.3)ND(<2) 158.9) (143.1) ND(<4) ND(<4) ND(<4) ND(<4) ND(<4) ND(M ND(<4) MODS-REF 1 2.6944 0.6329 11.0 37.5 22.4 51.9 58.1 118.4 9.9 ND(<4) 53.8 ND(<4) NDM) ND(<4) avg. (S.D.) 2 1.8637 0.4378 ND(O) ND(O) ND(O) ND(O) ND(O) 3 2.7596 0.6482 (4.6) (9.1) (8.3) (19.0) 21.1) (67.9) ND(O) ND(O) (14.1) ND(O) ND(O) ND(O) NOMS: Values reported have been corrected on a replicate basis against internal standard recoveries (FL,PH,A,F,P used A?PM (X+SD.PSD) 177.5% + 36.1%, 20.3%, B(a) A+CH, B(b)F,B(a)P, B(ghi)PE, D(ah)A used d12 8 ( a)A (x+S RSD) = 71.8% +116.0%, 22.2%). Spike levels were 1000 - 4000q for dlO and 40OOg for d12 BWA per replicate. FL - fluorene, FM - phennasthrene, A - anthreacene, F-- fluoranthene, P- pyrene, BWA - benzo(a)pyrene, CH - chrysene, BWF = benzo(b)fluoranthene, BWF - benzo(k)flotiroanthene, WaM benzo(a) pyrene, IP = indenopyrene, B(ghDPE =benzo(ghi)perylene, D(ah)A dibenzo(ah)anthracene. 155 Table 3.83-18 polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Concentrations in Nephtys incisa at MBDS Note: Concentrations as ppb - Parts Per Billion Sample ID Replicate Wt Dry FL PH A F P B(a)A+CH BMF BMF B(a)P TP R(ghf)PE D(ah)A I kilometer S.W. 1 1.8789 0.3871 8.2 42.6 33.7 135.7 327.0 1192.7 41.7 ND(<3) 394.5 ND(<3) ND(<3) ND(<3) of Buoy avg 2 1.7989 0.3706 ND(<I) 207.7 ND(O) ND(O) 77.0 ND(O) (S.D.) 3 2.2547 0.4645 ND(<I) (15.8)(17.8) (72.3) (121.7) (468.8) (19.4) ND(O) (105.1) NDW) NDW) ND(O) On dredged material 1 1.7287 0.4910 25.0 61.4 35.7 ND(<4) 65.7 IqD(<4) avg. (S.D.) 2 1.5896 0.4514 114.6 408.3 365.2 1089.6 ND(<4) 261.9 ND(O) 93.4 ND(<4) 3 1.6377 0.4651 (M) (3.0) (15.8) (58.4) (33.4) (137.6) (16.5) ND(<4) (68.6) 64.8 (21.1) ND(<4) 4 kilometers south 1 1.2594 0.2947 ND(<6) ND(<6) ND(<6) ND(<6) ND(<6) ND(<6) NWO of MBDS 2 1.7742 0.4152 10.9 64.2 4.2 4.48 50.5 ND(<6) ND(<6) ND(<6) ND(<6) ND(<6) ND(<6) ND(<6) (Avg. (SoD.) 3 1.7308 0.3050 (0.5) (11.6) (0.7) (17.0) (21.6) ND(<4) ND(<4) ND(<4) ND(<4) ND(O) ND(<4) ND(<4) NUMS: Values reported have been corrected on a replicate basis against internal standard.,recoveries (FL,PH,A,F,P used d PM (X+SD.PSD) = 177.5% + 36.1%, 20.3%, B(a) MCH, B(b)F,B(a)P, B(ghi)PE, D(ah)A used d12 BWA (x+S6?RSD) ---7 @1.8% +116.0%, 22.2%). Spike levelswere 1000 - 40OOg for dlO and 400og for d12 B(a)A per replicate. FL = fluorene, PM - phenanthrene, A - anthracene, F= fluoranthene, P-- pyrene, HWA - benzo(a)pyrene, CH = chrysene, B(b)F = benzo(b)fluoranthene, BMF = henzo(k)flouroanthene, B(a)P benzo(a) pyrene, IP = indenopyrene, B(ghi)PE =benzo(ghi)perylene, D(ah)A = dibenzo(ah)anthracene. 156 Table 3.B.3-19 Instrument Operating Conditions and Detection Limits For Metals Analyzed By Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry Lamp Silt Gas Minimum Sensitivity Wavelength Current Width Oxidant/ Flame Detection pps/0.0044 Additional Element (nm) (mA) (mm) Fuel Type Limit (ppm) Abs) Comments Cd 228.8 4 1.0 Air/C2H2 Oxidizing .02 .04 D2 correction CU 324..7 10 1.0 Air/C2H2 Oxidizing 0.04 0.1 D2 correction Zn 213.9 15. 1.0 Air/C2H2 Ozidizing 0.015 0.002 D2 correction 157 Table 3.B.3.-20a Instrument Operating Conditions and Detection Limits For Metals Analyzed By Craphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry Wave Lamp Slit Injection Length Current Opening Volume Furnace Element (nm) (mA) (mm) 01) Cas Conditions As 193.7 18 1.0 20 Ar (3 sec, normal Dry: 1100C, 30 sec flow, 20) Char; 12000C, 30 sec Atomize: 27000C, 8 sec Cd 228.8 4 1.0 10 Ar (3 sec, normal Dry: 1100C, 22 Sec flow, 20) Char: 3500, 22 Sec Atomize: 21000C, 7 sec Cr 357.9 14 1.0 20 Ar (3 sec, normal Dry: 1100C, 22 Sec flow, 30) Char: 11000, 22 Sec Atomize: 27006C, 7 sec Hg 254 Pb 223.3 10 1.0 20 Ar (3 sec, normal Dry: 1100C, 22 Sec flow, 20) Char: 7500, 22 Sec Atomize: 23000C, 7 sec 158 Table 3.B.3-20a Continued Absolute Minimum Detection Sensitivity Sensitivity Detection Limit (ppb/ (picograms/ Additional Element Limit (ppb) (picograms) 0.0044 ABS 0.0044 ABS) Comments As 2 40 5 100 D2 correction Cd 0.1 1 0.3 3 D2 correction Cr 0.5 10 0.7 1 @4 D2 correction Hg 0.5a 500 -- -- Cold vapor analysis Pb 0.5 10 1 20 D2 correction 159 Table 3.B.3.-20b Trace Metal Concentrations in Tissues, Precision and Accuracy Data (Concentrations as ppm Dry Weight) Hg Sample Description As Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn ppb 2749A Nepthys (CADS) Jar #2 58.9 1.04 0.693 8.32 5.09 172 70.2 sp (Poiychaete Worm) 2749B Nepthys (CADS) Jar #2 57.4 1.01 0.612 6.97 4.05 169 38.4 sp (Polychaete Worm) 2749C Nepthys CADS) Jar #2 51.8 1.12 0.694 7.81 3.54 176 <4.94 sp (Polychaete Worm) x 56.0 1.05 0.666 4.23 172 -- + (% Relative Standard Deviation) 6.-7. 5.38 7.06 8.85 18.7 2.04 NBS-1566A OYSTER TISSUE 10.4 4.25 0.381 57.8 0 575 942 39.1 NBS-1566B OYSTER TISSUE 11.8 4.00 0.484 57.4 0:549 931 40.9 NBS-1566C OYSTER TISSUE 11.5 4.27 0.401 64.3 0.599 950 43.0 NBS-1566C OYSTER TISSUE 10.5 3.72 0.424 53.6, 0.670 915 41.2 x 11.0 4.06 0.422 58.3 0.598 934 41.1 + (% Relative Standard Deviation) + 6.38 + 6.35 + 10.6 + 7.62 + 8.69 + 1.62 + 3.89 Value Reported by NBS T3.4 @.5 U.64 @3.0 U.48 @52 57.0 + (% Relative Standard Deviation) + 14.2 + 11.4 + 42.2 + 5.55 + 8.33 + 1.64 + 26.3 160 Table 3.B.3.-21 Mercury Replicate Studies (ppm Dry Weight) January 1986 Nephtys incisa MBDS Mud Reference Replicate 1 0.079 Replicate 2 0.072 Replicate 3 0.072 X + S.D. (%RSD) 0.074 + .004 (5.4%) MBDS Sand Reference Replicate 1 0.051 Replicate 2 0.081 Replicate 3 0.045 X + S.D. (%RSD) 0.059 + 0.019 (32%) Arctica islandica CADS Reference Replicate 1 0.129 Replicate 2 0.132 Replicate 3 0.111 X + S.D. (%RSD) 0.124 + 0.011 (9%) 3.C. BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3.C.1 PLANKTON RESOURCES 3C.I.a Phytoplankton Community Composition and Seasonal Abundance The species. composition and annual cycles of the phytoplankton community in Massachusetts Bay have been described by TRIGOM (1974). The following discussion is based on that work, other studies of Massachusetts Bay (MWRA 1987), and general reports concerning the phytoplankton of northeastern United States coastal waters (Marshall and Cohn 1983, 1984). Included in the TRIGOM report are data from a 1972-1973 study in which five nearshore Massachusetts Bay stations within approximately 4-12 nautical miles of MBDS were sampled on a monthly or bimonthly basis. Limited data is also available from MBDS during the late summer early fail of 1973 (Martin and Yentsch, 1973). 161 Phytoplankton communities in the northeastern coastal shield (including Massachusetts Bay) consist of a diverse assemblage of species, the most abundant of which can be divided into three main groups (Marshall and Cohn 1983, 1984). These groups are the smaLl-sized diatoms, the phytoflagellates@ and the ultraplankton (2-5 mm in size). The small diatoms (e.g. Skeletonema costatum and Rhizosolenia delicatula) are seasonally associated with spring and fall blooms, with highest concentrations occurring near shore and close to large estuaries. The phytoflagellates are a diverse group (dinofiagellates, coacolithophores, cryptomonads, and euglenoids) which occur in high numbers during late spring and summer. The ultraplankton are a ubiquitous group primarily composed of unidentified round or oval non-flagellated cells in the 2-5 um size range. Phytoplankton densities in Massachusetts Bay are lowest in winter, and peak during spring and fall blooms. Predominant species occurring in winter include various,diatoms (Skeletonema costatum, Thalassiosira spp., Coscinodiscus spp.) and the dinoflagellate, Ceratium tripos. Spring (March --- April) communities are characterized by the rapid development.of high populations (blooms) of various diatoms (chiefly Thalassiosira spp., Chaetoceros socialis, and Detonula confervacea). Following the collapse of the spring bloom, small celled. diatoms (Chaetoceros spp), coccoliths (Phaeocystis), unicellular chlorophytes (Carteria, Chlamydamonas), and the dinoflagellate Amphidiu crassum may become important. Dominant groups during summer (July - August) include the diatoms (Rhizosolenia spp., Skeletonema costatum, Leptocylindrus spp.), unidentified phytoflagellates, and the nanoplankton (<10 um in size) (TRICOM 1974; MWRA 1987.). Ceratium spp. may be abundant in outer Massachusetts Bay during this time. From late August - October there is generally a continuous bloom of Skeletonema costatum. Blooms of the diatoms Leptocylindrus danicus and Rhizosolenia delicAtdla may also occur. S. costatum accounted for ca. 90% of the phytoplankton at MBDS in late September of 1973 (Martin and Yentsch 1973). b. Primary Productivity and Chlorophyll a Peak productivity in Massachusetts Bay is generally highest during the spring bloom period in March (Parker 1974, ref. by MWRA 1987). In general, phytoplankton productivity in northeast continental shelf waters is high between,May and December, with bursts of high productivity also occurring in March and October. Lowest productivity occurs between late December and February (Sherman et al. 1988). Most of the production during the early spring bloom is a@_tributable to diatoms, which dominate the netplankton (>20 um fraction). With the onset of water column stratification, diatoms are susceptible to sinkage below the euphotic zone, and the relative importance of nanoplankton increases. Recent studies indicate that nanoplankton (< 10 um fraction) account for ca. 70% of productivity in nearshore Massachusetts Bay waters during July - September (MWRA 1981). During the fall bloom period, netplankton (>20 um) once again increase in importance, but do not strongly dominate the community as in the spring (Sherman et al. 1988). 162 Estimated annual productivity in Massachusetts Bay waters is on the order of 260 gC/m2 per year (TRIGOM 1974, Sherman et al; 1988). Chlorophyll a concentration, a measure of algal biomass, also varies seasonally in GuIT of Maine inshore waters (Sherman et al 1984). Highest values occur during the spring bloom and fall blooms, with lowest values occurring during June - August. Integrated total water column chlorophyll concentrations during the summer (July - early September) from shallow (< ca. 25 - 40m) Massachusetts Bay waters averages ca. 40 - 75 mg/m2 (TRICOM 1974; MWRA 1987). Summer chlorophyll a concentrations (and productivity) in Massachusetts Bay appear to decrease with increasing distance from shore (MWRA 1987), and thus may be somewhat lower at MBDS. During the summer, when the water column at MBDS is stratified (Martin and Yentsch 1973), a pronounced subsurface chlorophyll a maxima is likely to be associated with the thermocline (cf. Sherman et al. 1988). Although chlorophyll a concentrations are low during the summer relative to spring and falf levels, primary production in coastal waters generally remains high. High productivity, despite low chlorophyll a levels, occurs in summer because 1) small, relatively efficient nanoplankton dominate the phytoplankton and 2) the availability of photosynthetically active radiation is high (Sherman et al. 1988). b. Zooplankton The zooplankton community of Gulf of Maine waters (including Massachusetts Bay) is generally dominated by the ubiquitous copepods, Calanus finmarchicus, CenLrophages typicus, and Pseudocalanus minutus. C. finmarchicus is the dominant species from spring through early autumn, when C. typicus becomes dominant (Sherman et al., 1988). C. finmarchicus and P. minutus are herbivorous, C. typicus is omnivorous, but prefers zooplankton prey (TRIGOM 1974). Other typical components of the zooplankton community include the copepod Metridia lucens, the euphausid Meganyctiphanes norvegica, and the chaetognath Sagitta elegans. Further information concerning the seasonal composition of the Massachusetts Bay zooplankton community is provided by TRIGOM (1974). Ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) are discussed in Section 3.C.2. Zooplankton biomass (as measured by displacement volume) in coastal Gulf of Maine waters peaks in July and October (Sherman et al., 1988). Overall, in the Gulf of Maine, peak zooplankton biomass occurs in May with a gradual decline through autumn. Microzooplankton (zooplankton capable of passing through a 333-um mesh net) are also an important component of the Gulf of Maine zooplankton community. Principal components of the microzooplankton include immature copepods (eggs, naupuli and copepodites), and members of the copepod genus Oilthona. The microzooplankton component is most abundant in summer and autumn; zooplankton encountered in winter and early spring are primarily adults. Microzooplankton biomass in northeast shelf waters may be ca. 30% of the biomass retained by a standard 333 um net. 163 3.C.2 FINFISH AND SHELLFISH RESOURCES The fisheries resources at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site were evaluated using information from a variety of sources. General information concerning the fishes of Massachusetts Bay was obtained from Bigelow and Schroeder (1953), Clayton et al. (1978), Grosslein and Azarovitz (1982), TRICOM (1974), and various Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MDMF) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reports (e.g. Lux and Kelly 1978; Howe et al. 1986). Catch data from NMFS and MDMF bottom trawl surveys were obtaineTto provide information concerning the fisheries resources in the vicinity of the MBDS. Data from 26 trawls taken within six nautical miles of the MBDS site (during 1979 - 1984, at water depths > 60 m) are presented in this report. Trawls were from NMFS strata 26 and 66, and MDMF strata 36. Most trawls (22 of 26) were from either spring or fall surveys. The mean starting point of NMFS trawls, and the mid point of MDMF trawls was, respectively, 4.1 and 4.6 nautical miles from the MBDS center point. Average water depths at the starting point of NMFS trawls and midpoint of MDMF trawls were, respectively, 76 and 72 meters. Site specific information for individual trawls are presented in the Appendix II (Table AII-1) NMFS surveys utilized # 36 or # 41 (one case) Yankee otter trawls with 0.5 inch codend liners (Grosslein and Azarovitz 1982; Azarovitz, pers. comm.; NMFS 1982, 1985). MDMF surveys utilized 0.75 inch North Atlantic trawls lined with 0.25 inch codend liners (see Howe et al., 1984, 1986). Duration of MDMF and NMFS trawls was, respectively, 20 and 30 minutes, at speeds of 2.5, and 3.5 knots. Site specific information concerning the fisheries resources at MBDS was obtained using gill nets, trammel nets, bottom trawls, submersible video observations, and interviews with local fishermen. Studies were conducted between June, 1985 and February, 1986 (Table 3.C.2-1). Methods employed in the 1985 studies are described in SAIC (1987). Bottom trawls in February of 1986 were 40 minutes in duration, at a speed of three knots. The Benthic Resources Analysis Technique (BRAT; Lunz and Kendall, 1982) was employed to examine trophic relationships between benthic invertebrates and demersal fish at MBDS. The technique involves comparing the prey of demersal fish (as indicated by stomach content analysis) with prey availability (biomass) as determined by quantitative benthic samples. Fish and benthic samples for the BRAT analysis were taken in the Fall of 1985 within MBDS and at a nearby muddy reference location. Benthic samples from MBDS were taken from dredged material deposited 6-12 months previously, and relatively undisturbed natural mud bottom. Methods employed are fully described in SAIC (1987). 164 Finfish Community Composition General The Gulf of Maine supports resident or migratory populations of approximately 200 species of fish (Bigelow and Shroleder 1953). General accounts of fish community composition in Massachusetts nears'hore and/or offshore waters are provided by Lux and Kelly (1978, 1982), Grosslein and Azarovitz (1982), and Howe et al. (1984).' The relatively common species likely to occur in Massachussettes Bay, near the vicinity of the MBDS, are listed in Table 3.C.2-2. All of these species are widely distributed in the Gulf of Maine and/or North Atlantic waters south of Cape Cod. Although the majority of species likely to be present in the vicinity of MBDS are year round residents in Massachusettes Bay, 12 species are seasonal (mostly summer) migrants. Approximately 80 % of the species likely to occur near the MBDS are demersal, semi-demersal, or semi- pelagic. Twenty three species, including 10 seasonal migrants, are of importance to commercial and/or sport fisheries (Table 3.C.2-2). NMFS and MDMF Studies NMFS and MDMF bottom trawls within six nautical miles of the MBDS center point captured 36 species of fish (Table 3.C.2-3). The most frequently occuring species in spring and.fall surveys were American plaice, witch flounder, red hake, silver hake, Atlantic cod, ocean pout, and longhorn sculpin (Table 3.C.2-4). Size (length) of captured fish indicate that both juveniles and adults of most species were present. Yields from bottom trawls are summarized in Tables 3.C.2-5 - 8 (data from individual trawls are presented in Appendix II (AII-3). American plaice was numerically predominate throughout the year, and generally accounted for the largest percentage of total catch by weight. American plaice is one of the most common species captured in bottom trawls in Massachusettes Bay (Lux and Kelly, 1978, 1982). With the possible exception of witch flounder, it is reportedly the most abundant flatfish in the Gulf of Maine at depths greater than ca. 55 m (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Principal subdominates.in NMFS/MDMF spring trawls included Atlantic cod, ocean pout, and witch flounder. Subdominates in fall included silver hake, red hake, Atlantic cod, and Atlantic herring. All these species are common in Massachussettes Bay (Lux and Kelly, 1978,1982), and most are of considerable commercial importance. Trawl yields indicate that a moderately productive fishery exists in the vicinity of MBDS. Mean weight of fish caught in spring and fall trawls was 136 kg. Weight of fish caught did not vary significantly between seasons (spring vs fall) or, despite gear differences, between NMFS and MDMF surveys (Appendix II - Table AII-4). MDMF trawls caught a 165 significantly greater number of fish per trawl (p < 0.04). Catch averaged 1075 fish in MDMF trawls and 400 fish in NMFS trawls. Mean number of fish caught per trawl in spring and fall were not significantly different. COE Studies at MBDS Studies conducted by the COE during 1985-1986 documented the occ'urence of 32 fish species at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (Table 3.C.2-3). Overall, these studies suggest that American plaice, witch flounder, and redfish are the predominate non-migratory demersal species present at MBDS. Principal seasonal migrants are silver hake, red hake, and spiny dogfish. In June most (ca. 90%) of fish caught in gill nets were spiny dogfish (Table 3.C.2-9). Spiny dogfish are seasonal migrants to the Gulf of Maine and schools are common in Massachusettes Bay during the spring and fall (Bigelow and.Shroeder 1953). Commercial fishermen indicate that dogfish typically arrive in the vicinity of MBDS in late May,through early June. Because transient dogfish schools undoubtedly greatly disturbed the fish community at MBDS, COE surveys in June may poorly represent the normal (pre dogfish) spring community. Fish noted at MBDS in June submersible observations included snake- blenny, ocean pout, flounder, and sculpin (Table 3.C.2-10). Snakeblenny, a small demersal fish, was most common on mud/clay substrate. Ocean pout and sculpins were predominate on cobble. Sandlance larvae were noted on mud/clay bottom. Cill net catches on dredged material in October were dominated by redfish. Silver hake, red hake, thorny skate, and Atlantic cod were the principal subdominates (Table 3.C.2-11). Trammel nets set on hard bottom NE of MBDS captured primarily winter flounder. Silver hake, thorny skate and Atlantic wolffish were also captured. Predominate species caught in October COE bottom trawls within MBDS, and at the reference location, were American plaice, witch flounder, silver hake, red hake, and redfish (Table 3.C.2-12). Predominate species captured in February COE trawls at MBDS were American plaice, cusk, ocean pout, redfish, witch flounder and silver hake (Table 3.C.2-12). Because both mud bottom and cobble were trawled, species characteristic of both habitat types were obtained. Species reported from MBDS by fishermen, but not otherwise noted in COE studies, were bluefish and bluefin tuna. Both are pelagic, summer migrants to Gulf of Maine. American plaice was the most common species captured in both COE and NMFS/MDMF bottom trawls. Subdominates in NMFS and/or MDMF surveys (i.e. witch flounder, silver hake, red hake, ocean pout, Atlantic cod) were also 166 present at MBDS. Overall, COE studies and NMFS/MDMF trawls documented the occurence of 41 species in the vicinity of MBDS (Table 3.C.2-3). Thirty two species (78 %) were noted in COE studies. Nine species were reported from NMFS/MDMF trawls, but not from MBDS in COE studies. Most of these species were uncommon, and typically accounted for < 1 % of catch (by number) in NMFS/MDMF trawls. Dredged Material vs Natural Bottom at MBDS Although the design of this study does not allow a rigorous evalua- tion of fish communities at MBDS-on dredged material versus relatively undisturbed substrates, some comparisons are possible. Submersible observations suggest that dredged material recently deposited within MBDS may support fewer fish than natural mud or cobble bottom (Table 3.C.2- 10). The absence of replicate samples and the possible impact of spiny dogfish, however, limit the' value of these data. Similarily, although gill nets in June caught more fish on natural bottom, the catch was dominated by spiny dogfish. Replicated (n=2) bottom trawls in October w'ithin MBDS (on both dredged material and natural bottom) and a nearby reference location caught similar numbers of fish (Table 3.C.2-12).. Mean catch weight, however, was significantly lower within MBDS (p < 0.05; T = 3.68). Although American plaice was the most abundant species <by number) at both locations, the relative importance of other species at the two sites varied. Witch flounder and redfish were principal subdominates within MBDS material, while silver and red hake were the principle sub- or codominates at the reference location. Mean length of American plaice caught within MBDS was slightly less than for those caught at the reference location (26.7 vs. 25.4 crn; see also Figure III.A-13, Vol 2 SAIC, 1987). This difference was not quite statistically significant (0.5 < p <0.10; df = 291). Commercial Fisheries Near MBDS A viable commercial fishery exists in the vicinity of MBDS (Figure 3.C.2-1). Catch is dominated by American plaice and witch flounder. Wolfish, redfish, cusk, haddock, and pollock are caught in lesser amounts. Witch flounder and American plaice are caught throughout the year on soft bottom. Redfish and wolffish are occassionally caught on or near patches of hard bottom. Directed fisheries capture silver hake in the fall and pollock in the winter.. There is also a directed fishery for spiny dogfish on Stellwagen Bank during summer and fall. Winter flounder and yellowtail flounder are caught near the MBDS but are more abundant in shallower inshore waters. Cod are caught as a by-catch or by directed fisheries in late winter and spring. Herring are caught on Stellwagen Bank and in Massachussettes Bay, southwest of MBDS. Target species of sportfisherman near MBDS include cod, cusk, haddock, mackeral, bluefish, and bluefin tuna. Wolffish, flounder, and pollock are also caught. 167 Stocks of American plaice, witch flounder, Atlantic cod, Atlantic herring, haddock, redfish, silver hake, and red hake in the Gulf of Maine are currently depressed, or in decline (NOAA, 1987). NMFS commercial catch statistics from the vicinity of the MBDS indicate that the area supports a productive fishery resource. Average finfish and shellfish yields for 1982-1984 from the NMFS "10 minute square" which includes the MBDS was 6,316,000 kg (Table 3.C.2-13). Although this 10' squa .re represents < 3 % of the NMFS statistical area (514) which includes Cape Cod Bay, Massachusettes Bay, and Stellwagan Bank, it accounted for 11 % of total landings for the area in 1984 (see Section 3.D.1). Occurence of Spawning and Fish Eggs and Larvae at MBDS Spawning At any given time a number of different species are likely to be spawning at or near MBDS (Table 3.C.2-14). Most of these species spawn during a period of several months, and over a wide geographical area. Common species which spawn in open water near MBDS include American plaice, silver hake, witch flounder, and Atlantic mackerel. MBDS is within the principal spawning grounds of silver hake and pollock (TRIGOM 1974). At its closest point, the major spawning ground for Atlantic cod in Massachusetts Bay is ca. 8 n.m. southwest of MBDS (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). 1 Most species likely to deposit demersal eggs at MBDS spawn preferentially on hard bottom. These include longhorn sculpin, American sandlance, wolffish, radiated shanny, ocean pout, rock gunnel, and Atlantic herring. Principal spawning areas for Atlantic herring, however, are located in the Gulf of Maine well north of MBDS and on Stellwagen Bank (Graham et al. 1972; TRIGOM 1974). Species which may deposit eggs on soft bottom near MBDS include snakeblenny, wrymouth, and alligatorfish. Most species which spawn in fall and winter deposit eggs demersally (Table 3.C.2-14). Spring and summer spawners generally deposit eggs in open water. Incubation periods vary widely. Demersal eggs deposited in fall and winter generally have long incubation periods relative to pelagic eggs deposited by spring and summer spawners. Larvae of most species which spawn in the vicinity of.MBDS are, at least initially, pelagic. Fish Eggs and Larvae Although specific data concerning the occurence and abundance of fish eggs and larvae at MBDS are lacking, information is available from nearby coastal stations at Seabrook, New Hampshire (Normandeau, 1985) and Plymouth, Massachusetts (Boston Edison, 1986). Given the proximity of these sites to MBDS, and water circulation patterns in the Gulf of Maine, 168 it is likely that these.data will, at least, qualitatively, identify seasonal ichthyoplankton peaks at MBDS. The lack of more precise information concerning ichthyoplankton at MBDS cannot readily be addressed. Because of tremendous inate variabiliy, an intensive sampling effort, over many years, would be required to establish meaningful baseline levels for ichthyoplankton at MBDS. Highest con centrations of planktonic eggs occur from June through August at Seabrook (Table 3.C.2-15), and during June and July at Plymouth (Figure 3.C.2-2). Eggs of cunner, yellowtail flounder, mackerel, hakes (Urophycis spp.), and rockling ate predominant during the summer peak at both Seabrook and Plymouth. Although concentrations of planktonic eggs are low from October through April, substantial numbers of demersal eggs may be present at this time, in suitable habitats. Among demersal spawners, eggs of American sandlance and Atlantic herring are probably predominate in the Gulf of Maine during the fall and winter. Planktonic larvae are most abundant at Seabrook during July and August (Table 3.C.2-16). Atlantic mackerel and cunner are the predominate species at this time. Secondary peaks dominated by American sandlance (February-April) and Atlantic herring (October-November) also occur. Planktonic larvae exhibit a weakly bimodal distribution at Plymouth (Figure 3.C.2-3), with peaks occuring in.April and June. American .sandlance and sculpins (Myoxocephalus spp.) are predominate in spring, while Atlantic mackerel, cunner and rockling are predominant in summer. Additional information concerning the abundance and distribution of planktonic larval fish in the Gulf of Maine is provided by MARRAP surveys (Morse et al., 1987). Overall, in the Gulf of Maine, American sandlance, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, cunner, and redfish larvae are most abundant. The seasonal occurence and peak concentrations of predominant species in Massachusettes Bay are presented in Table 3.C.2-17. Highest reported concentrations are of American sandlance (December - April), Atlantic mackerel (May June), and Atlantic herring (September - November). Food Utilization General Various reports detail the food habits of common fish of the Gulf of Maine (e.g. Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Michaels and Bowman 1976; Shettling et al., 1980; Michaels and Bowman 1983, Bowman, 1981). Most species exhibit some degree of preference for certain prey groups. Feeding preferences may vary with season, geographic location, and the relative abundance of available prey items. Juvenile and adult conspecifics may utilize different food resources. Fish at MBDS can be divided into three primary feeding guilds (Table 3.C.2-18). Planktivorous species such as American sandlance, Atlantic 169 mackerel, and herring primarily utilize small crustaceans (i.e. copepods, euphausids, mysids), and fish and invertebrate eggs and/or larvae. Neektonic feeders prey primarily upon larger pelagic crustaceans and/or fish. Many nektonic feeders (e.g. silver hake, spiny dogfish) in Massachusetts Bay are summer migrants. Redfish is the principal resident necktonic feeder in the vicinity of MBDS. Demersal or semi-demersal feeders utilize a wide variety of benthic prey species (i.e. crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms, polychaete worms, and fish). Virtually all members of the demersal/semi-demersal guild are year round residentseat MBDS. Cunner and Atlantic cod feed, depending on prey availability, either demersally or on nekton. MBDS Feeding preferences of selected species caught at MBDS in October are summarized in Table 3.C.2-19 (see also Tables 111-5 through 111-9, SAIC, 1987). American plaice preyed chiefly upon echinoderms (brittle stars), and to a much lesser extent bivalves and crustaceans. Principal prey items of witch flounder were Chaetozone, Spio, Sternapsis, and Tharyx. Atlantic cod preyed chiefly upon benthic amphipods, polychaetes, and other crustaceans. Winter flounder preyed chiefly upon polychaetes and amphipods. Hakes captured in fall were feeding exclusively on pandalid shrimp. Stomach contents of small numbers of other species captured in June or October are presented in Volume 2 of the SAIC (1987) technical report. Among theset clearnose skate (n=3), and fourbeard rockling (n=3) were feeding primarily on crustaceans. Atlantic wolffish (n=2) were feeding primarily on molluscs and crustaceans. Redfish (n=5) captured in June preyed exclusively upon crustaceans (principally mysids). Prey preferences of other relatively common demersal species at MBDS must be inferred from the literature. Ocean pout prey primarily upon qchinoderms, and to a lesser extent on molluscs and crustaceans. Snake- blenny apparently feed on small crustaceans, echinoderms, and bivalves (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). Cusk prey upon molluscs, crabs, and infrequently on echinoderms (Clayton et al. 1978). BRAT Analysis The analysis of feeding strategy groups focused primarily on American plaice and witch flounder, the most common finfish at MBDS, and the reference location. These species preyed predominantly upon benthic invertebrates. Fish were placed.into three primary feeding strategey groups based on prey size preference as determined from stomach content analysis (Table 3.C.2-20; see also Figures III.A-23, Vol I-SAIC, 1986). Composition of these groups (and several subgroups) are presented in Table 3.C.2-20. Group I consisted primarily of small (10-14.9,,cm) American plaice and witch flounder feeding on small prey at MBDS. Group III consisted of large plaice or witch flounder feeding on large prey at 170 either MBDS or the reference location. Group II generally consisted of intermediate sized fish which exploited a range of prey sizes at both MBDS and the reference location. Witch flounder of similar size were generally feeding on smaller prey at MBDS than at the reference area. American plaice size classes showed similar prey exploitation behavior at MBDS and the reference area. Feeding efficiency, as indicated by the mean weight of food per stomach, was greater for intermediate sized plaice and witch flounder feeding at MBDS relative to those feeding at the reference area (Table 3.C.2-21). Food availability was analyzed as biomass within feeding depth strata. Biomass of potential prey within MBDS (dredged material and natural bottom) and at the reference location is summarized in Figure 3.C.2-4. Total prey biomass available at the three sites was similar. Dredged material and natural bottom at MBDS, however, yielded much greater quantities of small prey relative to the reference area. Prey biomass on dredged material, and to a lesser extent on natural bottom at MBDS, was concentrated near the surface (see Table III.A-12, Vol. 1 SAIC, 1987). Prey biomass available to the various feeding strategy groups is summarized in Figure 3.C.2-5. Dredged material yielded greater.quantities of prey biomass available to Group 1, and II than did natural bottom within MBDS, or at the reference location. Relative to dredged material however, the reference location and natural bottom within MBDS provided greater amounts of prey biomass for Group III fish. In conclusion, the BRAT analysis.suggests that disposal activities at MBDS may have enhanced food resource availability for relatively small American plaice and witch flounder. Disposal of dredged material, and resulting changes in prey size distribution, may have reduced habitat suitability for larger (> 20 cm) American plaice. Shellfish Resources Only limited information is available concerning shellfish resources in the vicinity of MBDS. General distribution maps indicate that northern lobster (Homarus americanus), sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus), longfin squid (Loligo pealei),. shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) and ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) occur in easte assachusetts Bay (Grosslein and Azarovitz 1982). NMFS/MDMF bottom trawls near MBDS captured these species, and also small numbers of rock crab (Cancer irroratus), and jonah.crab (Cancer borealis) (Table 3.C.2-22). COE bottom trawls near or within MBDS caught few lobsters. Trawls within MBDS (n=2) in October captured only one lobster. No lobsters were caught from trawls (n=2) at the reference location. Shrimp Pandalus borealis were caught at both MBDS and the reference location. COE bottom trawls (n=2) at MBDS in February captured lobsters (3), red crab (Geryon quinquedens) (2), a toad crab-(Hyas araneus), an unidentified scal-lop, and numerous shrimp. 171 Ocean quahogs were present in grab samples from mud and sand reference stations near MBDS 2in January of 1956 (see Table III-1 SAIC, 1987). Densities were 174/m on sand and 3/m on mud. No ocean quahogs, however, were noted within MBDS on natural bottom or on dredged ,material. Sea scallops were absent from grab samples, but were noted in submersible observations on cobble (within MBDS) at low densities (0.01/m2). Submersible observatin also noted pandalid shrimp within MBDS. Densities ranged from 7.27/m on mud-clay to 1.38/m2 on cobble (Vol I; Tabi III.B-19 SAIC, 1987). Density of shrimp on dredged material (2 501m was lower than average (weighted) density at two mud-clay sites (6:4/m2). Among other prey, At.lantic cod and wolffish captured in COE studies at MBDS in October had consumed northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis). Wolffish had also consumed jonah crab (see Table 111-9 Vol. II SAIC, 1987). MBDS is currently recommended closed to commercial shellfishing by FDA. A lobster fisherman, however, indicated that good yields of app,arently high quaility lobsters are possible at MBDS. The fisherman reported that lobsters were absent from MBDS in the summer through September. General information concerning habitat preference and life history of commercially important shellfish species at MBDS is presented in Table 3.C.2-23. Several species show pronounced seasonal movements. Short-fin squid, and long-fin squid are summer migrants, and likely to be absent at MBDS from late fall through spring. Northern shrimp show a pronounced shoreward migration in fall. Lobsters are likely to be present during lat,e fall, winter and early spring, but absent during the summer. Spawning by squid, or release of newly hatched larvae by northern shrimp and lobsters, does not occur in the vicinity of MBDS. Ocean quahog eggs and larvae may occur near MBDS from June through fall. Sea scallop eggs and larvae may occur near MBDS from September through November. Crabs mate near MBDS from fall through early summer. Larval crabs may be present at MBDS during spring, summer, or early fall. Summary These studies suggest that substantial finfish resources are likely to occur in the vicinity of MBDS. The demersal (resident) finfish community on mud bottom at MBDS is dominated by American plaice and witch flounder. Silver and red hake are abundant, commerc lally important, seasonal migrants at MBDS. Hard bottom communities at MBDS (approximately 25 % of total area) are probably dominated by redfish, ocean pout, cuskY and atlantic w9lffish. Studies suggest that some differences may exist between fish communities on dredged material versus natural bottom. Also, food resource availability and food utilization patterns of dominant demersal fish may have been altered by previous dredged matpri4l disposal. 172 Peak concentrations of planktonic fish eggs at MBDS are likely to occur during the late spring and early summer, Larval abundance probably has a bimodal distribution, with.peaks occuring in spring and summer. Shellfish resources at MBDS are less well documented. At present, although few lobsters were noted in bottom trawls, it is felt that considerable numbers may be present during the late fall, winter, and spring. other commercially important shellfish, including squid, northern shrimp, rock crab, and ocean quahog occur at or near MBDS. Although COE studies appear to adequately chartacterize the major components of the fisheries community at MBDS, the limitations of this study should be recognized. Highly reliable data from MBDS are available only for October of 1985. Since stocks of many finfish (and she '1' Ifish) can experience considerable seasonal (Crosslein and Azarovitz 1982) and year to year variation (e.g. NOAA 1987), recommendations concerning digposal at MBDS based on these data should be conservative, Ou r Kpowledge of the finfish and shellfish community is based largely on sampling techniques which are biased towards certain demersal, semi- dga)ersal or semi-pelagic species. Also, yields of bottom trawls., gi-11 nets, 4nd,even submersible observations reflect upon not only,4bp9lute abundance of fish species, but also their relative "catchability". Fortunately a sampling' bias towards demersal species is tolerable, since these species are likely to be most effected by disposal activities. 173 -ro, 50 70 40 2 0 0---t MBDS LEI %% C40 A M E R I C A NP 0 COD* LOBSTER cc POLLOCK B 9t SILVER HAK WITCH FLOU %% NORTHERN I IV, cot) 1BF& N 0 \ \ 0 0\U 42 r4 2 0'- \ \ cou lp 00.1 Figure 3.C.2-1 Dragging grounds in the disposal area. The -area fishab ground tackle is stippled. Three areas with rougher bo hatched. Contours are in feet. No fishing is allowed Lis Figure 3.C.2-2: Concentration of planktonic fish eggs in Cape Cod Bay, near Plymouth, MA (1975 1985). 4000- 3000- @4 2000- CID 1000- 0 J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Month 175 Figure 3.C.2-3: Concentration of planktonic fish larvae in Cape Cod Bay, near PIvniouth, MA (1975 1985) 200- Cn 100- UO bo bo w 0 J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Month 176 Figure 3.C.2-4: Biomass of potential invertebrate prey at MBDS 20- 10- DRED. MAT. 0cli NAT. BOT. bo REF 04 Xx z:--W 0- W-4 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 3.35 6.35 Prey Size (mm) (retaining sieve size) 177 Fip-ure 3. C. 2-5: Prey biomass available to feeding strategy groups at MEDS 60- 50- MBDS -OM MBDS -W WON" 40- cc -4 F3 co 0C14 -1 30. CL) 20- 10- 0- 11 A 11 Dc 11 D Feeding Strategy Group Table 3.C.2-1: Summary of COE fisheries studies at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Area (1985-1986),a Methodology 1985 1986 June October February DM NB DM REF NB ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Gill Nets R(2) R(4) xb Tramel Nets x x xb Bottom Trawls R(2)' R(2) R(2) Submersible x R(3) Observations BRATT Analysis x x -----------7 ----------------------------------------------------------- a. Locations and substrate characteristics of 1985 sample sites are presented in SAIC(1987) (Figures III.A-1 and 1.2-18). 1986 bottom trawls sampled both natural mud and hard bottom within MBDS DM: dredged material; NB: natural bottom; REF: reference loc.ation outside of the MBPS.; R: replicate (n) samples b. Multiple nets tied together C. Area trawled was principally within, MBDS and included both natural bottom and dredged material. Table 3.C.2-2: Common Fish Species of the Gulf of Maine Likely to Occur in the the Vicinity of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Ar Common Name Scientific Name Distributionb Habitatc Substrate Economic Preferenced value e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias nearshorp to offshore (sm) P-D bittle skate Raja erinacea nearshore to offshore D PISIM Barndoor skate R. laevis nearshore to offshore D SMISIG Winter skate R. ocellata nearshore to offshore D Thorny skate R. radiata offshore to oceanic, bk, bs D S,G,SH.SM Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis estuarine to coastal (sm) P C Alewife A. pseudoharengus freshwater to coastal P CIS American shad A. sapidissima freshwater to coastal (sm) P S 00 Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus coastal (sm) P C Atlantic herring Clupea harengus coastal, bk P C Goosefish Lophius americanus nearshore to oceanic D HS,P,G,S,SH,SM Fourbeard rockling Enchelyopus cimbrius nearshore to offshore D SMS Atlantic cod Gadus morhua coastal to oceanic, bk D-P R,S,SH,G CIS Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinis coastal to offshore D-P G,CL,S,SH CIS Silver hake Merluccius bilinearis coastal to offshore (sm) P-D S,G,M C Pollock Pollachius virens coastal, bk P-D CIS Red hake Urophysis chuss nearshore to oceanic (sm) D SB C@ White hake U. tenuis nearshore to oceanic (sm) D SB C Cusk Brosme brosme coastal to oceanic, bk D R S Ocean pout Macrozoarces americanus nearshore to coastal, bk, bs D S,G,R C Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix nearshore to offshore (sm) P S Scup Stenotomus chrysops nearshore to offshore (sm) D SM,R Cunner Tautogolabrus, adspersus nearshore to offshore, cbk D R Snakeblenny Lumpenus lumpretaeformis nearshore to offshore D MIHB Daubed shanny L. maculatus offshore, bs D Radiated shanny Ulvaria subbifurcata nearshore to coastal, bs D HB Wrymouth Cryptacanthodes maculatus nearshore to offshore bs D SM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- c-@ntinued on next page. Table 3.C.2-2: continued. Common Name Scientific Narr- Distributionb Habitatc Substrated Ecc@nomic e Preference Value -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rock gunnel Pholis gunnellus nearshore to offshore, cbk D P,G,R Atlantic wolfish Anarhichas lupus nearshore to offshore D HB American sandlance Ammodytes hexopterus nearshore, bank edges D S Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus coastal to offshore (sm) P CIS ..Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus coastal to oceanic (sm) P CIS Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus nearshore to offshore (sm) P-D Redfish Sebastes marinus nearshore to oceanic, bk, bs D-P R,HB,M CIS Northern searobin Prionotus carolinus nearshore to offshore D SHB OD Sea raven Hemitripterus americanus nearshore to offshore D HS,R,P,HC Shortthorn sculpin Myoxocephalus scorpius nearshore to coastal D SB,M,S,P Lonahorn sculpin M. octodecimspinosus estuarine to offshore, bk D Alligatorfish Aspidophoroides moropterygius coastal, bk, bs D P'S'SM Lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus nearshore to coastal D R Fourspot flounder Paralichthys oblongus coastal to ofishore, bk D Windowpane , Scopthalmus aquosus nearshore to coastal D S Witch flounder Glyptocephalus cynoglossus coastal to oceanic, bk, bs D M,CL,MS C American plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides coastal to oceanic, bk, bs D S,M,SB C Yellowtail flounder Limanda ferruginea coastal to offshore, bk D SIM-S C Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus estuaries to of'shore, bk D SB,MS CIS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a . adapted from Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; BLM 1977; Clayton et al. 1978; Grosslein and Azarovitz 1982; and TRIGOM 1974. b . Nearshore: to 15 m; Coastal: to 91 m; offshore: 91 m to continental slope; oceanic: op en ocean; bs: deep basins of the Gulf of Maine; bk: shallow offshore banks; cbk: coastal banks; sm: seasonal migrant to Gulf of Maine. C. P: pelaaic; D: demersal d. C: commercially important; S: sportfish e CL:clay; G: gravel; HB: hard bottom; HC: hard clay; HS: hard sand; M: mud; MS: muddy sand: M-S: mud-sand; P: pebbles; R: rock; S: sand; SB: soft bottom; SH: shells; SM: soft mud; SMS: smooth muddy sand Table 3.C.2-3: Fish species occuring at or near MBDS. Species This NMFS and MDMF Studya Bottom Trawlsb -------------------------------------------------------------------- Pelagic Atlantic herring G x Alewife G x Atlantic mackerel G,I x Bluefish I Bluefin tuna Blueback herring X American shad x Semi-Demersal or Semi-Pelagic Silver hake G,I,N,T x Atlantic cod G,I,T x Redfish G,I,T x Spiny dogfish G,S,T x Haddock I x Pollock I x Butterfish x Demersal American plaice G,I,T x Thorny skate G,N,T x Red hake G,T x Fourbeard rockling G,T x Longhorn sculpin G,T x Atlantic wolffish I,Tc Cusk I,T x Yellowtail flounder I,T x Witch flounder I,T x Winter flounder I,N,T x Ocean pout S,T x Snakebleny S x d Sandlance S x White hake T x Windowpane T x Alligatorfish T x Wrymouth T x Goosefish T x Clearnose skate T Pipefish T Northern searobin T Winter skate x Fourspot flounder x Scup x Sea raven x Cunner x Daubed shanny x Mailed sculpin x unidentified skate S unidentified flounder S unidentified sculpin S ------------------------------------------------------------------ a. species noted in COE surveys within the MBDS area and in nearby reference locations (1985-1986). G: gill net; I: interviews with commercial or sport fishermen; N: tramel net; S: submersible observations; T: bottom trawl. b. species captured by NMFS and/or MDMF trawls within 6 nautical miles of the MBDS at depths > 60 m. (1979 -1984). C. captured solely in reference location. d. American sandlance 182 Table 3. C.2-4. Frequency of occurence of fish species in NMFS and MDMF bottom trawls in the vicinity of MBDSP Spring Trawls Fall Trawls ------------------------------------------------------------------ Common American plaice (100) American plaice (100) Atlantic cod (100) Witch flounder (100) Yellowtail-flounder (100) Red hake (100) Witch flounder (100) Silver hake (100) Ocean pout (89) Alewife (84) Red hake (89) Ocean pout (77) Silver hake (78) Longhorn sculpin (69) Longhorn sculpin (78) Atlantic cod (69) Sea raven (66) White hake (69) Winter flounder (66) Blueback herring (66) Alligator fish (66) Daubed shanny (66) occasional Thorny skate (56) Sea raven (60) Snakeblenny (56) Thorny skate (54) Fourspot flounder (56) Atlantic herring (54) Fourbeard rockling (44) Goosefish (54) Haddock (44) Fourbeard rockling (38) White hake (44) Butterfish .(38) Alewife (33) Haddock (38) Goosefish (33) Redfish (38) Cunner (38) Infrequent American sandlance (11) Alligatorfish (31) Pollock (11) Snakeblenny (31) Atlantic herring (11) Yellowtail flounder (31) Redfish (11)' Wrymouth (23) Winter skate (11) Winter floundei (23) Mailed sculpin (23) Daubed shanny (23) Blueback herrring (15) Atlantic mackeral (15) Fourspot flounder (15) American shad (15) Pollock (15) Windowpane (8) Cusk (8) Scup (8) Spiny dogfish (8) ------------------------------------------------------------------ a.species and frequency of occurence W common: present in > 2/3 of trawls occasional: present in 1/3 to 2/3 of trawls infrequent: present in < 1/3 of trawls spring trawls: n = 9; fall trawls n = 13 NMFS trawls: n 8; MDMF trawls: n 14 183 TABLE 3.C.2-5: Summary of winter National Marine Fisheries Survey a,b bottom trawls in the vicinity of the MBDS (1979-1984). Species Winter Number Weight W) M -------------------------------------------------------------- American plaice 66 45 Winter flounder 5 13 Pollock 8 3 Witch flounder 2 5 Atlantic cod <1 8 Silver hake 6 <1 Ocean pout 1 6 Atlantic herring 5 1 Alewife <1 5 Redfish 1 3 Sea raven <1 3 c Other Species 7 8 --------------------------------- ------------------------- Summary Statisucs: Winter mean weight (kg) of fish caught/trawl: 101 mean number of fish caught/trawl: 630 mean number of species caught/trawl: 13 total number of species caught: 19 number of trawls: 3 mean water depth (m): 82 ----------------------------------------------------------------- a. summary including all species and catch data from individual trawls is presented in the Appendix. b. expressed as a percentage of total catch. C. species comprising less than 3 % of total catch (number and weight) in both NMFS and MDMF surveys. 184 C> TABLE 3.C.2-6: Summary of spring National Marine Fisheries Survey and Massachusettes Division of Marine Fisheries bottom trawls in the vicinity of MBDS (1979 '- 1984).a,b Species MDMF Trawls NMFS Trawls Number Weight Number Weight W W W W --------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- American plaice 81 59 67 42 Ocean pout 5 20 3 3 Atlantic cod 1 6 1 21 Witch flounder (1 4 14 13 Thorny skate <1 (1 3 9 American sandlance 0 0 5 <1 00 Un Snakebleny 3 1 0 0 Winter skate (1 4 Other Species c 10 10 9 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- Summary Statistics: MDMF NMFS mean weight (kg) of fish caught/trawl: 165 130 mean number of fish caught/trawl: 1360 411 mean number of species caught/trawl: 17 12 total number of species caught: 24 18 number of trawls: 6 3 mean water depth (m): 73 78 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- a. summary including all species and catch data from individual trawls is presented in the Appendix. b. expressed as a percentage of total catch by NMFS or MDMF trawls. c. species comprising less than 3 % of total catch (number and weight) in both NMFS and MDMF surveys. TABLE 3.C.2-7: Summary of summer National Marine Fisheries Survey bottom trawls in the vicinity of the MBDS (1979-1984),a,b Species Summer Number Weight M W -------------------------------------------------------------- American plaice 80 32 Thorny skate 2 21 Witch flounder 7 17 Spiny dogfish 1 9 Atlantic cod 2 7 Red hake 3 6 Fourspot flounder 1 4 other Speciesc 4 4 -------------------------------------------------- Summary Statistics: 0 weight (kg) of fish caught/trawl: 114 number of fish caught/trawl: 349 number of species caught/trawl: 14 number of trawls: 1 water depth (m): 72 --------------------------------------------------------- a. data for all species is presented in the Appendix b, expressed as a percentage of total catch. c. species comprising less than 3 % of total catch (number and weight) in both NMFS and MDMF surveys. 186 TABLE 3.C.2-9: Summary of fall National Marine Fisheries Survey and Massachusettes Division of Marine Fisheries bottom trawls in the vicinity of MBDS (1979 - 1984).a,b Species MDMF Trawls NMFS Trawls Number Weight Number Weight W W M --------------------------------------------------------------------------- American Plaice 59 32 29 13 Silver Hake 16 12 19 7 Red Hake 8 27 4 7 Alewife 1 (1 23 15 Atlantic Cod 1 1 9 28 Witch Flounder 2 8 1 3 00 Ocean Pout 2 5 3 3 Golden Redfish (1 (1 5 5 Goosefish <1 4 <1 5 Thorny Skate <1 1 1 6 Atlantic Herring 5 2 <1 <1 Snakebleny 3 3 c Other Species 3 5 7 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- Summary Statistics: MDMF NMFS mean weight (kg) of fish caught/trawl: 114 138 mean number of fish caught/trawl: 861 393 mean number of speceis caught/trawl: 15 15 total number of species caught: 29 25 number of trawls: 8 5 mean water depth (mm) 71 72 ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- a. summary including all species and catch data from individual trawls is presented in the Appendix. expressed as a percentage of total catch by NMFS or MDMF trawls. c. species comprising less than 3 % of total catch (number and weight) in both NMFS and MDMF surveys. Table 3.C.2-9: Results of gill net deployments within MBDS in June of 1985, Species Mean Catch (number of fish) a Dredged Material Natural Bottom (n=2) (n=4) ----------------------------------------------------------- CO CO Spiny dogfish 8 15 Redfish 2 <1 Silver hake <1 <1 Alewife <1 Longhorn sculpin <1 ---------------------------------------------------------- a. 6 hour deployment (1000-1600 hr) on June 6 or June 7) Table 3.C.2-10: Submersible observations of fish communities at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (June 8, 1985La Taxa Fish Observed (per m 2) in Various Habitats Dredged Mud/Clay Mud/Clay Cobble Material (SE) (NE) (NE) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snakeblenny 0.02 0.09 0.28 0.02 00 Ocean pout 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06 unidentified sculpin <0.01 0.02 0.04 unidentified flounder 0.09 0.01 Spiny dogfish 0.01 0.01 unidentified skate 0.01 Sandlan@@e larvae 0.20 0.01 unidentified larvae 0.02 Total (fish/m2 0.0.4 0.33 0.42 0.15 ----------------------- Area sampled (m2) 44 388 189 247 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- a. based on slow replay analysis of video tape footage. Table 3.C.2-11: Fish captured by gill nets deployed on dredged material at MBDS in October of 19W' Total Catch Species Number Weight, Number Weight (kg) M M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Redfish 90 46.5 44 33 Silver hake 44 15.3 22 11 Red hake 26 25.6 13 18 Thorny skate 3 26.0 1 19 Atlantic cod 12 16.2 6 12 Atlantic mackerel 11 5.3 5 4 Atlantic herring 13 3.8 6 3 American plaice 3 0.7 1 1 Fourbeard rockling 2 0.2 1 <1 Total: 204 139.6 - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 a. fish caught by two attached pannels (total area: 166 m deployed from 1200 October 7 until 1130 October 8. TABLE 3.C.2-12: Summary of COE bottom trawls in the vicinity of MBDS. Species October 1985 February 1986 Reference Area MBDS a MBDS Number b Weightb, c Number b Weight b. c Number b Weight b,c M M M M ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- American plaice 34 23 39 28 54 19 Witch flounder 15 19 28 20 6 13 Silver hake 30 15 14 7 11 1 Red hake 10 28 5 11 Redfish 5 4 10 15 9 21 Cusk 18 16 Ocean pout (1 <1 5 24 Thorny skate 1 6 <1 9 White hake 2 2 1 5 Fourbeard rockling 1 <1 1 <1 7 3 Atlantic cod 1 1 <1 1 Goosefish <1 4 Wrymouth <1 <1 <1 2 Longhorn sculpin <1 <1 2 <1 Yellowtail flounder <1 <1 Clearnose skate <1 <1 Sea robin <1 <1 windowpane <1 <1 Alligatorfish <1 <1 Pipefish <1 <1 Winter flounder <1 <1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary Statisticsd October 1985 February 1986 Reference Area MBDS MBDS mean num;:,er of fish caught/trawl: 213 (16) 207 (2) 74 (11) mean weight (kg) of fish caught/trawl: 109 (10) 74 (9) 11 (6) mean number of speceis caught/trawl: 10 11 10 total number of speceis caught: 12 13 13 number of trawls: 2 2 2 -- ---- ------- -------- ---- ------- ------ --- ------- -------- ------ ---- a. area trawled includeA both natural bottom and dredged material within MBDS b. expressed as a percentage of total catch. c. because of missing data, some weights were estimated using length measurements and published length-weight relationships (Bigelow and Shroeder 1953; Clayton et al. 1978). d. mean and standard deviation Table 3.C.2-13: Average commercial fisheries catch in the vicinity of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (1982-1984).a Species Commercial landings 1000's of kg- % of total ------------------------------------------------------ Atlantic cod 1861 29 American plaice 1036 16 Winter flounder 692 11 Yellowtail flounder 636 10 Haddock 428 7 Witch flounder 406 6 Silver hake 312 5 Pollock 304 5 Menhaden 184 3 Herring 174 3 Spiny dogfish 95 2 Shrimp 85 1 Wolfish 42 1 Red hake 39 1 Lobster 17 <1 Summer flounder 5 <1 Total: 6316 ------------------------------------------------------- a. catch from 10' square centered at Longitude: 40.25'; Latitude: 70.35' Table 3.C.2-14: Life history information of fish which may spawn in the vicinity of MBDS. a Species Principle Spawning Months Spawning Substrate/ Depth Incubation Larval Habitat Habitatb Preferencec Period (and length of larval period)d N D J F M A M J J A S 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pollock N D J P 27-91 m 9 d P (2 m) Longhorn sculpin N D J F D HS; < 91 m 3 m P (1 -n@ then D Atlantic wolfish N D J F D HS D Rock gunnel N D J F M D peb., grav., stone P Snakeblenny D J F D U; (91 m P Wrymouth D J F D U P Atlantic cod D J F M A P prin. < 64 m 14-30 d P (2 m) U-) American sandlance J F M A D sand, gravel 2 m P (2-3 -n) then D Haddock F M A M P prin. 27-183 m 9-23 d P (NS 6 w) American plaice F M A M J P prin. < 90 m 11-14 d P (3-4 m) White hake F M A M J J P Atlantic mackerel A M J J P 2-6 d P (2 m) Cusk A M J J A P P Yellowtail flounder M A M J J A P 35-90 m 5 d- P Witch flounder A M J J A P 7-8 d P (4-6 m) Radiated shanny M J J A D HB P Fourspot flounder M i i P prin. 35-80 m Redfishe M J J A P P (NS -:hen NB)) Atlantic menhaden J J A S P 2 d P Goosefish J J A S P 7-22 d P Fourbeard rockling M J J A S 0 P P (3 m) then D Red hake M J J A S 0 P 2-4 d P then D Silver hake J J A S 0 P 2 d (?) P (2-3 -n) then D Ocean pout S 0 D rock; prin. ( 50 m @2-5`3.5m D Atlantic herrina S 0 D. rock, grav.; 4-55 m; 11-40 d P (5-8 m NS) Sea Raven N D 0 D U, Sponges up to 3 m Alligatorfish N D 0 D U P ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- a. Bigelow and Shroeder (1953); Clayton et al. (1978); Grosslein and Azarovitz (1982); Shetling et al (1980), TRIGOM (1974) b. D: demersal: P: pelagic c. based on known spawning habits or adult distribution; U: unc6nsolidated substrate; HS: hard substrate; AB: aquatic bed d. NS: near surface; NB: near bottom e. ovoviviparous Table 3.C.2-15: Occure nce and abundance of fish ecas at Seabrookl@ New Hampshire. Season/Species Assemblageb Mean abundance (eggs/1000 m2) ------------------------------------------------------ Fall-Winter (Nov-Feb) Atlantic cod/Haddor-k 130 Pollock 90 Winter-Spring (Jan-April) American plaice c 129 Atlantic cod/Haddock 78 Spring (April-May) American plaice d 995 Cunner/Yellowtail flounder 407 Cod/Haddock 239 Fourbeard rockling 148 Spring (May-June) Cunner/Yellowtail flounder 14029 Mackerel 7083 Fourbeard rockling 92@ American plaice 402 Summer (June-August) e Cunner/Yellowtail flounder 22646 Hake 7281 Makerel 6362 Fourbeard ;7ockling/Hake 2422 Summer (July-Sept) Hake 6471 Cunner/Yellowtail flounder 6426 Windowpane flounder 290 Fourbeard rockling 143 Fall (Sept-Oct) Hake 477 Silver hake 109 Fourbeard rockling/hake 108 Fourbeard rockling 81 ------------------------------------------------- a. adapted from Normandeau (1985); assemblages deliniated by numerical classification of nearshore samples collected during 1975-1984. b. principal months in which assemblage occured and dominant species c. predominately cod d. predominately yellowtail flounder e. predominately cunner 194 Table 3.C.2-16: Occurence and abundance of fish larvae at Seabrook, New H Iampshire@ Season/Species Assemblage b Mean abundance (larvae/1000 m2) ---------------------------------------------------------- Fall-Winter (Opt-Nov) Atlantic herring 457 Fall-Vinter (Nov-Dec) Atlantic herring 49 Pollock 42 Winter-Spring (Dec-Feb)) American sand lance 398 Pollock 63 Winter-Spring (Feb-April) American sandlance 1004 Rock gunnel 207 Spring (May-June) Winter flounder 217 American plaice 179 Seasnails 129 Summer (July-Aug) mackerel 2280 Cunner 1993 Summer-Fall (Aug-Oct) Fourbeard rockling 35 Hake (Urophycis spp.) 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- a. adapted from Normandeau (1985); principle assemblages deliniated by numerical classification of nearshore samples collected during 1975-1984. b. principal months in which assemblages occured and dominant species. 195 Table 3.C.2-17: Occurence and adundance of larval fish in Massachussetes Baya Species Occurence and Abundance,b J F M A M J J A S 0 N D ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pollock H M M M M M L L M M American sandlance VH VE VH M M M vt American plaice H H M Haddock L M M Atlantic makerel VH VH H M Redfish L L M M Atlantic cod M H H M L L Yellowtail flounder M' M M M L Windowpane L L M M Witch flounder L M H H M M M L L Cunner H H H H M L L Hakes (Urophycis spp.) .M H H M M Silver hake M H H H M M L Atlantic herring M M M L L VH VH VH H ---------------------------------------------------------------- a. based on offshore 1977-1984 MARMAP surveys2(Morse et al. 1987) b. maximum reported concentrations (per 100 m ): VH: i-00-1-10000; H: 101-1000; M: 11-100; L: 1-10 Table 3.2.C.18: Feeding guilds of fish likely to occur in the vicinity of the Foul Area Disposal SitePL --------------------------------------------------------------- Planktonic Demersal/Semidemersal Atlantic menhanden Fourbeard Ro'ckling Alewife Longhorn sculpin Blueback herring Snakeblenny American shad Barndoor skate American sandlance, Little skate Atlantic herring Wintar skate Thorny skate Necktonic Cusk Sea raven Alligator fish Wrymouth Redfish Winter flounder Pollock Fourspot flounder White hake Windowpane American pollock American plaice Silver hake witch flounder Bluefish Yellowtail flounder Spiny dogfish Scup Atlantic mackerel Northern searobin Red hake Goosefish Rock gunnel Haddock Necktonic/Demersal Ocean Pout Atlantic wolffish Cunner Atlantic cod ---------------------------------------------------------------- a. Bigelow an d Schroeder 1953; Clayton et al. 1978; Grosslein and Azarovitz 1982; Michaels and Bowman 1983; Sheting et al. 1980; TRIGOM 1974 Table 3.C.2-19: Stomach Contents (%) Of Fish Caught At FADS, September 1985, Based on Number Of Food Items Witch Winter Atlantic Cod American Plaice Flounder Floonder Fish Species Trawl Trawl Trawl Nets Capture Method. 12 9 No. Examined. 12 20 10 5 No. with food 8 12 329 547 No. food items 45 51 RHYNCHOCOELA - 1.3 0.9 SIPUNCULA ANNELIDA 89.9 51.4 Polychaeta 17 MOLLUSCA - 16.6 4.1 - Bivalvia 00 ARTHROPODA Crustacea 1.3 41.8 Amphipoda 57.4 - - Mysidacea 2.1 - Euphausiacea 4.2 0.9 - Caridea, 10.6 7.3 - 0.18 Tanidacea - 3.6 - Cumacea* - ECHINODERMATA 4.2 75.9 - 0.7 CHORDATA 0.5 Ascidiacea - OTHER 4.5 0.2 0.2 3.22 Table 3.C.2-20: Feeding strategy groups at the MBDS droup I - Fishes feeding on prey less than or equal to 1.00 Group Species mm or smaller with a modal prey size around O.5mm. American plaice American plaice witch flounder witch flounder Group Il Fishes that exploit a range of prey sizes and that are not clearly small prey or large prey Ila witch flounder exploiters. Group Il contains four sub-groups: witch flounder a) fishes that exploit prey between greater than IIb American plaice or equal .063mm and less than or equal to American plaice 2.00mm. No prey size mode is apparent. Witch flounder witch flounder b) fishes that exploit prey between .250 and witch flounder 3.35mm. The modal prey size exploitation Is yellowtail fl. between 1.00 and 2.00mm. IIC American plaice c) fishes that exploit a range of prey. sizes witch flounder between greater than or equal to .063mm and 6.35mm. IId witch flounder witch flounder d) fishes whose exploitation is uniformly with witch flounder the range between greater than or equal to 1.00 and 6.35mm. III American plaice American plaice American plaice American plaice Group III Fishes that do not exploit small or medium sized American plaice prey. Exploitation is overwhelmingly among prey American plaice that are greater than or equal to 3.35mm. A very witch flounder pronounced peak is evident in the greater than or equal to 6.35mm category. Table 3.C.2-21:FP-eding efficiency of Witch flounder and American plaice at MBDS as inuicated by weight of toutach contents. Mean Weight Of Food Per Stomach (in grams) Species Size Class MBDS (n)@ Reference (r) witch flounder 10-14.9 CM .02(3) .17(1)* 15-19.9 cm .17(T-1)**(6) .16(5) .24(T-2)(5) 20-24.9 cm .49(T-1)(7) .23(6) .19(T-2)(3) 25-29.9 cm .50(20) .18(5) 30+ cm .60(20) .55(20) American plaice 10-14.9 cm .01(11) .01(20) 15-19.9 cm .07(20) .04(20) 20-24.9 cm .13(20) .06(20) [email protected] cm, .65(16) .31(20) 30+ cm .04(T-1)(1) 1.31(13) .91(T-2)(6) Questionable value due to sample size. Refers to trawl number. 200 Table 3.C.2-22: Invertebrates captured in NMFS and MDMF bottom trawls in the v%icinity of MBDS (1979- 1984). Species Mean number caught/trawl NMFS MDMF Spring Summer, Fall Winter Spring Fall ------ --------------------------------------------------------------- Shortfin squid 39 20 22 Longfih squid 26 11 Shrimp P P Lobster 7 6 5 4 <1 Rock Crab <1 <1 2 Jonah crab I (I Sea scallops 4 Octopus 2 <1 Number of trawls: 4 1 5 3 6 8 ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------- Table 3.C.2-23: Life history characteristics of commercially important invertebrates present at MBDO Species Habitat Preference Seasonality Reproduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- American lobster depth: 0-700 m. prefers moves nearshore during mating occurs May - July. (Homarus americanus) irregular bottom, but freq. spring and summer. prob. eggs held by female until occur on mud or sand absent from PADS June - folowing summer. larvae September pelagic. for 3 - 6 weeks Rock crab depth: 0-600 m. sand or mud, young move inshore fall, mating occurs late fall - (Cancer irroratus) sometimes gravel winter, and spring early winter (Maine). eggs held by female until June - Aug. larvae pelagic 1.5 - 2 m. Jonah crab depth: 0-800 m. prefers rocky small - medium sized mating season June - Dec. (C. borealis) bottom individuals found larvae pelagic, late spring nearshore seasonally summer Red crab depth: prin. 320 640 m mating occurs September - early breeding prefers silty clay, found on summer. eggs held by female until (Geryon quinquedens) both hard and soft bottom hatching (Aoril-June). larvae pelagic for prolonged period Northern shrimp depth: 9 - 329 m. prin. 100 adults move inshore mating occurs August - Sept. (Pandalus borealis) 250 m. prefer unconsolidated during winter eggs held by female until bottom (mud, sand, silt) hatching (Feb. - April). larvae pelagic for ca. 2 months (inshore) Short-fin squid pelagic migratory between coastal spawning occurs nrin. offshore (Illex illecebrosus) and offshore. prob. most on coastal shelf common at FADS from summer through early autumn Long-fin squid pelagic same as short-fin squid spawning occurs April Sept. (Loligo peale@i) eggs demersal in clusters at 3 30 m. Sea scallops depth: 0-200 m, prin. 40-100 m no directed movements spawning Sept. - Oct. (Placopecten magellanicua) sand or silty sand or seasonal migrations larval period 35 days Ocean quahog depth: prin. 11 - 250 m. no directed movements spawning occurs late June - (Arctica islandica) most abundant on soft sandy or seasonal migrations early Oct. (peak August) mud or silty sand 60 day larval period ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ a. Fefer and Schettig 1990; Grosslein and Azarovitz 1982; Morse et al. 1987; TRIGOM 1974; Williams 1984 3.C.3. BENTHOS There have been relatively few studies of the benthic fauna of Massachusetts Bay and Stellwagen Basin area. In 1976, an extensive survey .of the benthic comunity of Massachusetts Bay was conducted by the New England Aquarium for the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (Gilbert et. al. 1976). Seventy-three samples were taken from Massachusetts Bay. The results of this study indicated that the benthic community is dominated by spionid poiychaetes such as Spio (limicola) and to a lesser extent Prionospio (steenstrupi). Gilbert called the area a �.Lio (limicola) - Thyasira (gouldi) community. Benthic data were collected from various locations in Cape Cod Bay as part of the Environmental Impact Report for the identification of dredged disposal sites in Cape Cod Bay. The results of this survey showed that the area is dominated by Spio limicola and Mediomastus californiensis. Together, these two species made up 40 to 50% of the individuals. Secondary species which were abundant included Euchone incolor, Cossura longocirrata, and oligochaetes. These studies indicate a pattern in which Massachusetts Bay sediments are dominated by spionid assemblages. A description of the benthic community near the present day Massachusetts Bay was provided by Gilbert (1975). Five stations and a control were sampled in April, May, June and July. These stations are adjacent to MBDS in an area historically used for chemical disposal. Two of the stations are located within the boun 'daries of the dredge material disposal site. In general species composition and abundances among the 6 sites were similar. These areas were dominated by Spio limicola and Heteromastus filiformis. Five stations from Gilberts 1976 survey were located on the perimeter of the Massachusetts Bay (See Table 3.C.3-2 for locations). These areas were.dominated by Spio limicola, Prionospio steenstrupi, Ampharete acutifrons and Heteromastus filiformis. Several cruises between 1979 and 1982 in Massachusetts Bay by the National Marine Fisheries Service as part of the Northeast Monitoring Program have resulted in the collection of a large benthic data set for Massachusetts Bay. The station nearest the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (42019-0 N, 70036.0 W) showed an area dominated by Spio (limicola) and to a lesser extent Prionospio steenstrupi and Anobothrus gracilis (Fig. 3.C.3-1 and 3.C.3-2). The pattern that emerges from these studies is that the benthic community in the general vicinity of the MassAhusetts Bay Disposal Site does not appear to be substantially different from the Massachusetts Bay system. 203 An analysis of the benthic community in the Massachusetts Bay Dis- posal Site was undertaken to evaluate the impact of disposal operations. The benthic analysis and sampling2design were facilitated through the use Is of REMOTS reconnaissance. A 0.1m Smith-McIntyre grab, seived through a 0.5mm screen, was used for all NED samples. Comparisons were made between smaller (and larger) mesh seives and the 0.5 mm was determined the most cost effecient in terms of data versus cost. The REMOTS survey revealed two major grain size facies at MBDS (silt-clay and coarse sand) and three types of biological community. Benthic stations were located to docu- ment: 1).the benthic community in fine-grained sediments ; 2) the benthic community on fine-grained sediments affected by dredged material within the designated MBDS boundary and 3) the dense tubiculous polychaete assemblage consisting mainly of suspension and surface deposit-feeding fauna located on the coarse sand/cobble bottom within the designated MBDS boundary. Five benthic stations were established near the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. This includes a mud and a sand station within the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (Mud Station Off Dredged Material and Sand Station), and a mud and sand reference station outside of MBDS (Mud Reference Station and Sand Reference Station). In addition a station was located on dredged material in the site (Mud Station On Dredged Material). The results of this analysis are summarized in Figures 3.C.3-2 through 3.2.C.3-5. The raw data are presented in the SAIC, 1987 Volume II. The mud reference station was located just outside the Massachusetts Bay to the southeast 62024.686', 70032.814') in an area of silt-clay 500 meters southeast of the boundary. The REMOTS photographs indicated that this area was characterized by so called "conveyor-belt" type deposit feeding organisms, whi@ch feed on subsurface sediments in a head down orientation and defecate at the sediment surface. Feeding voids and distinct granulometric changes in sediment particles at the surface are indicative of this type of community. This station wasIchosen to serve as a control station for comparison with the silt-clay stations within MBDS (Mud Station On Dredged Material = MBDS-ON and Mud Station Off Dredged Material = MBDS-OFF). The Mud Reference Station was sampled in June and September 1985 and in January 1986. The Mud Station Off Dredged Material within the disposal site (42024.956', 700 33.919') was sampled in September 1985. Side-scan sonar, submersible observations and REMOTS photographs all showed a generally flat and uniform bottom at both of these stations. The number of species in the 12 mud station replicates varied over time from 33 to 49. The.Mud Reference Station was dominated by annelids (polychaetes and oligochaetes). The other taxa making up less than 10% of the samples. The most abundant, species was the polychaete Paraonis gracilis. This small deposit feeding poiychaete (Family: Par@_onidae) dominated at this station over all seasons, making up 20 to 38% of the individuals. Motile epifauna, tubiculous polychaetes and amphipods, and heavy shelled bivalves were absent or occured at reduced densities at MBDS-ON. Other taxa which were associated with silt-clay sediments were the bivalve, Yoldia thraciaeformis and the holothurian, Molpadia oolitica. Rhyncocoels were found in all substrate types but were the most abundant in mud samples. 204 The Mud Station Off Dredged Material was similar in species composition to the Mud Reference station. Paraonis gracilis, was again the dominant species at this station. The most obvious difference in the species composition between Mud Off station and the Mud Reference station was the increased abundance of oligochaetes. The Sand Reference Station was sampled in September 1985, and January 1986. This station was located northeast of the.Massachusetts Bay Dis- posal Site (42025.497, 70031.75,5) along the 60 meter isopleth. Sediments from this station were coarse sand to very coarse sand. The Sand Station within the MBDS area was located in the northeastern portion of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. In general the sandy stations had more species than the mud stations. Molluscs and arthropods were represented by greater number of species and individuals. Most of the species found at the mud station were present at the sand station. The sandy stations were less heavily dominated by annelids than the mud stations (85% in September and 80t in June) and the relative abundances of polychaete species in the sand stations were different. These sandy stations were dominated by the syllid, Exog .one verugera, the spionid, Prionospio steenstrupi and the ampharetid, Anobothtus gracilis. The fauna includes species which are adapted for burrowing in sand such as the polychaetes, Nepthys RjS.@a, Glycera capitata and Notomastus latericus and the isopod, Calathura branchiata. Also present were polychaete species which build tubes in sand, such as Owenia fusiformis, Praxilella gracilis, and Streblosoma spiralis. taxa, specifically the molluscs and arthropods were represented by more species and greater number of individuals. Molluscs were represented by bivalves which generally require firm substratum. This includes species.such as Astarte undata and Cyclocardia borealis which have heavy shells and short siphons, Crennela descussata, which attaches its byssal threads to coarse sediment particles, and Thyasira flexuosa. Also present in increased numbers were arthropods such as the amphipods, Unciola irrorata, Harpinia propingua and Haploops spp. Anobothrus gracilis and Myriochele oculata are deposit feeders which appear to be Adapted for hard bottoms where there is a supply of detrital food on the surface. Other deposit feeders like Mediomastus ambiseta are poorly adapted for sand and may be considered as overlapping from mud- bottom populations. Caprellid amphipods and syllid polychaetes such as Exogone prey on the. sessile epifauna living on pebbles and shell. The sand station within the MBDS area was sampled in September 1985. The area is similar to the other sand reference sites in species composition, number of individuals and relative abundance. It was dominated by the polychaetes Exogone verugera, Paraonis gracilis, and Prionospio steenstrupi. Three samples were collected from the Mud Station On Dredged Material (42026.443, 70034.456) in September 1985. These samples contained the highest density of individuals found in the study. These samples were 205 dominated by oligochaetes which comprised approximately 25% of the individuals and by the tube dwelling spionid polychaete Spio pettiboneae (18% of thi individuals). Twenty-two species had mean densities greater than 100/m . These included a number of deposit-feeding polychaetes, whose density was equal to or greater than the densities on the adjacent mud bottom (Ninoe nigripes, Trochochaeta multisetosa, Mediomastus ambiseta, Chaetozone setosa, Tharyx marioni, Cossura longocirrata, Aricidea quadriiobata, and Paraonis gracilis) Other dominant polychaetes included, Anobothrus gracilis,,* a deposit feeder found at the Sand Reference Station, and suspension feeding polychaetes such as the spionid Prionospio steenstrupi and the sabellids, Chone infundibuliformis and Euchone incolor. Also included among the dominants at this station are small epifaunal predators such as Eteone trilineata and Phloe minuta. Densities of the bivalve, Thyasira flexuosa were highest at this station. Spatial differences at the September survey,and seasonal differences at the Mud Reference Station are apparent in most of the eleven dominant taxa common to all five benthic stations. An analysis of variance was performed to determine significance of these differences (See SAIC, 1987 Vol I).' With the exception of Prionospio steen trupi, there were significant among station differences for all dominant taxa. To determine where these differences exist a Scheffe test was performed.. Densities were greatest at the Mud Station On Dredged Material and the Sand Reference Station. Significantly lower densities were found at the Mud Station Off Dredged Material and the Sand Station (ie, both stations within the MBDS boundary but off the dredged material had similar densities). The only anomalous pattern is displayed by the ampharetid polychaete, Anobothrus grapilis, where an intermediate level was found at the Mud Reference Station for this taxon. Clear patterns support the hypothesis that the Mud Station On Dredged Material is distinct from the two other mud stations and the two sand stations. The two mud stations (MBDS-OFF and MBDS-REF) are statistically similar to each other as are the two sand stations. There appears to be a seasonal component to the benthic community at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. The data collected by Gilbert and others (1976) suggested that there were seasonal differences in the total number of individuals at the MBDS. In the present study, seasonal differences were observed in the mean abundance and species composition at the Mud Stations. The number of species.in the 12 mud station replicates varied over time from 33 to 49. Seasonal differences in the number of species per sample were not statistically significant. There were, how- ever, statistically significant differences in the number of individuals among season at the mud reference station. The number of individuals per sample at the mud reference station was approximately twice that of the June and January samples. Statistically significant differences in mean abundances were noted for the folowing species Anobothrus gracilis, Mediomastus ambiseta, Chaetozone setosa, Aricidea quardrilobata, Prionospio steenstrupi, Exogone verugera, and Thyasira flexuosa. 206 The results of the REMOTS survey indicate seasonal changes in biological activity at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. There is abundant evidence of biological activity at the surface and deep bioLurbation in September survey. Maps of the RPD depths taken October, 1984, June 1985, September 1985 and January 1986 were made (SAIC, 1987 Figures III-B.2 through III-B.5). The REMOTS survey also indicates that there are statistically significant chances in the RPD depths among seasons at the Massachusetts Bay. This seasonal pattern is most likely associated with seasonal changes in the abundance of organisms and species types rather than changes in temperature or activity level of the benthic infauna. The, data from MBDS is superficially similar to the Massachusetts Bay being largely dominated by polychaetes. The major difference between the data set collected in this report and the historic data is in the abundance of Spio limicola. Although Spio limicola was the dominant species in the historic data from Massachusetts Bay, Stell1wagen Basin and the proposed disposal area, their abundances were very much reduced in the 1985-1986 samples. The reason for this difference are unknown. However, it should be noted that Spio limicola abundances were also low in other recent studies in Mass/gay (MWRA, 1,986). In summary, the analysis of the benthic community'structure in the vicinity of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site revealed assemblages typical 6f Massachusetts Bay. The 1985 to 1986 sampling program identified the dominant organisms at the reference area to be the polychaete Paranois gracilis, averaging 29.2% (S.D.=9.3, n=9) of all organisms and Heteromastus filiformis averaging 10.1% (S.D. = 4.7, n=9) of ail organisms. Average overall benthic density for the three seasons N investigated was 5,936 organisms per square meter (S.D. 2,842.7, n= 9) from an average of 44 species /m2 (S.D. = 9.5, n=9). The benthic population sampled in September from'a silty area within MBDS, but off dredged material (MBDS-OFF) contained similar dominance of Paranois gracilis (18.9%) for its average density of 8746 organisms /M2 from 37 species (n=3). The dredged material disposal station within MBDS was clearly dominated by oJigochaetes in September 1985, comprising 24.7% of its 26,548 organisms /m from 55 species (n=3). These assembelages are typical for populations coloni'zing recently disturbed habitat, such as the dredged material, exploiting the available high organic content of the substrate. The sandy reference area east of MBDS was dominated in September 1985 by the polychaete Exogone verugera, representing 15.4% of its 9190 organisms per square meter from 63 species (n=3). The sand station within MBDS was also dominated by Exogone verugera, at 20.5% of its 4622 organisms /M2 from 69 species. 207 These results indicate benthic population impacts at the point of dredged material disposal, having higher densities of organisms colonizing the disposed dredged material. Within MBDS, but off dredged material, the high densities of oligochaetes may indicate recruitment from MBDS-ON or another type of perturbation, possibly the foraging effects of finfish such as schools of dogfish observed in the finfish sampling program (see 3.C.2). The sandy area within MBDS was similar to sandy reference areas and both reference site (outside MBDS) have typical Massachusetts Bay benthic communities. 208 NMFS 12/79 Opio peffiboneae 40.7% MaIdane sarsi 7.6% Anobothrus gracifis 7.0% Myriochele oculata 4.5% Stemaspis scutata .4.0% Annefida 83.9 Paraonis gracilis 3.3% WIlusca 7.5 Nucula tenuis 3.3% Arthropoda 5.1 . ....... ....... .... .... ........... . .. .. ..... ........ .. .... 0 Other 3.5 Tharyx sp 2.8% .. ............. .... Prionospio steenstrupi 2.7% Aficidea quadfilobata 2.4% .. ........ . NMFS 7/80 Spio limicola 11.0% .......... .. ........ Prionospio steenstrupi 10.0% Anobothrus gracifis 8.3% Aficidea quaddlobata 5.4% d. ......... Heteromastus fififormis 5.3% Annefida 88.8 Mkriochele oculata 5.0% ...... Mollusca 4.7 Ste,maspis scutata 4.2% Arthropoda 4.1 Other 2.5 Chaetozone setosa 3.8% Scoloplos acutus 2.0% ........... Paraonis gracifis 1.8% NMFS 12/80 Spid limicola 44.0% Anobothrus gracifis 10.2% Aricidea quadrilobata 4.2% Sternaspis scutata 3.9% Prionospid steenstrupi 3.6% Annelida 85.3 Myriochele oculata 3.3% Mollusca 8.3 Arthropoda MaIdane sarsi 3.3% 3.3 Other 3.1 Haploscoloplos sp 2.8% Nucula tenuis 2.3% Chaefazone setosa 1.9% Figure 3.C.3-1 Benthos at NMFS Station near the disposal area. 1979-1981 209 NMFS 7/81 Spio limicola 43.2% Prionospio steenstrupi 8.2% Anobothrus gracilis 6.1% Stemaspis scufala 3.4% Annefida 84.9 Aficidea quadrilobata 3.4% Mollusca 6.5 Myriochele oculata 3.3% .... . ..... ....... .. Arthropoda 5.4 MaIdane sarsi 2.6% ... ... . .... Other 3.2 ... ... .. ... Chaetwone sebw 2.2% MaIdanidae sp 1.7% Haploscoloplos sp 1.4% NMFS 1/82 Spio limicola 39.9% Anobothrus gracifis 12.9% Myriochele oculata 5.5% Stemaspis scutata 5.4% Aricidea quadrilobata 3.7% [3 Annelida 88.9 MaIdane sarsi 3.7% Mollusca 5.9 Arlhropoda Heteromastus fififormis 2.4% 3.4 Other Haploscoloplos sp 2.2% 1.8 Pridifospid steenstrupi 1.6% Nucula tenuis 1.5% NMFS 12182 Spid fimcola 72.6% Anobathrus gracifis 3.6% MaIdane sarsi 3.3% Prionospio steenstrupi 2.9% Myriochele oculata 1.9% Annelida 94.9 Polydora socialis 1.1% Wflusca 2.2 :wqm: Arthropoda 1.7 Sternaspis scutata 1.0% M Other 1.3 Haploscoloplos sp 1.0% .......... Chaetozone sebw 1.0% MaIdande sp 0.9% Figure 3.C.3-2 Benthos at NMFS Station near the disposal area 1981-1982 210 Mud Reference 6/85 Oraonis gracilis 38.0% Heteromastus filiformis 12.8% Cossura longocirrata 7.0% Spio pettiboneae 6.6% Ofigochaetes sp 4.8% Annelida 95.4 Chaetazone selosa 4.0% Mollusca 0.5 Mediomastus ambiseta 2.4% Arlhropoda 2.0 Myriochele oculata 2.0% Other 2. 1 Trochochaeta mulfisetosa 2.0% Prionospio sWenstrupi 1.7% Mud Reference 9185 Paraonis gracilis 20.4% Prionospio steenstrup! 8.3% . .... . ...... Chaetozone sebw 7.9% Modiomastus . .. ... jambiseta 7.2% . .... ... Ofigochaete sp 6.4% 13 Annelida 89.6 Stemaspis scutata 5.4% Mollusca 6.4 Cossura longocirratta 5.4% Arlhropoda 0.8 Thyasira flexuosa 5.1% Other' 3.2 Heleromastus filiformis 5.1% Aficidea quadrilobata 5.0% Mud Reference 1/86 Paraonis gracilis 98.2% Heteromastus filiformis 1 @2.4% Spio peffiboneae 5.7% Cossura longocirrata 4.8% .. ..... .. .... Chaotozone setosa 4.5% C) Annefida 93.9 Ofigochaete sp 4.5% Mollusca Myriochele oculata 4.3% Arthropoda 3.7 Trochochaeta mulfisetosa 3.4% E2 Other 1.3 Aficidea quadrilobata 2.9% Stemaspis scutata 2.9% Figure 3.C.3-3 Benthos at the Mud Reference Site (MBDS-REF) 211 Mud - On 9/85 Ofigochaefe sp 24.7% Spio peffiboneae Chaetozone setosa 8.5% Mediomastus ambiseta 6.9% Prionospio steenstrupi 5.9% E3 Annelida 94.5 Aficidea quadrflobata 5.6% Mollusca 4.4 Anobothrus gracifis 4.7% Arthropoda 0.4 Other 0.7 Thyasira flexu0sa 3.8% Cossura longocirrata 3.5% Paraonis gracilis 2.7% Mud - Off 9/85 Paraonis gracifis 18.9% Ofigochaete sp 12.5% Chaetozone setm 9.1% Medibmastus ambiseta 8.3% Heteromastus filiformis 7.6% Annefida 91.0 Prionospio steenstrupi 6.5% Mollusca 4.8 MaIdane sarsi 4.8% Arthropoda 0.4 Other 3.7 Cosssura longocirrata 4.7% Stemaspos scutata 4.4% Aricidea quadrilobata 4.2% Figure 3.C.3-5 at the Mud Stations in the disposal area (MBDS-ON and MBDS-OFF) 212 Sand Reference 9185 Chogone venigera 15.4% Prionospio steenstrupi 14.4% Anobothrus gracilis 14.0% Nicomache sp 6.2% 13 Annelida 85.9 Paraonis gracilis 6.1% Mollusca 7.1 Ampharefid sp 5.7% 4.3 Arthropoda Myriochele oculata 2.7% 2.6 ..... ....... E2 Other Chone infundibulifonnis 2.0% Astarte undata 1.9% Phlbe minuta 1.9% Sand Reference 1/86 Prionospid steenstrupi 21.8% ......... . Exogone verugera 15.0% Anobothrus gracifis 7.2% dl Myriochele oculata 5.2% Annelida 86.1 Paraonis gracilis 5.1% Mollusca 4.2 Praxillura longissima 5.0% Arthropoda 8.6 Exogone hebes 4.9% 0 Other Mediomastus ambiseta 3.9% Spio peffiboneae 2.1% Cossura longocirrata 1.5% Sand Station 9/85 Exogone verugera 20.5% Paraonis gracifts 7.9% Prionospio steenstrupi 7.1% Nicomache sp 6.3% Phlbe minuta 4.7% E3 Annelida 86.1 Wflusca 4.2 Mediomastus ambiseta 3.0% . ..... Arihmpoda 8.0 Streblosoma spirafis 2.4% . ... .. EZ Other 1.1 Goniada maculata 2.1% Phascolion strombi 2.0% Myriochele oculata 2.0% Figure 3.C.3-6 Benthos at the Sand Station (MBDS-SRF, MBDS-NES) 213 Table 3.C.3-1. S ummary of Historic Data on Massachusetts Bay Percent abundance of dominant organisms in Massachusetts Bay. Numbers in parentheses indicates rank abundance. Gilbert et al. 1976 Gilbert, 1975 MassBay MBDS MBDS 1976 1976 1975 Spio (limicola) (1) 32% (1) 29% (1) Prionospio steenstrupi 11% (2) 16% (2) 11% (2) Heteromastus filiformis 4% (5) 7% (4) 11% (3) Aricidea quadrilobata 4% (4) 11% (3) 2% (7) Ampharete acutifrons 3% (6) 1% (9) 1% (8) Chaetozone setosa 1% (7) 2% (7) 10% (4) Thyasira gouldi 1% (8) 2% (8) 8% (5) Cirratulid 7% (3) Myriochele (heeri) 5% (5) Cossura longocirrata 2% (6) Hippomedon propinquis 1% (10) Colfingia 6% (6) Table 3.C.3-2. Location of Previous Studies in Massachusetts Bay Study Station Latitude Longitude Depth Substrate Gilbert 42 25 N, 70 35 W 300' Soft Mud 1975 Gilbert 11 42 27.2 N, 70 35 W 265' Soft Mud et al 12 42 23 N, 70 36 W 265' SoftMud 1976 13 42 22 N 70 32 W, 280 Soft Mud 14 42 24.6 N, 70 30.2 W 2651 Soft Mud 15 42 22.7 N, 70 26.2 W, 256' Soft Mud NMFS 42 19.0 N, 70 36.0 W, SAIC Mud Ref 42 24.7 N 70 @2.8 W, 300' Silt 1986 Sand Ref 42 25.5 N 70 31.8 W 250' Sand Sand Station 42 26.4 N 70 34.3 W 165' Sand Mud On 42 25.9 N 70 34.5 W 255' Silt Mud Off 42 24.9 N 70 33.9 W 275' Silt 3.C.4. Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds Tables 3.C.4-1 through 3.C.4-4 list the mammals, reptiles, and birds anticipated to occur in the vicinity of MBDS. Regionally, the-Gulf of Maine is within the range of approximately 35 species of marine mammals, four species of marine turtles and approximately 40 species of seabirds. 214 Dedicated aerial studies have been conducted by NED (MBO, 1987) to assess the site specific mammal, reptile, and seabird use of MBDS. While not exhaustive, the observations represent a characterization of the dominant species occurrence in the three ten minute square study area contiguousto MBDS (See Fig. 3.C.4-1). Sections 3.C.5 and 4.C.5 discuss details of these studies and the occurrence of threatened and endangered species of marine mammals and turtles, including the Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae; the Fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus; and the Right whale, Eubalaena glacialis that occur in the vicinity of MBDS. Reptiles anticipated to occur at MBDS include the threatened loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta; and the endangered Atlantic Ridley's turtle, Lepidochelys @@; green turtle Chelonia mydas; hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata; and leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. Site specific scientific studies in 1985-1986 identified non-endangered dominant marine mammals at MBDS to include the minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata; the white sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus; and the harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena. Non-dominant mammals that may range into the Gulf of ga-ine(extralimitally) include Pilot whales Globicephala melaena; grampus, Grampus griseus; killer whales, Orcinus orca; bottlenosed dolphins, Tursiops truncatus; common dolphins, Delphinus delphis; spotted dolphins, Stenella plagiodon; striped dolphins, Stenella coeruleoalba; harbor seals, Phoca vitulina;,and gray seals, Halici@oerus grypus. Dominant seabirds o@_served during these studies include northern fulmar, Fulmarus glacialis; shearwaters, Puffinus spp; storm petrels, Hydrobatidae; northern gannet, Sula bassanus; Po'marine Jaeger, Stercorarius pomarinus; gulls, E-a-rinae; and alcids, Alcidae. NOTE: The following species accounts do not include those organisms discussed in detail, in Section 3.C.5 of this report, entitled: "Threatened and Endangered Species." Minke Whale The minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata, is the smallest member of the family Balaenopteridae. The range of the minke whale in the northwest Atlantic extends across shelf waters from Baffin Island, Ungava, Island and Hudson Strait south to the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea (Sergeant 1963; Mitchell 1974c; Leatherwood et al. 1976; Winn and Perkins 1976). Seasonal north-south, onshore and ofTs-h-ore movements (similar to that of the finback whale) are likely. Minke whale sightings in all but excellent conditions are limited due to the inconspicuousness of the species; therefore seasonal trends are more difficult to determine * However, during spring and summer, the range of the minke whale in the northwest Atlantic extends north from Cape Hatteras. Minke whales occupy wide regions of the shelf, especially in spring and summer. The area of greatest abundance as described by CETAP (1982) is a U-shaped area extending east from Montauk Point, Long Island, south- east of Nantucket Shoals to the Great South Channel, then northward along the 100 m contour outside Cape Cod to Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge. 215 ALI sightings south of Nova Scotia from Mid-April to October generally are concentrated in this region (Hain et at. 1981). In late summer, their range extends into the northern CuTf @_f Maine - lower Bay of Fundy. Their range is contracted in fall and winter. Although winter sightings are reported from the Gulf of Mexico (Gunter 1954), northeast Florida and the Bahamas (Katona et al. 1977) winter sightings in shelf waters southeast of Nantucket (south@_of 40000' N) are rare. Minke whales are secondary and tertiary carnivores that feed primarily on schooling fish and euphausids (Sergeant 1963, Mitchell 1973, 1974b, 1974c, 1975c; Leatherwood et al. 1976; Jonsgard 1982). In the Gulf of Maine, minke whales eat fish, especially herring and sand eel (Katona et al. 1977). Due to the limited detectability of this species at sea, abundance estimates based on sighting data likely are biased downward. In the Gulf of Maine, abundance estimates from shipboard surveys (MBO 1980-85) range from 30 (winter) to 520 (summer). Estimates resulting from CETAP (1982) surveys range from 0 (winter) to 113 (summer). Minke whales commonly are observed in the northern Stellwagen/ southern Jeffreys Ledge area from March until November of each year (Figs. 3.C.4-2). Overwintering in the area may occur, although survey coverage was limited during the winter period. While all areas receive some use by minkes, southern Jeffreys Ledge seems to be the preferred habitat. Recent site specific studies have described two peaks in minke whale abundance in the study area during the year: 1) Minkes were seen commonly in the spring, and during this time, they are usually alone, with other conspecifics in the vicinity and 2) the largest concentrations are observed during late summer and early fall. Aggregations of 15 to 20 animals are not uncommon at this time. During 1984 these concentrations were found.,only on Jeffreys Ledge. During 1985 they also were seen on northern St'allwagen. Aggregations of minke whales often are in the immediate vicinity of fin whales. Surface feeding by minke whales has been reported, but most feeding seems to take place below the surface. Breaching, commonly reported in other areas, has only been observed in the MBDS area on three occasions. Only twice have minkes small enough to considered calves been observed within MBDS. White-sided Dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus In the western North Atlantic, Leatherwood et at. (1976) reported white-sided dolphins, Lagenorhynchus acutus, from Davis Strait south to Hudson Canyon (Figure 3.C.4-3). The first confirmed report of white-sided dolphins from Cape Cod:occurred in 1956 (Schevill 1956). The southernmost extent of their range was redefined to the mid-Atlantic Bight near Chesapeake Bay by Testaverde and Mead (1980). This southern range limit 216 was supported by Hain eL at. (1981), CETAP (1982), and Powers and Payne (1983). White-sided d;_1_pii__i;_ns are widespread throughout the Culf of Maine and Georges Bank throughout the year south to approximately 400 00',N (Hain. et at. 1981; CETAP 1982). Within these regions they are most abundant in @_he_southwestern Gulf of Maine. Hain et al. (1981) suggested that their distribution is most widespread from Octo@_er to November. In the spring and fall, sightings occurred along the shelf edge from south of Nantucket to Virginia. White-sided dolphins were the most abundant (total numbers) cetacean observed by Scott et al. (1981) and CETAP (1982). White-sided dolphins are tertiary carnivores reported to feed on a variety of fishes, including Atlantic herring Clupea harengus, silver hake Merluccius bilinearis, smelt Osmerus mordax, and squid Illex illecebrosus (Schevill 1956; Sergeant et al. 1980; Katona et al. 1977; 1978; Kenney et al. 1985). In the Gulf oT-Maine and on Georg-es Tank white-sided dolphins ii-ave been seen in close association with feeding humpback and fin whales (Katona et al. 1977; Hain et al. 1981; Mayo 1982) which are believed to be feeding on sand eel Ammodytes americanus (Overholtz and Nicolas 1979; Hain et al. 1982; Mayo 1982; Payne et al. 1986). Thus, it seems likely that ;@h__i_te-sided dolphins also feed-on-sand eel. Most sightings of feeding in this region occurred over shelf edges, or along shelf bottoms with rugged relief, often in the presence of whales. Sightings of feeding w 'ere common in the southwest Gulf of Maine, between the 70-100m depth contours. The apparent prey during surface-feeding activity were sand eel (Mayo 1982). White-sided dolphins in the study area were most widespread winter and spring, and most abundant in summer. This species is found year-round only in the Gulf of Maine where it is the dominant delphinid. The areas of greatest concentrations were in the south and southwest regions of the Gulf of Maine, including the MBDS study area.' White-beaked Dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris The range of the white-beaked dolphin extends from approximately Cape Cod north to Greenland (Leatherwood et al. 1976; Katona et al. 1983). They are found only in the North Atlantic and are the more northerly distributed of the two Lagenorhynchus species, being far more numerous in waters off Canada and Greenland (Sergeant and Fisher 1957; Katona et 'al. 1977; Whitehead and Class 1985). Within the Gulf of Maine sightings occur most frequently between April and November from Cape Cod - Great South Channel north to include Jeffreys Basin (CETAP 1982). This species is thought to have been more common around Cape Cod in the 1950s than at present, and the apparent decline has been accompanied by an increase in sightings of white-sided dolphins (Katona et al 1983). In Canadian waters white-beaked dolphins feed on schooling fishes (herring and capelin), and squid (Van Bree and Nigssen 1964). CETAP (1982) suggested that white-beaked dolphins in the Culf of Maine likely feed on sand eel. 217 Atlantic white-beaked dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris are common off the North Atlantic coast especially near Newfoundland. They range south to Massachusetts Bay and havebeen observed within the MBDS study area (Figure 3.C.4-3). They are a gregrarious species feeding mainly on fish and squid. Within the study area they have been observed predominantly at the northern end of Stellwagen Bank. Harbor Porpoise The harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena is locally abundant in temperate waters of the northern hemisphere (Figure 3.C.4-4), principally in shallow shelf waters (Gaskin et al. 1974; Leatherwood et al. 1976; Prescott and Fior6lli 1980; GaskT-n T984). They have been-re-ported from the Davis Straits south to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Mitchell 1975c; Leatherwood et al. 1976; CETAP 1982; Payne et al 1984); within this range they are most common in the Bay of Fundy anToTf southwest Greenland (Neave and Wright 1968; Gaskin et al. 1974; 1975; Kapel 1975, 1977; Leatherwood et al. 1976; Gaskin 19T7, 1984; Prescott and Fiorelli 19�0; Kraus and Prescott 1981; Kraus et al. 1983; Gaskin and Watson 1985)'. The diet of harbor porpoise consists of small schooling fishes, polychaetes and cephalopods (Rae 1965; Smith and Gaskin 1974).' In the Gulf of Maine herring, mackerel, squid and likely sand eel are important prey items (Katona et al. 1983). In the Bay of Fundy and northern Gulf of Maine in summer, harbor porpoise would be classified as "abundant" in comparison with all other areas examined (Gaskin 1977). Gaskin (1977, 1984) noted that densities of harbor porpoise in the lower Bay of Fundy - upper Gulf of Maine increased in late June to mid-July, remained high in August to September, then decreased throughout fall. These results are in agreement with results obtained previously by Neave and Wright (1968). Prescott and Fiorelli (1980) indicat'ed that the northern Gulf of Maine and the Bay of Fundy might support as much as 80% of the total summer population south of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. During the high abundance levels of summer in the northern Gulf of Maine, sightings throughout the southwestern Gulf of Maine (Jeffreys Ledge and Stellwagen Bank) and Cape Cod Bay are rare (CETAP 1982). In the winter the distribution of harbor porpoise shifts markedity to the south and offshore. Sightings are scattered throughout the lower Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank and overall numbers are drastically reduced (CETAP 1982). Sightings south of 40000' N latitude in coastal bays increase during this period (MBO, unpublished survey data 1984-1985). Prescott and Fiorelli (1980) suggest that other offshore Banks (i.e. Grand Banks) may also provide winter habitat for this species. By mid-spring sightings of harbor porpoise again are concentrated in the southwest Culf of Maine - Great South Channel region, on Jeffreys Ledge and in portions of coastal Maine. Estimates of harbor porpoise abundance in summer range from approximately 8,000 to 15,000 in the Gulf of Maine Lower Bay of Fundy 218 (Kraus et al. 1983) to approximately 2,500 in the Gulf of Maine only (CETAP T98T). Kraus et al. (1984) suggested that aerial surveys locate approximately 14% of @_he_total harbor porpoise present in an . area. Therefore applying this factor to the aerial estimates of CETAP (1982) results in a modified estimate of approximately 16,000 harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine. This is in very close agreement to the findings of Kraus et al. (1983). Harbor porpoise Phoconea phocoena are observed in the Gulf of Maine infrequently after early spring. Sightings are common during late March and early April. Only one sighting occurred outside this period. Their distribution in the MBDS during winter is unknown. Most sightings involve small groups of two to seven animals. No more than 15 individuals have been observed in any one day. This species usually is observed'on the northwest corner of Stellwagen Bank (Fig. 3.C.4-4). Preliminary data indicate that this western tip is used more than any other. The data presented (Figure 3.C..4-4) are primarily from the observa- tions conducted by the Cetacean Research Unit. The effort is biased in that spatial coverage of the entire study area was incomplete. The greatest effort was in the outer one-half of the study area and along the northern edge of Stellwagen Bank. Therefore the number of sightings presented are considered a minimum. Pilot Whale The Atlantic pilot whale, Clobicephala melaena, is common from Greenland, Iceland, and the Faeroe Islands (Saemundsson 1939; Sergeant 1968; Kapei 1975; Mercer 1975; Mitchell 1975) south to at least Cape Hatteras (Leatherwood et al. 1976; Katona et al. 1981; CETAP 1982) and east across the north Tt-i-antic to European waters (Brown 1961). From Cape Hatteras to northeast Georges Bank, including the Gulf of Maine, the distribution of pilot whales generally follows the shelf edge between the 100 m and 1000 m contour (see Figure 3.C.4-5). During mid- winter to spring (December to May), sightings are reported along the shelf edge of the mid-Atlantic and southern New England regions. Throughout spring sightings increase along the shelf edge and north to, and including, Georges Bank. They are most abundant on Georges Bank from May to October (Hain et al. 1981; Powers et al. 1982). This is .1 consistent 7- T1. (1977) and CETAP (1982). with the findings reported by Katona et During summer and fall, sightings occur on central Georges Bank north along the northern edge of the Bank, and into the central Gulf of Maine. This trend continues as pilot whales move north to the inshore Newfoundland waters by June (Sergeant and Fisher 1957; Sergeant et al. 1970). Globicephala are tertiary consumers that are considered teuthophagous (Scott et al. 1983), feeding primarily on squid (Mercer 1975; Caldwell et al 1971T with fish and invertebrates as alternative prey items (SergeaTt 219 1962; Mercer 1967; Katona et al. 1977). The preferred food of Globicephala meleana, off We-w-f-oundland, is the short-finned squid, Ilex illecebrosus, (Sergeant 1962). Food eaten when squid were not present were Atlantic cod, Cadus morhua, (Sergeant 1962) and Greenland turbot, Reinhardtius hippoglossoides, (Mercer 1967). The squid taken most commonly by G. meleana in north European waters is probably Ommastrephes sagittatus; fish observed in pilot whale stomachs from north Britain include horse mackeral, Caranx trachurus, and flatfish, (Mitchell 1975a). In our study area, the long-finned squid, Loligo pealei, and Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, have been sugges.ted.as probable prey items in the mid-Atlantic Bight during winter and spring'(G.'Waring, NMFS/NEFC, pers. comm.). Pilot whales are present on Georges Bank summer through winter (Figure 3.C.4-5) with scattered sightings along the northern edge of the Bank and in the Great South Channel in fall. Thus, during the fall migration south, sighting.s occur over a broader area of the shelf than during the spring northward movement which occurs principally along the shelf edge. In the fall, pilot whales (Globicephala meleana) have been sighted in the northern Stellwagen/southern Jeffreys Ledge area. This species appears to prefer Jeffreys,Ledge, but are seen in MBDS quadrant III (that 10' square east of MBDS) several times each year during October and November. Grampus Grampus, Grampus griseus, are widely distributed in tropical and temperate waters around the world (Leatherwood et al. 1980). In the western North Atlantic, grampus occur from eastern Newfoundland to the Lesser Antilles (Leatherwood et al. 1976) into the Gulf of Mexico (Gunter 1954; Paul 1968; Fritts and ReynTlds 1981). The center of grampus sightings along the eastern United States occurs along the shelf-edge-slope waters from Cape Hatteras north to Georges Bank (36000' N to 41000' N) during spring, summer and fall (Hain et al. 1981; CETAP 1982; Powers and Payne 1983). Grampus generally are considered absent from the Gulf of Maine, although individuals have been recorded. A single sighting of grampus (Grampus griseus) occured in August 1985. A pod of 15 to 25 individuals was sighted regularly in the waters of northern Stellwagen for a two week period. The pod contained three to four calves, several adult females, several juveniles, and one to two adult males. Occurrence of this species at this location is considered uncommon. Killer Whale, Orcinus orca In the western north Atlantic, killer whale, Orcinus orca, sightings are widespread, but sporadic. They occur from near pack-ice south into the Gulf of Mexico (Leatherwood et al 1976; Schmidly 1981), although 220 generally they are more common in cooler waters and in productive coastal regions (Katona et al 1976; CETAP 1982). Killer whales are thought to follow the schooTs @_f bluefin tunai Thunnus thynnus, which move into these waters during late-summer as part of their annual migration. All sightings by CETAP (1982) occurred in shelf waters outside the Gulf of Maine. Killer whales are opportunistic feeders, feeding on a wide variety of fish, pinnipeds and cetaceans (Leatherwood et ali 1976; Whitehead and Glass 1985). In the Gulf of Maine, tuna, mackeral, and herring to be likely prey items Katona et al. (1983). This species most likely would be infrequent foragers in the study area. Bottlenose Dolphin Bottlenosed dolphins, Tursiops trunca-tus9 are distributed worldwide in warm and temperate waters (Katona et al. 19717). Bottlenosed dolphins are common along the east coast of th@__Un_ited States from Nova Scotia to Florida, westward into the Gulf of Mexico and south to Venezuela (Hain et al. 1981; Katona et al. 1977; Leatherwood et al. 1976; Fritts and ReynoTd 1981, Marcuzzi and Pilleri 1971; Payne et al. 1984; Powers and Payne 1983; Sergeant et al. 1970). Sightings of bottlenosed dolphins within the Gulf of Maine occur in late summer to fall, but these appear extralimital. This species generally is considered absent from the Gulf of Maine and were not observed at MBDS. Common Dolphin Common dolphins, Delphinus delphis, have been reported throughout the temperate and tropical waters of the Atlantic (Leatherwood et al. 1976) and Pacific Oceans (Evans 1974). In the western North Atlantic, they have been reported off Nova Scotia (Sergeant and Fisher 1957, Leatherwood et al. 1976), throughout the shelf waters off the eastern United States into' @_he Gulf of Mexico (Fritts and Reynolds 1981), and south to Venezuela (Leatherwood et al. 1976). Common dolphins-are widespread from Cape Hatteras northeastward to the eastern tip of Georges Bank (35000' N to 42000' N) in mid-to-outer shelf waters (Hain et al. 1981; CETAP 1982; Powers et al. 1982; Powers and Payne 1983), on a year-round basis. Sightings in the Gulf of Maine are limited to fall and winter, and generally occur-on the northeastern edge of Georges Bank. Common dolphins, therefore, are considered year-round residents south'of the Gulf of Maine, and occur as stragglers into the Gulf of Maine, especially in fall and winter. 221 Spotted and Striped Dolphins The Spotted Dolphin, Stenella plagiodon and Striped Dolphin, Stenella f-pa- coerueoalba, are not antic ted to occur in the vicinity of MBDS. The Spotted Dolphin has never been recorded in the Gulf of Maine and the Striped Dolphin are infrequently recorded there. PINNIPED SPECIES Harbor Seal The harbor seal, Phoca vitulina is the most abundant pinniped species occurring in the easterd United States. They are common from Labrador to Long Island, New York, and are found occasionally as far south as South Carolina (Brimley 1931) and Florida (Caldwell and Caldwell 1969). Though not the dominant species, they also are quite prevalent in eastern Canada. Along the eastern North American coast, harbor seals are widely distributed in nearshore waters. Harbor seals are opportunistic feeders, eating species which are regionally and seasonally dominant (Boulva 1976; Pitcher 1980a, 1980b; Brown and Mate 1983), with a preference for small, schooling fishes (Boulva and McLaren 1979). Katona et al. (1983) report that seals feed on fish and invertebrates as availablet primarily herring, squid, alewife, flounder and hake. However, after analysing fecal samples collected south of Maine, Payne et al. (1985) report two distict faunal communities taken by seals in sout@_e_r_nNew Englandp The community of fishes selected by harbor seals from the Isle of Shoals, New Hampshire was diverse, and was representative of the bottom fishes characteristic of the relatively deep waters of the Gulf of Maine. These included: redfish (Sebastes marinus), cod (Cadus morhua), herring (Clupea harengus) and yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea). In contrast, the prey selected from the relatively shallow waters adjacent to Cape Cod was numerically dominated (99%) by sand eel (Ammodytes americanus) (Payne et al., 1985). Harbor seals prefer sheltered and undisturbed rocky ledge haulout sites of coastal bays and estuaries form Maine south to Plymouth, Massachusetts, and isolated sandy beaches and shoals south of Plymouth. Their present breeding range in the northwest Atlantic extends from ice- free waters of the Arctic to New Hampshire, though previously harbor seals bred as far south as Cape Cod Bay in the first half of the twentieth century (Katona et al., 1983). They are now only seasonal residents in southern New Eng7anT-(soutb. of Maine), appearing in late September and remaining until late May (Payne and Schneider, 1984). The present geographical and breeding ranges probably are a direct result of a state- offered bounty on harbor seals in southern New England which remained in effect in Massachusetts until 1962. The bounty undoubtedly resulted in an overall reduction of seal numbers throughout southern New England, limited southward dispersion of seals from Maine rookeries (Payne and Schneider, 1984), likely led to the extirpation of breeding activity south of Maine 222 (Katona et al., 1983), and the present seasonal occurrence of harbor seals south of Maine. To date, all breeding activity, which occurs from late April to mid-June (Katona et al., 1983), takes place north of Massachusetts. Since the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, the abundance of harbor seals in New England has increased steadily. The greatest concentration of seals occurs along the northern Maine coast in Machias and Penobscott Bays, and off Mount Desert an'd Swans Islands (Katona et al. 1983). Current population estimates derived from aerial surveys Thow-that the Maine populat-ion is increasing and is now 12,000 to 15,000 animals (Katona et al. 1983). Approximately 4000 seals (25% of the New England population) overwinter south of Maine; 60% of these animals occur on, or adjacent to, Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Payne et al. 1985). Transient individuals may be found in the vicinity of MBDTb-oundary, but this area is not a significant habitat for Harbor Seals. Cray Seal Cray Seals, Halichoe rus grypus, are the most abundant pinnipeds in the southern reaches of eastern Canada from Labrador south through the Bay of Fundy. Approximately 40,000 to 50,000 inhabit the Canadian Maritimes, and that stock is expanding (Beck 1983; Katona et al. 1983). Small colonies in the Gulf of Maine are found in the @_raiid_ Manan archipelago of the Bay of Fundy (Richardson et al. 1974). Non-breeding colonies also are located in the Mt. Desert Roci_- Penobscott Bay area (Katona et al. 1983). Katona et al. (1983) estimated a total of approximateTy @-00 gray seals in the Maine area. A small population occurs south of Cape Cod, with emigration of individuals from Maine to this colony possibly occurring across the study area. Gray seals consume fish and invertebrates as available, the most common food items in the Bay of Fundy and eastern Canada'are herring, cod, flounder, skate, squid, and mackerel (Beck 1983; Katona et al. 1983). Sherman (1983) suggests that the Nantucket gray seals feed primarily on skates, alewives, and sand eel; all of which are abundant in that area from mid-winter to late spring. The Massachusetts population of 70 or more gray seals in.the early 1940's was reduced by bounty killing to 20 or less by 1963 when the bounty was repealed (Sherman 1986). This population, located southwest of Nantucket Island, is the only actively breeding population in the eastern United States. Pupping occurs in mid-winter, although pup production has been very low in recent years (Sherman, 1983). Despite the low pupping rate of the Nantucket population, the total overwintering population in Massachusetts exceeded 100 animals in 1986 (MBO, unpubl. data). This recent population growth probably is due to the immigration of seals from eastern Canada where the stock is expanding rapidly (Rough, in press). This hypothesis is strengthened by the repeated occurrence of animals in 223 southern New England that were tagged as pups on Sable Island, Nova Scotia (Beck 1983; Sherman 1983). This species may transit the MBDS study area, but it is not a significant habitat for Cray Seals. SEABIRD SPECIES Approximately forty species or species-groups of marine birds are found throughout the year in the waters of the Gulf of Maine. These include gulls, alcids, jaegers, phalaropes, gannets, terns, scoters, fulmars, shearwaters, petrels, kittiwakes, mergansers and cormorants. The occurrence of these species is based on data collected by observers from the Manomet Bird Observatory aboard research vessels conducting standardized surveys in these waters between 1980-85. The seasonal distribution of seabirds is listed in Table 3.C.4-5. Seasonal population densities of the ten most abundant seabird species inshore and offshore of the disposal area are listed in Table 3.c.4-6. SEABIRDS Northern Fulmar With respect to the MBDS, the northern fulmars Fulmarus glacialis, were recorded inshore of the disposal site only in spring, while offshore of the disposal site in waters including, and contiguous to, the Massachusetts Bay, fulmars were recorded spring-fall. Greatest densities in this area occurred in the fall. Shearwaters As in the entire Gulf of Maine, greater shearwaters (Puffinus gravis) were the most abundant shearwater in waters adjacent to MBDS. Greatest densities occurred in the summer and fall, and there was a marked increase in the densities of birds offshore of the disposal site relative to waters inshore of the disposal site. Sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus) were seen adjacent to the MBDS only in summer and Cory'; -shearwaters Puffinus diomedea) were recorded only in summer. No manx shearwaters (Puffinus puffinus) were observed in the study area. Storm-petrels Adjacent to the MBDS, Wilson's storm-petrels (Oceanites oceanicus), were very common in summer, although much greater densities were recorded offshore of the disposal site. 224 Northern Gannet Gannets, Sula bassanus, are abundant in the Culf of Maine fall through spring, being uncommon only north and east of Cape Cod in summer. Greatest densities occur from Stellwagen Bank south through Lhe Great South Channel in fall. In fall, most of the birds are subadults, while in spring, the majority of bird are adults. In relation to the MBDS, gannets were abundant in waters within and adjacent to the Massachusetts Bay from fall through spring and were the most abundant bird recorded during the winter-spring aerial surveys. Large concentrations were observed feeding near feeding groups of cetaceans. There was no appreciable difference in the densities recorded between waters inshore and offshore of the disposal site. Phalarope .2.n. Red phalaropes (Phaloropus fulicarius) were not recorded in waters adjacent to the MBDS or in any season as the majority of birds remain offshore during their migrations. Northern phalaropes (Phalaropus lobatus) generally migrate closer to the coast. This species was recorded only in summer in waters contiguous to the disposal site (Table 3.C.4-7). Jaeger spp. Pomarine jaegers (Sterocarius pomarinus) were the only jaegers recorded and they were observed near the MBDS in both summer and fall. Culls Herring gulls (Larus argentatus), and great black-backed gulls, (Larus marinus), weTe -abundant in waters adjacent to the disposal-site throughout the year (Tables 3.C.4-5). There was no apparent difference in the density of birds found inshore of the disposal site and the density recorded offshore of the disposal site. During the aerial surveys, both herring and great black-backed gulls were observed in large flocks attending fishing vessels and feeding aggregations of cetaceans. Black-legged kittiwakes, Lissa tridactyla, occurred near the disposal site in large numbers in the fall and were the most abundant bird species recorded in winter (Tables 3-C.4-5). Alcid. Alcids were commonly recorded near the MBDS in winter and spring. 225 7040 7030 4230 OUADRAT I QU-ADRAT 11 QUADRAT REA Massachmfts Bay 4220 Figure 3.C.4-1: An outline of the study area showing the location- of the Massachusetts Bay and the northwest corner of Stellwagen Bank-relative to the flight path of the aerial survey. Figure 3.C.4-2a: Relative distrib 'ution 'and abundance of minke whales in the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank (north of 40000'N latitude) by season. Relative Abundance cetaceans per 10'XIO'biock 1 -9 10-99 40 >100 A. 77- i6 7@0 Tie 6. id, 6170 *go, SCOTLA -44* Minke Whole. r I i1 0 4 e- (8cloenoptera acuturostrata) Goo* go. .43 A NIEW 42' ALL SEASONS 0 00 ct- MASS GLAN 00 CO*4 W W .4 1* VOW *00 0 4 I't 'SLA,o 000 00 00 o Ace 0 .d' kEW MARYLAND JCRSEY 20 no 3W ?50 ell" 74& no fie 70* 69 0 670 r ee @Vd- .1 @1-0' - 227 Figure 3.C.4-2b: Sightings of Minke whales within the waters of the Massa- chusetts Bay study area by season. Sources: Data from the Cetacean Research Unit; Rain et a1. 1981; Payne et al, 1984; MBO unpubl. data, 1985-1986; Gulf of Maine Cetacean Sighting Network 1975-1981; and from aerial surveys conducted during this study, see Chap V., this report. 228 LA A Minke Whole e ...... .............. (Balaenoptera acuturostrato Massachusetts a saw 00 94 IFoul % 0 % Area 11 -4r % 01 % B a y Boston Harbor to ALL SEASONS 710001W so.: 40, .3 0' 20, F i gi i re I.C.4-3o: Relative distribution and abundnnre of white-slied Julphins in thp Gu If (of Mn i ne . iric I ud i np Qrorj:o,!,. Pank (nor th (i 4()C'O,')'N In t i tudo) f Relative Abundance cetaceam per 10'xlO block 1 -9 10-99 >100 ;T_ 7-6 Ii. 74 1.? i2o m" 9, 6'7' MA*4 While-sided Dolphin ke" (Logenorhynchus acutus)i 4 4@" '43* . ... ... ww (A 4 i1o 0 V ALL SEASONS MAU MANO CCNK ww 41 VCM GL 0 4cr NEW MAPYLAND JCASEY 0 0 IQ me se - ey 230 Figure 3.C.4-3b: Sightings of vhite-sided dolphins within the 'waters of the Mass.'"Bay Disposal.Sits study area by season. Sources: Data from the Cetacean Rksearch Unit;.Hain et al. 1981; Payne et al.- 1984; MBO unpubl. data, 1985-1986; Gulf of Maine Cetacean Sighting Network 1975-1981; and from aerial surveys conducted during.this study, see Chap. V., this report. 231 CQ C:3 m.. r "I -1 7-7 ---1 ENZ A ............. While-sided Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) Massachusetts 0 0 sot % Foul (Area Ne 0 B a y Boston Harbor so #hole q0 ALL SEASON 04 7 I*oo*w .50 40' 30' FigUre 3.C-4-4a: Relative distribution and abundance of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank (north of 40000'N latitude) by season. Relative Abun'dance cetaceans' per 10'XIO'block 1 .9 10-99 0 >100 A -717 7-6 i5o i44 7@r i2o 71a 6'? r"6' -44* Harbor Porpoise :04WY0 0 44" (Phocceno phocoona) .11 . 1 4 * x - @'- 0000 00 00 43 NEW 42' ALL SEAS.ONS ........ UAW jr P& Vo C. NEW COHN 0 0 00900 *00 4 1*1 0 9000 00 **go 0 0 0 NEW 4 JCASEY ba cc Ito r 50 740 no re me se 233 t Figure 3.C.4-4b: Sighting3 of harbor porp oise within the waters of the Mass. Bav Disposal Site study area for-all.Beasons. Sources: Data from the Cetacean Rksea'rch Unit; Hain et al. 1981; Payne et al. 1984; MBO unpubl. data, 1985-1986; Culf of Maine Cetacean Sighting Network 1975-1981-, and from aerinl survevs conducted durinp this study, see Chap. V., t1pis renort. 234 0 i--A Ll D L; A. i i k-.i,.j wal Harbor Porpoise (Phocoona phocoena) dop 40 Massachusetts ol 0 Ir Lj % qP ....... Boston 0-1 "arbor 4.. 80 Ito ALL SEASONS % 71,00,w 50' 40' 30' 20' I Fi)I,Ur0 3.C.4-5: Relative di3tribution and abundance of pilot whale3 in 'he Gulf 11 of Maine, including George3 Bank (north of 40000'N latit'ude) by 3 03 Oo n . Relative Abu,ndcnca cetacems per 10'x IO'block 0 10-99 >100 A 6 74, 730 1@0 7'10 76^ 60 6'7 6,6, 41 POA Pilot Whole SC r ;q (Globic,eephola spp.) NEW ALL SEAS.ONS .... . . !u? ........... UASS ANO NEW CCHN see 0 410 YCF'*( 0-0 - Al 04 0 0 Y04" 0 0 9 0 00 00 0 0 0 0,60 S.- 0 ^r 0 AQ 0 0 0 so 0 NEW Oro-V 41@ 1Z 0 JCPSEY 0 0 MAPYLANO 740 0 0 70 r 7.3 7-2* m se 6 Table 3.C.4-1. List of whales, dolphins and porpoises (order Cetacea) which commonly occur in the waters of the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank. Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales) Family Balaenopteridae Finback Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) Endangered Minke Whale acutorostrata) Endangered Sei Whale borealis) Endangered Humpback Whale (Regaptera novaeangliae) Endangered Family Balaenidae Northern Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Endangered Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales) Family Phocoenidae Harbor Porpoise. (Phocoena phocoena) Family Delphinidae Bottlenosed Dolphin (Tursipos truncatus) Spotted Dolphin (9tenella plagiodon/attenuata) Striped Dolphin (S. coerueoalba) Common Dolphin Oelphinus delphis) White-sided Dolphin (Eagenorgynchus acutus) White-beaked Dolphin (E. albirostris) Grampus (Rissa's'Dolphin) (Grampus griseus) Long-finned Pilot Whale (Giobicephala melaena) Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Family Physeteridae Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) Endangered Source: Hain et al. 1981; CETAP 1982; Katona et al. 1983; Payne et al. 1984. 237 Tabl e 3.C.4-2. List of whales, dolphins and porpoises (Order Cetacea) which occur uncommonly (from sight records or strandings) in waters of the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank. Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales) Family Balaenopteridae Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Endangered Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales) Family Delphinidae Family Monodontidae Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) Family Physeteridae Pygmy Sperm Whale (Kogia breviceps) Family Ziphiidae -Northern Bottlenosed Whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus) Dense-beaked Whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) True's Beaked Whale (R. mirus) North Sea Beaked Whale (M. bidens) L - Source: Katona et al. 1983 Table 3.C.4-3. List of rare (r) and commonly (c) occurring marine turtles (Order Testudines) in the waters of.the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank. Family Cheloniidae Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) Threatened (c) Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Endangered (r) Kemp's Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys @@) Endangered (r) Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Endangered (r) Family Dermochelydae Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered (s) Source: French (1986) 238 Table 3.C.4-4. List of rare (r) and commonly (c) occuring pinnipeds in coastal waters of the Gulf of Maine. Faini I y lllio(-- i dne (Troe or Ila i r Sea] s) Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina concolor (c) Ri nged Seal P. hispida (r) Gray Seal Raffichoerus grypus (c) Harp Seal Pagophilus groenlandicus (r) Hooded Seal Cystophora cristata (r) Family Odobenidae Atlantic Walrus Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus fossil records Source: Katona et al. 1983 239 Table 3.C.4-5 Seasonal occurrence of seabirds in the Gulf of Maine. Species Winter Spring Summer Fall Common Loon X X X X Gaviaimmer Red-throated Loon X X Gavia stellata Northern Fulmar X X X X Fulmarus glacialis Cory's Shearwater X X Puffinus diomedea Greater Shearwater X X X Puffinus gravis Sooty Shearwater X Puffinus griseus Manx Shearwater, X X Puffinus puffinus Leach's Storm-Petrel X Oceanodroma luecorhoa Wilson's Storm-Petrel X X X Oceanites oceanicus Northern Phalarope X X X X Phalaropus lobatus Pomarine Jaeger X X Sterocarius pomarinus Parasitic Jaeger X X X Stercorarius parasiticus Glausous Cull X X Larus hyperbureus Iceland Cull X X Larus glaucoides Great Black-backed Gull X X X X Larus marinus 240 Herring Gull x x x x Larus argentatus Ring-billed Gull x x x Larus delawarensis Laughing Cull x x x x Larus artricilla Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia Black-legged Kittiwake x x x Rissa tridactyla Cross Tern x x Sterna hirundo Arctic Tern x Sterna paradissea Least Tern x Sterna albifrons Alcidae spp x x x White-winged Scoter x x x x Melanitta deglandi Black Scoter x x Meianitta Surf Scoter x x x Melanitta perspicillata Common Eider x x Somateria mollisima Red-breasted Merganser x Mergus serrator Double-crested Cormorant x x x x Phalacrocorax auritas Great Cormorant x x Phalacrocoiax carbo Old squaw x x x Clangula hyemalis 241 3.C.5 Threatened and Endangered Species Section 3.C.4. discusses in detail the distribution of non-endangered mammals, turtles and seabirds in the MBDS area. This section discussed the occurrence of the threatened or endangered species including Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), Right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), and Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), all Federally listed endangered species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Additionally the threatened Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), and the endangered turtles: Atlantic Ridley's (Lepidochelys the Green turtle (Chelonia mydas), the Hawksbili turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and the Leatherback turtle (Dermocheyls coriacea) are discussed. In 1985-1986 the New England Division, COE, contracted a study of the occurrence of marine mammals, turtles and seabirds in the waters included within, and adjacent to the Foul-Area Di.sposal Site (MBDS) in the Massa- chusetts Bay. The Gulf of Maine, including Massachusetts Bay, is within the seasonal range of five species of endangered cet.aceans and three species of endangered or threatened sea turtles. In a Iddition, approxi- mately 30 species of marine mammals and four species of marine turtles (Tables 3.C.4-1 through 4) occur within the boundaries of the Gulf of Maine. The shelf waters of the northeastern United States can be separated into three major oceanographic regimes -- the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank and the mid-Atlantic Bight (Fig. 3.C.5-1) which differ from one another in terms of bottom topography, sea water temperature and salinity (Bumpus 1976; Edwards 1983). Movement of large mammals and turtles are studied over regional bases because of their extensive migratory ranges. The NED investigaitons used available data and site specific observations. The study consisted of regional synthesis of species movement plus a concentration of NED sponsored observations (fly-overs and shipboard observers) in the three 10-minute squares surrounding the disposal site bounded on the north by 42030% on the west by 70050'W and on the east by 70020'W (Fig. 3.C.5-2). The westernmost 10' quadrat (Quadrat I) extends to the entrance of Boston Harbor. The principal feature of the middle 10' quadrat (Quadrat II) is Steilwagen Basin which is bounded by the 80 m contour. MBDS occurs within this quadrat at the northern end of Stell- wagen Basin. Stellwagen Basin extends into the easternmost 10' quadrat (Quadrat III to the edge of Stellwagen Bank). Stellwagen Bank is a highly productive area and the principal oceanographic feature of the easternmost 101 quadrat of the study area (See Fig. 3.C.5-2). To assist in site evaluation, NED synthesized available primary data on the distribution and abundance of cetaceans, marine turtles and sea- birds within the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank. The available data for cetaceans can be broadly classified into two categories: 1) 242 standardized surveys from which analytical assessments of whale distribu- tion and abundance, both spatial and temporal, can be made; and 2) opportunistic sighting data from which site-specific distribution patterns c.in be obLained. The six data bases used in this study are: 1) the Bureau of Land Management-sponsored Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program (CETAP) 1978- 1980; 2) the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Center-sponsored marine mammal surveys conducted.by the Manomet Bird Observatory (MBO), Manomet, Massachusetts 1980-1985; 3) the Right Whale Surveys of Cape Cod Bay, Center for Coastal Studies (CCS), Provincetown, Massachusetts 1983-1986; 4) the Cetacean Research Unit (CRU) of the Gloucester Fisherman's museum, Gloucester, Massachusetts 1980-1985; 5) the Gulf of Maine Cetacean Sighting Network 1975-1981, located at the College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, Maine, and 6) data from NED sponsored aerial surveys conducted at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site, January through June 1986. The CETAP surveys (aerial) and MBO surveys (shipboard) provide abundance estimates of all species by season and.region, as well as' patterns of distribution and abundance that are directly comparable. Data from the standardized Right Whale Surveys of Cape Cod Bay (CCS) were used in the discussion of their abundance, distribution and high-use habitat evaluation. Data from the aerial surv Ieys were used in the discussion of relative densities and abundance (population),estimates of endangered cetaceans in the waters of the MBDS study area, January - June, 1986. Specific methodologies used in the aerial surveys are discussed in the following sections. 3.C.5.a Cetaceans Humpback Whale Kellogg (1929) suggested two stocks of the endangered humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae, exist in the North Atlantic which were tied to the continental margins on either side of the ocean. Several individual stocks of humpbacks have been suggested in the northwest Atlantic (Katona et al. 1982). In the northwest Atlantic (see Figure 3.C.5-3), the major summer concentrations of humpbacks occur off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and off the coasts of New England in the Gulf of Maine (Katona et al. 1980; Whitehead et al. 1982). During this period, feeding is their principalactivity. The major winter concentrations occur along the Antillean Chain in the West Indies, principally on Silver and Navidad Banks which lie north of the Dominican Republic (Winn et al. 1975; Balcomb and Nichols 1978; Whitehead and Moore 1982). Conception and calving are the primary activities in this region. The migratory routes between regions of winter breeding and summer feeding occur in the deeper, slope waters off the continental shelf (Hain et al. 1981; Kenney et al. 1981; CETAP 1982; Payne et al. 1984, 1986). For the Gulf of Maine stock, the 243 Great South Channel has been suggested (Kenney et al. 1981; Payne et al. 1986) as the major exit/entry between the offshore migration routes and the Gulf of Maine feeding areas. Between mid-March and-November, humpback whales are located through- out the Gulf of Maine (north of 40000'N latitude) (Hain et al. 1981; Kenney et al. 1981; CETAP 1982; Payne et al. 1984; Mayo 'et T1. 1985). CETAP (T98T) reported only ten winter 'sig-htings between 1978 and 1981. Payne et al. (1984) confirmed these low figures via shipboard surveys. Within-th-lis spatial and temporal framework, concentrations are greatest in a narrow band between 41000' and 43000'N latitudes, from the Great South Channel north along the outside of Cape Cod to Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge. Humpback whales are secondary and tertiary carnivores and have been described as generalists in their feeding habits,(Mitchell 1974b). The principal prey of humpbacks in the Gulf of Maine are small, schooling fishes including: Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), mackerel (Scomber scombrus), pollock (Pollachius virens), and the American sand eel (Ammodytes americanus) (Gaskin 1976; Katona et-al. 1977; Watkins and Schevill 1979; Karus and Prescott 1981). In recent years, observations of feeding humpback (Hain et al. 1982; Hays et al. 1985; Mayo et al. 1985; Weinrich 1985) indicate that sand eel are an important prey item in the Gulf of Maine. Overholtz and Nicolas (1979) suggested that humpback and fin whales were feeding on sand eel on Stellwagen Bank. Hain et al. (1982) identified sand eel in 50% and 75% of the feeding observations on Stellwagen Bank during 1978 and 1979 respectively. Sand eel were the only confirmed prey eaten by humpback whales between 1975-79 on Stellwagen Bank (Mayo 1982). Kenney et al. (1981) and Payne et al. (1986) suggest that the,observed distribution of the Gulf of Maine humpbacks is due to the distribution of sand eels, although feeding behavior (as described by Hain et al. 1982) and bottom topographies also are critical factors in the foraging strategy of humpbacks. In the northwest Atlantic, humpback whales have been exploited heavily since the 16th century (Mitchell and Reeves 1983). In 1915, only a few hundred humpbacks were reported to remain in the northwest Atlantic (Sergeant 1966). This species was officially protected from commercial whaling in 1965 (Sergeant 1966). Most of the recent knowledge on the biology, stock discreteness and population size of humpbacks has been the result of a technique of individual identification based on the markings .of the underside of the flukes (tail) which are unique to each individual (Schevill and Ba*ckus 1960; Katona and Kraus 1979; Katona and Whitehead 1981; Katona et al. 1982). Mayo et al. (1985) provide photographs of the flukes of 216 inTividual whales pE-ot-ographed between 1976 and 1984. Population estimates and abundance estimates for humpback whales in the north Atlantic presently range from 2,000 - 6,000. In the Gulf of Maine, the estimate for humpback whales based on minimum count (fluke identification technique) ranges from approximately 200-300 individuals 244 (Katona et al. 1984). Abundance estimates from aerial surveys in the Gulf of Maine between 1978-1980 ranged from 0 (winter) to approximately 600 (summer) for data both corrected and uncorrected for dive times (Scott et al. 1981; CETAP 1982). 8stimates from shipboard surveys, 1980-85 range- @_etween 30 (winter) to approximately 320 (summer and fall) (MBO, unpubt. data). Use of the northern Stellwagen waters (including the water surrounding the MBDS) by humpbacks varies both annually and seasonally. Concentrations of whales are greatest in the summer and early fall and lowest in winter and early spring (Figs. 3.C.5-3a-f) with certain @ exceptions. August 1985, saw little use, although this is a month in which many humpbacks are resident on northern Stellwagen. SimilarLy, spring of 1984 involved a higher than normal abundance of humpbacks. One of the most important uses of Stellwagen Bank by cetaceans is for feeding, however, the intensity of surface feeding behavior on northern Stellwagen Bank is.quite,variable. During 1980, 1981, as well as brief periods in 1982 through 1985, feeding on Stellwagen was very active. Groups of up to 100 humpbacks were commonly found feeding on sand eel. Most members of the groups were adults, and most were using the bubble cloud feeding style described by Hain et al. (1982) and Mayo et al. (1985). Prey, when identified, were sand eel on all but eight observations; those eight involved feeding on dense concentrations of euphausids. Although humpbacks 1-3 years old were seen surface feeding at this time, they were observed feeding much less often than adults.- The Cetacean Research Unit (CRU) believe that these young whales engage in more sub-surface feeding. Feeding was observed less frequently in the immediate vicinity of the MBDS than on northern Stellwagen Bank. In 1982 and 1983, southern Jeffreys Ledge was the site of similar feeding groups. This area received some use by feeding humpbacks in the fall of 1984 as well. The short-term movements of humpback whales within the northern Stellwagen system appear to be dictated primarily by prey availability. Some locations on Stellwagen consistently receive high use, while other areas in the immediate vicinity of Stellwagen receive high use only periodically. For example, in October of 1985, most of the humpbacks were observed in the vicinity of the study area. .Fin Whale Fin whales Balaenoptera physalus, an endangered species, are the most cosmopolitan and abundant of the large baleen whales (Reeves and Brownell 1982). They also are the most widely distributed whale, both spatially and temporarily, over the shelf waters of the northwest Atlantic (Leatherwood et al. 1976), occurring as far south as Cape Lookout, North Carolina and penetrating far inside the Gulf of St. Lawrence (see Figure 3.C.5-6). 245 In the shelf waters of the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank, the frequency of fin whale sightings increases from spring through the fall (Hain et al. 1981; CETAP 1982; Powers and Payne 1982; Payne et al. 1984, Chu 19T6)-. The areas of Jeffreys Ledge, Stellwagen Bank and-th-eGreat South Channel have the greatest concentrations of whales during spring through fall. There is a decrease in on-shelf sightings of fin whales in winter. However, fin whales do overwinter in the Gulf of Maine. This is especially apparent on Stellwagen Bank and within the Great South Channel. In the northern hemisphere, fin whales are considered secondary and tertiary, euphagous carnivores feeding on schooling fishes, euphausids, and copepods depending on seasonal availability (Jonesgard 1966; Mitchell 1974; Sergeant 1966, 1977; Katona et al. 1977; Brodie et al. 1978; Overholtz and Nicholas 1979; Watkins and Schevill 1979; Mayo 1982). In the Gulf of Maine, schooling fishes are the apparent preferred prey, principally Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) and American sand eel (Ammodytes americanus)'' All the coastal waters of Massachusetts and Maine waters are considered to be major feeding grounds for,fin whales (Chu 1986). Available estimates of abundance for regions of the North Atlantic range upward of tens of thousands. Eastern Canada (Nova Scotia to western Newfoundland) has the greatest concentrations, with numbers ranging from approximately 6,000 - 12,000 animals (Mitchell 1972, 1973a, 1974a). In the Gulf of Maine, the estimated number of fin whales shows clear seasonal fluctuations. Data collected between 1980-85 from shipboard observations (MBO unpublished) result in seasonal estimates between 151 (winter) to 1,862 (summer). These estimates are lower than those obtained from sighting data collected during aerial surveys in 1978-80 which were corrected for the diving behavior of the animals (CETAP 1982). CETAP's (1982) estimates for the Gulf of Maine show a peak in.abundance in spring at approximatley 3,000 individuals which dwindles to approximatley 200 animals in winter. Both data sets show greatest densities occurring from Jeffreys Ledge and Stellwagen Bank south along the 100m contour outside of Cape Cod and into the Great South Channel. Concentrations of fin whales also are found along the boundary between the Gulf of Maine and the northern edge of Georges Bank. Fin whales are found in the waters of northern Stellwagen Bank year- round. Although there is an overall decrease in the number of fin whales within the Gulf of Maine in winter, CETAP (1982) found little, if any, -decrease in the number of fin whales present in Massachusetts Bay. Fin whales are more widely distributed within the MBDS study area than are humpback whales (Figs. 3.C.6-3a through e). However, like hump- backs, fin whales will aggregate to feed. Concentrations of up to 50 fin whales have been observed in the northern Stellwagen area. Fin whales have shown a relatively consistent pattern of habitat use between years. Surface feeding behavior by fin whales has been observed on Stellwagen 246 Bank. In all but one observation the prey was sand eel. Fin whales on Jeffreys Ledge, however, appear to feed consistently on euphasids (S. Mercer, pers. comm.) Fin whale cow/calf pairs were most frequently observed from late spring to summer. Approximately 10 to 14 fin whale cow/calf sightings have occurred each year. Most sightings occur on the northern edge of Stellwagents tip (within the study area) although some sightings have occurred inshore toward Gloucester. Residence time of individual fin whales in the study area is minimal. Most animals were sighted for a period of one to seven days. Individual movements are widespread within the Gulf of Maine within.a season. Fin whales photographed at northern Stellwagen and southern Jeffreys have been matched to photographs taken as far away as Bar Harbor, Maine, and the Great South Channel., Among the three 10' blocks surrounding MBDS, the offshore block receives the highest use, particularly on the western side. The middle quadrat containing MBDS, receives moderate to heavy use based on aerial surveys conducted during this study, primarily from spring through fall. The innermost quadrat receives most use by fin whales during the winter months. Northern Right Whale The north Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, is one of the most endangered large whales in the world. It has been suggested that the north Atlantic has two stocks of right whales. The first, along the eastern North Atlantic, between the Bay of Biscay and the coast of Iceland (Allen 1908), is thought to have disappeared, (Reeves and Brownell 1982). The northwest Atlantic stock (see Figure 3.C.5-7) occurs from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (Sergeant 1966; Mitchell 1974b, 1974c; Sutcliffe and Brodie 1977; Hay 1985b), into the lower Bay of Fundy (Arnold and Caskin 1972; Kraus and Prescott, 1981, 1982, 1983; Reeves et al. 1983; Kraus et al. 19840 and throughout'the Culf of Maine south to Cape Cod Bay and the Great South Channel (Watkins and Schevill 1976, 1979, 1982) in the spring and summer. In the winter, right whales occur from Cape Cod Bay (Watkins and Schevill 1976) south to Georgia and Florida (Moore 1952; Layne 196.; Kraus et al. 1984; Kraus 1986) and into the Gulf of Mexico (Moore and Clark T96T; Schmidley 1981). Between December and March, small numbers of right whales occur in waters of the Gulf of Maine and western Georges Bank. Another wintering ground for this species occurs in the Georgia-Florida Bight where possibly newborn calves have been observed (Kraus et al. 1984; Kraus 1986). Approximately 10-20 right whales are 'sighted annually at this I-ocation.. Identification of individuals based on callosity patterns on the head (Watkins and Schevill 1982; Payne et al. 1983) has linked this wintering group with those whales that move into the Gulf of Maine - lower Bay of 247 Fundy during the spring and summer (see Fig. 10 from Kraus et al. 1984). In the spring, right whale concentrations in the Gulf of Maine occur principally in three locations, the Great South Channel, Cape Cod Bay north to Jeffreys Ledge, and the northern Culf of Maine - lower Bay of Fundy. A few right whales have been reported in Massachusetts waters through the summer, however most of the population spends the summer and fall in the Bay of Fundy and on the Scotian shelf (Kraus et al. 1984; Kraus 1986). Movements of individual right whales within the Gulf of Maine have been well documented (Kraus et al. 1984). Right whales feed almost exclusively on copepods and euphausids. Surface feeding or "skimming" is frequently observed in the Gulf of Maine and Cape Cod Bay (Watkins and Schevill 1976; Mayo et al., this report). Feeding whales follow an erratic path when observeTf-rom the air or plotted against plankton patches and can be seen to follow "discrete patches of plankton" (Watkins and Schevill 1976, 1979; Mayo et al.). Watkins and Schevill (1976) suggest that subsurface feeding is the more typical feeding mode, rather than surface "skimming". Prey items of right whales in the Gulf of Maine and Cape Cod Bay include copepods (Calanus finmarchicus) and adult juvenile euphausids, Thysanoessa inermis (Allen 1916; Watkins and Schevill, 1976). Right whales have been protected from commercial hunting since 1935; however "best estimates" for the north Atlantic population are no more than a few hundred (Mitchell 1973a, 1974b; Winn et al. 1981). The largest single sighting (70-100 whales) occurred in 1970 in Cape Cod Bay (Watkins and Schevill, 1982). Much of the entire northwest Atlantic population likely moves through the Gulf of Maine on a seasonal basis. Estimates from shipboard surveys for the Gulf of Maine (MBO 1980-85) range from 0 in winter and fall, to 14 in summer and 166 in spring. Right whales are known to occur in the northern Stellwagen Bank and southern Jeffreys Ledge regions; however information on their occurrence, movements and behavior is limited. Most sightings have occurred in the spring, during March to April, although a second peak in sighting frequency occurs in July. Right whales were not recorded within the MBDS study site during the dedicated aerial surveys. Survey coverage of the region during early spring was limited to one year, 1985. In that year, during mid-April, a considerable number of right whales were observed approximately one mile south of quadrant II. During four days of effort between 18 and 21 April, 20 - 30 individuals were observed at that location. They were most concentrated on 18 April. Behaviors observed included courtship, breaching, and apparent juvenile play behavior (rolling, hanging with mouth opened, and investigating the vessel). Two mother/cal,f pairs were identified. During the same period, lower numbers of right whales were seen on northern Stellwagen (east of MBDS). Right whales were observed on two of four cruises to northern Stellwagen d.uring the period between 8 April and 248 24 April. A total of seven animals were identified, including two moLher/calf pairs. Both mother/calf pairs were also seen in the large concentration south of quadrant II. Behaviors seen.on northern Stellwagen included breaching, and possible nursing. Although survey effort on northern Stellwagen Bank during April was limited prior to 1985, one right whale was seen during the only cruise taken in April of 1983, and two were observed during a cruise in March of 1982. Throughout the spring months, northern Stellwagen is an important area for right whales, although not used as consistently or by the same numbers that frequent Cape Cod Bay during the same period (see below). Although surface feeding is frequently observed in Cape Cod Bay, it was not observed on northern Stellwagen. The second period of right whale sightings takes place in July. Observations have been concentrated on northern Stellwagen; hence the lack of sightings in other areas does not indicate absence. During this period most animals were traveling to the north or northeast, apparently in a migratory pattern. This corresponds to known movement.patterns of right whales.between Cape Cod Bay and the Bay of Fundy. Many of the.animals sighted in the vicinity of MBDS have been resighted in the Bay of Fundy with,in four to six weeks (S. Krause, pers. comm.). Mother/calf pairs were most frequently observed during July; 55% of the nine sightings during this period have been mothers with calves. Right whales make another appearance in the fall, during October and November. At this time, they are seen rarely on northern Stellwagen, but are seen with some frequency on Jeffreys Ledge (S. Mercer, pers..comm.). Sei Whale The se i whale (Balaenoptera borealis), also an endangered species, is found in all the world s oceans, excluding tropical and extreme polar seas. Evidence suggests that two stocks of sei whales occur in the northwest Atlantic (Mitchell and Chapman, 1977); one off eastern Nova Scotia and another centered in the Labrador Sea. In the western North Atlantic, this species ranges from Greenland and Iceland south to southern New England waters. Sightings in the shelf waters off the northeastern United States occur along the outside of Georges Bank and generally not in the three ten-minute squares study area around MBDS. Sei whales were observed twice on northern Stellwagen.- In both cases a lone sei whale was observed in a fin whale aggregation. Sei whales are considered incidental visitors nearshore. Blue Whale In the western North Atlantic, the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), an endangered species, has been reported from pack ice south to the Panama.Canal Zone (Leatherwood et al. 1976); however their distribu- tion generally is more restricted. The normal range for this species in spring and summer extends from the Gulf of St. Lawrepce/Nova Scotia region 249 northward (Sergeant 1966; Sutcliffe and Brodie 1977). In fall and winter their precise range is not known, although the population likely moves south into more temperate waters. Blue whales feed entirely on krill, and their summer distribution is determined largely by the distribution of their prey species. There are no verified records from south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Blue whales were for the most part absent from shelf waters; this species generally preferring in deeper slope waters. Only two blue,whales (one sighting) were identified off Nova Scotia during the CETAP surveys (CETAP 1982). No blue whales have been sighted in the Gulf of Maine or inside the 200 m contour except for a 1987 sighting of single blue whale along the coast of Massachusetts, in Massachusetts Bay. Sperm Whale The sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus, is widely distributed throughout the deep waters of the.northern Atlantic between 30000' and 60000'N latitudes.(Brown 1958). Several discrete stocks have been suggested within this range (Mitchell 1974a). Most of the whales north of 40000'N latitude are large males that migrate along the continental shelf edge of eastern North America, from Georges Bank along the Scotian Shelf to the Grand Banks, up to Labrador and Hudson Strait, and then offshore into Davis Strait (Katona et al., 1977; Mitchell and Koziki 1984). In the northwest Atlantic, sperm ;Zal-es were fished commercially off Labrador/Newfoundland (Mitchell 1975b) and Nova Scotia (Mitchell 1975b; Sutcliffe and Brodie 1977). Traditional whaling grounds also occurred southeast of the Grand Banks, off the Carolinas to the southwest Caribbean (Gunter 1954; Leatherwood et al., 1976) and in the Gulf of Mexico (Fritts and Reynolds 1981). Sperm whales feed primarily on squid (Caldwell et al., 1966; Gambell 1972), mainly deepwater species (Katona et al., 1977). Deep sea fishes and octopus are also taken occasionally (Leatherwood et al., 1976). Within the Gulf of Maine, sperm whales likely feed on the short-finned (Illex illecebrosus) and the long-finned squid (Loligo pealei). Braham (1984) estimates the North American stock to be 99,500. Estimates,of sperm whale abundance within the Gulf of Maine (Scott et al., 1981; CETAP, 1982; MBO, unpublished) are less than 100 individuals. Twe- deeper, central portions of the Gulf of Maine, including Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay are considered marginal habitat for this species. The distribution of this species off the east coast of the United States generally is along the shelf-edge and seaward into slope waters in all seasons and generally not in the MBDS study areas. Summary - Cetaceans In summary, the Gulf of Maine waters are high-use habitat for fin, humpback and right whales between spring and fall. Winter concentrations 250 of fin and humpback whales are reduced from the other times o f the year. Winter distribution and abundance of right whales in the Gulf of Maine are poorly understood. The southwest Gulf of Maine (Jeffreys Ledge, Steltwagen Bank south along the 100 m contour outside Cape Cod to the Great South Channel) is the subregion of highest use per unit area (greatest density) by large whales between Cape Hatteras, North,Carolina and Nova Scotia. The endangered whale species, noted in this report, use this area throughout the year, with densest concentrations occurring spring through fall. The easternmost 10' latitudinal block in this study (Figure 3.C.5-1) encompasses the northwest corner of Stellwagen Bank. Kenney (1985) found this area to be in the highest habitat-use category for cetaceans between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Nova Scotia. The middle 10' quadrat also is an area of high.cetacean use with a habitat-use index > 90-95th percentile. It is in this 10' square that MBDS is located, with the actual 2 nautical mile diameter site having;an aerial coverage of approximately 5% of the total. MARINE TURTLES Until recently, the distribution's of marine turtles off the north- eastern United States were known primarily from strandings and reports of opportunistic sightings at sea (Babcock, 1919; Bleakney, 1965; Laze'll, 1976). The first comprehensive study of the spatial and temporal ' distribution and abundance of sea turtles in this area was conducted by CETAP (Shoop et al., 1981). There are four members of the family Cheloniidae present in the study area: loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), Atlantic Ridleys turtle (Lepidocheyls h22aj), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and green turtle (Chelonia mydas). The leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea); (Family: Dermochelyidae) is a fifth turtle species found in our study area. Predation on eggs and hatchlings, human disturbance on nesting beaches (McFarlane 1963), excessive demand for turtle products, trawl entanglement, and consumption by local fishermen are all reasons for their current threatened or endangered status (Nat'l. Fish and Wildl. Laboratory 1980a, 1980b, 1980c, 1980d). Marine turtles feed at several trophic levels from herbivore to tertiary carnivores. With the exception of D. coriacea, marine turtles feed mostly on the bottom and forage close to shores and reefs, generally in waters less than 60 m deep (Shoop et al. 1981). C. mydas is mostly herbivorous, feeding on marine algae and marine grasses (Carr 1952, Nat'l. Fish and Wildl. Laboratory 1980a). L. !@@, E. imbricata, and C. caretta are omnivorous and feed on a wide variety of invertebrates, algae and fish (Nat'l Fish and Wildi, Laboratory 1980b). The diet of the Atlantic Ridleys turtle consists mostly of crabs Arenaeus Callinectes Calappa sp., and Hepatus sp. (Nat'l. Fish and Wildl. Laboratory 1980c). Leatherback turtles are open water or pelagic carnivores feeding 251 principally on jellyfish (Carr 1952, Nat'l Fish and Wildl. Laboratory 1980d) and favor C anea sp. in the Culf of Maine (Lazell 1976). In the study area, turttes have been shown to forage on the green crab (Carcinus maenus) and the blue mussel (Mytilus edutis) (Sam Sadove, OKEANO@_ FOUNDATION. pers. comm.). Loggerhead Turtle The loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), a threatened species, is the most widespread and numerous sea turtle along the eastern seaboard (CETAP, 1982; Payne and Ross, 1986). Its range during the winter and early spring is South of 37000'N latitude in estuarine rivers, coastal bays and shelf waters of the southeastern United States (see Figure 3.C.5-8) Their distribution is the most restricted during the winter months (sightings generally occur south of Cape Hatteras), prior to spring and early summer nesting. Their distribution is most widespread in summer and fall coinciding with a northward dispersal phase which follows the peak nesting period, at this time sightings occur throughout shelf waters north to Massachusetts. Their offshore distribution (beyond the edge of the continental shelf) in summer also extends north along the eastern United States to approximately 42000'N latitude. Loggerheads are generally absent in shelf waters north of Cape Cod, including Cape Cod Bay and the Gulf of Maine. Prolonged exposure to water temperatures lower than 10-150C may cause dormancy, cold-stunning or death. The northward dispersal following nesting results in limited sightings along outer Cape Cod and the islands mid-summer through fall. Sporadically loggerheads become trapped inside Cape Cod Bay in late-fall and winter, resulting in cold-stunning and death. Generally, Massachusetts is at the northern range limit for this species, therefore these waters are considered marginal habitat (Payne and Ross, 1986). Atlantic Ridleys Turtle The Ridleys sea turtle (Lepidochelys an endangered species has the most restricted breeding range of any sea turtle, nesting within a few hundred miles of Rancho Nuevo on the southern coast of Tamaulipas, Mexico (National Fish and Wildlife Lab. 1980c). Their adult life is spent in the Gulf of Mexico; however, as juveniles they appear as far north as New England either by actively swimming or drifting in the Gulf Stream (Lazell, 1976; Shoop, 1980; Prescott, 1986). Juvenile Ridleys which turn up in Massachusetts are generally 10" to 12" long and weigh up to seven pounds (Prescott 1986). Waters off south 'ern New England are important feeding areas for Ridleys turtles and are considered important habitat for this species (Lazell, 1980). Each fall as water temperature drop in Cape Cod Bay between 12 and 30 immature Ridleys strand on Cape Cod (Prescott, 1986). This species may transit the MBDS study area, but it generally follows offshore patterns. 252 Green Turtle Green turtles (Chelonia mydas), an endangered species, are found worldwide in waters warmer than 200C, although juveniles sometimes are found in cooler waters (Nat'l. Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 1980a). Green turtles are rare summer stragglers as far north as Cape Cod Bay (CETAP, 1982; Shoop and Ruckdeschel, 1986a). Individuals in Massachusetts waters are usually juvenile and probably from the endangered Florida breeding population. Gulf of Maine sightings are extremely rare (CETAP 1982). Hawksbill Turtle The Hawksbill turtle Eretmocheyls imbricata, an endangered species, is scattered throughout the world's tropical oceans, though it is infrequently observed north of Florida on the Atlantic coast. A -single juvenile carapace, presumably from somewhere on Cape Cod, is the only museum record of this species for New England (Shoop and Ruckdeschel 1986b). They are considered absent from Gulf of Maine waters, including Cape Cod Bay. Leatherback Turtle The leatherback iurtle (Dermocheiys coriacea), an endangered species, is the largest and most distinctive of the sea turtles. It is widespread in the oceans of the world (Nat'l Fish and Wildlife Laboratory 1980d). Leatherbacks nest on tropical beaches, after which, the adults move into temperate waters to feed. This is the second most common turtle along the eastern,seaboard of the United States (Fig 3.C.5-9'), and the most common north of 42000'N latitude (Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank and Cape Cod Bay). The leatherback is a strongly pelagic species. The large flippers and streamlined body allow prolonged, fast swimming. Their large body size and a special arrangement of blood vessels in the skin and flippers enable them to retain heat generated during swimming. Leatherbacks maintain body temperatures several degrees above the temperature of the surrounding water, facilitating their travel to cool temperate waters where food is abundant. However, their physiological adaptations to pelagic life make leatherbacks poorly suited to deal with obstructions in shallow waters. They regularly become entangled in fishing nets and lobster pot lines. Leatherbacks possess a limited ability to maneuver and cannot swim backward to disentangle themselves. Leatherbacks are reported to have died of intestinal blockage after eating floating plastic bags, which they presumably mistake for jellyfish, their desired prey. They are also occasionally killed by collisions with boats. Adults migrate extensively throughout the Atlantic basin. There are numerous records of leatherbacks in New England and as far north as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (Ross, 1986). Sightings off Massachusetts are most common in the late summer months (July September) (Shoop et. al. 253 1981; CETAP, 1982), and the leatherbacks seen here are usually of adult sizes. The leatherback's seasonal migration is the reverse of'that of the Loggerhead. Leatherback turtles move northward beyond the shelf-break, possibly to within the Gulf Stream; therefore there are few sightings in the spring months (CETAP, 1982). They first appear in the Gulf of Maine (north of 42000'N latitude) in late May to June, and from 42000'N to approximately 38000'N in shelf waters from June through October (Shoop et al. 1981). Sightings of leatherback.s peak during the summer, most in the southern New England coastal regions (CETAP 1982). They are not seen above Cape Hatteras in winter. Summary - Marine Turtles The five species of marine turtles that potentially would occur in the study area includes the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), Atlantic Ridleys turtle (Lepidocheylp @@), hawksbi,ll.turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), and the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys imbricata). Of these, Massachusetts Bay is considered marginal habitat forloggerhead and Atlantic Ridley's turtles, green turtles, and hawskbill turtles are rare or absent from Massachusetts Bay. The leatherback turtle would be the only species expected to occur inthe study area, seasonally in late spring through summer, feeding opportunistically of jellyfish in the water column. 254 GIS 424 Y, r r st%E%.F V 40- S%.OPE ILI ER 41- Mr. 4v SARPASSP SEA to 100 no Im zo, Figure 3.C.5-1: Bethymetry and principal features of the cont inental shelf and slope off the northeastern United States. 255 4b r G U L F %% % 40' 1 0 F I :: ....% e t M A I N E .01 P 'fMassachuiatts@*-.: 30, % DS. 41 L % % % A: Ire -20 L so on % % Harbo % a y I % % %% % VO 4 0 10 IPO Race Point % % % %%% Cape % 42'00'N Plymout h W% %, C 0 d Say 1w so' 40' 30' 20 10, 70*00 Figure 3.C.5-2: The location of the Mass Bay Disposal Site(MBDS) relative to Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay. 256 Figure 3-C-5-3a: Relative distribution and abundance of humpback whales in the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank (north of 40000'N latitude) by season. L Relative Abundance cetaceans per 10'x IO'biock 10-99 *.>100 A 76 7io 77, 7@r 7,0 lir 'Z9 6:e 67 SCOTLA Humpback Whole 4 Negaptera novaeaenglice) NEW ALL SEASONS ................. . 4 P&CCE ISLANO KW COHN vow 41 ISLOC NEW JCASEY so 100 t5jo 2W ILIkow T C Ps ?S. To M 7e 710 no ee 670 I @@- J7 44 E 257 Figure 3.C.5- Sightings of the humpback whale within the waters of the Mass. Bay 3b through f Disposal Site study area by season. Sources: Data frc-A the Cetacean Rbsearch Unit; Hain et al. 1981; Payne et al. 1984; MBO unpubl. data, 1985-1986; Gulf of Maine Cetacean Sighting Network 1975-1981, and from aerial survevg during this study. 258 @76-111MIIIIU-. r" 3- Humpback Whole- (Megaptera novoeoenglice) Massachusetts 0 tit wer IL ..A 00 46..1 0 0 0 r %@F cn I % A %% 0 N N lp, Bay % 40 Boston Harbor .90 t Iro /ALL SEASONS t I 71*00,w 50, 40' 30' 20' _)k.- il L 1@ A L, JA A%A" I F.1 P.* B Humpback Whale*-.'-- (Megaptera novaeaenglice) C, .40 Massachusetts a 00 a* *8 "Ib /Foul 006 C 4P ...... a y % Boston Harbor 80 7: 40 '40, 0-0 SPRING t 71*00,w ISO' 40, 30' 20' .-rjA Humpback Whole" e (Me liae) gaptera novaeaeng Massachusetts ft do 4 *1 0 0 00 00 *as % 0% a, 4.0 000 0 00 a*;* 00 % N B y % Boston Harbor dobef, fo SUMMER 71'00*W 50' 40' 30* 20 z 0 0 Figure 3.C.5-3e V.t Jf 4op -01 . ... . ..... . .... :.16 .............. VL dop .40P ............ f 0 IN 00 0% 0 *1 .-Aso I'L CO 4f. < m LL ...... 0 4L 000 00 0 6-0 An 0 J4, % % % % L) .. *.-' rw 0I Ll 5. A % 4b 3b 0 CL L. 4p 262 E Humpback Whale ....... (Megaptera novaeoengliae) lop OPM a s s a c u s e s 01 low -r@ do* IFoul CT\ Oe B a y Boston Harbor 80 *yet* qO '40, 00 0 WINTER ft 7 1 *00'w 50' 40, 30' 2 Figure 3.C.5-4 Sightings of surface-feeding by humpback vhales vithin the vaters of the Mass. Bay Disposal Site study area for all seasons. 264 L iA Humpback Whale .................. (Me gapterd' novaeuenglia 00 01 101p OF Massachusetts *00 '00 a s' 0 vi@ PO % *0 Foul NJ %Areaet.. oo CY% %-- a Ln P B a y Boston 0/ Harbor photo qO *pet FEEDING % 4, W. P-t IN 7 1 000,w 150, 40' 30' 20' Figure 3.C.5-5 Sightings of humpback whales with-calves within the waters of the Mass. Bay Disposal, Site study area. for all seasons. 266 rip Humpback Whale C, (Megaptera novaeaenguce) .0, do, v do,, .41 01 %4 Massachusetts 0040 a 040* #0 a at -00 0 :00 :0 00 ..a a.. 2 4b ro ..a Irv" Aif so 00 of (00 0, ...... a y % Boston Harbor 80 Met *so .14.t- qO ss 0.. 0 CALVES is 71*00,w 50' 40' 30' 20 Figure 3.C.5- Sightings of fin vhales vithin the@vaters of the Massachusetts 6a through e Bay study area by season. Sources: Data from the Cetacean Rbsearch Unit; Hain et al. 1981; Payne et al. 1984; MBO unpubl. data, 1985-1986; Gulf of Maine Cetacean Sighting Network 1975-1981; and from aerial surveys during this study. 41 268 -------------- ------- .k S'. L -rA a Fin Whole - - -.!- - 9 ................. (Boloonoptero physclus) lop dip Massachusetts m *too-% 6A 69 ore 3!. see 40* % [Foul % I %A to's 1.0 % 0 0 Bay 89slon Harbor 80 noel ALL SEASONS I I 900,w 10. 40, 30' 20' 4 e Fin Whole (Baloenoptera phys alus Massachusetts 0 0* 0* do, 0, OIL gm@ 00 Foul Bay Boston Harbor '90 *00, 0-0 SPRING 71,00*w -50' 40, 30' 20* 0 - .2% VIA M-1 i C % Fin Whole (Balasnoptero physalus) C,99 doe Massachusetts Wa It's /Foul '%Art* -A f % % IN 0.10, Bay Boston Horbor so 10 '40, SUMMER 71*00,w so' 40 30' 20' Fin Whole % ................ C (Boloonoptera physalus) lop Massachusetts % Ot 0 0 so 6S % Ip 0"', a y % Boston Harbor 180 lost Ito % FALL % 71 OO'w so, 40* 30' 20' E Fin Whale C, (Balluenoptera physolus) 00, dip Ow Massachusetts AH dop Foul too 11 % % % 0 % % Bay Boston "orbof son) *to 190 WINTER It 71600,w 4w 50' 40, 30' 20' Figure 3.C.5-7 Relative distribution and abun Idance of right whales in the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank (north of 40uOO'N latitude) by season. Relative Abundance A cetaceans per 10'x I O'block 0 0 10-99 >100 A 7*7' i6 7i' 7Y 7? 7'10 MAINE Fm NO/A Right Whole SC07 LA r (Eubalceno glocialis). S 43* 4 NEW 0 -A KAMPSH @K-- ALL SEAS.ONS .............. 4. jASS PA A G!AND, I C014N Ir NEW YonK 6 ISL 400 00 NEW MARYLAND JCFtSEY ISO 740 n. 710 ?e 891, tie 670 y - @LNQJ-' L 'IEW '.rRSEY 274 Figure 3.C.5-8 Relative distribution and abundance of loggerhead turtles in the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank (north of 40000'N latitude) for all seasons. L Relative Abundance cetcce'ans per 10'xlO#block 0 1 -9 010-99 9 >100 7'? 7'6 i4' 716 7,10 67 MAINE NCPWA 1 -442 Loggerhead Turtle SC07LA i r x @-P (Caretta caretta) 4:f- NEW KAMIIS@!@F ALL SEASONS -420 4 MASS W40DE ISLAND CONN NEW 41* 6 0 4 lei ISIL 9 0 0 0 00 0* 0 00 09 0 0 .0,07 go 66406* 0 NEW JCRSEY e- Poll= MARYLAND 0 to 100 no no . I ILILOWTIEWS IWA ee. STO Tie 00 275. Figure 3.C.5-9 Relative distribution and abundance of leatherback turtles in the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank (north of 40000'N latitude) for all seasons. m Relative Abundance cetaceans per 10'x I O'block -9 10-99 0 >100 I .7 76 i4@ i2o 7,io e 60 4 KOVA SCOTA 40 Leatherback Turtle r (Dermochelys coriacea) .4 3* NEW % ................. ALL SEASONS 4 ASS CONN Kw .4 to VUx .' 0 0 460 NEW JERSEY' WARYLANO 0 10 vim no no 50 740 70 r2o 710 7e se a IA @E Yr. 276 Table 3.C.5-1. List of whales, dolphins and porpoises (order CeLacea) which commonly occur in the waters of the Gulf of Maine, including Ceorges Bank. Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales) Family Balaenopteridae Finback Whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Minke Whale B. acutorostrata Endangered Sei Whale B. borealis Endangered Humpback Whale Regaptera novaeang1jae Endangered Family Balaenidae Northern Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis) Endangered Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales) Family Phocoenidae Harbor Porpoise Phocoena phocoena Family Delphinidae Bottlenosed Dolphin Tursipos truncatus Spotted Dolphin Stenella plagiodon/attenuata Striped Dolphin 9. coeruei3a-1ba Common Dolphin 5elphinus delphis White-sided Dolphin Lagenorgynchus acutus White-beaked'Dolphin L. albirostris Grampus (Rissa's Dolphin) Grampus griseus Long-finned Pilot Whale Globicephala melaena Killer Whale Urcinus orca Family Physeteridae Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus Endangered Source: Hain et al. 1981; CETAP 1982; Katona et al. 1983; Payne et al. 1984. 277 Table 3.C.5-2. List of whales, dolphins and porpoises (Order Cetacea) which occur uncommonly (from sight records or strandings) in waters of the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank. Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen Whales) Family Balaenopteridae Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered Suborder Odontoceti (Toothed Whales) Family Delphinidae Family Monodontidae Beluga Delphinapterus leucas Family Physeteridae Pygmy Sperm Whale Kogia breviceps Family Ziphiidae Northern Bottlenosed Whale Hyperoodon ampullatus Dense-beaked Whale Resoplodon densirostris True's Beaked Whale M. mirus North Sea Beaked Whale' bidens Source: Katona et ai. 1983 Table 3.C.5-3. List of rare (r), seasonal (s), and commonly (c) occurring marine turtles (Order Testudines) in the' waters of the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank. Family Cheloniidae Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta Threatened (r) Green Turtle Chelonia mydas Endangered (r) Kemp's Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys @e Endangered (r) Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered (r) Family Dermochelyidae Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered (s) Source: French (1986) 278 Table 3.C.5-4. List of rare (r) and commonly (c) occurring pinnipeds in coastal waters of the Gulf of Maine. Family Phocidae (True or Hair Seals) Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina concolor (C) Ringed Seal P. hispida (r) Gray Seal Halichoerus grypus (C) Harp Seal Pagophilus 'groenlandicus (r) Hooded Seal Cystophora cristata (r) Family Odobenidae Atlantic Walrus Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus fossil records Source: Katona et al. 1983 279 3.D. Commercial and Recreational Characteristics 3.D.l. FISHING INDUSTRY Nationally, fisheries statistics are generated by point of catch and grouped in ten minute squares which are assigned to statistical areas. The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site is located in statistical flarea 514" (Figure 3.D.1-1). It is estimated that approximately 100 commercial fishing vessels fish in area 514. Interviews were conducted with fishermen in Gloucester, Cohasset, and Scituate during the summer of 1985. Commercial fishing in the area consists of draggers, gill netters, and lobster boats. Each of these techniques are discussed below. Dragging Draggers from different ports fish on smooth bottom in the general vicinity of the disposal site at various times during the course of the calendar year. These include vessels from: Salem, (2); Lynn, (2); Nahant, (1); Boston, (5 to 6), Scituate, (12); Gloucester, (20); Green Harbor, (2); and Plymouth, (6); (total 51). From the interviews it was determined that while most of these draggers stay away from the disposal site, some boats from Gloucester and Scituate fish on the southwestern and southeastern portions of MBDS. The fish caught by draggers usually consist of flounder and American Plaice. These species are harvested throughout the year. This type of catch is usually found on the flounder ground, a flat bottom section of the ocean floor where trawlers can operate without fear of damaging their equipment. In addition, redfish'and wolffish are caught near patches of hard bottom. Other species important to the fishing industry are winter flounder and yellowtail flounder. Although these species are not caught in great numbers in MBDS, they are harvested in other areas near the disposal site. In the winter, lobster and cod are important by-catch for draggers. According to the NMFS, a large amount of fish landed by New England draggers is caught in statistical area 514. For this area, the percentage of American Plaice caught was 14.6% of the total catch of this species off the Northeastern coast of the United States. Area 514 repre- sented 7.9% of the winter flounder, 3.4% of the yellowtail flounder, and 12% of the witch flounder caught off the northeastern United States. Although a substantial percentage of the species caught by draggers are found in area 514, most are not caught in the vicinity of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. Gill netting Gill netters set their gear from 10 to 20 miles offshore. Very few full-time gill netters fish in the MBDS. Cod is the main target species for gillnetters who fish off the coast of Massachusetts.. In the 280 spring and winter, most gill nets are set shoreward in areas where the sea floor is rough in order to avoid the operations of draggers which may damage their nets. In addition, State laws keep draggers out of areas used by gillnetters. Gillnetters from ports north and south of Boston, have occasionally set their nets within MBDS. Based on an interview, one fisherman stated that the catch size for cod was, on occasion, large but there was no concentration of fish in the site. In an unrelated interview another-fisherman reported that he no longer fishes in the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site after his gear was contaminated by black, foul-smelling mud. Lobstering Lobster boats change their catch locations in accordance with seasonal lobster migrations. In the winter, lobsters move to deeper waters in search of warmer water and to avoid storms. In summer months, lobsters migrate toward shallow water and as a result lobster boats move inshore to increase their catch sizes. The table below provides an estimate of the number of lobster boats fishing in the vicinity of MBDS: NUMBER OF LOBSTER BOATS FISHING IN GENERAL VICINITY OF MBDS (BASED ON 1985 SURVEY INTERVIEWS) VESSEL PORT NUMBER GLOUCESTER 12 BEVERLY 5-6 MARBLEHEAD. 4 SWAMPSCOTT 2-3 NAHANT 1 LYNN 1 BOSTON 4-5 WEYMOUTH 2 COHASSET 10 SCITUATE 2 SAUGUS 1-2 HULL 2 Only one iobsterman stated that he had fished in MBDS. He reported that the lobsters there were all legal size and appeared to be of high quality. On one occasion he reported that his pots were fouled with black mud, 300 feet north of the "A" buoy. Some areas of the disposal site were reported absent of lobsters because disposal activities have taken place there from time to time. In general, lobster boats avoid the area. 281 FISHING UTILIZATION The catch for area 514 in 1984 is presented in Table 3.D.1- 1. In total, this area accounts for approximately 5.7 percent of all the landings off the northeastern United States. In 1984, this area was the source of approximately 84.3 percent of the dogfish, 27percent of the sea herring, 32 percent of the red hake, and nearly 21 percent of the silver hake off the northeastern United States. The total U.S. landings in this area (514) increased from 88,681,543 pounds in 1974 to 123,972,150 pounds in 1984, an increase of approximately 28 percent. The increase may be due primarily to the exclusion in 1977 of foreign fishing vessels from waters within 200 miles of the coastline. Landings and value data for the period 1972 to 1974 are reported in Appendix III data for the period 1982 to 1984 are also reported in Appendix III. Data were also available from the NMFS on the area immediately surrounding the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. The summary tables that evaluate each of the species and value per pounds caught per year is given in Appendix III. The NMFS was able to break down catch sized for three ten-minute squares within the statistical area. The three 10 minute squares immediately surrounding MBDS area 514 are described below: LATITUDE LONGITUDE 42025' 70025' 42025' 70035' 42025' 70045' In 1984, the total number of pounds landed for all species in area 514 was 123,972,150 which was valued at $18,840,350. For the three 10 minute squares (study area) considered for the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site, the total number of pounds landed was 41,937,628 which was valued at $2,461,806.75. These quantities comprise approximately 33.8 percent of the landings from area 514 and 13% of the value of the catch in this area. LANDINGS VALUE FOR MBDS Using the data compiled in the Appendix tables, estimates were.made as to the total value of the fishing landings in the Massa- chusetts Bay Disposal Site. This was done by totaling the number of pounds landed (and its value) for each species in the area longitude 42025' and latitude 70035'. The landings and values were collected and averaged for three years - 1982, 1983, and 1984. This mean value for three years was then multiplied by 6%, MBDS percentage of the total area of longitude 42025' and latitude 70035. Using this methodology, a maximum potential catch value for all species in the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site was estimated to be $21,320 per year. This would represent an upward 282 limit on the value of MBDS. It assumes uniform fishing effort over the. entire 10 minute square which, from evidence presented above, is not likely. Cod, flounder, and American plaice were the most economically important species caught in area 514 and the three ten minute squares surrounding MBDS. TABLE 3.D.1-1 LANDINGS IN AREA 514 TOTAL WETRIC TOTAL POMS TOTAL METRIC SPECIES IN 514 TOt;S OTT W.Z. FOR EACH SPECIES TONS FOR EACH AS PERCENTAGE Or SPECIES COAST OF U.S. IN AREA 514 SPECIES IN 514 TOTAL OTT X.E. COAST BLUEFISH (023) 4,279 158,712 71.99 1.7% 31rMRF1SH (052) 12,42S 53,427 24.23 0.2% COD (081) 52,570 7,350,695 3,334.2S 6.3% CUSK (096) 2,187 195,476 $8.67 4.2% WINFLOUNDER(220) 14,685 M58,483 1,160.52 7.9% tUNYLOUNDER(121) 14,197 19,710 8.94 0.1% WITTLOMER(122) 6,S46 1,137,096 797.94 12.0% TELLOVTAIL (123) 11,819 1,319,06 S98.30 3.4% IN PLILICE (124) 20,143 3,265,541 1,481.24 14.6% MADDOCK (141) 24,312 1.269,828 575.99 4.0% In NAKE (152) 2,330 2,651,624 749.17 32.2% THITZ RAXE(153) 7,504 702,423 329.62 4.2% IULIDUT (159) 136 7,550 3.42 2.5% SEA NERRiwou6s) 33,447 19,902,069 9,027.52 27.0% (212)' 14,007 1,112,472 S04.61 3.6% WMADEN (221) 251,788 52,152,510 23,656.22 9.4% ItDrIS3 (240) 4,792 327,776 148.68 3.1% POLLOCK (269) 20,491 5,629,373 2.553.47 12.5% DOGFISH (352) 4,392 8.164,094 3,703.21 84.3% SIXTES (365) 4,134 461,163 209.18 5.1% SILVER ZAKE(509) 11,432 9,819.091 4353.91 20.8% VOLPTISEZS (512) 2,224 331,651 iso.44 "43.4% CRKS (700) 57.722 0 0.00 0.0% LOBSTER (727) 20,154 45,382 2038 0.1% swip (736) 3.227 S22.229 236.88 7.3% QUANOG IN (748) 149,220 0 0.00 0.0% CLAY, SOFT (769) 168,038 205.597 93.26 0.1% SEA SCALL (800) 24,028 689,969 '312.97 1.3% SQUID " W (801) 11,720 34,415 15.61 0.1% IQUID S(l)(802) 2,776 8,060 4.02 0.2% TOTALS: 950,524 119,696,227 U,293.85 S.7% 0P=DS CONVERTED INTO TWS: I Wk ZQUAL TO 2204.6 PMDS @283 ALI' 4 IIIIlII;:I Hill !I@ J -1. 1 1 I -Ail P Ile A it 116 Lielf -1k, IDWI 1111616 Ili I I 12 t rr4 11 I I -I I I'll I I I if I 1 1 1 , I I I I I I I I :13 11H 1 14; 1-.! 1 r At" 3 1 1 1 I Iti il(1@11111 I If 1 1111i IWO 1111 111 !:1- mm, I I 1LjCb1EIF1A1R1CID1F4l91Q WalcipwF [IiI,is 66 .7:7. 1 111 1 1 1 1 Ill fill IIIIIIIIii IIIIIIIIII 11,11,111 fill lilill I if 1111 fill IIIIIi Ill Ii;T., 11111f If I IM 111111111 11111111111 11 1 IIITA I I I IM fill 11111.111111 Ill It 1 Mill I I 11111i tI1IIlI,i;I :7 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 it. I I I I I I I I I If I I I I I I 1 11 Ili I I I I II I I I I I I I I 1 4 Is I I JlA I I 1 51,112 H 1 1 an z 2.L I fill I I ill Ill[ I Ill If I _Nzm_ I: It Ill I! Mill I 1 1111.1! ri 1 1 1 1 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1_1 1 11 Ii I T71 I I I I I 1 11 1 1 117 Is I I I I I I L 2 if I 3. I-TT IFF1111111111cl- We ni-.-G F_ NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES (NMFS) STATISTICAL AREAS FIGURE-C-1 Figure 3.D.1-1 284 3.D.2. SHIPPING According to maps published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the location of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site does not have any significant impacts in the main shipping lanes into Boston Harbor. MBDS is north of the harbor shipping lanes and therefore does not interfere with commercial channel traffic. 3.D.3. MINERAL, OIL, AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT According to the U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service (MMS, 1983), there are no oil or gas exploration sites in the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. 3.D.4. GENERAL MARINE RECREATION Other marine recreation, for example whale watching, has to be taken into consideration when discussing MBDS. There have been a number of sightings of whales in the vicinity of the disposal site. Various site seeing vessels pass through MBDS in order to reach areas where whales have been spotted. Data were not collected on recreational fishing and other sight seeing activities in the area of MBDS. The existence of MBDS only serves as a navigation aid (Buoy A) for whalewatching. 3.D.5 MARINE SANCTUARIES The MBDS is not located within any designated marine sanctuary. Stellwagen Bank, 5.5 km east of FADS has been suggested-as a candidate for a marine sanctuary, but at this time is not under nomination. 3.D.6 HISTORIC RESOURCES It is very unlikely that significant historic,properties are contained within the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. There is no possibility that prehistoric sites would be found, as this area was not above sea level during the last glaciation, when Pleistocene megafauna and early Amerinds began migrating into New England (including sections of the exposed continental shelf) (Moi and Roberts, 1979). The only historic shipwr ecks reported within MBDS are a steel-hulled Coast Guard boat which was blown up with plastic explosives (420 25' N, 700 34.5' W), and a 55 foot fishing vessel (420 25.7' N, 700 33.5' W), both of which sank in 1981 (Jim Dailey, NOAA, pers. comm.). There exists only a very minor possibility that unrecorded historic wrecks are within MBDS. MBDS is outside of the main shipping channels, and is not associated with any particular hazard to navigation (e.g. rocks, shoals, etc), but it is conceivable that an unrecorded ship could have been damaged in a storm and drifted over the MBDS area before sinking (Bourque and Roberts, 1979). However, during the extensive bottom surveys conducted by the Corps of 285 Engineers, no evidence has been recovered that would indicate that an unrecorded wreck exists within the area. The only historic items noted during the surveys were twentieth-century barrels and drums of chemicals and/or low level radioactive wastes. 286 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.A. Effects on the Physical Environment As a result of previous work in the region and the recent studies conducted at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site, the environmental consequences of dredged material disposal and the interaction of the disposal operation with the physical environment can be well defined for this location., The following sections provide interpretation of the data presented under the Affected Environment Section as they relate to the observed and expected effects of disposal at MBDS. 4.A.1 Short Term Effects Short term effects are defined primarily as.those which may occur during and immediately after disposal of dredged material and include such parameters as plume formation, convective descent, bottom collapse and initial dispersal of material. Although disposal of dredged material and other waste has taken place in the vicinity of the Foul Area since the start@of the century, control and monitoring of the disposal operations has only recently been accomplished during the past ten years. Consequently, the most pertinent data on the short term effects of disposal are available through studies conducted by the New England Division as part of the DAMOS program. 4.A.l.a. Disposal Processes Disposal of dredged material at MBDS is conducted through release from either disposal scows or hopper dredges. Regardless of the type of vessel utilized during a disposal operation, there are three major phases (Figure 4.A.1-1) which affect the behavior of dredged material: 1) The Convective Descent Phase, during which the majority of.the dredged material is transported to the bottom under the influence of gravity as a concentrated cloud of material. 2) The Dynamic Collapse Phase following impact of the bottom where the vertical momentum present during the Convective Descent Phase is transferred to horizontal spreading of the material, and: 3). The Passive Dispersion Phase following loss of momentum from the disposal operation, when ambient currents and turbulence determine the transport and spread of material. The major difference between hopper dredge and scow disposal results from the dredging operation, not the;disposal process. The hopper dredge utilizes a hydraulic pump to transfer the dredged material from the bottom to the surface, a process that entrains a substantial amount of water and effectively breaks down the cohesiveness of the dredged material. As a 287 result of this process, the hopper-dredged sediment tends to be relatively homogenous and fluid. In cases where scow disposal occurs following clamsheli dredging of cohesive sediments, the dredging procedure has less effect on the geotechnical properties of the sediment. Therefore, the material remains cohesive and is often transferred to the disposal site as large clumps of sediment. In shallow water, the difference in the dredging procedure often results in a,different type of deposit with the clamshell/scow material creating a more distinct mound formation with thin flank deposits, while the hopper dredge will produce a broader, more uniform deposit. In either case, the lateral extent of the deposit remains essentially the same. If the sediment to be dredged is a high water content, non-cohesive silt/clay deposit or unconsolidated sand, the difference between a hopper and scow disposal operation is relatively small. Each disposal load will create a broad thin deposit, which will gradually accumulate at the disposal site as more disposal operations occur. During the Convective Descent Phase of the disposal process, water is entrained with the disposal cloud resulting in a gradual decrease in the density of the discharged material. If the water is deep enough, the density reduces to a value approaching the surrounding water and neutral buoyancy is attained. At that point, the vertical motion of the cloud ceases and passive dispersion of material occurs through transport by ambient currents. Studies by Stoddard eS al. (1985) have shown that for a relatively large disposal vessel (4000 m ), the depth of neutral buoyancy is greater than 300 meters. Since the MBDS location has an average depth of less than 90 meters, it is safe to assume that neutral buoyancy will not occur at this location and that the dredged material will impact the bottom during the Convective Descent Phase. The fact that the dredged material reaches-the bottom during the Convective Descent Phase is extremely important in assessing the potential transport of material during the disposal process. Bokuniewicz et al. (1978) measured the rate of convective descent as approximately 1 m/sec during three separate disposal operations. Therefore, at the MBDS site, where the average depth is approximately 90 meters, the majority of material can be expected to impact the bottom within two minutes of disposal. Since the maximum current velocities measured during this program were approximately 30 cm/sec (Figure 3.A.2-16), the worst case transport of material during convective descent would only amount to 36 meters. This is well within the error of positioning of the disposal vessels and, therefore, the effect of currents, either tidal or non-tidal, on the shape or distribution of the disposed dredged material deposit would be negligible. This is in agreement with observations made at other disposal sites within the New England area (Morton, 1986) where, even in regions of strong, oscillatory tidal flow, no orientation of the dredged material deposit in the direction of tidal current has been observed. 288 Since the thermoctine in the vicinity of MBDS occurs at depths Less than 20 meters (Figure 3.A.2-4), it is safe to assume that at that depth, the dredged material will be in the Convective Descent Phase and the density of the disposal plume will not be close to neutral buoyancy. Therefore, the relatively small fluctuations in.the ambient water density associated with the thermocline will have no effect on the majority of the dredged material which will be transported directly to the bottom. The entrainment of water during the Convective Descent Phase and the residual dispersal of sediment washing out of the disposal vessel will result in some portion of the dredged material remaining in suspension throughout the water column after disposal. It can be expected that, in the case of cohesive sediments, slightly more of this material will be dispersed during a hopper dredge operation as opposed to scow disposal because the sediments would be in a more fluid state. However, in either case, the relative percentage of dispersed material is small compared to that transported to the bottom in the Convective Descent Phase. Several investigators, including Bokuniewicz (1980), Johnson (1978), and Tavolaro (1982) have all estimated the amount of material remaining in suspension, either through in-situ observation or modelling of the physical processes. These estimates range from 3 to 5% maximum (dry mass basis) depending on the conditions existing at the site and the properties of the dredged material. Since these suspended sediments are not transported as part of the Convective Descent Plume, the ultimate fate of this material depends primarily on its settling rate and the ambient currents in the area. Fine silt particles, which are the predominant materials remaining in suspension, settle in quiescent waters at a rate of 0.7 cm/sec (Stoddard et al., 1985). Therefore, the time required to settle to the ambient bottom of 90 meters at MBDS would be nearly four hours. Assuming the 11worst case" 50 cm/sec currents present in the area, this would result in transport of the particles for a distance of more than 4 km, well beyond the margins of the disposal site. This theoretical estimate is extremely conservative since 30 cm/sec currents generate sufficient turbulence to keep such fine sediments in suspension indefinitely; in.fact nearly any current in excess of 5 cm/sec is sufficient to transport fine silt (Hjulstrom, 1935). Consequently, one should assume that essentially all fine silt particles left in suspension following disposal will be dispersed beyond the margins of the disposal site and that these sediments will be diluted until they are part of the background suspended sediment load of the region. It is important to note that the contribution of this suspended dredged material to the overall suspended sediment concentration of the site is minuscule. Assuming a 4000 m3 disposal load, with a sediment density of 1.2 gm/cm3; if 10% of the sediment remains in suspension, and is dispersed over a 1 km2 area, 90 m deep, then the increase in suspended sediment concentration for that volume of water would be 0.005 mg1l. Since the average suspended sediment load in the area is 1 mg/1 (Morton, 289 1984) the initial contribution of this sediment is less than 0.5%. Furthermore, this concentration will decrease at an exponential rate as Is the material is dispersed during transport away from the disposal site and will be virtually undetectable within a short period (hours) following disposal. Several investigators have been able to track disposal plumes for short periods of time (Proni, 1976; Bokuniewicz, 1978; Morton, 1984) and have documented the return to ambient conditions. There have been some instances, (Proni, 1976; Morton, 1984) where increased concentrations of material have persisted at depths exhibiting strong density gradients (thermoclines) for extended periods of time, but never more than several hours. The only quantitative measurements related to the disposal of dredged material in the vicinity of MBDS were made by Morton (1984). These measurements were conducted during a single dump from the hopper dredge SUGAR ISLAND on 1 February 1983. The dredge was operating in the President Roads channel dredging silt sediments and dumping the material at a designated Loran-C coordinate in the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. At that time, the major questions raised relative to the use of a hopper dredge-for projects in New England centered around the behavior of silt material during disposal. Previous experience had shown that, in general, cohesive silts dredged by a clamshell/scow operation were immediately transported to the bottom during the Convective Descent Phase, and therefore, produced a relatively small plume. A concern existed that the hopper dredge technique would entrain water with the silt and break down any cohesiveness in the sediment so that disposal would generate a large, slowly settling plume that might transport significant quantities of material for substantial distances. Consequently, the emphasis of this program was placed on examination of plume behavior through a combination of acoustic tracking and in-situ sampling. The R/V EDGERTON was configured for-tracking the plume with a dual channel (50 and 200 KHz) Acoustic Remote Sensing System manufactured by Datasonics Inc. and the SAIC Precision Navigation System utilizing a Del Norte Trisponder positioning system (+2 meter accuracy). The Datasonics Model DFS-2100 system provided simultaneous dual channel operation with high power output, low receiver noise levels and calibrated control of signal level which permits monitoring of extremely low concentrations of material in the water column, and acquisition of quantitative concentration levels when correlated with ground truth sampling. On this study, ground truth data were obtained from the M/V HUDSON RIVER, a support vessel supplied by Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. Samples of the water column were obtained during the plume tracking operation using Niskin bottles. The HUDSON RIVER was located in the plume by the EDGERTON and a messenger was dropped to trip the bottles. i 290 Observations of the disposal plume created by the SUGAR ISLAND were conducted on 1 February at 1600 under relatively calm conditions. The EDGERTON positioned herself immediately astern of the dredge and moved over the disposal point as soon as dumping occurred. Figure 4.A.1-2 indicates the track of the EDGERTON during the next 1 1/2 hours as she tracked the plume. The striped section of the chart indicates the spatial distribution of the plume 15 minutes after disposal while the cross- hatched section shows the spatial distribution one hour later. During the 75 minute survey period, the maximum extent of dispersion was approximately 750 meters in a southeasterly direction. This represents a dispersal rate of 16 cm/sec or 0.3 knots. Although this spatial distribution provides an indication of net transport, the acoustic records provided a much more detailed view of the plume dissipation. Immediately after disposal, the 50 KHz channel had substantially stronger reflections than the 200 KHz channel indicating that relatively coarse particles were in suspension. Furthermore, both channels indicated a narrow column of material extending from the surface to the bottom which rapidly expanded into a turbidity cloud in the lower portion of the water column. These phenomena strongly suggest that the material dumped by the hopper dredge acted in the same manner as material dumped from scows in that most of the sediment was transported to the bottom in a convective flow, which, upon impact with the bottom, spread radially and deposited most of the dredged material in a turbidity deposit within a few minutes of disposal. This was verified by sampling the resulting deposit which showed no increased expansion.resulting from the hopper dredge operation (Morton, 1984). In summary, whether the disposal operation is conducted with either a hopper dredge or scow, both theoretical and observational data indicate that the majority of the dredged material will be transported to the bottom at MBDS as a discrete plume during the Convective Descent Phase. If the material dredged is cohesive silt, the scow disposal is more apt to result in a concentration of cohesive clumps of material on the bottom and the hopper dredge is more apt to disperse slightly more material into the water column. However, in both cases, the differences will be small; the total area of the bottom covered by the dredged material will be similar and the amount of material lost as suspended sediment will be a low percentage of the total transported to the site. 4.A.l.b Mound Formation/Substrate Consolidation As discussed in the previous section, most of the sediments disposed at the MBDS site, whether from hopper dredge or scow, will be transported to the bottom during the Convective Descent Phase. When this material reaches the bottom, the vertical momentum will be transferred to horizontal momentum during the Dynamic Collapse Phase. Depending on the geotechnical properties of that sediment, one of two types of deposit will form. If the material consists primarily of cohesive silt, then a concentration of cohesive clumps, interspersed with soft mud will be 291 created. This deposit will be surrounded by a deposit of mud that extends beyond the clump area for some distance. If the material is sand, or non- cohesive silt, then the deposit can be expected to be more uniform. In either case, the overall spread of the material will be similar, since the potential energy available for both types of disposal is essentially identical, and the transfer of vertical to horizontal momentum will take place in the same manner when the material impacts the bottom. The main difference in the deposit results from the distribution of kinetic energy between the large cohesive clumps which will absorb a great deal of energy without much horizontal movement and the more fluid muds which will readily flow until that energy is dissipated. The overall size and thickness of the resulting disposal mound will depend on the amount of material disposed at the site and the navigation control exercised during the disposal effort. In order to insure that disposal of dredged material occurs in a controlled manner, it is reasonable to expect that a taut-wire moored buoy will be deployed at this site. Using such a buoy, restriction of the disposal operation to a 50 meter radius is possible and the input of dredged material can be considered as a point source. In this manner, overall.management of the distribution of dredged material is possible through controlled placement of the buoy. Based on the results of previous operations at this stte, it is apparent that navigation control of the disposal operation is critical for proper management. Disposal operations conducted from scows under tow by tugs during 1982 and 1983 were not closely controlled and the resulting deposit was spread over a large area (see Section 3.A.2) (Morton, 1984 and 1985). More recent projects during 1983 and 1985 made use of taut-wire moored buoys and Loran-C navigation to increase the precision of disposal positioning. As a result, the deposits formed on the bottom covered substantially smaller areas (see Section 3.A.2). Recent work completed during January 1987 (see Section 3.A.2) has demonstrated that the disposal of dredged material at MBDS resulted in a broad, low deposit spread evenly over an area similar to that covered by disposal in more shallow waters. The spread of material was likely due to a combination of inadequate control over the location of the scows during disposal (up to 300 meters from the buoy), the depth of the water (90 m), and the behavior of the dredged material during descent. Figure 3.A.2-3 presents a schematic diagram of disposal in shallow water, as compared with the deeper water at MBDS. The major difference in the disposal of dredged material in shallow and deep water results from the loss of kinetic energy through entrainment of water during the Convective Descent Phase so that, in deeper water when bottom impact occurs, the lateral motion during Dynamic Collapse is substantially less than in shallow water. The result is a more uniform, broad deposit over essentially the same area of bottom. 292 The effect of precise navigation controls on mitigating measures such as capping or dilution of the deposit can have important implications for disposal management. Improved control of scows could reduce the area covered by dredged material and, therefore, reduce the amount of capping material required. For example, if dredged material covered an area of bottom with a 500 m radius, similar to the qeposit created during the 1986 disposal operations, a minimum of 441,000 m of material would be required to produce a cap deposit 0.5 meter thick extending 30 m beyond the edge of dredged material. However, due to the fact that the cap is formed by attempting to deposit individual scow loads at evenly spaced points over the dredged material deposit, it would most likely require somewhat more material than this to insure that the cap was at least 0.5 m thick over the entire area. If the area were reduced to a 300 m radius, through very tight disposal operations that would be required in an actual capping 3 operation, the minimum amount of capping material becomes 171,000 m Table 4.A.1-1 presents the minimum volume of material required to cap contaminated material covering a range of areas.' An alternate approach might be controlled disposal of both 11contaminated" and "clean" material at the same location resulting in mixing and dilution of the contaminants. Such a deposit could be easily monitored for containment, recolonization and bioaccumulation of contaminants by infauna. Should significant adverse impacts be observed, then substantial amounts of clean material could be deposited to effectively cap the site. Although capping has not been conducted at MBDS, previous operations have demonstrated the effectiveness of disposal control in restricting the spread of material. This is the single most important factor in a capping operation. If, as will be shown in later sections, the disposal location is a containment site then, given sufficient material, capping should be feasible. 4.A.2 Long Term Effects Long term effects are changes in the environmental conditions that occur and persist over extended periods of time as a result of dredged material disposal and include such factors as: permanent changes in the topography of the site, alterations in the benthic habitat as a result of disposal, and.changes in current patterns or hydrographic structure that may result from the topographic features created. 293 4.A.2.a Bathymetry Previous disposal operations at MBDS have not created any significant topographic features, although the accumulation of material in specific areas has altered the bottom conditions. Studies of the disposal process (Morton, 1984; SAIC, 1987) have indicated that control of the disposal point can restrict the spread of material to relatively small areas; consequently, the potential exists for future operations to accumulate more sediment into, more typical mound features. The capacity of the MBDS area for disposal of dredged material is virtually,unlimited relative to the amount of sediment that would have to be deposited at the site before significant topographic changes would occur that might impact the circulation pattern of the area or the stability of deposits. If disposal operations resulted in covering a circular area of 1 km3radius, then a mound two meters high would require more than 6 million m of material to be deposited. Such a mound would have virtually no effect on currents and the depth change would be so small that the forces acting on the �ediment would be unchanged. It is significant to note that 6 million m3 is more dredged material than has been deposited at the site during the past twelve years. 4.A.2.b Circulation and Currents The circulation in the vicinity of MBDS has been well characterized by Butman (1977) whose conclusions were fully supported by the results of measurements taken during this site evaluation program. In general, the surface currents at MBDS are dominated by tidal oscillations resulting in maximum currents of 30 cm/sec oriented in a NE-SW tidal ellipse (see Section 3.A.2). Deeper in the water column, the velocity of the tidal current decreases significantly until the average maximum current near the bottom (85 m) is only 4-5 cm/sec (see Section 3.A.2). Both the surface and bottom currents may be significantly altered by the presence 'of strong easterly storm events. During Hurricane Gloria, wind stress-induced near- surface (10 m) currents reached values of 70 cm/sec (Appendix Table I- 1). Near-bottom currents were affected by the basin-wide response to build-up of sea level on the western margin of Massachusetts Bay which resulted in southeasterly currents on the order of 20 cm/sec (see Section 3.A.2) (Figure 3.A.2-20). The major characteristic of the bottom currents is their relatively low velocity, which under virtually all conditions measured to date are insufficient to erode deposited dredged material and, under most conditions, are not sufficient to transport material coarser than fine silt. The 20 cm/sec currents resulting from easterly storm events would be sufficient for transport if another mechanism (such as wave action or bioturbation) were available to resuspend the sediment. If transport were to occur the net direction would be toward the Stellwagen Basin south of the disposal site, where the sediments would be expected to accumulate in areas of existing fine silt deposits (see Section 3.A.2). 294 4.A.2.c Potential for Resuspension and Transport There are three major factors affecting the resuspension and transport of dredged material at the MBDS site: 1) the physical properties of the sediments, 2) the current regime described above, and 3) the wave field. Bioturbation, can also have an effect, either through modification of the physical properties of the sediment or through physical injection of particles into the'water column. However, it is 'the interaction of the three major factors which is of most concern when assessing the physical properties of a site for dredged material disposal. The classic work defining the effect of physical properties of sediment on potential resuspension and transport was that of Hjulstrom (1935) who developed a graphic representation of the relationship between the behavior of sediments as a function of grain size and water velocity (Figure 4.A.2-1). Although later work has refined and quantified these relationships, the basic theory and conclusions have remained valid. In general, whether the water motion is imparted by currents or wave energy, the higher the velocity (i.e. kinetic energy) of the motion, the greater the stress that is exerted on the sediment-water interface to cause resuspension of particles. From Figure 4.A.2-1, it is apparent that fine, unconsolidated sands in the range of 0.1 - 0.5 mm diameter are the most susceptible to erosion and, therefore, can be resuspended by the lowest water velocity. As would be expected, increased velocity (i.e. energy) is necessary to induce erosion of larger particles because of their greater mass. However, resuspension of finer sediments also requires higher velocity, to overcome the cohesive attraction of the particles. Furthermore, these finer sediments form a smooth, uniform interface which presents Less surface area upon which frictional forces can act to transfer momentum from the water to the particles. The three most significant concepts that can readily be derived from Figure 4.A.2-1 and applied to the evaluation of dredged material disposal are: 1) A minimum of 15 cm/sec is required to erode even the least stable material (fine sand) 2) It is more difficult to erode cohesive fine clay deposits (>50 cm/sec) than even the coarsest sand (30 cm/sec), and 3) Once erosion has taken place, even 15 cm/sec is sufficient to keep any particles of sand size or smaller in suspension. 295 When applying the principles developed by Hjulstrom (1935) to the problem of sediment stability at a disposal site, it is important to take into account the inherent variability of a dredged material deposit. A typical dredging project in New England can extend from the mouth of the estuary, where relatively coarse sands may be present, through deep channels which accumulate large volumes of fine silt, to small pockets of fine silt-clay material dredged from between docks. All of these sediment types are dumped together at the disposal site so that the resulting deposit usually consists of a central mound composed of a mixture of coarse and fine materials surrounded by an apron of highly fluid mud. As discussed in previous sections, the type of dredging and disposal operation can also have an effect on the physical properties of the deposit (see Section 3.A.2). If dredging has been conducted through clamshell operations, much of the fine sediment will be transported to the site as cohesive clumps of material which are very resistant to erosion. However, these clumps extend up into the bottom boundary layer of the ambient current field and generate turbulence. This turbulence imparts greater stress on the sediment than would be typical of the same current over a smooth surface and, therefore, the clumps are subjected to comparatively greater erosion forces. Conversely, the hopper dredging operation tends to break the cohesive bonds of the material and forms deposits more susceptible to resuspension. However, the fluid nature of the material results in a sediment surface that is relatively smooth and more difficult to erode. At the disposal site, all of these factors interact in both space and time and, therefore, prediction of the actual stability of a dredged material deposit is extremely difficult. However, some basic understand- ing of the effect of sediment properties on stability is available. Bottom currents in excess of 15 cm/sec have the potential to erode the highly fluid mud due to the turbulent flow created by the cohesive clumps and, like the plume material remaining in suspen'sion, it could be trans- ported beyond the margins of the disposal site. Bottom currents typical of MBDS would not favor this process, rather the fluid mud would begin to consolidate. As this material is consolidated or removed, the surface of the deposit consists of materials more resistant to erosion. In effect, this process "armors" the surface of the mound making erosion of the deposit more difficult. As will be discussed in the next section, this flarmoring" of the sediment surface can either be reinforced or weakened over time by bioturbation factors. in order to evaluate the potential of a disposal site for containment of dredged material, it is necessary to assign some measure of erosion resistance to such deposits. Although, at this time, there are no data available regarding the properties of the specific sediments to be dredged and disposed at the site, an estimate can be made based on the previous discussion through specification of an equivalent grain size and corresponding current velocity from Figure 4.A.2-1. Assuming that flarmoring" of the sediment surface has occurred, the resistance to erosion 296 will certainly have increased to the level of medium sand or,fine silt, requiring a current velocity greater.than 35 cm/sec to cause significant resuspension. In reality, velocities on the order of 45 cm/sec might be more appropriate once the deposit has reached equilibrium. Using 35 cm/sec as an arbitrary, but conservative, estimate for resusp.ension potential, it is then possible to evaluate the currents at a specific disposal site or to compare between two sites. In practice, dredging and disposal permitting procedures require that definitive sediment property data be defined for each project; therefore, during management of the site, some refinement of this arbitrary number is possible on a project by project basis. During the entire period of the site evaluation measurements, the near-bottom current speeds never exceeded 25 cm/sec (Figure 3.A.2-17 and 18) and the highest reported maximum velocity (Butman, 1977) is o6ly 30 cm/sec. Since 35 cm/sec is a conservative estimate of the velocity needed to induce sediment resuspension, it is clear that the'MBDS site can be considered as a containment site with respect to currents. Because MBDS is located on an exposed coastline, the currents alone are not sufficient to classify the area as a containment site; the effects of wave action must also be considered. If the water motion created by wave action is sufficient to cause resuspension, then even the low currents described above may be capable of transporting material for large distances, thus making the area a dispersal site. For virtually any exposed site on the coastal shelf, there are certain to be some periods, during major storms, when the wave energy wil 1 be sufficient to resuspend sediments. However, the frequency of occurrence of such conditions must be evaluated to determine whether or not the risk associated with disposal is warranted. If the frequency of resuspension is sufficiently low, then the location can still be classified as a containment site. The impact of wave action on sediment resuspension is clearly defined in the Shore Protection Manual (CERC, 1984) as shown in Figure 4.A.2-2. In this figure, a dimensionless bottom velocity is predicted as a function Umax(-d)T Eq. 11.2-1 H of water depth W and wave period (T). For a given water depth, the bottom velocity is greater with longer wave period. Conversely, for a given wave period, the bottom velocity is greater at shallower water depths. A third factor which must be considered is the wave height (H) in Equation 11.2-1. For a given depth and wave period condition, greater wave heights result in the greater bottom velocities (Umax). Combining all of these parameters, the characteristics of waves which could cause resuspension at the MBDS site can be determined as shown in Table 4.A.2-1. This table assumes the same sediment parameters as described above (see Section 4.A.2) resulting in a bottom velocity of 35 297 cm/sec required to initiate resuspension of typical dredged material. Substituting this value of 35 that, at the ambient depth of' 85 meters, waves with periods on the order of 12 to 13 sec are re(Itil-red to initiat.e motion, since waves with shorter periods must have excessive wave heights (i.e. 23 m (75 ft) for a 10 sec wave) which could never occur at MBDS. However, the longer period waves must also be quite large, 4.7 m (15 ft) and 3.5 m (11 ft) at 15 and 16 second periods, respectively to initiate resuspension, and as will be shown later, they occur infrequently. Once the critical wave parameters for sediment erosion are established, the frequency of occurrence of such conditions must be determined. Using wave hindcasting procedures presented in the Shore Protection Manual (CERC, 1984), it is possible to predict the parameters of waves as a function of wind speed, fetch and duration. Since the MBDS disposal site is located so close to the Massachusetts coastline, fetch from the westerly direction is severely limited and the longest period waves that could ever be developed from that direction would be 6 sec. Therefore, no waves from the west would ever be expected to cause resuspension at MBDS. Conversely, waves from the easterly direction have essentially an unlimited fetch and, given sufficient wind speed and time to develop, could be expected to impact the sediment stability. However, because storms generating easterly winds approach the MBDS region over land from the south and west (see Section 3.A.1), the time during which the ocean is exposed to high wind speeds is relatively short. Therefore, Table 4.A.2-2 presents the predicted wave characteristics generated by storms with wind speeds from 31 to 67 mph blowing over ocean waters for periods of 3, 6 and I '2 hours. By comparing the results of the calculations presented in this table with the data in Table 4.A.2-1, it is possible to that would cause resuspension of dredged material. In Table 4.A.2-2, those conditions are to the right and below the dashed line. Therefore, a storm a typical northeaster (see Section [email protected]) would have to blow at 50 mph for at least 12 hours in order to resuspend disposed dredged material at MBDS. Smaller storms, with winds on the order of 30- 40 mph would never be expected to cause significant erosion. The frequency of such storms is difficult to determine since they occur sporadically. Data from the National Climatic Data Center (1986) suggests that storms in excess of 45 mph for more than 12 hours occur on the average of once every three to five years (see Section 3.A.2-2). Bohlen (1981) (Table 3.A.2-3) documented that 22 northeast storms with winds in excess of 45 mph occurred in Massachusetts Bay during the period of 1920-1980, supporting the estimate provided by NCDC. Fourteen of the 22 storms documented.by Bohlen had winds in excess of 50 mph for more than 12 hours, making the average occurrence of a storm event once every four years. Neumann et al. (1978) indicate that the frequency of hurricanes for any ten mile section of coastline in the southern Maine area is on the order of once every 150 years. During the period of this study, the only close approach of a hurricane was Hurricane Gloria which occurred on 27 298 September 1985. The storm intersected the coastline in the middle of Long Island and had significantly moderated by the time it reached the vicinity of MBDS. During the storm, the maximum gust recorded was 70 mph and the highest sustained velocity was 55 mph. However, the duration of the storm was very short with increased wind velocities lasting for less than four hours (NCDC, 1986). Based on the fact that winds in excess of 50 mph for 12 hours or more are required to generate waves which could cause resuspension at the MBDS site, and the fact that such storms occur on an irregular, infrequent basis, it seems prudent to consider that the MBDS site be classified as a containment site. On the rare occasions that resuspension of sediments occurs, the duration of the event is certain to be short (<1-2 days) and the effect of the storm on more shallow deposits of natural sediments is certain to increase the suspended sediment load of the entire region. Therefore, the addition of small amounts of sediment dispersed from the MBDS disposal site would be insignificant and undetectable. 4.A.2.d Bioturbation Bioturbation can either enhance or reduce the potential for sediment resuspension, depending on the type of benthic infauna present and their interaction with the sediment (Rhoads and Boyer, 1982). In most cases where burrowing organisms are active, pelletization and "dilation" (increasing porosity) of the fine-grained sediment eliminates the cohesiveness between particles, making the seafloor more susceptible to erosion. Furthermore, bioturbation by larger animals breaks down the cohesive clumps into smaller features, making them more accessible to the burrowing infauna. Conversely, some tube-dwelling animals, such as amphipods and small polychaetes, create mats of tubes cemented together by organic secretions which serve to stabilize the sediment surface, making it very resistant to erosion. Similarly, the resulting mucous from en- hanced microbial production also tends to stabilize the sediment surface. In most cases, deposition of dredged material will drastically alter the structure of the benthic community in the immediate vicinity of the deposit; the magnitude and duration of this impact on the benthic popula- tion will depend on the amount and type of material deposited, the level of contaminants present in the disposed material, and the time of year when disposal occurs. The sequence of infaunal communities which recolonize an area after a disturbance (such as deposition of dredged material) is described in detail in Rhoads and Boyer (1982). Biological assemblages which stabilize the sediment are more frequently present during the first stages of recolonization, while the deeper-burrowing animals which decrease sediment shear strength gradually infiltrate the site over a period of time.. most estimates of the stress required for initiation of sediment motion, including those discussed in the previous sections, depend on empirical laboratory criteria, such as the work of Hjulstrom (1935). 299 These estimates are based upon experiments using flat beds of abiotic, uniform non-cohesive sediments. Currently, one of the most intensely- studied topics in the field of marine research is the effect- of animal- sediment-fluid interactions on sediment stability. In particular, the potential for sediment resuspension under given hydrodynamic conditions as a function of the type of biological assemblage present is being examined (e.g., Rhoads et al., 1978; Yingst and Rhoads, 1978; Eckman et al., 1981; 1981; Grant et al., 1982; Carey, 1983; Jumars and Nowell, 1984; Eckman and Nowell, 1984; Muschenheim et al., 1986). Unfortunately, there are still no absolute predictions which can be made concerning sediment transport, even if the biological community is known. Without doing controlled experiments, biological processes cannot be absolutely classified as stabilizing or destabilizing. The different functional types of assemblages described above make different contributions to stabilizing or destabilizing the sediment-water interface and these contributions are not linearly additive. Most research to date documents the effects of a single biological process on initial sediment motion; however, even though these estimates are important, it is the sum of all biological and physical effects within a given sediment which determines stabilization or destabilization. Figure 4.A.2-3 is a REMOTS image from MBDS in which the effects of bioturbation on sediment texture are readily apparent. Sediments such as these are more susceptible to erosion and transport than freshly deposited, cohesive dredged material that is either azoic or inhabited only by small tubicolous, opportunistic polychaetes characteristic of initial colonizing benthos. The intensive particle bioturbation characteristic of these mature, equilibrium communities is associated with fine-grained sediments with water contents greater than 60% and commonly over 70%. Over time, the dredged material at MBDS will be progressively popu- lated by Stage III*infauna; this-will be accompanied by further biogenic remolding, dilation, and pelletization of the sediment surface to depths comparable to those measured on the ambient seafloor. Typically, such biogenic processing is markedly seasonal, especially in coastal waters which experience large seasonal changes in bottom water temperatures. For each 100C change in temperature, bioturbation rates can be expected to change by a factor of 2-3 due to the effect of temperature on metabolic rates. During the thermal maximum, the critical threshold erosion velocity may be significantly reduced as a result of this biogenic activity. How- ever, it is important to note that bottom temperatures at MBDS do not vary significantly over the year (see Section 3.A.2.a) and that periods of highest temperature are least likely to have strong storm events which would create easterly winds. Therefore, the effects of bioturbation should be smaller and less variable over the seasons than in more shallow sites. 300 4.A.3 Summary of Physical Effects The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) is located in the northern portion of Massachu*setts Bay west of Stellwagen Bank. The topography of the site is sharply divided into two areas, a shoal region in the northeast quadrant of the area and a deep, relatively flat depression with an average depth of approximately 85 - 90 m over the remainder of the site. The shoal areas are covered with coarse sand deposits while the natural sediments in the deeper regions consist of fine silt deposits. The MBDS region has been used for disposal of dredged material and other waste products for more than 50 years. Consequently, the center and western areas of the site are covered with dredged material deposits, however, there are no significant topographic features associated with those deposits. The dredged material deposits are relatively thin, broad layers consisting primarily of silts and some coarser sediments. There are localized regions with concentrations of cohesive clump deposits in the vicinity of disposal buoy locations. The dredged material appears to be very stable once it has been deposited. Samples of material that had been in place for more than two years still displayed the reduced, high organic, black mud characteristic of dredged material from estuaries in the region. Side scan sonar and REMOTS surveys also documented the distribution of dredged material and presence of cohesive clumps in areas where disposal had taken place several years earlier. Consequently, it is apparent that neither physical disturbance from currents and waves, nor bioturbation significantly affect these deposits. The water column at MBDS is characteristic of the shelf regime throughout New England, with strong stratification near the surface during the late summer and isothermal conditions during the winter. Near-surface currents in the area are dominated by tidal flow in northeast-southwest directions with maximum tidal velocities on the order of 30 cm/sec. Based on the results of the current meter deployment in September 1987, the mid- water depths experience mean current velocities from 10 to 15 cm/sec with a dominant northwesterly flow. At the deeper depths, there was a second- ary component to the southeast. Small amounts of fine-grained sediment separate from the dredged material plume during convective descent and remain in suspension. During periods when a well-developed pycnocline exists, these sediments could be concentrated at that level and poten- tially be transported away from the disposal. point. The actual maximum amount of this material will be determined by the pl@ysical characteristics of the sediment, the volume of material disposed, and method of disposal but may range from 3 to 5%. When thepycnocline is near the surface, net transport would be in a SW or NE direction (Figure3.A.2-24b). 1.11 Near-bottom currents are very low, averaging less than 7 cm/sec. Occasional higher velocities reaching up to 20 cm/sec in a westerly direction have been observed in near-bottom waters'in response to easterly 301 storm events that occur during the fall or winter. No strong bottom currents were observed as a result of storm events, however moderate storm induced currents were in a westerly direction, not the southeasterly direction predicted by Butman (1977). Based on these;data it is apparent that the near-bottom currents at MBDS are not sufficient to resuspend sediments. However, 'should'resuspension occur f0'r another reason, the currents generated in response to easterly storm events could be sufficient to transport material beyond the margins of the site. The wave regime in the vicinity of MBDS is controlled by the lack of fetch from a westerly direction and the fact that storms are duration-limited in-their ability to generate waves. Since they generally approach the MBDS region over land from the south and west, northeast storms do not affect the waters of Massachusetts Bay until they are essentially at the site. Consequently the duration of these storms in Massachusetts Bay is quite short'(maximum of 1-2 days). These limitations, combined with the depth of the site (>85 m), greatly restrict the generation of waves capable of causing resuspension of dredged material at MBDS. In order to generate waves of sufficient height and period to cause resuspension, an easterly storm must have winds in excess of 50 mph for a period of more than 12 hours. Such storms are rare, occurring approximately once every four years in the Massachusetts Bay region. The combination of wind and wave conditions existing at MBDS and the evidence that previously deposited dredged material has remained unchanged over a several year period all support the conclusion that MBDS is a containment site. Dredged material deposited at MBDS can be expected to remain in place for extended periods of time although the surface of the deposit may be resuspended on rare occasions of severe easterly storm events. During these events transport of the resuspended material would be to the west and southwest. Management of dredged material at MBDS should emphasize navigation control of the disposal operation. Recent surveys at MBDS have shown that dredged material was restricted to an irea with a radius of approximately 500 m for a deposit of about 250,000 m placed in the vicinity of a taut- moored buoy. Tighter control of the scows with respect to dumping at the buoy could potentially reduce this area. If this accuracy could be maintained throughout the entire disposal operation, capping of contamina- ted sediments may be a feasible mitigating measure at MBDS. Accurate navigation control would also permit dilution of contamination levels through deposition of both contaminated and relatively uncontaminated sediments at the same-location. Such an approach, where a quantity of uncontaminated sediments would be deposited simultaneously or soon after disposal of contaminated material could effectively reduce any risk associated with the disposal of small amounts of contaminated sediments. 302 In summary, the designation of MBDS as a disposal site for dredged material would appear to be an appropriate use of this portion of Massachusetts Bay. It is apparent that material deposited at the site will remain in place, and since the area has previously been used for disposal of dredged material and other waste products, such a designation would not expand the area of the sea floor affected by future disposal operations. 303 - ------------- J-1 CONVECTIVE DYNAMIC COLLAPSE ON BOTTOM woo- LONG-TERM PASSIVE DESCENT DIFFUSION BOTTOM DIFFUSIVE SPREADING ENCOUNTER GREATER THAN DYNAMIC SPREADING Figure 4.A.1-1 Schematic diagram of phases encountered during dredged material disposal operations (from Brandsma & Divoky, 1976) ,R P "06 POSAL Flo 15 MIN POST-DISPOSA 'Pat 370 M d 75 rn 75 MIN., tI_rl rWO I -U 'UbAL Figure 4.A.1--2 Ship's track and disposal plume dispersion following disposal operations by the Hopper Dredge SUGAR ISLAND (1 Feb., 1983) (from*Morton, 1984) DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 3 M. -2 20 METERS 3 M. 2 90 METERS Figure 4.A.1-3 Schematic comparison of the difference in the dredged material deposit resulting f rom disposal in relatively shallow (20 m) and relatively deep (90 m) water 306 1000 500 200 too Erosion OPO, "00 or "0 50 E 20 to 5 Tr n. po.rtofio.n De@o'sition 0 2 > .5 100 00" .2 Cks Rn 0 00 0 In 0 00 0 0 0 8 0 09 q Cy W) V) Cy in Size of particles in mm Figure 4.A.2-1 Potential for sediment erosion, transport and deposition as a function of grain size and bottom current velocity (from Hjulstrom, 1935) 307 5000 4000 1000 3000 1000 2000 7 1 t 4- 1000 goo 7 7 Boo AA f) 0 C) -7-77 @-7 -C A^ 500 400 le E 100 - 300 100 200 if -4- 10 so 77 .N. I -AX 60 -C% A, 50 40 10 A J10 30 X, 20 0 X!, -A 10 H. 1-4 4 ft i A4 A" 3 f: V.7-4. J- @17 2 T- t44-4- -L2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 UMOI (-d)T H (dimensionless 0.1- Figure 4.A.2-2 Dimensionless maximum bottom velocity as a function of water depth and wave period (from CERC, 1984) 308 1,4 A, A C,2 IOU Figure 4.A.2-3 REMOTS image from MBDS, indicating the effects of bioturbation on sediment texture 309 Table 4. A. I- I Volume Estimates* of Capping Material Required for a Range of Areas Covered with Dredged Material (Volumes are X IOOOM3) cap Thickness Radius of Dredged Material (meters) (meters) 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0.5 83 171 290 441 623 837 1082 1356 1666 1.0 166 342 581 882 1247 1674 2164 2717 3333 1.5 249 513 871 1324 1870 2511 3246 4076 4999 2.0 332 684 1162 1765 2494 3348 4328 5434 6666 Assumes that the cap material extends app roximately 30 meters beyond the dredged material. An Table 4.A.2-1 minimum wave parameters required to cause resuspension of typical dredged material deposited at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site Wave Period Umax(-d)T H (sec) H (M) 10 .15 23 11 .35 11 12 .45 9 13 .75 6 14 .90 5.4 15 1.10 4.7 16 1.60 3.5 311 Table 4.A.2-2 predicted Deepwater wave characteristics Dnmtion Limited Conditions (USACE, 1984) Wind 43eed Beaufmt Significmnt Height in Ret, Sea (period-in Ppggp!Lsj 3 hrs 6 hrs 12 hrs 31 1.5 (4.8) 2.5 (6.6) 4.4 (9-8) 34 Moderate 7 1.6 (5) 2.9 (7.2) 4.8 (10-5) 37 Gale 2.0 (5.5) 3.2 (7.5) 5.5 (11) 40 2.1 (5.6) 3.6 (8.0) 6.0 (11.5) 43 Fresh 8 2.4 (6.0) 4.0 (8.5) 6.9 (12) 46 Gale 2.7 (7.1) 4.6 (8.7) 7.6 (12.5) 49 strong 2.9 (6.5) 4.8 (9-0) 8.2 (12.7) 52 Gale 9 3.2 (6'7) 5.2 (9.5) 9.1 (13.0) 55 3.3 (6:8) 5.8 (9.6) 9.8 (13.5) 58 Whole 10 3.6 (7.0) 6.1 (10.0) 10.7 (14.0) 61 Gale 4.0 (7.25) 6.7 (10.0) 11.3 (14.5) 64 4.3 (7.5) 7.0 (10.5) 11.9 (14.8) 67 storm 11 4.6 (7.5) 7.6 (11.0) 12.8 (15.0) *Conditions below and to the right of this line are sufficient to cause dredged material resusPensiOn at MBDS 4.B. Effects on the Chemical Environment 1. Water Quality The water quality at MBDS is subject to spatial and temporal fluctuations as well as physical stratification. Physical trends in the water column are reported in Section 3.A.1. Chemical parameters measured during the course of this study are defined in Section 3.B.I. The process of disposal has the potential to elute some portion of, the various chemical contaminants adsorbed to the dredged sediment particles. Chemical concentrations of contaminants are typically adsorb6d to particulates in the parts per million (ppm or mg/kg) range, while water quality concentrations are typically in the parts per billion (ppb or ug/1) range. The solubility of sediment adsorbed contaminants varies with the properties of the particles and water column., The.interaction of the two produce elution of contaminants. Gilbert (1975) obtained water quality samples in the water column at MBDS during.a disposal episode at 0, 30', 60 and 72 meters. The 30 meter and bottom concentrations contained elevated turbidity (as measured by the suspended solids concentration), as well as copper, zinc, PCB and especially lead. Thylavailable zone of initial dilution within MBDS boundary is 8.62 X 10 liters. Five percent of this volume (4.31 x 1010 liters), for example, is sufficient to dilute water with virtually any elutriated concentration of contaminants. Most contaminants occur in the water column from elution of dredged material through the ppb (ug/kg) range. If PCB concentrations, for example, were highly elevated in dredged material, exhibiting an elutriate test value as high as 5.0 ppb, assuming a c3mpletIe elution of all PCB (not typically more than 1-10%) and a 4000 m barge disposal, applying the dilution caicuation of EPA/COE (1977), the required zone of initial dulution is equal to 0.04% of the avail,albe water column within MBDS. Disposal of dredged material elutes contaminants only for the short duration of the disposal event. The percentage of MBDS water column required to dilute contaminants to ambient concentrations.can be calculated using EPA/COE (1977) handbook Appendix H. Even potentially high elution values would be rendered unmeasurable within 5% of MBDS dilution volume. Therefore concentrations of contaminants are unlikely to be present in a majority of MBDS water column in excess of the EPA Water Quality Critieria, after initial dilution. 313 4.B.2. Sediment Chemical Environment The disposal of dredged material at MBDS is anticipated to continue at the present rate or potentially increase with the advent of major construction activities proposed for the greater Boston Region. The chemical quality of major improvement type dredging is different than for maintenance type dredging. The disposal of uncontaminated "Boston Blue clay" from areas underlying Boston Harbor, should not add to the chemical contaminant levels at MBDS and in fact may serve to lower average sediment contaminant concentrations. The short-term and long-term effects of disposal activities, in regards to chemical quality, are perhaps best predicted by analyzing the quality of previous disposals. Table 1-2 summarizes the quality of material disposed and also gives the quantities of dredged material disposed of at MBDS since 1976. An average chemical quality and standard deviations of.test results are presented along with the maximum concentration identified in the data. The weighted average data are most representative of total impacts, since it compensates for large volume disposals versus small volume disposals, the former's chemical impact being more significant than for the latter. These data are highly biase*d toward the worst case, or elevated contaminant levels because testing protocol calls for samples of sediment chemistry to be taken from areas in the system that are anticipated to be contaminated. Less contaminated dredged material is therefore not equally represented. a. Short-term Impacts Short-term disposal impacts on the quality of chemicals partitioned in the sediment and biota can be given a year to year time scale. Although highly variable, annual quantities averaged 178,310 cubic meters per year (233,209 cubic yards per year) for the current disposal site between 1976 and 1987. The approximately 180,000 cubic meters were predominantly silt/clay (60%) with sand/gravel comprising 40% of the material (Table 1-2).' Stellwagen Basin is a natural settling area for fine particulates in the Massachusetts Bay/lower Gulf of Maine system. Sediment accumulation rates for the area are approximately 1 mm per year, with estimates of sediments at 30 cm deep being 300-500 years old (Gilbert, 1976). Short- term impacts are influenced by the quality of materials settling on MBDS and the disposed material. The approximately.11 million square meter surface area of MBDS therefore receives approximately 110,000 cubic meters of fine-grained particulates from natural processes. The chemical quality of this sediment should be representative of the total inputs and dilutions of contaminants to the Massachusetts Bay system if evenly distributed. 314 4.B.2.a. Short Term Impacts The short-term chemical alterations at the disposal site can be pre- dominantly associated with the fine-grained dredged material with an average chemical signature as listed in Table 1-2. This is combined or layered with the cleaner material to form physically and chemically heterogenous deposits of material throughout the site. Using the MDWPC (1978) classification of dredged material, the ambient sediment regime at MBDS is altered with inputs of moderate levels (Class II) of mercury, lead, chromium, arsenic and high levels of oil and grease. Comparing the.MBDS-ON to MBDS-REF data (see Section 3.B.3), ANOVA testing revealed statistically significant elevations of lead, zinc, chromium and copper on dredged material in comparison to reference areas outside MBDS and unimpacted areas within MBDS (p< 0.05). Arsenic inputs are classified as moderate (Class II) by the MDWPC (1978) system, but their quantities (avg. 12.63 ppm. input, 6-13 ppm ambient) are in the range of ambient or unimpacted substrates (Barr, 1987). The anomoly is not, therefore, that there is not statistical difference between arsenic at reference versus impacted area, but the classification range of 10 to 20 ppm as elevated encompasses natural levels in this system. Mercury levels at MBDS-ON were below (<.Ol'detection levels) 0.14 ppm, much lower than the 0.68 ppm weighted average for inputs. Mercury was historically used as a biocide in antifouling marine paints. The elevated inputs (Class 11 0.5 to 1.0 ppm) are in the lower end of the MDWPC moderate range and may be biased by larger inputs in the 1970's. In any event, mercury contamination-was not observed at the MBDS stations sampled. Copper was statistically (Anova, p< 0.05) elevated at MBDS in comparison to MBDS-REF. Quantitatively, however, MBDS-ON average copper levels were low at 69.8 ppm and in reasonable agreement with the weighted average 104.6 ppm inputs. Zinc inputs'to MBDS had a weighted average of 170.8 ppm, while MBDS- ON concentrations were similar averaging 420 ppm. The input range is in the upper Class I category (< 200 ppm) while the in-situ average (220 ppm) was in the lower Class 11 (200-400) range. Nickel and cadmium had low levels of input from past disposed operations and were not present in significantly elevated quantities at MBDS nor were they statistically different from reference areas. The concentration of lead at the disposal-site is higher than ambient and statistically elevated in comparison to the reference station. Lead inputs from past disposal operations averaged 126.8 ppm, in a Class II range. Concentrations of lead at MBDS-ON agreed with inputs averaging 156.8 ppm (also Class II). 315 Chromium levels at the disposal site were statistically elevated in comparison to reference values. Weighted average chromium inputs to the disposal site were 105.9 ppm, a low Class 11 (100-200 ppm) value. This was in good agreement with in-situ concentrations of chromium averaging 115 ppm at MBDS-ON. The elevated weighted average of oil and grease levels input to MBDS averaged 2.13%, a Class III (>l..O %) value according to MDWPC. The dis- posal area was not sampled for oil and grease contents, but field notes identified MBDS-ON dredged material as having "an oily sheen". Specific oil and grease compounds of concern are Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons which were found as 0.51 ppm of flouranthene. Phthalate compounds were also found at MBDS at a 7.6 ppm level. PAH levels have not been well documented for low versus high classifications in dredged material. The levels reported here are not exceptional in the perspective of urban dredged material. Impacts resulting from deposition of dredged material will have a short-term impact of imparting a water column chemical signature (see 4.B.1) that potentially could be accumulated by filter feeding benthos as tissue residue in biota. The deposit feeding benthos that pioneer the disposal mound have the potential to uptake any contaminants present in the substrate. The results of tissue residue analysis for this project indicates limited bioaccumulation potential at MBDS. The elevated input levels of oil and grease coincide with the 2.2 - 2.5 ppm dry weight PAH residue, in organisms from the disposal mound. The 0.7-0.8 ppm dry weight PCB levels are indicative of bioaccumulati-on of PCBs by Nephtys incisa. These two organic compounds are known to accumulate in biotic tissues (Kay, 1984). PCB concentrations in sediments alone are not the controlling factor for PCB accumulation potential (Rubinstein et at., 1983). Partitioning and assimilation/elimination rates of PCB renders the compound more or less susceptible to biotic uptake (Brownawell and Farrington, 1985; O'Connor, 1984). PAH compounds vary in their availability to organisms. Many organisms have the ability to metabolize PAH compounds (Clarke and Gibson, 1987; Giesy et al., 1983). Therefore, PAH and PCB accumulation in organisms at MBDS are not directly correlated to bulk sediment concentrations. The evaluation of dredged material for bioaccumulation potential according to Sec. 103 of MPRSA would be necessary to predict PCB or PAH uptake, since bulk sediment chemical tests alone do not suffice. This testing has previously predicted PCB uptake from contaminated material in the same low magnitude as found in-situ at MBDS (NED, unpublished data). Therefore the organic residue levels found in organisms from the disposal mound are in good agreement with the predisposal testing predictions. Bioaccumulation of metals does occur with food uptake and physical adsorption for copper, zinc, selenium, arsenic, chromium, lead, and cadmium (Kay, 1984, Langston & Zhon, 1986). Different organisms also show 316 varying regulation abilities that eliminate tissue residues of metals (Amiard, 1987). Lake et al. (1985) demonstrated uptake of PCB, PAH, copper, and chromium by polychaetes exposed to dredged material with elevated levels of these contaminants. The metal levels at the disposal site are not sufficiently elevated to impart significant physical adsorption or food uptake in the organisms analyzed. Subtle contaminant uptakes,occurring throughout Stellwagen Basin would be difficult to identify in respect to isolating system wide (i.e. Massachusetts Bay) impacts from disposal events. 4.B.2.b. Long Term Impacts The prediction of long term impacts on the Massachusetts Bay environment resulting from.continued disposal of dredged material at MBDS can be broken into a systems perspective and a biological community perspective. The Stellwagen Basin area, as well as other deep basin areas in Massachusetts Bay receive fine particulates settling at rates of approximately I mm annually (Cilbert,.1976). The resultant 110,000 cubic meters deposited on MBDS annually by natural sedimentation rates will have a chemical signature paralleling the background contaminant loads in the Massachusetts Bay System. The approximately 180,000 cubic meters of annually disposed materials dredged from urban harbors imparts a chemical signature at MBDS reflecting the contaminant levels of those harbors. The most probable sources of contaminants in urban harbor sediments and in the fine particulates settling at MBDS are local wastewater treatment plant effluents, various point source and non-point source runoffs. The impacts of d isposal physically disturb benthic communities at the disposal point through burial and turbidi 'ty impacts. The chemical impacts of disposal are more subtle. Separating the impacts of sublethal chemical effects on benthic community structure from natural variability in biological population is inherently difficult. The.biological monitoring program at MBDS is designed to examine gross impacts at the benthic community level, while monitoring the contaminant uptake and incorporation into the benthos at the organismal level. The long-term impacts of dredged material disposal at the community levels should be viewed in a system's perspective. The Massachusetts Bay system receives approximately 500 million gallons per day of primary effluent from Boston's wastewater treatment plant alone. NPDES permits, non-point source runoff and the many other wastewater treatment plants all make additional contributions to the chemical loading into the system. Metals data on the Boston wastewater treatment plant's predicted secondary effluent, once all plant improve- ments are constructed and operational (year 2020), is presented in Table 4.b.2-3. This plant has traditionally been operating at a primary level of treatment which allows much greater levels of chemicals to enter the 317 system. Future plans for conversion to secondary effluents are being implemented. The most recent estimates for suspended solids loading into the Massachusetts Bay System from the primary effluent is approximately 100,000 kg/day (MWRA, 1987). These solids enter the system at a point 35 kilometers west of MBDS. (Future improvements call for primary, then secondary effluents to flow from a diffuser 18.5 kilometers west of MBDS.) A comparison of the annualized mass loading of contaminants from the predicted secondary treatment effluent (year 2020) Boston Harbor treatment plant reveals dredged material disposal input of contaminants to the Massachusetts Bay system is comparable or less than this one source. In context, the present primary effluent of only this single plant would then potentially represent considerably more contaminant inputs to the system than disposal of dredged material. As stated in Section 3.a.2, 95 to 99% of all disposal material reaches the bottom at MBDS. In contrast, wastewater treatment effluent is extruded with its solids in suspension. The results of calculating a maximum (5%) potential material 'n suspension and dividing by the dilution zone available at M@DS (8.6 X 1011 liters) are in Table 4.B.2-4. It is evident that even if all the annualized dredged material were disposed at MBDS at one event, and 5% completely dissolved into the water column, the EPA Water Quality Criteria would not be violated. This assumes a worst case scenario with dredged material data biased toward a more contaminated sediment profile than is likely to occur. Only 25% of the available mixing zone would be needed to bring all constituents within EPA criteria. 4.B.3. Summary of Chemical Effects. Reviewing the historical disposal data, the water column chemistry, the in-situ versus ambient sediment chemistry and the biotic tissue residue levels, it is evident that disposal of dredged material at MBDS imparts a chemical signature in a low to moderate (Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn) range for sediments and low range for tissue residues only of stations directly affected by disposal. These values are in agreement with the levels of contaminants detected in the dredged material prior to test- ing. Water quality impacts are temporary and limited to the immediate disposal event. The biological availability of contaminants seems to be restricted to persistent organics, particularly PAHs. Even these are in quantitatively low residue levels at MBDS and only at stations directly affected by disposal. 318 Table 4.B.2-1. Statistical Summary and Weighted Average of all Dredged Material Disposed at MBDS between 1976 and 1987. Concentrations are in ppm Hg Cd Pb Cr Cu Ni - Zn As PCB %VOL %OIL Avg-ppm 0.58 2.02 96.50 88.17 65.31 24.08 134.70 8.44 0.25 2.08 1.09 STD 0.90 2.19 106.62 116.32 84.12 24.28 145.91 11.34 0.62 2.44 1.77 MAX 6.46 8.90 491.50 629.50 448.50 88.83 532.00 52.10 3.00 8.23 7.48 Weighted Average 0.68 2.96 126.84 105.88 104.60 36.76 170.83 12.63 0.22 2.99 2.13 Mass. Class II is .. greater than: 0.50 5.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 50.00 200.00 10.00 0.50 5.00 0.50 Mass. Class III is greater than: 1.50 10.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 100.00 400.00 20.00 1.00 10.00 1.00 Table 4.b.2-2. Disposal Volumes (cubic yards and meters) for MBDS inplace conversion 0.65) YEARLY TOTALS C.Y. C.M. 1987 118800 90400 1986 232122 177480 1985 273355 2090,66 1984 226369 173143 1983 282919 101582 1982 845819 530637 1981 315204 241019 1980 15108 11552 1979 91908 70277 1978 33116 25322 1977 50223 3,8403 1976 311558 205674 CRAND TOTALS 279a'502 1874554 Table 4.B.2-3. Predicted Concentration of Metals in Secondary Effluent Year 2020 (MWRA, 1987) 'Chemical Loading (Kg/Year) Arsenic 685 Cadmium 756 Chromium 3,822 Copper 12,980 Lead 5,390 Mercury 216 Nickel 9,699 Selenium 4,796 Silver 325 Zinc 37,481 320 Table 4.B.2-4. Average Annual Chemical Mass Disposed at MBDS.- Total Mass Maximum (5%) Max. conc./diiution EPA Water Qualicy kg/year Potential in Suspension zone ug/l Criteria (ppb) ug/l Arsenic 2,698 135 0.16 69 Cadmium 634 32 0.04 43 Chromium 22,619 1,131 1.31 1,100 Copper 22,345 1,117 1.30 2.9 Lead 27,096 1,355 1.57 140 Mercury 145 5 0.01 2.1 Nickel 7,853 393 0.46 8.3 Zinc 36,494 1,825 2.12 58 PCB 47 2 0.0015 0.03 Note: Based on approximately 178,.000 m3-of material as annualized MBDS disposal, X 3 using 1,200 kg/m as a bulk deniity,for dredged material to convert volume to mass. MBDS dilution zone.= 8.62 X 101 liters 4.C. Effects on Biota 4.C.l. Effects on Plankton Dredged material disposal activities at MBDS are unlikely to significantly impact phytoplankton populations in Massachusetts Bay. Any impacts to phytoplankton at MBDS will be related to short term changes in water quality in the immediate vicinity of a dredged material disposal plume. During a disposal event phytoplankton below the disposal barge w ill be exposed to shear stress, and to abrasion by high concentrations of i suspended sediments. Small, flagellated species are likely to be more susceptible to damage by turbulent shear (Symada 1983) and abrasion than diatoms, many of which are armored which siliceous cell walls. Some phytoplankton may be carried below the euphotic zone with the descending mass or entrained water and dredged material. Additional plankton may become adhered to sediment, and subsequently sink below the euphotic zone (see Pequegnat, 1978). Increased concentrations of suspended sediments in the vicinity of the disposal point will temporarily reduce the penetration of light through the water column, and may reduce phytoplankton productivity (Pequegnat, 1978). Although even low concentrations of suspended sediments (ca 10 mg/1) can reduce phytoplankton productivity in clear coastal waters (Smith, 1982), the area likely to be impacted by disposal activities is small. Using a simple, conservative model (see Table 4.C.2- 1), it is estimated that, for a typical disposal event, the area of the water column at MBDS impacted by significant (> 10 mg/1) concentrations of suspended solids is 22.5 hectares. This area is only a small fraction (2.1%) of the total surface area of MBDS, and an insignificant fraction (0.02%) of the total surface area of Massachusetts Bay. In addition, within hours of the disposal event, suspended solids coficentrations will return to ambient levels (see section 4A). Ocean disposal of dredged material may result,in the release of nutrients and/or chemical contaminants into the water column (see Section 4.B.). The release of nutrients (particularly ammonia) may stimulate growth of phytoplankton entrained in the convective jet (Pequegnat, 1978). Because rapid dilution of a dredged material plume will occur at MBDS, however, there is no possibility that disposal could precipitate a sustained algal bloom. Dilution of the disposal plume and settling-of suspended solids, should quickly reduce contaminant concentrations in the water column to below levels likely to have an adverse impact on phytoplankton populations in the vicinity of MBDS. Within the disposal plume, however, elevated concentrations of metals and PCBs released from suspended sediments may reduce phytoplankton growth and cause some direct mortality. Impacts in summer are likely to be greatest near the thermocline where elevated concentrations of fine, potentially contaminated, sediments and dense 322 phytoplankton populations may occur. Diatoms, which are less tolerant of metals and PCBs than nanoplankton (Wolf et al 1982; O'Connors et al 1982), are most likely to be impacted. Fine, low density , sediments can persist on the sea surface for some time after disposal ORB 1984, Pequegnat 1978). Contaminants released from these sediments can become concentrated at the surface microlayer, where they may effect the phytoneuston. Elsewhere, phytoneuston adapted to polluted coastal waters have been shown to be quite tolerant to elevated contaminant (PAHs) levels (Riznyk et. al, 1987). Zooplankton As was the case for phytoplankton, zooplankton populations in Massa- chusetts Bay near the vicinity of MBDS are unlikely to be significantly affected by dredged material disposal. Adverse impacts will be confined largely to zooplankton damaged by shear stress and abrasion during dis- posal, and to those entrained within the dredged material convective jet. Zooplankton entrained. within the jet will be briefly exposed to elevated concentrations of suspended sediments. No studies have examined the effects of suspended sediments on any of the three predominant Massa- chusetts Bay copepod species. Studies of the neretic copepod, Acartia tonsa indicate that suspended sediment concentrations greater than 50 mg/l may reduce prey ingestion rates (see Stern and Stickle, 1978). For a typical disposal event at MBDS, the surface area likely to be impacted for a few hours by suspended solid concentrations greater than 50 mg/l is about 11 ha (see Table 4.C.2-1). Since this area represents an insignificant proportion of the total surface area of MBDS, no impacts on zooplankton populations outside the disposal site are anticipated. Potentially toxic contaminants released from suspended sediments in the disposal plume may be directly absorbed by zooplankton, or indirectly taken up via contaminated prey (O'Connor et al. 1982). The significance of contaminant uptake by zooplankton during redged material disposal has not been evaluated. Because of dilution.however,.it is highly.unli,kely that zooplankton outside of the immediate vicinity of the disposal operation will be impacted. In summary, the disposal of dredged material at MBDS will not sig- nificantly impact the plankton populations of Massachusetts Bay. Localized (approximately 10-20 hectne) impacts on.plankton of short (< four hours) duration may result from elevated concentrations'ok suspended solids. The elution of chemical contaminants in concentrations sufficient to impact plankton is unlikely, except possibly for localized impacts on phytoneuston and those entrained in the disposal plume. 323 4.C.2. FINFISH AND SHELLFISH As discussed in previous sections, the disposal of dredged material will alter the physio-chemical environment and benthic community structure at MBDS. Some of the consequences of disposal operations have the potential to exert short and/or longterm impacts on fisheries resources. Of greatest concern are impacts related to the temporary degradation of water quality, the deposition of contaminated sediments, and changes in benthic invertebrate (prey) communities. Impacts to Fish Eggs and Larvae Demersal eggs and larvae near the disposal point will be subject to direct burial by dredged material. Settling of resuspended sediments following disposal will subject additional eggs and larvae to siltation. All eggs and larvae subject to burial, and some fraction of those which experience siltation will be killed (cf. Sweeney 1978). At MBDS, the potential loss of demersal eggs is greatest during the fall and winter when the majority of demersal.species are spawning eggs. Eggs of many of these species have prolonged incubation periods, and would be at a risk for a substantial period of time. The substrate at MBDS in the vicinity of the disposal point is largely soft mud or dredged material. Relatively common species in the vicinity of MBDS likely to spawn on this type of substrate include snake- blenny and alligator fish. Species which spawn preferentially on hard or rocky substrate (e.g. Atlantic herring, American sandlance, and ocean pout) are not likely to dep@sit eggs at the disposal site. Although some spawning by these species may occur on hard bottom in the NE section of MBDS, this area will not be subject to significant'siltation from disposal activities. Laboratory studies indicate that eggs spawned on fine substrates (e.g. winter flounder; see Baram et. al., 1976) may be less susceptible to siltation than those deposited on relatively coarse substrates (e.g. Atlantic herring; Messieh et al., 1981). Some plankton eggs and larvaemill be entrained within the descending mass of water and dredged material (Truitt 1986) that forms following disposal. It is likely that many of these eggs and larvae would be damaged by shear forces or abrasion. Elevated suspended sediment levels in the vicinity of the disposal site will probably cause little direct fish egg mortality. Concentrations of suspended.sqdiments in the water column on the order of 200-1000 mg/l are likely following disposal (Morton and Paquette, 1985; Wright, 1978; Peddicord and McFarland, 1978).. These levels will be quickly reduced by settling and dilution, and the ocean surface area containing high (>500 mg/1) concentrations will probably be less than 1.5 ha (see below). Short term exposure to suspended sediment concentrations of this magnitude are unlikely to cause direct mortality of fish eggs. Eggs of various anadromous and freshwater species appear tolerant of prolonged exposure to 324 high concentrations of suspended sediments (Stern and Stickle 1978; see JRB 1984; Schubel and Wang 1973). Hatching success of eggs of Atlantic herring, a marine species with demersal eggs, was unaffected by continuous exposure to concentrations in excess of 7000 mg/l (Messieh et al. 1981). Although caution is advised when extrapolating these results to marine species with planktonic eggs it seems likely that short term exposure to high suspended sediment concentrations at MBDS will result in little direct egg mortality. Elevated suspended sediment levels during dispos al may result in some direct mortality of planktonic larvae. Exposure to levels of 500 mg/l for 2-4 days elicit significant lethal effects in larval shad,.yellow perch, and striped bass (see JRB 1984). Planktonic larvae at MBDS will be exposed to elevated concentrations for a much briefer period, but may be more sensitive to suspended sediments than those of freshwater or anadromous species. Disposal of contaminated dredged material at MBDS may result in the release of some toxic substances into the water column.(see Allen, and Hardy, 1980; Barr, 1987; Pequegnat, 1978). Although prolonged exposure to weakly diluted extracts from contaminated sediments can reduce survivorship of larval fish (Hoss et al., 1974), concentrations of any. toxins released from dredged material at MBDS would be quickly diluted below potentially lethal levels..Similar.ily, although disposal operations at MBDS may briefly reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations in the water column, no effect on planktonic fish eggs or larvae is expected because rapid dilution with oxygen rich waters will occur. Although disposal activities at MBDS are likely to result in little direct mortality of planktonic fish eggs or larvae, it is possible that individual ichthyoplankters exposed to dredged material will suffer some negative affects over a longer period of time. The potential "sublethal" effects of natural and anthropogenic environmental stressors (e.g. toxic substances, reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations) on marine fish eggs and larvae are well documented (Rosenthal and Alderdice 1976). Stressors may elicit various adverse physiological, morphological, or behavioral responses. Ultimately the growth rate, survivorship, and the reproductive potential (fecundity) of the affected organisms may be reduced but given the limited spatial extent, no significant population level impacts would be expected. Elevated suspended sediment levels can elicit sublethal responses in fish eggs and larvae. Prolonged exposure to suspended sediment concen- trations of 100 mg/l slightly lengthened the incubation period of several anadromous and freshwater species (Schubel and Wang, 1973). The adhesive eggs of species used in these studies became coated with sediments, how- ever, this work may be of limited relevance to marine species with planktonic (nonadhesive) eggs. Concentrations of suspended sediments greater than 3 mg/l have been noted to reduce the feeding success of Atlantic herring larvae (Messieh, 1981). Rosenthal (see Rosenthal and 325 Alderdice, 1976) found that suspended sediments (red clay) entrained by herring larvae blocked their gullets and prevented ingestion of captured prey. Swenson and Matson (1976) noted behavioral changes in lake herring exposed to moderate (26-28 mg/1) concentrationsof red clay. Exposure durations at MBDS would not be anticipated to significantly impact the population composition. Numerous toxic substances, including those likely to be released from dredged material, can elict a variety of sublethal effects on fish eggs and larvae (Rosenthal and Alderdice, 1976; Rand and Petrocelli, 1985; Longwell and Hughes 1980). In general, the effects of any release of toxic substances from dredged material at MBDS should be minimal, and highly localized because of rapid dilution. Neustonic (near surface) eggs and larvae are probably most vunerable since disposal operations can result in the formation of a surface slick of low density, organic material ORB, 1984; Pequegnat, 1978). Neustonic ichthyplankton drifting with the slick, could be exposed to elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons, organohalogens, and heavy metals if persistent for a prolonged period of time. During summer months at MBDS entrainment of suspended sediments at a thermocline might also lead to the prolonged exposure of some ichthyplankton to contaminated suspended sediments. Morphological adaptations of larvae which aid floatation (i.e. oil globules, high surface/volume ratios; Bond, 1979) would tend to promote bioconcentration of toxins. Bie-cause phytoplankton and zooplankton are thought to readily accumulate toxins from the surface microlayer (Duce et al., 1972), bioaccumulation of toxins via prey is also possible. Longwell and Hughes (1980) found significant correlations between various measures of mackerel egg health and hydrocarbon levels in plankton, and heavy metal levels in surface waters. Although the effects of environmental stressors on fish eggs and larvae is well documented in the laboratoy, little is known concerning population level responses in the field. If suspended sediments and toxins do impair rates of growth and development of larval fish, profound effects on larval mortality may occur. If for example, the daily mortality rate of fish larvae is 0.5, and exposure to suspended sediments were to lengthen the larval period for the entire population by one day, the total survival rate would be reduced by 50% due to this factor alone (see Wedemeyer et al., 1984). Whether this impact has any ecological significance depends on the proportion of the population affected, and the compensatory action of density dependent population-level processes. All of which is dependent on the spatial and temporal persistance of the impact. To further evaluate the importance of possible lethal and sublethal effects of disposal on ichthyplankton, it is necessary to have some estimate of the ocean surface area that will be impacted by potentially significant (i.e. >ca 100 mg/1) concentrations of suspended sediments. The area impacted will depend on characteristics of the dredged material (i.e. sediment grain size, water content, volume), and conditions at MBDS at the time of disposal. 326 Assuming that 5% of dredged material remains in suspension, a conservative mixing model predicts that the ocean surface area impacted by >100 mg/l concentrations of suspended sediments at MBDS is 2.25 ha. (Table 4.C.2-1). This area represents <1% of the surface area at MBDS. The total ocean surface area impacted per year (based-on 80 identical disposal events/year would be 180 ha (or 0.7 square miles). Each episode would be undetectable after four hours and total occurrence represents 3.7% (approximately 14 days) of the year. Overall, the potential impact of disposal operations on eggs and larvae will be greatest during late spring and summer when peak concentrations of ichythoplankton are likely to occur. Disposal impacts during the fall and winter, and early spring will be largely confined to demersal eggs of a few species, and the plantonic larvae of American sandiance and Atlantic herring. Low water temperatures (and metabolic rates) during the winter and early spring will probably minimize the potential effects of suspended sediments and toxins during this time. In addition, sandlance larvae, which are predominant in winter and early spring, may be relatively tolerant of environmental stressors. Larvae are relatively large at hatching, and are apparently adapted to survive extended periods without food (Smigielski, et. all, 1984). In summary, the total ocean surface area that will be impacted by significantly elevated concentrations of suspended sediments will represent only a very small fraction of the the range of any species likely to spawn, or be represented in the ichthyplankton at MBDS. Most of the species likely to spawn in the vicinity of MBDS spawn over a wide area. Exceptions include silver hake and pollock which have relatively restricted, but still extensive, spawning grounds. Ail species likely to be represented in the ichthyoplankton at MBDS are widely distributed and common elsewhere in Massachusetts Bay and/or the Gulf of Maine. Even in the unlikely event that all eggs and larvae exposed to moderate concentra- tions of suspended sediments were killed, ocean disposal at MBDS would not have a significant impact on the marine resources of Massachusetts Bay or the Gulf of Maine. Juvenile and Adult Fish Mortality during disposal should be largely limited to those few fish that are entrained within, or buried by, the descending mass of dredged material. Even if dredged material is highly contaminated, short term increases in the concentration of chemical contaminants or suspended solids are unlikely to adversely affect substantial numbers of fish in the vicinity of the disposal point. Laboratory studies generally indicate that adults and juveniles of freshwater, anadromus, and coastal species are tolerant of exposure to high concentrations of uncontaminated suspended sediments (Stern and Stickle, 1978; Peddicord and McFarland, 1978; Wakeman et. al. 1975). Mortality is related to the clogging of gills and subsequent respiratory 327 failure and has generally only been noted after prolonged exposure to concentrations above those likely to occur during disposal operations. In-situ studies at a,disposal site in Chesapeake Bay using caged fish revealed no apparent effects (Flemer et al., 1968). Fish may, however, be much more sensitive to highly contaminat@-d sediments. Juvenile striped bass suffered increased mortality after only several hours of exposure to contaminated sediments at a concentrations of 500 mg/l (Peddicord and McFarland, 1978). Various sublethal effects have also been attributed to elevated concentrations of suspended sediments (Sherk et. al., 1975; Stern and Stickle, 1978). Studies by Sherk et al. (1975) suggest that demersal species are more tolerant of suspended sediments relative to pelagic species. Demersal species are regularly exposed to elevated concentrations of sediments, and have probably evolved compensatory physiological or morphological adaptations (see Baram et al., 1976). Similarily, it is likely that estuarine and in generaT-pTlagic species of coastal areas are more tolerant of suspended solids than those characteristics of offshore waters. Juvenile fish are more susceptible, and less tolerant of gill clogging than adults (Sherk et al., 1975). Most of the fish inhabiting MBDS are demersal or semidemersal, and thus are probably somewhat resistant to suspende@ sediments. Most of the remaining pelagic species (e.g. silver hake, Atlantic mackerel) are summer migrants to the Gulf of Maine and likely to be present at MBDS only during the late spring, summer, and fall. Also, pelagic species are highly mobile and able to avoid localized areas with high concentrations of suspended sediments (Johnston and Wildish, 1981; Wildish and Power, 1985; Messieh et al., 1981; see also Pequegnat, 1978; and Stern and Stickle, 1978). T-he-threshold level to elict avoidance behavior in juvenile Atlantic herring is 10 to 35 mg/l (Messieh et al., 1981), which would be limited to an area in the tens of hectares range at MBDS. Sediments dredged from coastal waterways are frequently contaminated with a variety of substances toxic to fish and other organisms in long term exposure studies. Toxins likely to be present include heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons (i.e. PCBs and DDT), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Although some contaminants (approximately 5%) may be eluted into the water column or remain in suspension, a large proportion will settle with the sediments in close proximity to the disposal point. Demersal fish are exposed to contaminants by direct contact with sediments and interstitial water (cf Pequegnat, 1978), or from dietary sources. Exposure may result in bioaccumulation via bioconcentration (the passive diffusion of substances across gills or other epithelial tissues) or uptake from injested materials (Kay, 1984;,O'Connor and Pizza, 1984). Although the potential for bioaccumulation exists at MBDS, this study noted no significant uptake of heavy metals or PCBs in bivalves or crustaceans. Some accumulation of PCB and PAH compounds was evident at the disposal site in Neptys incisa but not in significant quantity. No 328 information is available concerning the bioaccumulation of contaminants in fish or MBDS. Civen the mobile nature of most fish at MBDS and the general lack of significant uptake of contaminants by invertebrates at the disposal site (see Section 3.B.), elevated contaminant levels in fish seem unlikely. The potential for significant bioaccumulation at MBDS is probably greatest for relatively resident demersal species such as witch flounder, and those species feeding on Nephtys incisa (a polychaete worm which showed some evidence of PCB and PAH accumulation at the disposal site). Degraded environmental conditions have been reported to result in elevated incidence of various diseases in finfish populations (Sindermann, 1979; Ziskowski, et al., 1987; Patton and Couch, 1984; Sonstegard and Leatherland, 1984T. Fin erosion (fin rot), for example, has been associated with elevated concentrations of coliform bacteria, heavy metals, PCBs, oil, and other contaminants (Sindermann, 1979). Flatfish are liable to greater exposure to contaminated sediments than pelagic or semi-demersal species, and appear to have a higher incidence of abnormalities (Zizkowski et al. 1987). Uptake of pollutants (PCB's and PAH's) from ingestion of prey itesm (Nepthys spp) could potentially be a mechanism for trophic transfer. Based on limited sample size, Howe and Cermano (1982) failed to detect an increased incidence of abnormalities in fish collected from two sites used for the disposal of contaminated material in Cape Cod Bay. Results of such field surveys of a limited geographical area are, however, undoubtedly biased by fish movement. Disposal of dredged material will have only a minor affect on the feeding behavior or food resources of pelagic species. High suspended sediment concentrations may briefly curtail feeding by fish entrained in the,disposal conjective jet plume. Disposal operations will probably result in short term reductions'in prey (i.e. plankton) productivity (see Stern and Stickle, 1978; Barr, 1987). Any impact to primary or secondary production is however, likely to be highly localized, and ecologically insignificant to highly mobile planktivores. Settling of dredged material at the disposal site will result in the temporary displacement of demersal fish, and the burial of prey resources. Although some immediate recolonization is possible, it is likely that biotic abundance, and perhaps diversity, will be reduced for a period of time following disposal (Durkin and Lipovsky, 1977). Recovery of the demersal fish community will be closely linked to the recovery of benthic invertebrate biomass and diversity. Frequent disposal operations in the vicinity of the disposal buoy will probably maintain an early successional benthic invertebrate community dominated by polychaetes. BRAT analysis (see Section 3.B.) suggests that the resulting demersal finfish community would be dominated by.witch flounder and other fish capable to exploiting relatively small prey items. The relative abundance of large American plaice and other fish able to exploit prey more characteristic of undistur@ed sites (e.g. larger echinoderms) would be reduced. Any effect 329 on the structure of the demersal fish community at the disposal site will, however, be highly localized and insignificant relative to the marine resources of Massachusetts Bay. Shellfish and OLher InverLebrate Resources Disposal activities at MBDS will result in the burial, and likely mortality, of some benthic invertebrates of commercial importance. Pelagic invertebrates such as squid and shrimp will be subject to entrainment in the descending mass of dredged material and the disposal jet. Because marine crustaceans and molluscs are generally tolerant of exposure to high concentrations of suspended sediments for prolonged periods, it seems likely that short term exposure to elevated suspended sediment concentrations at MBDS will result in little mortality of adult crabs, lobsters or molluscs (Saila et al., 1972; Stern and Stickle, 1978). As in the case of fish, larval crustaceans and molluscs are more sensitive to suspended sediments than adults. Larval lobsters are very sensitive of exposure to specific grain sizes of suspended sediments (see Barr, 1987). Although few lobsters larvae are present at MBDS, larvae of rock crab and jonah crab are likely to be present during the late spring and summer, and may be sensitive to suspended sediments. The effects of disposal on lobsters are likely to be greatest during the late fall, spring, and early winter when, lobsters are presumably most abundant at MBDS. Effects of disposal on rock and jonah crabs is probably greatest during the spring or early summer when spawning and molting occurs (Williams, 1984). Long fin and short fin squid are seasonal migrants to Massachusetts Bay, and only likely to be abundant at MBDS during the summer. Although ocean quahog and sea scallop are present near or at MBDS, they are unlikely to be present.in large numbers on dredged material or soft mud bottom in the vicinity of the disposal point. Summary - Finfish and Shellfish In general it appears that finfish and shellfish resources in the Gulf of Maine or Massachusetts Bay will not be significantly affected by the continued disposal of dredged material at MBDS. Adverse impacts to individual organisms will occur, but be insignificant outside the immediately vicinity of the disposal site. Similarily, any changes in community structure related to impacts on benthic food resources will be highly localized and insignificant to fisheries resources in the region. Conservative impact estimates predict average annual elevations in suspended solid load (>100 mg/1) to impact a total of 0.7 square miles for approximately a total of 14 days of the year. Chemical elution and sub- sequent water column dilutions, as discussed in Section 4B, are not expected to yield significant levels and in fact would only exceed the EPA Quality Criteria for water in a small percentage (<l%) of the MBDS water column. Sedimentary chemical contaminants are input to the site in 330 various concentrations (see Table 1-2) and are only found in low to moderate in-situ concentrations. Although this study failed to demonstrate significant elevated concentrations of PCBs or other contaminants in most invertebrates at MBDS, the potential for bioaccumulation exists. It would be possible to restrict finfishing and shellfishing from within the disposal site, at least in the vicinity of the disposal buoy if significant contaminant residue levels are quantified, and to cap highly contaminated sediments. MBDS has an area of approximately 4.2 square miles, and represents an insignificant percentage of the total area available for ground fishing and shellfishing in Massachusetts Bay. Even though continued disposal at MBDS will have no significant impacts to marine resources on a regional level, efforts will be made to minimize adverse affects at the disposal site. Managment consideration will be given to limiting disposal of highly contaminated dredged material (i.e. failing bioassay/bioaccumulation testing) and particularly fine grained contaminated sediments, during the spring, winter, and early fall if potential for significant impacts is evident. This policy would minimize potential impacts to the icthyplankton, summer pelagic-migrants, and other marine organisms during peak periods of productivity. (Scheduling dredging operations during the fall, winter, and early spring also generally limit impacts to the recreational boating fleet and biota at the dredge site.) Although some species (e.g. Atlantic herring, American sandlance, and American lobster) could be more heavily impacted by disposal during later fall, winter and early spring, on balance use of MBDS during this period could be least damaging to marine biota, given these species' low.densities on silty areas of MBDS. Table 4.C.2-1. Required ocean surface area at MBDS to dilute the concentration of suspended sediments in a dredged material disposal plume to various threshold levels. % of Dredged Material Required Surface Area (ha)b Settling at Point of Disposal Concentration Threshold (mg/1) 10 100 500- 0 450 45 9 50 225 22.5 4.5 95 22.5 2.25 0.45 a calculations based on a simple model presented by JRB (1984) and the following assumptions: 1. all material not settling immediately at the disposal point remains in suspension for a sufficient period of time to allow dilution to threshold concentrations 331 2. no significant amount of bottom sediments are resuspended as a result of disposal operations 3. suspended sediments are uniformly distributed throughout the water column 4. average volume of dredged material disposed = 3000 m3 5. bulk density of dredged material = 1200 kg/m 6. average water depth at MBDS = 80 m b Surface area of MBDS = 1078 ha 0 ha = 2.47 acres) 4.C.3 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ON THE BENTHOS. The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) annually receives approximately 230,000 cubic yards of dredged material. Dis-posal at MBDS is likely to have a significant impact on the benthic community only at the point of disposal. The disposal site has been used for dredged material and various waste disp6sal for a number of years. There appears to be evidence that stations sampled in the Massachusetts Bay have been altered to some degree by disposal operations. Gilberts study (Gilbert et. al, 1976) showed that although there was some similarity in the dominant species between samples at the disposal site and other samples from Stellwagen basin, the disposal area was characterized by lower abundances and diversity of organisms. The process of disposing sediments buries the organisms inhabiting the site. This burial decimates the local populations of benthic organisms. Dispo sal operations can thus be thought of as an episodic disturbance to the benthic community. Recolonization of dredged material from larval recruitment and adult immigration is likely to be rapid. The pattern of recovery of benthic populations to this physical disturbance can be viewed in a succesional context. The existing paradigm for succession in soft-bottom benthic ecology is that early colonizing species facilitate colonization for later successional stages (Rhoads and Boyer, 1982). The initial colonizers are typically species with high dispersal capabilities, that are capable of rapid population increases (McCall, 1977). These early colonists rework the sediments through their feeding and burrowing activity. This biological mixing of the sediment substrate (bioturbation) homogenizes and oxygenates the upper few centimeters of the sediment., making the area favorable for later successional stages. Over time benthic community structure in the area will return to the pre-impact condition. Benthic community structure will be also affected by the frequency of disturbance. Areas subject to frequent disturbances generally have low species diversity, characterizd by high abundance of opportunistic species. An intermediate frequency of disturbance may enhance species diversity (Huston, 1979). 332 The effect of a recent disposal operation at MBDS can be assessed qualitatively by comparing the data collected at MBDS-ON station before and after disposal. The most obvious effect of dredged material disposal at MBDS is the decrease in the depth of the BMD (biogenic mixing depth). The region of 'shallow BMD's coincide with the distribution of dredged material at the disposal site, extremely shallow BMD depths are apparent on the recently disposed dredged material (Figure 3.A.2-46). From the REMOTS photographs it.can be seen that head down deposit feeders are wide spread in this area, indicating recolonization of the dredged material and vertical migration of adults from adjacent areas. This rapid infaunal recovery of much of the dredged material suggests that certain benthic taxa characteristic of the ambient silt-clay facies at MBDS are relatively resilient to disturbances caused by disposal opera- tions. The heterogeneity in benthic-community types observed in the REMOTS survey at this site may reflect the process of infaunal recolonization on the dredged material. The Mud Station on dredged material had the highest density of individuals of all stations. This density can be attributed to high abundance and dominance by oligochantes at this station. The number of species found at the Mud Station On Dredged Material was intermediate to that of the sand and mud stations. As discussed above, the higher number of species at the Mud Station on dredged material over the other Mud Stations may be related to the frequency of disturbance. Another hypothesis.which might account for the high diversity and increased number of individuals is related to the substrate. The disposal of poorly sorted material provides a heterogeneous patchwork of substrate types, sand, silt and mud. This would allow many organisms with different substrate requirements to inhabit the area. A cluster analysis was performed on all the data collected for MBDS using Bray-Curtis similarity index and group average sorting. This type of analysis can use all the information on abundances and species composition. Species which were found only in one sample were dropped from the analysis. The results of the analysis, similarity matrix and cluster diagram are presented in Figure 4.C.2-1. The cluster analysis separates the data into three major groups, Mud stations (MBDS-REF, MBDS-OFF), Sand stations (MBDS-NES, MBDS-SRF) and Mud station impacted by the dredging operation (MBDS-ON). There is a clear separation between the sand stations and mud stations (s = 0.2170). The sand station within MBDS clustered with the Sand Station outside of MBDS (MBDS-SFR), and the Mud Reference Station within,MBDS (MBDS-REF) clustered with the Mud Reference Station outside of MBDS. This suggests that the impacts of dredged material disposal are not observable outside the immediate area of disposal (i.e. MBDS-ON). 333 The clustering pattern suggests that the Mud Station On Dredged Material is different from the other samples. Mud On station separated from the other Mud Stations at s = 0.2776. Presumably this reflects subtle differences in the benthic community caused by disposal impacts. The most similar samples were the samples taken in September 1985 at the Mud Reference station (MBDS-REF) and Mud Station Off Dredged Material (MBDS-OFF) (s = 0.833). The September Mud Reference Station (MBDS-REF) was more similar to the Mud Off station (MBDS-OFF) than to samples at the same station taken during the June and January cruises, suggesting a seasonal component that was picked up by the clustering algorithm. This community structure similarity suggests disposal impacts are not observable, at the benthic community level, outside of the immediate disposal site (MBDS-ON). Summary Benthos In summaryp the benthic community of the MBDS reference area (MBDS- REF) is similar to typical Massachusetts Bay and Stellwagen Basin species complex of Prionospio, Paraonis spp. and Thyasira sp. described by Gilbert (1976) and recent sampling by NMFS. Statistical analyses group the unimpacted sampling station (MBDS-OFF) within the disposal site with the reference area. There is a clear impact of dredged material disposal on the benthic community at the disposal site. MBDS-ON (the disposal point) was dominated by oligochaetes over Spio pettibonae. These organisms are the pioneers, or rapid recolonizers, of areas defaunated, and efficiently exploit substrate niches of high organic content. The summary statistics of densities (Appendix III) demonstrate the high oligochaete dominance and the 55 benthic species identified at MBDS-ON had an abundance of 26,548 per square meter. The reference area (MBDS-REF) benthic community was ,comprised of 35 species with a considerably lower density than the disposal point of 4,344 individuals per square meter. The area within MBDS, but not on disposed dredged material (MBDS-OFF) was similar in abundance to the reference site at 8,746 organisms per square meter from 35 species, differing predominantly in the presence of oligochaetes. 334 ITEM NAME 1. D. NO. WJD - ON 9/95 1 MW-OFF 9/95 2 ------------------- MW REP 9/95 3 MUD REP 6/95 6 @WUD REP 1/96 7 HARD REP 9/85 4 SAND 9/85 5 HARD REP 1/86 0 A a I A A I I I I. OL No. 031 132 .608 484 360 .236 Figure 4.C.3-1 Cluster Analysis of Benthic Data 4.C.4. Effects on Mammals, Reptiles and Birds. The limited spatial and temporal distribution of disposal' impacts at MBDS have been documented through this site evaluation document. The effects of this activity on endangered species (cetapeans and turtles) are discussed in detail in section 4.C.5. The impacts of disposal on the dominant (non-endangered) marine mammals, i.e. the minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata); the white sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus; and the harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, as well as the subdominants (see Section 3.C.4.) would be correlated to habitat displacement and prey reduction. These two potential impacts would also be of concern for the dominant seabirds, i.e. the northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis; shearwaters (Puffinus spp.); storm petrels, Hydrobatidae; northern gannet (Su-labassanus); Pomarine Jaeger (Stercorarius pomarinus; gulls, Larinae; and alcids, Alcidae. The distribution of physical impacts from approximately @O disposal events per year, imparting elevated suspended solids concentrations for approximately four hours, is described as affecting approximately 10-20 hectares. (see Sections 3.A. and 4.C.1.). The chemical impacts from disposal of dredged material are primarily restricted to within the disposal site. Detailed evaluation of biological impacts to endangered cetaceans are discussed in the following section, but generally there are no anticipated, significant impacts to marine mammals, their habitat or prey. Marine birds have a potential to be impacted by disposal of dredged material if their prey (pelagic fish and plankton) are at risk. Detailed evaluation of fisheries impacts (section 4.C.2) indicate no significant potential impacts to seabird prey could exist. In summary, the disposal of dredged material at MBDS is not likely to significantly impact mammals, reptile and birds. 4.C.5. Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species No significant impacts of disposal activities on marine mammals and cetaceans in particular have been identified throughout this disposal site .evaluation process. All physical, chemical, and biological effects of disposal activities are spatially confined to within the MBDS designated boundary (2 nautical mile,diameter circle). The water column impacts are temporally of short duration and spatially restricted.to a small,percent of the MBDS 900,000 M3 water column. Contaminant impacts to potential cetacean prey items are not anticipated since these species do not inhabit the deepwater silt/clay bottom of MBDS. Entrainment of planktivorous prey items during disposal is also anticipated to be minimal. Humpback whales, Right whales and Finback whales have been identified as occuring in the vicinity of the disposal area. 'This area has been identified (Kenney, 1985) as a 90 to 95th percentile high cetacean use 336 area, with the 10 minute square east of MBDS in the >95th percentile (see Figure c.C.4-1). Some whalewatching activity often begins by the charLer skipper heading east or southeast from MBDS disposal buoy approximately 0 km Lo SLettwagen Bank's norLheasL Li.p. The Bank itself' is a sandy/cobble .area 3.7 Lo 7.4 km wide and 25-35 meLers deep extending 41 km Lo Lhe southeast. The bank rises 60 meters upward of the Stellwagen Basin area. On the east side, the transition to the 80 meter depth is relatively steep. This rise or edge on the east side of the bank creates currents and eddies that bring nutrient rich cold, deep waters upward into the 30 meter photic zone. The Bank's substrate is ideal for certain cetacean prey items to inhabit. Notably, sand lance, Ammnodytes americanus, which proliferate in and around Stellwagen Bank. Sand lance are small schooling fish that are one of the alternative prey items of humpback whales. In order to assess anthropogenic impacts on this species, the National Marine Fisheries Service analyzed the organic residue levels of samples of sand lance from three different stations across the Bank during the Albatross 8109 cruise (Gadbois, 1982). The results of this study indicated low PCB contamination of sand lance (<O.l ppm whole fish) and a slight (ppb) uniform level of PAH contamination throughout the Bank. These results indicate bay wide PCB influence and fossil fuel combustion impacts the entire Bank, without any noticeably detectable elevations of organic contaminants in areas of proximity, but 6 kilometers distant, to disposal activity at MBDS. Current meter analyses (see Section 3.1) performed for this site evaluation study, did not describe significant vectors having a potential to transport contaminated dredged material to the Bank. A majority of flows, even during seasons of thermal stratification, are away from Stellwagen Bank. Bottom currents average only 3-5 cm/second, not strong enough to resuspend any contaminated sediments that might be present. Water column impacts are minimal and well within the confines of MBDS boundary. As Section 4.B.1. described even in worst case analysis the large mixing volume and the relatively small amounts of contaminants would make violations of EPA water criteria unlikely. Physical impacts associated with suspended solids concentrations are largely restricted to the MBDS boundary water column even during periods of thermal stratification (see Section 4.A.l., 4.A.2, and 4.B.1). Barge traffic is not likely impact or harrass whales. Whales would be less impacted by disposal barges than by whale-watching vessels, who at least minimally, pursue the organisms. Turtles, in general, are not likely to occur in the vicinity of MBDS due to its depth and subtrate. Though loggerhead and leatherback turtles do have a low probability of occurrence. Of these species, leatherbacks, Dermochelys coriacea feed predominantly on jellyfish. The potential for entrainment of significant numbers of jellyfish due to disposal activity (approximately 80 events per year) is low, given the disposal entrainment 337 volume of 160,000 m3 (17% of MBDS), available water column and short temporal persistence of entrainment impacts (minutes). Additionally jellyfish are seasonal in abundance and restricted to foraging in the upper water column. Other turtles prey items are not anticipated to occur in significant densities at the disposal point. In the northern and northeastern portion of MBDS the sandy/cobble substrate on the 60 meters isopleth may contain various turtle prey items, e.g. crabs, mussels, anemones etc. Given the low numbers of turtles in the area and the presence of other similar foraging areas outside of the site disposal operations in the area is not likely to impact turtle populations. Summary - Threatened and Endangered Species In summary, the continued disposal of dredged material at MBDS is not likely to significantly impact threatened and endangered species, their prey, or their critical habitat. In particular, suspended solids and contaminant inputs to the water column do not have the potential to impact the water column beyond the immediate vicinity of disposal activity. , Contaminant levels in prey species such as sand lance, Ampnodytes dubius, are indicative of Massachusetts Bay-wide contamination. No evidence of significant contaminant remobilization exists with regard to dredged material disposal at MBDS. Turtle prey items, e.g. jellyfish, crabs etc., are also not anticipated to be significan 'ly impacted due to their remoteness from the point of disposal and the limited spatial and temporal disposal impact persistence. Current vectors have not been identified as having the potential to transport contamiuants to any significant endangered species critical habitat. Finally, the tug and barge activity would not be anticipated to interfere significantly with endangered species, given the organisms ability to avoid the traffic, and the minimal activity at MBDS in comparison to the nearby Boston Harbor traffic lanes. 338 CMADS 0 13M 0 a low 0 A >951h percentile 90-95th percentile 0 80-90t h percenwe Figure 4.C.4-1 Map of the shelf waters of the eastern United States showing 10' blocks' representing areas with a habitat-use index in the top 20% (adapted from Kenney 1985) 339 4.D. Effects on Human Use 4.D.1. Fishing Ind ustr According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the statistical area 514 surrounding the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) is a relatively productive fishing area. According to NMFS statistics, it has about 5.7% of the total fish production capacity in the sixty statistical areas of the northeast (see Figure 3.D.1-1). 4.D.I.a Short-term effects The short-term effects of continued use of Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site on fishing will be minimal. At the present time, most fishing vessels tend to avoid the disposal site and conduct their operations in alternative locations. Fishermen operating within the site have, not unexpectedly, had their ge4r fauled by black mud. As a result, short-term effects on the continuation of th-19 site as a disposal area will be the continuation of present regicaal fishing practices. 4.D.I.b Long-term effects Long-term effects of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site on fishing and other marine related activities are ambiguous. Based on estimates for a three year period provided by NMFS, it was determined that the maximum value of landings in the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Area was approximately $20,000 per year, at most, for various species. The average number of pounds landed was 147,000 for the site (see Appendix III and text for actual pounds landed and their values for years 1982-1984). These estimates were based on the fact that the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site is 6% of the 10 minute square longitude 42025 and latitude 70035. The extended long-term effects are expected to be reduced landings. The number 147,000 pounds is at best a rough estimate of the number of pounds potentially harvestable from within MBDS. Given the assumption of uniform fishing effort over the entire area, it represents an upper limit. Also due to the migratory nature of'fish, fish not caught in the MBDS may be caught elsewhere. Thus not fishing in MBDS may increase the value of surrounding areas, which would offset the loss in MBdS. In view of this, the loss in MBDS does not seem to have the potential to significantly (negatively) affect fishing as a regional industry. 4.D.2. NAVIGATION In accordance with the main channel servicing Boston Harbor, use of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site will not have any negative impacts on navigation either into or out of the harbor. The main channel servicing the harbor is southerly of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Area and operations at MBDS are not expected to interfere with navigation. To 340 date, there are no future plans to expand the navigation channel that goes into Boston Harbor. Thus there are no forseeable effects of the Massa- chusetts Bay Disposal Site on navigation into and out of Boston Harbor. 4.D.3. MINERAL AND OTHER RESOURCES Reports of the Mineral Management Service (MMS, 1983),'U.S. Department of Interior indicated that there are no future plans for exploration or gas development in the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. 4.D.4. GENERAL MARINE RECREATION General marine recreation at this site, 15 miles offshore will most likely not be impacted by disposal operations. Barge traffic, fisheries impacts and substrate alternations are all not anticipated to be significantly affected by continued disposal at MBDS. 4.D.5 HISTORIC RESOURCES Continued use of MBDS will not impact any historic or archaeologic resources. Table 4.D-1 DETERMINATION OF FISH CATCH SIZE FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY DISPOSAL SITE LONGITUDE 42 25 LATITUDE 70 35 1982- 1983 1984 POUNDS VALUE POUNDS VALUE POUNDS VALUE SPECIES LANDED LANDINGS LANDED LANDINGS LANDED LANDED COD (081) 257,079 $87,892.65 525,526 $183,893.47 @90,511 $34,268.50 W FLOUNDER (120) 89,768 $37,529.39. 100,134 $ 44,314.27 75,904 $49,636.65 9 FLOUNDER (121) 0 $ 0.00 2,480 $ 1,801.91 0 $ 0.00 WITCH FL (122) 36,942 $24,413.94 23,042 $ 14,996.83 78,961 $62,426.71 YELLOWTAIL (123) 80,970 $44,077.26 132,741 $ 69,927.42 .20,655 $14,894.55 AM PLAICE (124) 27,791 $12,829.93 142,310 $ 66,987.26 67,960 $43,841.54 HADDOCK (147) 1,075 $ 581.13 3,334 $ 2,068.79 14,727 $12,166.98 RED HAKE (152) 0 $ 0.00 42,250 $ 3,686.74 58,813 $ 4,314.44 S HERRING (168) 0 $ 0.00 19,038,,872 $ 84,528.04 301,288 $13,554.37 MENHADEN (221) 2,524,097 $52,093.78 382,692 $ 6,651.79 0 $ 0.00 POLLACK (269) 17,516 $ 3,382.96 22,308 $ 3,735.04 .897 $ 133.38 DF SPINNY (352) 0 $ 0.00 14,817 $ 935.21 0 $ 0.00 S HAKE (509) 0 $ 0.00 20,839 $ 2,644.50 217,829 $24,718.96 WOLFFISH (512) 14,631 $ 2,841.81 30,383 $ 5,770.07 5,143 $ 1,060.46 LOBSTER (727) 0 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00 1,125 $ 2,857.44 SHRIMP (736) 0 $ 0.00 71,795 $ 36,416.62 16,562 $ 8,154.16 B EYE TUNA (769) 0 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00 S SCALLOPS (800) 0 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00 kTALS 3,049,929 $265,642.85 3,353,528 $528,348.96 950,925 $272,028.14 341 YEAR TOTAL VALUE 1982 $265,642.85 1983 $528,348.96 1984 $272,028.14 $1,066,019.95 5. MANACEMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE DISPOSAL SITE The management of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site is dependent on the buoy location, disposal methods, quality control of material disposed, monitoring and site capacity. Ultimately, these considerations are employed by NED in its DAMOS (Disposal Area Monitoring Systems) Management Plan. 5A Buoy Location A primary consideration for managing MBDS as an ocean dredged material disposal site is to maintain the disposal buoy at given points for several years at a time. In situations where capping is required, a taut wire buoy, in conjunction with onboard disposal inspectors (see below) will maintain a point disposal, layering previous disposal episodes with the more recent ones. These techniques will serve to isolate contaminants and restrict the spatial extent of disposal impacts at MBDS. A low topographic relief mound would form at MBDS given close control of the disposal point (see Section 4A). The 100 meter depth at the point of disposal negates potential significant navigation, wave or current impacts from any topographic relief formed as the result of point disposal. The benefits of doing this affords a consistent burial impact at only one section of MBDS. Table 5-1 lists the theoretical ranges of mound height. Using the approximate three million cubic yards per decade calculated in Chapter 2, point disposal would allow formation of a 5 meter high mound within a 450 meter radius after approximately 4 years of buoy deployment at a particular location. Limiting the spatial impact of disposal would be biologically advantageous since it maintains the benthic community in a pioneering or Stage I (Rhoads et al., 1979) community. These organisms are short-lived, potentially minimizing contaminant bioaccumulation and only biogenically rework the upper few centimeters of the substrate. This will allow isolation of contaminated dredged material in underlying strata. 5B Quality Control.of Disposal Operation The permitting of disposal of dredged material at MBDS by the Corps of Engineers is conducted under the authorities of Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1973. Each permit applicant is required to supply the Corps of Engineers with appropriate 342 testing of the dredged material to be disposed at MBDS. The general decision matrix is displayed in Figure 5A-1. The Federal dredging projects performed by the Corps also undergo this evaluation process before being disposed at MBDS. This evaluation may include bulk sediment testing, bioassay testing and bioaccumulation testing in accordance with the agreements in the joint EPA/COE (1977) handbook. Elutriate testing to predict disposal site'impacts would usually not be performed because of the huge dilution zone available at MBDS (See Section 4.B.1). After bulk chemical and biological evaluation, Material determined suitable, or to require capping is assigned a permit number and the volume and chemical characteristics are recorded for annual reporting to the United Nations International Maritime Organization under agreements of the London Dumping Convention. MBDS is continuously monitored to reevaluate this management process. 5C. Mitigation Measures The actual disposal operation is monitored by New England Division forits precise location and method of disposal. The barges towed to MBDS have onboard inspectors under contract to NED that record the LORAN coordinates at which the barge stops and the distance to the buoy. This information is reported to NED for each activity as required in conditions of the applicants permit. Historically, disposal was from a moving barge which allowed a larger area to be impacted. Current permit requirements of point disposal in the presence of a NED inspector will minimize spatial impacts of disposal. Other permit conditions may be required to mitigate impacts of disposal to biota. These potentially include seasonal restrictions of disposal activities, e.g. for highly contaminated material, capping, slack tide discharge, and habitat creation. The majority of dredgi'ng occurs in winter months, to avoid s,ummer boating activities. Consequently, disposal is predominantly in the winter months. This does however, allow winter/spring recruitment of benthic organisms onto the disposal mound. Biogenic mixing of the top 10-20 cm of sediment can be relatively intense throughout summer/fall. To minimize this potential pathway for contaminant remobilization, the point disposal of highly contaminated dredged material (i.e. failing bioassay/ bioaccumulation testing) could be restricted to an early winter timeframe, followed by a capping or layering with cleaner material. If potential impacts to the water column outside MBDS were to be identified, barge release could be timed to slack tide. This would allow maximum settling time while minimizing particle transport by tidal currents. The disposal of rock material could occur within MBDS on the northern and northeast section of cobbley substrate. This strategy will establish a reef like structure increasing habitat diversity. The cobbley northeast 343 section is generally 30 meters shallower and nearly two kilometers from the usual disposal point, minimizing contaminant interaction with the reef habitat. Another miLigaLing facLor is the evaluation each dredging project undergoes by NED personnel including: the project's disposal alternative based on environmental and economic considerations; the proposed method and time of dredging, environmental conditions at and near the proposed disposal site and the nature of the material to be dredged and the likelihood that it includes contaminants. (Dredged material has been deposited in the ocean, used for beach replenishment, trucked to landfills, used as the foundation for structures, or to create saltmarshes or islands, among other disposal options. The options available for a particular dredging project depend in part on the nature of the sediments.) These factors are thoroughly evaluated prior to deciding on ocean disposal at MBDS. In characterizing the material to be dredged, many factors are considered, among them: potential routes of contamination to the dredging site -- e.g., natural drainage patterns in the a-Tea, the presence of any outfalls in the vicinity, and the area's hydrolo$y; and previous or current sediment-test data for other Federal or nonfederal projects nearby; the extent of any historical or current industrial activity in or around the site; and any spills of oil or other substances that have occurred in the area. Sampling and testing of the sediments to be dredged are typically performed with the location, depth, and method of sampling, as well as the method of testing, closely monitored. Grain-size analyses and bulk chemistry tests are required, as a minimum, in most cases. Elutriate and biological tests are also employed. Among the parameters routinely checked are volatile solids, water content, oil and grease, metals, and PCB's. Each project is announced via a public notice that invites and typically allows 30 days for comments. Anyone who wishes to receive these notices will be added to the mailing list. All projects are also closely coordinated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, all of whom receive sediment testing results. State concurrence in the form of State permits and coastal zone management certifications is required for the dredging (not di@sposal) action. As additional safeguards, the New England Division can impose special conditions on dredging projects; examples include restrictions on the type of dredging equipment used, capping, and a variety of conditions to assure accurate placement, if disposal in the ocean is allowed. Finally, NED's controls extend well beyond the issuance of the permit or the award of the dredging contract. All disposal in the ocean is inspected by an onboard Corps representative. Violators of permits have been and will continue to be subject to restitution and fines. 344 The Division also has the benefit of direct access to research performed by the Corps' Waterways Experiment Station (WES), including the findings of its five-year, nearly $33 million Dredged Material Research Program and the ongoing Environmental Impacts Research Program, Environ- menLal Effects of Dredging Program, and the Dredging Research Program. Some 70% of these program's research.is performed by universities, firms, and institutions. The New England Division also works closely with WES on other dredging-related research, including the Field Verification Program, where the Division is a partner with WES and EPA in the research effort to evaluate (and improve if necessary) the predictive accuracy of the laboratory tests used in assessing material to be dredged. In short, the New England Division has tried to establish a system of controls that accords careful attention to each phase of the process project evaluation, coordination, publicity, inspection, 'enforcement, scientific monitoring, and research. The system is comprehensive by design and incorporates many safeguards. The Division continually assesses its procedures in this area and welcomes ideas for-refining them. One example of this is the 1985 DAMOS Symposium where, at the Division's request, over 100 scientists, regulators, and citizens contributed their thoughts on that program's techniques and approaches. The monitoring of MBDS in itself allows a continued mitigation of impacts by adapting management strategies in response to impact evaluations. The scientific monitoring of disposal activities at MBDS has been occurring since the area was first used for dredged mate 'rial disposal. Physical, chemical, and biological sampling of MBDS throughout the last decade has allowed use of the area in a manner to minimize environmental impacts. Recent monitoring in 1985 to 1987 was performed as an evaluation of the environmental effects of disposal at this site, as summarized in this document. Future monitoring of activities MBDS can now be-directed toward a more detailed evaluation of those effects identified during the investiga- tions reported in this document. The uptake of organic contaminants by the polychaete Nephtys incisa is an indication of potential trophic trans- fer of contaminants. Future monitoring will analyze this phenomona in Nephtys incisa and if elevated levels over sufficient spatial ext,ent con- tinue, ti@e -next trophic resident would be analyzed, i.e. the witch flounder. The Corps Federal dredging program and future permit evalua- tions will investigate the organic contamination of candidate material. A rational will be developed for coinciding disposal of material with high levels of organic contamination (e.g. PAH, PCB) at a time of low bio- logical activity and potentially concomitant with uncontaminated material. This will allow a capping or layering of material at the point of dis- posal, isolating the contaminated material from surficial biogenic activity. The residue levels of indeginous organisms will be monitored to identify future trends in contaminant mobility, while newly evolving 345 testing procedures for bioaccumulation testing, prior to disposal, will be implemented as methods are verified. 5D. Monitoring Program - DAMOS Monitoring of the disposal site will be conducted by the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or the US Environmental Protection Agency. The Corps of Engineers monitoring will be carried out through the New England Division's Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS). Monitoring surveys will be conducted on a basis dependent on the volume and types of sedi- ments disposed at the site and past study results, though a minimum of an annual survey cruise is probable over the next several years. Survey techniques used will, as appropriate, include those such as bathymetry, sediment profile camera studies, sediment chemistry,and contaminant uptake by members of the biological community at and around the site. Monitoring will be directed at providing information to fulfill specific management questions and will entail an evolving program in response to advances in technology and results of prior study. The DAMOS program will be using a tiered approach to monitoring similar to that recommended by Fredette, et al. (1986). This tiered monitoring program for MBDS will be developed and periodically reviewed by NED in conjunction with a Technical Advisory Committee to DAMOS made up of nationally recognized experts. Management questions to be addressed by the monitoring program will include those such as: are sediment mound's created at the site stable through time; are sediment contaminant levels at the site similar to levels expected based on the characterization of the disposed sediments; are contaminated sediments being dispersed from the site to areas of concern at levels and/or rates of concern. 5E. Site Capacity The available capacity of the MBDS is extremely large (Table 5-1). Projecting the average annual disposal volume of the last 12 years (233,000 cubic yards) over the next 50 and 100 years would provide disposal volumes of 11.7 and 23.3 million cubic yards of sediment. These disposal volumes, if spread evenly over the available area, would increase the height of the bottom approximately 0.8 and 1.6 meters, respectively. Creation of disposal mounds (typical heights at other sites of 5-10 meters) will provide for even greater disposal capacity far beyond these projections. Thus, the disposal site has sufficient capacity to meet any reasonable projection of long-term need. 7 5F. Potential Post-Disposal Uses Following closure of the disposal site at the end of its useful lifetime the site could potentially be used as fishery resource area. This use is possible through the beneficial creation of reef-like 346 structures from rock, cobble, or gravelly dredged material or the creation of disposal mounds from soft dredged material in configurations or slopes favorable to target species. The potential benefits of such sites to fishery resources are only just now beginning to be understood, though anecdotal evidence of increased fishery species usage does exist, and are presently being analyzed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station. Summary - Management Considerations In summary, the intensive oceanographic evaluations performed at MBDS throughout this and previous studies will allow the New England Division to properly manage the site to minimize environmental impacts. in the near future, management requirements will be fulfilled by ongoing studies of contaminant mobility and evaluation of appropritae predisposal test- ing. As scientific understanding of oceanographic processes evolves, the management of MBDS will be continually reassessed. for its comprehensive applicability. Table 5-1. Thickness of the sediment deposit at MBDS Assuming even distribution of material within the site Thickness of Dredged Material Volume Disposed (m) (cubic yards) 0.25 3,530,824 0.5 7,061,648 0.75 10,592,472 1 14,123,296 1.5 21,184,944 2 28,246,592 3 42,369,887 4 56,493,183 5 70,616,479 6 84,739,775 7 98,863,070 8 112,98@,366 9 127,109,662 10 141,232,958 347 PROJECT PROPOSED V PROJECT EVALUATION Yes Satisfies Excluaton < Criteria (ie, clean sand) No Not Contaminated Bulk Chemical < Analysis A#WW T DEC I S I ONS (Option) No Toxicity, Accumulation V Bioassay Toxicitw <- Bioaccumulation Accumula-, tion Unconfined Open- sp*ci4l water disposal Management at Buoy (i.e., capping) M-ONITORING Monitoring FTELD VERIFICATION Unacceptable Impacts Impacts Revise Evaluation Status quo V Management or reduce PMED BACK::;:;::;:;:;:i;;;*;:; Process Testing/biorkitoring Figure 5A-1. Generic tiered decision protocol for open-water disposal of dredged material. 348 6. REFERENCES Acey, R., P. Healy, T.F@. Unger,.C.E. Ford and R.A. Hudson,,1987. Growth and aggregation behavior of representative phytoplankton as affected by the environmental contaminant Di-n-butyl Phthala'te. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.. 39:,1-6. Ainley, D.G., and G.A. Sanger, 1979. Trophic relations;of seabirds in the northeastern Pacific Ocean and.Bering Sea. Pp. 95-122 in (J.C. Bartonak and D.N. Nettleship, eds.) Conservation of-Marine Birds of Northern North America. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Wildl. Res. Rept. 11, Washington, D.C.,_ Allen, C.M., 1916. The whalebone whales of New England. Mem. Boston Soc. Nat..Hist. 8:107-322. Allen, J.A. 1908. The North Atlantic right whale and its near allies. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 24:277-329. Allen, K.O. and J.W. Hardy. 1980. Impacts of Navigational Dredging on Fish and Wi,ldlife.,Bio. Ser. Prog. US FWS. FWS/OBS-80/.07 Allen, K.R. 1971. A preliminary assessment of fin whale stocks off the Canadian Atlantic coast. Rept. Int. Comm., Spec. Issue 10. Amiard, J.C., C. Amiard-Triquet, B. Berthet and C.-Metayer. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.,106: 73-89. Anguillar, A. In,press. A review of old basque.shaling and its effect on the-right whales of the North Atlantic. Rept. Int. Comm-., Spec. Issue 10. Anthony, V.A. and G. Waring, 1980. The assessment and management of the Georges Bank herring,fishery. ICES Rapp. Proc. Verb., 177:72-111. Arnold, P.W. and D.E. Gaskin, 1972. Sight records of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and finback whales (Balaenoptera physalus) from the lower Bay of Fundy. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 29:1477-1748. Babcock, H.L 1919. The-turtles of New England. Memoirs Boston Soc. National Hist. 8:325-431. Balcomb, K.C. and G. Nichols, 1978. Western North Atlantic humpback whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 28:159-164. Baram, M. S@., D. Rice, and W. Lee. 1976. Marine Mining of the Continental Shelf, Legal, Technical and Environmental Considerations. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA. 349 Barr, Bradley W. 1987. Dredging Handbook - A primer for dredging in the coastal zone of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Publication #14,870-181-500-6-87-CR. Beamish, P. 1981. Rare sighting of a right whale (Eub4laena glacialis). J. Ceta-Res. 2:2. Beck, B. 1983. The grey seal in Canada. Underwater World. Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa. 4 pp. Bent, A.C. 1921. Life histories of North American gulls and terns. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 113: -345, Wash. D.C. Bent, A.C. 1922. Life histories of North American petrels and pelicans and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 121:1-343, Wash. D.C. Bigelow, H.B. 1927. Physical Oceanography of the Gulf of Maine. Bull, U.S. Comm. Bur., 40:511-1027. Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of.Maine. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull. 53. 577 pp. Bleakney, J.S. 1965. Reports of marine turtles from New England and canadian waters. Canadian Field Nat. 79:120-128. BLM. 1977. OCS Sale No. 42. Draft EIS. Dept. of Interior. Boehm, P.D., W. Steinhauer, and J. Brown, 1984'. Organic Pollutant Biogeochemistry Studies in the Northeast U.S. Marine Environment. Report to NOAA, Duxbury, MA. NMFS,Contract No. NA-83-FA-C-00022. Bohlen, W.F. 1981. An Evaluation of the Causes of Shorefrant Erosion: Castle Island, Boston, Massachusetts. Prepared for Fay, Spofford and Thorndike, Inc., Boston, MA 33 pps. and Illustrations. Bokuniewicz, H.J., J. Gebert, R.B. Gordon, J.L. Higins, P. Kaminsky, C.C. Pilbeam,,M. Reed, and C. Tuttle, 1978. Field study-of the mechanics of the placement of dredged material at open water disposal sites. Tech. Report D-78-7, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. Bond, C.E. 1979. Biology of Fishes. Saunders. Borrego, J.J., F. Arrabal, A. deVicente, L.F. Gomez, P. Roneco..1983. Study of microbial inactivation in the marine environment. JWPCF 55:297-302 Boston Edison Co. 1986. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of the Pilgrim Station. Semi-annual Rep. No. 27. Boston, KA. 350 Bothner, M.H., E.Y. Cambell, G.P. DiLisio, C.M. Paramenter, R.R. Rendigs, M.W. Doughten, R.G. Johnson, J.R. Gillison and N. Rait. 1986. Analysis of Lrace meLals in bottom sedi.ments in support- of deepwator biological processes studies on the U.S. North Atlantic continental slope and rise. Outer Continental Shelf Study - MRS 86-0008. Minerals Management Service. U.S. Dept. of Interior. Boulva, J. and I.A. McLaren, 1979. Biology of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, in Eastern Canada. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, No.200. 24 pp. Bourque,-B. and M. Roberts, 1979. A summary and analysis of cultural resource information on the Continental Shelf from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras, Vol. III - Historic Ship. Institute for Conservation Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University Report 88. (Done for the Bureau of Land Management - Contract No. AA551-CT8-18). Bowman, R. E. and William L. Michaels, 1984. Food of seventeen species of northwest Atlantic fish. NOAA Tech. Men. NMFS - F/NEC-28 Woods,Hole, Mass, Bowman, R.E. 1981. S tomach contents of twenty-four species of fish caught in Cape Cod Bay and/or Massachusetts Bay during the period 1972-1978. Braham, H.W. 1984. The Status of Endangered Whales: An Overview. Mar. Fish. Rev., Spec. Issue 46: 2-6. Brimley, H.H. 1931. Harbor seal in North Ca@61ina. J. of Mammal 12:314. Brodie, P.F., D.D.,Sameoto, and R.W. Sheldon', 1978,. Population densities of euphausiids off Nova Scotia as indicated by net samples, whale stomach contents, and sonar. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23:1264-1267. Brown, R.F. and B.R. Mate, 1983. Abundance, movements, and feeding habits of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, at Netarts and Tillamook Bays, Oregon. Fishery Bulletin 81:291-301o Brown, R.C.B., S.P. Barker, D.E. Caskin, and M.R. Sanderman, 1981. 'The foods of Great and Sooty shearwaters Puffinus gravis and P. griseus in eastern Canadian waters. This 123:19-30. Brown, R.C.B., D.N. Nettleship, P. Germain, C.E. Tull and T. Davis, 1975. Atlas of eastern Canadian seabirdso Canadian Wildl. Service, Information Canada, Ottawa. 220 pp. Brown, S.C. 1958. Whales observed in the Atlantic Ocean. Notes on their distribution. Mar. Obs. 28(181-182):142-146, 209-216. Brown, S.C. 1961. Observations of pilot whales (globicephala) in the North Atlantic Ocean. Norsk: Hvalfanst-tid. 50:225-254. 351 Brown, W.S. and R.C. Beardsley, 19,78. Wiqter Circulation in the Western Gulf of Maine: Part 1. Cooling and WAtermass Formation. J. Phys. Oceanorg. 8(2):265-277. Brownawell, B.J. and J.W. Farrington. 1985 Partitioning of PC5s in marine sediments. In Marine and Estuarine Ceochemistry, edited by A.C. Sigelo and A. Hattori. Bumpus, D.F. and L.M. Lauzier, 1965. Surface Circulation on the Continental Shelf of Eastern North America Between Newfoundland and Florida. Am. Geograph. Soc., Serial.Atlas of the Marine Environment, Folio 7. Bumpus, D.F. 1974. Review -of the physical Oceanography of Massac husetts Bay. Technical Report WHOI-74-8. Unpublished M.S. Wooda Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Mi. Bumpus, D.F. 1976. Review of the Physical Oceanography of Georges Bank. Int@l. Comm. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. kes. Blu. No. 12:119-134. Burghard, A. 1935. Whaling in Florida waters. Florida Conservator 1:4-5. Burnham, K.P., D.R. Anderson, and J.F. Laalce, 1980. Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildl. Monogr. No. 72. 202 pp. Butman, B. 1977. On the Dynamics of Shallow Water currents in Mass- achusetts Bay and on the New England CQntinental Shelf. Unpublishe d Manuscript. Report No. WHOI-77-15. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 174 pp. Caldwell, D.K. and F.B. Colley, 1965. Marine Mammals from the coast of Georgia to Cape Hatteras. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 81:24-32. Caldwell, D.K. and M.C. Caldwell, 1966. Observations on the distribution, coloration, behavior and.audible sound production of the spotted dolphin, Stenella plagiodon (Cope). Los Angeles County Mus. Contrib. Sci. 104:1-28. Caldwell, D.K., M.C. Caldwell and D.W. Rice, 1964. Behavior of the sperm whale. Pp. 677-717 In K.S. Norris (ed.) Whales, dolphins, porpoises. Univ. CaTif. Press, Berkeley. Caldwell, D.K., M.C. Caldwell, 1969. The harbor seal, Phoca vitulina concolor, in Florida. J. of Mammal 50:379-380. Caldwell, D.K. and M.C. Caldwell, W.F. Rathjen, and J.R. Sullivan. 1971. Cetaceans from the Lesser Antillean Island of St. Vincent. Fish. Bull. 69:303-312. 352 Caldwell, D.K. and M.C. Caldwell, 1075. Dolphin and small-whale fisheries of the Caribbean. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 32:1105-1110. Giirey, D.A. 1983. 11arLicle requspension. iti Lhe benthic boundary layer induced by flow around polychaete tubes. Can. J. of Fish. and Aqu. ,Sci., Vol. 40: 301-308. Carr, A. 1952. Handbook of Turtles. Comstock Pub'. Assoc., Ithaca, N.Y. pp 1-542. Carter, G.R., F.M. Fairfield, and H.E. Winn, 1981. Occurrence of beaked whales (Family Ziphiidae) in the western North Atlantic. Abstr. only, Fourth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 13-18- Dec., San Francisco-, CA. Castello, H.P. and M.C. Pinedo, 1979. Southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) along the southern Brazilian coast. J. Mammal. 60:429-430. CETAP. 1982. A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and north Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continental shelf. Final Report of the Cet acd,an and Turtle Assessment Program, Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. AA551-CT8-48, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Wash. D.C. 450 pp. Charnov, E.L. 1976. Optimal Foraging: the Marginal Value.Theorem. Theo. Pop. Bio. 9:129-136. Chu, K. 1986. Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). In T. French (ed.), Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Vertebrate Species in Massachusetts. Mass, Div., Fish & Wildlife, Non-game and Endangered Species Program. Boston, MA 02202 (in press). Clarke, J.U. and A.B. Gibson, 1987. Regulatory identification of petroleum hydrocarbons in dredged material: Proceedings at a workshop. Miscellaneous Paper. D-87-3. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Clay, A.M., T.R. Gilbert and C.C. McLeod, 1978. Critique and proposal for the management of dredged material in Massachusetts Bay waters. New England Aquarium, Boston, MA. - under NED contract DACW33-76-C-0096. Clayton, C., C. Cole, and S. Murawski. 1978. Common Marine Fishes of Coastal Massachusetts. Coop. Ext. Ser. Univ. MA. Amherst. Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1984. Shore Protection Manual. Fourth Edition. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Coastal Engineering Research Center. Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Miss. 2 Vols. 353 COE, 1984. Environmental effects of dredging. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Info. Exchange Bull. Vol. D@84-2. May 1984. Pp 1-10. Cohen, E.B., M.D. Crosslein, M.P. Sissenwine, F. Steimle, and W.R. Wright, 1982. Energy budget of georges Bank, p. 95-107 In M.C. Mercer (ed.) Multispecies approaches to fisheries management advice. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59. Cramp, S. (ed.), 1977. Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Vol.1, Ostrich - Ducks. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Csanady, G.T. of 1974. Barotropic currents over the Continental Shelf. J. of Phys. Oceanogra. 4:357-371. Dailey, James - NOAA, Rockville, Maryland. Feb., 1988. Personal communication. Information from NOAA files concerning wrecks in MBDS. Davis, J.D. 1984. Western Cape Cod Bay: Hydrographic, Ceological, Ecological and Meterological Backgrounds for Environmental Studies. Pages 1-18 in Davis, J.D. and P. Merriman (eds.). Observations on the Ecology and Biology of Western Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Vol. 11. Springer-Verlag. Diion, T.M. 1984. Biological Consequences of Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Animals: an Assessment of the Current Literature. TR D-84-2. U.S. Army Waterways Exper. Stat. Vicksburg, Miss. Doggett, L. amd S. Sykes. 1980. Commerically important invertebrates. In An Ecological Characterization of Coastal Maine. S.I. Fefer and P.A. Schettig (P.0. US FWS. FWS/OBS-80/29. Donnely, B.C. 1969. Further observations on the southern right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, in South African waters. J. Reprod. Fert. Suppl. @7.347-352. Duce, R.A., J.G. Quinn, C.E. Olney, S. R. Piotrowicz, B.J. Ray, and T.L. Wade. 1972. Enrichment of heavy metals and organic compounds in the surface microlayer of Naragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Sci. 176: 161- 163. Durkin, J.T. and S.J. Lipovsky. 1977. Aquatic Disposal Field Investiga- tions Columbia River Disposal Site, Oregon. Appendix E: Demersal fish and decapod shellfish studies. Tech. Rep. D-77-30. U.S. Army Waterways Exper. Stat. Vicksburg, Miss. Eberhardt, L.L. 1978. Transect methods for population studies. J. Wildl. Manage. 42:1-31. 354 Eberhardt, L.L., D.G. Chapman, and J.R. Gilbert, 1979. A review of marine mammal census methods. Wildl. Monogr. No. 63. 46 pp. Eckman, J.E., A.R.M. Nowell and P.A. Jumars, 1981. Sediment destabilization by animal tubes. J. Mar. Res., 39: 361-374. Eckman, J.E. and A.R.M. Nowell, 1984. Boundary skin friction and sediment transport about an animal-tube mimic. Sediment., 31: 851-862. Edel, R.K., M. Cagan, J. H. Hain, P.W. Sorensen, 1981. Correlations between cetacean sightings and selected environmental variables. In A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and'Nor@_h Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer Continental Shelf. Ann. rept. 1979, CETAP Program, Univ. of Rhode Island, prepared for Bureau of Land Mgmt., U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C. Edwards, R (ed.), 1983. International Conf. of Justice case concerning delimitation of marine boundary in the Gulf of Maine area (Canada/USA), Vol.1, Dpp.1 Counter-Memorial. Marine Environment of the Gulf of Maine Area. Submitted USA, 28 June 1983. EPA, 1976. Quality Criteria for Water U.,S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.- Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Health assessment document for inorganic arsenic. PB 84-190891,Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA, 1987. Update #2 to Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division., May 1, 1987, including Water Quality Criteria Summary. Estrella, B. T. Black Gill and Shell Disease in American Lobster as Indicators of Pollution In Massachusetts Bay and Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. Publication# 14049-19-125-5-85-C.R. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Evans, W.E. 1974. Radio-telemetric studies of two species of small odontocete cetaceans. In W.E. Schevill (ed.). The Whale Problem, A Status Report. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass. FAO. 1977. Report of the Advisory committee on Marine Resources Research Working Party on Marine Mammals. FAO Fisheries.Rept. No. 194. FIR/R194 (En) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Fisher, J. 1952. The Fulmar. Collins, St. James Place, London. Fitch, J.E. and R.L. Brownell, 1971. Fish otoliths in cetacean stomachs and their importance interpreting feeding habits. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 25:2561-2574. 355 Flemer, D.A.9 et al. 1968. Biological effects of spoil disposal in Chesapeake-Ba-y. J. Sanit. Engin. Div. Ror, Am. Sqc. Civ. Eng. 94: 683- 706. 0 Fredette, T.J., Anderson, G., Payne, B.S. and J.D. Lunz 1986. Biological Monitoring of Open-water Dredged Material Disposal Sites. Proc. of Oceans 1986. Marine Technology Soc. pp. 764-769. French, T. 1986. Endangered, Threatened atid Special Concern Vertebrate Species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div., Fish & Wildlife, Non-g4me and Endangered Species Program. Boston, MA 02202 (in press). Fritts, T.H. and R.P. Reynolds, 1981. Pilot study of the marine mammals, birds and turtles in OCS areas of the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Office of biological Serives, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS- 81/36. Furness, R.W. 1979. Foods of Great Skuas Catharacta skua at North Atlantic breeding localities. Ibis 121:86-92. Gadbois, D.F. 1982. Hydrocarbon analysis of targeted fin and shellfish species and sediments collected from northeastern U.S. coastal waters. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, N.O.A.A., NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Center Gloucester, MA 01930 Gambell, R. 1972. Sperm whales off Durban. Disc. Rept. 35:199-358. Gaskin, D.E. 1968. The New Zealand Cetacea. Fish. Res. Bd. Gaskin, D.E. 1976. The evolution, zoogeography, and ecology of Cetacea. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 14:247-346. Gaskin, D.E. 1977. Harbour porpoise Phocoe4a 2hocoena (L.) in the western approaches to the Bay of Fundy 19,69-75. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. Gaskin, D.E. 1984. The horbour porpoise, P4ocoep4 phocoena (L.): Regional populations, status, and information on direct and indirect catches. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 34:569-586. Gaskin, D.E., P.W. Arnold and B.A. Blair, 1974. Phocoena phocoena. Mamm. Species 42:1-8. Gaskin, D.E., G.J.D. Smith, and A.P. Watson, 1975. Preliminary study of movements of harbor porpoises (Pocoena phocoena) in the Bay of Fundy using radiotelemetry. Can. J. Zool. 53:1466-1471. Gaskin, D.E., K.I. Stonefield, P. Suda, and R. Frank, 1979. Changes in mercury levels in harbour porpoises from the Bay of Fundy, Canada, and adjacent waters during 1969-1977. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 8:733-762. 356 Caskin, D.E.and A.P. Watson 1985. The harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in Fish Harbor, New Brunswick, Canada: occupancy, distribution, and movements. Fish. Bull. 83:427-441. Gilbert, T.R. 1975. Studies of theNassachusetts Bay Massachusetts Bay. Prepared for Commonwealth of Masschusetts, Division of Water Pollution Control. New EnglandAquarium, Boston, MA. 197 pps. Godin, A.J. 1977. Wild mammals of New England. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, Md. 304 pp. Coerke, H., G. Eder, K. Weber and W. Ernst, 1979. Patterns of organochlorine residues in animals of different trophic levels from the Weser Estuary. Mar. Poll. Bull. 10:127-133. Gordon-Clark, J. 1976. Objectives for the management;and conservation of marine mamals. FAO/ACCMR/MM/SC/123, Report t.o Mammals in the seas Conference, Begen, Norway. Gould, P.J., C. Harris"on, and D. Foresell, 1978. Distribution and abundance of marine birds - south and east Kodiak waters. In Environ. Assess. of the Alaskan Continental-Shelf. Ann..Rept. 1978, Vol. II. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, and U.S. Dept. of Interior. Graham, J.J., S.B. Chenoweth, and C.W. Davis. Abundance, distribution, movements and length of larval herring along the western coast of the Gulf of Maine. Fish. Bull. 70: 299-305. Grant, W.D., L.F. Boyer and L.P. Sanford, 1982. The effects of bioturbation on the initiation of motion of intertidal sands. J. of Mar. Res. 40: 659-677. Grosslein, M.D. 1969. Croundfish survey programs of BCF Woods Hole. Comm. Fish. Rev. 31:22-35. Grosslein, M.D. and T.R. Azarovitz. 1982. Fish Distribution. New York Bight Atlas Monograph 15. New York State Seagrant Inst. Albany, N.Y. Grosslein, M.D., B.E. Brown, and R.C. Hennemuth, 1978. Research, assessment and management of a marine ecosystem in the Northwest Atlantic - a case study. Presented at Second Intern. ecol. congr. Satellite Progr. in stat. Ecol. Univ. of Parma, Inst. of ecol., 70 pp. Grosslein, M.D., R.W. Langton, and M.P. Sissenwine, 1980. Recent fluctuations in pelagic fish stocks of the northwest Atlantic, Georges Bank region, in relation to species interactions, Rapp. P. v. Reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer., 177:374-404. 357 Gunter, G. 1954. Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico. In P.S. Galtsoff (ed.) Culf of Mexico; its origin, waters, and marine life. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull. 89:543-551. Hain, J.H., G.R. Carter, S.D. Kraus, C.A. Mayo, H.E. Winn, 19,82. Feeding behavior of the Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae, in the western North Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 80:259-268. Hain, J.H., R.K. Edel, H.E. Hays, S.K. Katona, and J.D. Roanowicz, 1981. General distribution of cetaceans in the continental shelf waters of the northeastern United States. In A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the Mid- and North Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continental shelf. Ann. Rept. 1979, QETAP Program, Univ. of Rhode Island, prepared for Bureau of Land Mgmt. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C. Harris, D. L., 1972. Wave estimates for coastal regions in shelf sediment transport: Process and Pattern. D.J.P. Swift, D.B. Duane, O.H. Pilkey (Eds.). Dowden., Hutchinson and Rass Inc., Stroudsberg, PA. pp. 99-125. Hay, K' 1982. 1Aerial line-transect estimates of abundance of hu4back, fin, and long-finned pilot whales in the Newfoundland-Labrad-or area. Rep. Int. Whales in the Newfoundland-Labrader area. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 32:475-485. Hay, K.A. 1985a. Status of the Humpback Whale, Megaptera novaengliae, in Canada. Can. Field Nat. 99:425-432. Hay, K.A. 1985b. Status of the Right Whale, Eubalaena glacialis in Canada. Can. Field Nat. 99:433-437 Hayes, M.O., D.K. Hubbard and D.M. Fitzgerald, 1973. Investigation of erosion problems at Revere, Winthrop and Nantasket Beaches. Massachusetts Metropolitan District Conmis,sion, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Contract #2229. Hays, H.E., H.E. Winn, and R. Petricig, 1985. Anomalous feeding behavior of a Humpback Whale. J. Mamm. 66:819-821. Heinemann, D. 1981. A rangefinder for pelagic bird censusing. J. Wildl. Mgt. 45:489-493. Hjulstrom, F. 1935. Studies of the morpological activity of rivers as illustrated by the River Fyris: Upsala Univ. Ceol. Inst. Bull. V 25:221-527. Hoese, H.D. 1971. Dolphin feeding out of water in a salt marsh. J. Mamm. 52:222-223. 358 Holder, J.B. 1883. The Atlantic Right Whale. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 1:97-137. Horwcod, J.W. 1976. On the joint exploitation of drill and whales. FAO/ACCMR/MM/SC/116. Report to Mammals in the Seas Conference, Bergen, Norway.. Hoss, D.E., L.C. Coston, and W.E. Scharf. 1974. Effects of sea water extracts of sediments from Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, on larval estuarine fishes. Est. Coast. Mar. Sci. 2:323-328. Howe, A.B., T.P. Currier, S.L. Sass, and B.C. Kelly. 1984. Coastwide Fishery Resource Assessment: Massachusetts. Mass. Div. Marine Fish. Pub. no. 13639-130-70-6-84-CR. Howe, A.B., T.P. Currier, S.L. Sass, and B.C. Kelly. 1986. Coastwide Fishery Resource Assessment: Massachusetts. Mass. Div. Marine Fish. Pub. no. 14335-58-115-2-86-CR. Howe, A.B. and F.J. Cermano, Jr. 1982. Fisheries and Environmental Baselines Relative to Dredge Spoil Disposal, Cape Cod Bay, 1981. Mass. Div. Mar. Fish. Rep. Hunt, G.L., C.A. Sanger, and B. Burgeson, 1981. Trophic relations of seabirds on the eastern Bering Sea, pp. 629-647. In D.W-Hood (ed.) The Bering Sea Shelf. Inst. of Mar. Sci., U. Alasi-a, Fairbanks. Huston, M. 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity American Naturalist. 113:81-99. Johnson, A.C., P.F. Larsen, D.F. Cadbois and A.W. Humason, 1985. The distribution of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarons, in the surficial sediments of Penabscot Bay (Maine, U.S.A.) in relation to possible sources and to other sites worldwide. Mar. Env. Res. 15: 1-16. Johnson, B.H., 1978. Application of the instantaneous dump dredged material disposal model to the disposal of Stamford and New Haven Harbour material from a scow in Long Island Sound. Tech. Manuscript. U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. Johnston, D.W., and Wildish, D.J. 1981. Avoidance of dredge spoil by herring (Clupea harengus harengus). Bull. Envir. Cont. Tox. 26: 307- 314. Jonsgard, A. 1966. The distribution of Balaenopteridae in the North Atlantic Ocean. Pp. 114-123 In Norris, K.S. (ed.) Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. Univ. Calif. Tress, Berkeley. Jonsgard, A. 1982. The food of Minke Whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in northern North Atlantic waters. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 32:259-269. 359 Jonsgard, A. and K. darling, 1977. On the biology of t he Eastern North Atlantic Sei Whale, Balaenoptera borealis Lesson. in Report of the Special Scientfic Co-mmittee on Se-i ana gryde's Wbale's, Rept. Int. Whal. Comm.t Special Issue 1:124-129. Cambridge. JRB, 1984. An Assessment of the Potential Impacts on Zooplankton and Fish of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal at the Norfolk Disposal Site. Tech. Rep. prep. for EPA (Region III). Jumars, P.A. and A.R.M. Nowell, 1984. Fluid and sediment dynamic effects on marine benthic community structure. Amer. Zool. 24:45-55. Kapel, F.O. 1975. Preliminary notes on the occurrence and exploitation of I smaller cetacea in Greenland. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 32:1079-1082. Kapel, F.O. 1977. Catch of beluga, narwhals and harbor porpoises in Greenland, 1954-75, by year, month and region. Rept. Int. Whal. Comm. 27:507-520. Kapel, F.O. 1979. Exploitation of large whales in West Greenland in the twentieth century. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 29:197-214. Kapel, F.O. and F. Larsen, 1982. Whale sightings form a Norwegian small- type whaling vessel off West Greenland June-August 1980. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 32:521-530. Katona, S. 1976. Whales in the Gulf of Maine: 1975. Publ. privately. 39 pp- Katona, S.K., J.A. Beard and K.C. Balcomb, 1982. The Atlantic humpback fluke catalogue. Whale Watcher 16:3-8. Katona, S.K., J.A. Beard and K.C. Balcomb, 111. 1984. The humpback whale fluke catalogue. Final rept. to NMFS contract No. NA-81-FA-C-00027. KatonA, S., D. Richardson, and R. Hazard, 1975. A Field Guide to the Whales and Seals of the Gulf of Maine. Maine Coast Printers. 97 pp. Katona, S., W. Steiner, and H.E. Winn, 1977. Marine Mammals. Pp 1-167, In Center for Natural Areas, A summary and analysis of environmental information on the Continental Shelf from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras, 1977, Voli 1, Book 2. Final Rept., Contr. No. AA550-CT6-45, Bureau of Land Mgmt., U.S. Dept. of Interior. Katona, S.K., P. Harcourt, J.S. Perkins, and S.D. Kraus, 1980. Humpback Whales: A catalog of individuals identified by fluke photographs. College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, Maine. 360 Katona, S.K. and S. Kraus. 1979. Photographic identification of individual humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) evaluation and analysis of the technique. Final Report to U.S. Marine Mammal Commission in fulfillment of Contract MM7ACO15. 29 pp. Katona, S.K. and C.A. Mayo. 1986. Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). In T. French (ed.). Endangered, threatened and special concern vertebrate species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div., Fish & Wildlife, Non-game and Endangered Species Program. Boston, MA 02202 (in press). Katona, S.K., V. Rough and D.T. Richardson, 1983. A Field guide to the whales, porpoises and seals of the Gulf of Maine and eastern Canada Cape Cod to Newfoundland. Scribner's Sons, New York. 255 pp. Katona, S.K., S.A. Testaverde. and B. Barr, 1978. Observations on a white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus, probably killed in gill nets in the Gulf of Maine. Fish. Bull. 76:475-476. Katona, S.K., H.P.. Whitehead. 1981. Identifying Humpback Whales using their natural markings. Polar Record 20:439-444. Kay, S.H. 1984. Potential for Biomagnification of Contaminants Within Marine and Freshwater Food Webs.Tech. Rep. D-84-7. U.S. Army Waterways Exper. Stat. Vicksburg, Miss. Kellogg, R. M9. What is known of the migrations of,some whalebone whales. Smith. Inst. Ann. Report, 1928. Publ. 2981, pp. 467-494. Kenney, R.D. 1985. Where the whales and dolphins gather. Maritimes, Feb. 1985, p. 12-14. Kenney, R.D. 1986. Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis). In T. French (ed.). Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Vertebrate species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div., Fish & Wildlife, Non-game and Endangered Species Program. Boston, MA 02202 (in press). Kenney, R.D., D.R. Coodale, G.P. Scott, and H.E. Winn, 1981. Spatial and temporal distribution of Humpback Whales in the CETAP study area. In .A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the Mid- and North Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continental shelf. Ann. Rept. 1979, CETAP Program, Univ. of Rhode Island. Prepared for Bureau of Land Mgmt., U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C. Kenney, R.D., M.A. Hyman, and H.E. Winn, 1985. Calculation of standing stocks and energetic requirements.of the cetaceans of the Northeast United States outer continental shelf. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NEC- 41. 99 pp. 361 Kenney, R.P. and G.P. Scott, 1981@ Chapter III. Calibration of the Beechcraft AT=ll forward observation bubble for population estimation purposes. In A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the Mid- and North-Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continental shelf. Ann. Rept. 1979, for CETAP, Univ. of Rhode Island. BLM Ref. No. AA551-CT8-48. Wash. D.C. Klumov, S.K. 1962. The Right Whales (Balaenidae) of the Pacific Ocean. Trudy Inst. Okeanol. 58:202-297. Krasnow, L. 1978. Feeding energetics of the sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus) in Monterey Bay. 3rd Ann. Symp. Field Studies in Calif., Calif. State Univ., Sacramento. Abstr. Kraus, S.D. 1985. A review of the status right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic with a summary of research and management needs. Final report, Contract No. MM2910905. U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C.. Kraus, S.D. 1986. Black Right Whale.(Eubalagno glacialis). In T. French (ed.). Endangered, Threatened and Special CGncern Vertebrate Species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div., Fish & Wildlife, Non-game and Endangered Species Program. Boston, MA 02202 (in press). Kraus, S.D., and J.H. Prescott, 1981. Distribution, abundance and notes of the large cetaceans of the bay of Fundy, summer and fall 1980. Final Rept. to NMFS/NEFC, Contract No. NA-80-FA-2-09048. Kraus, S.D. and J.H. Prescott. 1982. The North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in the Bay of Fundy, 1981, with notes on distribution, abundance, biology and behavior. Final Report to NMFS/NEFC,Contract No. NA-81-FA-C-00030. 105 pp. Kraus, S.D., J.H. Prescott, P.V. Turnbull, and R.R Reeves, 1982. Preliminary notes on the occurrence of the North Atlantic Right Whale, Eubalaena glacialis, in the Bay of Fundy. Rept. Int. Whale. Comm. 32:407-411. Kraus, S.D. and J.H. Prescott, 1983. A summary of 1982 research on the North Atlantic Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis with notes on seasonal distribution and abundance, and significant resightings of in- dividuals. Annual Report to NMFS in fulfillment of Contract No. NA- 81-FA-C-00030 and to the World Wildlife Fund-U.S. 39 pp. Kraus, S.D., J.H. Prescott, and G.S. Ston e, 1983. Harbor Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in the U.S. coastal waters of the Gulf of Maine: A survey to determine seasonal distribution and abundance. Unpubl. Rept., New England Aquarium, Boston, MA. 15 pp. 362 Kraus, S.D., J.H. Prescott and G.S. Stone, 1984. Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic: A summary of rese-arch conduct from 1980 to 1984. Report to NMFS/NEVC, Contract No. NA-81- FA-C-88830, Woods Hole, Ma 0254,3. Krebs, J.R. and N.B. Davies, eds, 1978. Behavioral ecology: an evolutionary approach. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. Lake, J., C. Hoffman and S. Schimnel, 1985. Bioaccumulation of contaminants from Black Rock Harbor dredged material by mussels and polychaetes. Technical Report D@-85-2, prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, RI for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Langston, W.J. and M. Zhou, 1987. Cadmium accumulation distribution and elimination in the bivalve Macoma balthica: neither metalothidnein nor metallothionein-like proteins are involved. Mar. Env. Res. 21:225-237. Larsen, P.F., D.F. Gadbois and A.C. Johnson, 1586. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Gulf of Maine Sediments: Distributions and Mode of, Transport. Mar. Env. Res. 18: 231-244. Larsen., P. F., V. Zdanowicz and A.C. Johnson, 1983., Trace metal distributions in surficial sediments of Penobscot Bay, Maine. Bull. Env. Contam. Toxicol. 31:566-573. Lavigne, D.M. 1980. Present status of northwest Atlantic Harp Seals, Pagophilus groenlandicus. Unpubl. ms., N.E. Endangered species rkshop. 8-11 May 1980, Provincetown, MA. Lazell, J.D. 1976. This Broken Archipelage. Quadrangle Press (Harper and Row), N.Y 260 pp. Lazell, J.D. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles. Copeia 1980:290-295. Leatherwood, S. 1975. Some observations of feeding behavior of Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the northern Gulf of Mexico and (Tursiops cf. T. gilli) of southern California, Baja, California, and Nayarit, Mexico. Mar. Fish, Rev. 37:10-16. Leatherwood, S., D.K. Caldwell, and H.E. Winn, 1976. Whales, dolphins, and por'poises of the western North Atlantic. A guide to their identification. U.S.,Dept. Commerce., NOAA Tech. Rept. NMFS circ. 396. 176 pp. Leatherwood, S., I.T. Show, R.R. Reeves, and M.B. Wright, 1982. Proposed modification of transect models to estimate population size from 363 aircraft with*obstructed downward visibility. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 32:577-580. Lien, J. and P. McLeod, 1980. Humpback collisions.wiLh fishing gear in Newfoundland: arbitration and education in a whale-figherman dispute. Paper submitted to the N.E. Endangered Species Workshop, Provincetown,.MA, 7-11 May, 1980. Lien, J. and B. Merdsoy, 1979.. The Humpback is not over the hump. Nat.. Hist. 88:46-49. Lipton, B. 1975. Whaling days in New Jersey. Newark Mus. Quart. 26:1-72. Lockwood, M., M.C. Gruntal, and W.R. Curtis. 1982 Side-Scan Son ar Survey ofthe Massachusetts Bay Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal S@te. In: Marine Pollution, Papers, Oceans '82, kockville, MD. Lockyer, C. 1981. Gr6wth and en ergy budgets of large baleen whales from the Southern Hemisphere. Pp. 379-487 in FAO Advisory committee on Marine Resources Research, Working Party on Marine Mammals. Mammals in the sea, Volume III, general papers on large cetaceans. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Longwell, A.C. and J.Bb Hughes. 1980. Cytologic, cytogenetic, and developmental state of Atlantic mackerel eggs from sea surface waters of the New York Bight, and prospects for biological effects monitoring with ichthyoplankton. Rapp. Reun. Cons. Explor. Mer. 179: 275-291. Lunz, J.D. and D.R. Kendall. 1982. Benthic resources asssessment technique, a method for quantifying the effects of benthic community. changep on fish resources. In Marine Pollution Papers Oceans' 82. NOAA Office of Marine Pollution Assessment. pp. 1021-1027. Lux, F.E. and G.F. Kelly. 1978. Fisheries Resources of the Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bay Region. Nat. Mar. Fish. Ser. Northeast.Fish. Center. Woodshole, MA. Lux, F.E. and G.F. Kelly. 1982. Abundance of Groundfishand Invertebrates in Otter Trawl Surveys of Offshore Waters,of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays in 1975-1977. MacKintosh, N.A. 1965. The stocks of whales. Fishing News (Books), London. 232 pp. Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, J.T. Landahl, M.S. Myers, M.M. Krahn, D.W. Brown, S-L Chan, and W.T..Roubal. 1988. Neoplastic and other diseases Jn fish in relation to toxic chemicals: an overview. Aquat..Tox. 11: 43-67. 364 Marcuzzi, G., and G. Pilleri. 1971. On the zoogeography of cetacea. In Giogrio Pilleri (ed.) Investigations on Cetacea, Vol. 111:101-170. Maria, I.*S., M. Gonzalez, W. lara and A. Ober 1986. Arsenic levels in Chilean marine species. Bull. Envir. Contam. Toxicol. 37:593-598. Marshall, H.G. and M.S. Cohn. 1983. Distribution and composition of phytoplankton in northeastern coastal waters of the United States. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 17: 119-131. Marshall, H.C. and M.S. Cohn 1984. Phytopl Iankton distribution along the eastern coast of the U.S.A. in relation to Abundance, composition, cell volume, seasonal, and regional assemblages. J. Plankton Res. 6: 169-193. Martin, C. and C.S. Yentsch. 1973. Monitoring the "Massachusetts Bay Dumping Area in Massachusetts Bay for Effects of Dredge Spoil Disposal on phytoplankton growth. Cape Ann Society for Marine Sciences. Gloucester, MA Mass. D.Wi.P.C., 1978. Regulations for water quality certification for dredging, dredged material disposal and filling in waters of the Commonwealth. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering - Division of Water Pollution Control. 314 CMR 9.00. Mattews, L.H. 1937. Notes on the southe 'rn Right Whale, Eubalaena australis "Discovery" report 17:171-181. Mattila, D., P.J. Clapham, C.A. Mayo, S.K. Katona and G. Stone, 1985. Humpback whale studies on Silver Bank. Final Report. NMFS Contract No. 41 USC 525 (c)(3). May, R.M., J.R. Beddington, C.W. Clark, S.J. Holt, and R.M. Laws, 1979. Management of multispecies fisheries. Science (Wash. D.C.) 405:267- 276. Mayo, C.A. 1982. Observations of cetaceans: Cape Cod Bay and Southern Steilwagen Bank Massachusetts 1975-1979. NTIS Report No. PB82-186263. 68 pp. Mayo, C., C. Carlson, P. Clapham, and D. Mattila, 1985a. Humpback Whales of the southern Gulf of Maine. Center for Coastal Studies, Provincetown, MA. Shank Painter Printing Co., Provincetown, MA. 62. pp. Mayo, C.A., C.A. Carlson, and M.K. Gilmore, 1985b. Food and feeding of Right Whales on Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts. Presented at the Sixth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Vancouver, B.C., Nov. 22-26, 1985. 365 MBO, 1987. Characterization of whale use of the Massachusetts Bay and Cape Arundel, Maine areas. Prepared by Manomet Bird Observatory in association with Sanford Ecological services under contract to NED via DACW-33-85-0001. McCall, P.L. 1977. Community pattern and adaptive strategies of the infaunal benthos of Long Island Sound. Journal of Marine Research. 35*:221-266. McFarlane, R.W. 1963. Disorientation of loggerhead hatchlings by artifical road lighting. Copeia 1963L 153. Mead, J.G. 1975. Distribution of cetaceans along the Atlantic and Gulf costs of the United States. Unpubl. ms. submitted to Marine Mammal Comm. MMC MM4AC007. Mead, J.G. 1977. Records of Sei and Bryde's Whales from the,Atlantic coast of the United States, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. In Report of the Special Scientific Committee on Sei and Bryde's whales. Rept. Int. Whal. Comm.,. Special Issue 1:113-116, Cambridge. Mead, J.C. In press. Twentieth century records of Right Whales (Eubalae'na glacialus) in the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Rept. Int. Whal. Comm., Spec. Iss. 10., Mercer, M.C. 1967. Wintering of Pilot Whales, Clobicephala melaena, in Newfoundland inshore waters. J. Fish. Res. Rd. Canada 24:2481-2484. Mercer, M.C. 1973. Observations on distribution and intraspecific variation in pigmentation patterns of odontocete cetacea in the western North Atlantic. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 30:1111-1130. Mercer, M.C. 1975. Modified Leslie-DeLury population models of the Long- Finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala melaena) and annual production of the Short-Finned Squid (illex illecebrosus) based upon their interaction at Newfoundland. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 32:1145-1154. Mercer, S.N. 1985. Observations of.cetaceans on Jeffrey's Ledge and in Ipswich Bay in spring, summer and autumn 1985 including references to previous seasons. Unpubl. rept. Mermoz, J.F. 1980. Preliminary report on the southern Right Whale in the southwestern Atlantic. Rept. Int. Whal. Comm. 30:183-186. Messieh, S.N., Wildish, D.J., and Peterson R.H. 1981. Possible Impact from Dredging and Spoil Disposal on the Miramichi Bay Herring Fishery. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 1008 Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1984. Applications for a waiver of secondary treatment for the Nut Island and Deer Island Treatment Plants. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Vol. 1. 366 Meyer, T.L., R.A. Cooper, and R.W. Langton 1979. Relative abundance, behavior and food habits of the American sandlance, Ammodytes americanus from the Gulf of Maine. Fish. Bull. 77:243-253. Michaels, W.L. and R.E. Bowman. 1983. Food of Seventeen Species of Northwest Atlantic Fish: Part II, Examination by year and listing of prey species. Woods Hole Lab. Ref. Doc. No. 82-17. NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center. Woods Hole, MA. Milter, D.S., P.M. Payne, and K.D. Powers 1980. Marine Observer Manual, App. B - A marine observer training program. Nat. Mar. Fish. Service, Northeast Fish. Center Contr. NA-80-FA-D-0004. 147 pp. Minerals Management Service (MMS) .1983. Proposed April 1984 North Atlantic outer continental shelf oil and gas lease offering. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Washington, D.C. 620 pages, 9 Appendicies, 5 maps. Mitchell, E. 1972. Assessments of northwest Atlantic Fin Whale stocks. Report of the International Commission on Whaling 22:111-118. Mitchell, E. 1973a. The Status of the World's Whales. Reprinted from Nature Canada 2:9-27, OcEober/December 1973i Canadian Nature Federation, Ottawa, Canada. Mitchell, E. 1973b. Draft report on humback whales taken under special scientific permit be Eastern Canadian land stations-1969-1971., Rept. Int. Whal. Comm. 23:138-154. Mitchell, E. 1974a. Present status of northwest Atlantic fin,and other whale stocks. In W.E. Schevil.1 (ed.) The whale Problem, A Status Report:108-169. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA. 419 pp. Mitchell, E. 1974b. Trophic relationships and competition for food in the northwest Atlantic. P. 123-132, In Proc. Canad. Soc. Zool. Ann. Meeting, 2-5 June 1974. Mitchell, E. 1974c. Preliminary Report on Newfoundland fishery for Minke Whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Rept. Int. Whal. Comm. 25:218- 225. Mitchell, E. 1975a. Preliminary Report on Nova Scotia fishery for Sei Whales (Balaenoptera borealis). Rept. Int. Whal. Comm. 25:218-225. Mitchell, E. 1975b. Preliminary Report on Nova Scotia fishery for Sei Whales (Physeter catadon). Rept. Int. Whal. Comm. 25:226-235. Mitchell, E. 1975c. Porpoise, dolphin and small whale fisheries of the world. Status and problems. Int. Union Cons. Nat. Nat. Resource Monogr. No. 3, 129,:@.pp. 367 Mitchell, E. and D.C. Chapman, 1977. Preliminary Assessment of stocks of Northwest Atlantic Sei Whales (Balaeno.pt2rg Ooealis).. In Report of 1 ltt@ -'- Sei and Bryde's the Special Meeting of the Scientific CGM.M e on Whales. Rept. Int. What. Comm. Special Issue 1:117-120, Cambridge. Mitchell, E. and R.R. Reeves 1983. Catch history, abunoance and preset status of northwest Atlantic humpback whales. Rept. Int. What. Comm. (Special Issue 5):153-212. Mitchell, E. and V.M. Kozicki, 1984. Reproductive condition of male Sperm Whales, Physeter macrocephalus, taken off Nova Scotia. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 6:243-252. Moir, R. and-M. Roberts, 1979. A summary and analysis of cultural resource information on the continental shelf from th -e Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatte, Vol. I- Physical Environment. Inatitutg for Conservation Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard Usiversiiy Report 88. (Done for the Bureau of Land Management - Contract No. AA551-CT.8-18) Moore, J.C. 1953. Distribution of marine mammals to Florida waters. Am. Midl. Nat. 49:117-158. Moore, J.Co, and E. Clark 1963. Discovery of right whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Science 141:269. Morse, W.W., M.P. Fahay, and W.G. Smith. 1987. MARKAP Surveys of the Continental Shelf from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to Cape Sable, Nova Scotia (1977-1984). atlas No. 2. Annual Distribution Patterns of Fish Larvae. NOAA Tech. Memor. NMFS-F/NEC-47. Morton, R.W. 1983. Precision bathymetric study of dredged material capping experiment in Long Island Sound. In Wastes in the Ocean. D.R. Kester, B.H. Ketchum, I.W. Duedall anTP.K. Park Eds. Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. pp 99-121. Morton, R.W. 1984. Dredged material disposal operations at the Boston Foul Ground, June 1982-Feb 1983. DAMOS Contribution #41. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. 2ap. . Morton, R.W. 1985. Disposal Area Monitoring System: Summary of program results, 1981-1984. Vol. I: Overview of the DQ40S program. DAMOS Contribution #46. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. 63p. Morton, R.W. 1986. Response to comments generated as a result of the DAMOS Symposium (January, 1985). DAMOS Contribution #56. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. 368 Mullane, S.J. and A. Rivers, 1982. Mt. Desert Rock, Maine - Annual Report. Allied Whale, College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, Maine. 27 pp- Murray, A.J. and M.G. Norton. 1982. The field assessment of effects of dumping wastes at sea: 10 analysis of chemical residues in fish and shellfish from selected coastal regions around England and Wales, Fish Res. Tech. Rep. MAFF Direct. Fish. Res., Lowestoft (69) 42 pp. Muschenheim, D.K., J. Grant and E.L. Mills, 1986. Flumes for benthic ecologists: theory, construction and practice. In Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., Vol. 28: 185-196 MWRA. 1987. Primary Productivity Program. Appendix Z from Vol. V. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan. Boston Harbor Wastewater Conveyance System Boston, MA. MWRA, 1987. Draft Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan Volume V. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.- November 17, 1987.@ National Climatic Data Center, 1986. Local climatological data: Portland, ME, 1985 annual summary with comparative data. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Asheville, NC 28801. 7 pp. National Fish and Wildlife, Laboratory, 1980ai Selected vertebrate endangered species of the seacoast of the United States: Green Sea Turtle. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv., Biol. Services Program. 6 pp. National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, 1980b. Selected vertebrate endangered species of the seacoast of the United States: Kemp's (Atlantic) ridley Sea Turtle. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Services Program. 6 pp. National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, 1980c.. Selected vertebrate endangered species of the seacost of the United States: Leatherback Sea Turtle. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv., Biol. Services Program. Naval Underwater Systems Center (NUSC), 1979. DAMOS (Disposal Area Monitoring System) Annual Data Report - 1978,.Supplement D. Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. Newport, RI. Neave, D.J., and B.S. Wright, 1968. Seasonal migrations of the.Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and other cetacea in the Bay of Fundy. J. Mamm. 4@7259-264. Nettleship, D.N. 1972. Breeding success of the common puffin (Fratercula arctica 1.) on different habitats at Great Island, Newfoundland. Ecol. Monogr. 42:239-268. 369 Neumann, C.J., et al. 1978. Tropical cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1977. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NQA4, National Weather Service. Nishiwake, M. 1972. General Biology. In S.H. Ridgeway (ed.) Mammats of the sea. C.C. Thomas Publ., Springfield, III. PP. 3-214. Nishiwaki, M. 1975. Ecological aspects of smaller cetaceans, with emphasis on the striped dolphin. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 32:1069- 1972. NMFS, 1985. Interagency coordination prodixing computer generated raw data from various North East Monitoring Program S@,ations NKFS - Woods Hole, Mass. NMFS. 1985. NMFS-NEFC cruises. Mimeo. (Jan.). NMFS. 1982. NMFS-NEFC survey cruises. Mimeo (Jan.). NMFS/NEFC. Woods Hole Lab. Ref. No. 81-14. NOAA. 1987. Status of@Fishery Resources off thq Northeastern United States for 1986. Tech. Memor. NMFS-F/NEC-43. Normandeau. 1985. Seabrook Environmental Studies, 1984. A characterization of Baseline Conditions in the Hampton-Seabrook Area, 1975-1984. Tech. Rep. XVI-II prep. for NewHampshire Yankee D-ivisjQn of Public Services Co. of N.H. Seabrook, N.H. Nowell, A.R., P.A. Jumars and R.F. Self. 1981. A Markov model of flow sediment-organism interactions: fluid mechanical and biological processes affecting the transition probabilities, in Proceedings International Geol. Cong. Conf., Nittrouer, Paris, France. O'Conner, J.M. 1984. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Transport in Coastal Marine Food Webs. EPA Env. Res. Lab. Gulf Breeze, Fla. EPA - 600/53-84-083. O'Connor, J.M. and J.C. Pizza. 1984. Eco-kinetic model for the accumulation of PCB in marine fishes. In Management of Bottom Sediments Containing Toxic Substances. Proc. 8th U.S./Japan Experts Meeting. T.R. Patin (ed.). U.S. Army CE. pp. 285-303. O'Connors, H.B.Jr., C.D. Powers, C.F. Wurster, K.D. Wyman, C.M. Nau- Ritter, and R.G. Rowland. 1982. Fates and biological efffects on plankton of particle-sorbed PCB's in coastal waters. In Ecological s'tress and New York Bight. Science and Management. G.T. Myer (ed.). Est. Res. Fed. South Carolina. pp. 423-449. Omura, H. 1958.' North Pacific Right Whale. Sci.-septs, Whales Res. Inst. 13:1-52. 370 Overholtz, W.J. and J.R. Nicolas, 1979. Apparent feeding by the fin whale, balaenoptera physalus and humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae on the American sandlance, Ammodystes americanus, in the Northwest Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 77:285-287. Padan, J.W., 1977. New England Offshore Mining Environmental Study (Project NOMES). NOAA Special Report. Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, WA. Palmer, R.S. (ed.), 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Vol. I. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Conn. - . Parker, B.B., and B.R. Pearce,. 1973. The response of Massachusetts Bay to wind stress. MITSG Rep. No. 75-2, Cambridge, MA. Patton, J.S. and J.A. Couch. 1984. Can tissue anomalies that occur in marine fish implicate specific pollutant chemicals. In Concepts in Marine Pollution Measurements. H.H. white (ed.).' Univ. Maryland. College Park. pp. 511-538. Paul, J.R. 1968. Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus, in the Gulf of Mexico. J. Mamm. 49:746-748. Payne, K. and R. Payne, 1985. Large scale changes over 19 years in songs of humpback whales in Bermuda. Z., Tierpsychol. 68:89-114. Payne, K., P. Tyack, and R. Payne, 1983. Progressive changes.in the songs of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). A detailed analysis to two seasons in Hawaii. Pp. 9-57 In R. Payne (ed.) Communication and Behavior of Whales. Westview Press, Inc. Boulder, CO. Payne, P.M., J.R. Micolas,,L. O'Brien, and K.D. Powers, 1986.. Distribuion of the humpback whale (Megapter novaeangliae) on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine in relation to densities of the sand eel (Ammodytes americanus). Fish. Bull: in press. Payne, P. M., K.D. Powers 'and j.E. Bird, 1 983. Opportunistic feeding on whale fat by Wilson's Storm-Petrels Oceanites oceancius in the western North Atlantic. Wils. Bull. 95:478-479. Payne, P.M. and J.P. Ross, 1986. Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta). In T. French (ed.). Endangered, threatened and special concern vertebrate species in Massachusetts. Mass. div. of Fisheries and Wildlife, Nongame and En@angered Species Program, Boston, MA 02202 (in press). Payne, P.M. and D.C. Schneider, 1984. Yearly changes in abundance of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina,, at a winter haul-out site in Massachusetts. Fish. Bull. 82:440-442. 371 Payne, P.M.9 L.A. Selzer, and A.T. Knowlton, 1984. Distribution and density of cetaceans, marine turtles and seabirds in the shelf waters of the northeastern United States. June 1960 - Dec. 1983, from shipboard observations. NMFS/NEFC Contr. No. NA-81-FA-C-00023. 246 pp- Payne, P.M., L.A. Selzer, P.W. Whan, and A.A. Whitman, 1985. The distribution, abundance, and selected prey of the harbor seal in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Lab. Ref. Doc, No. 85:15, NMFS/NEFC, Woods Hole, MA 02543. 32 pp. Payne, R. 1976. At home with right whales. Nat. Geog. 149:322-339. Payne, R., 0. Brazier, E.M. Dorsey, J.S. Pepkins, V.J. 11-Dwntree, and A. Titus, 1983.- External features in souther'n rigtit w4.ales (9'ubalaena australis) and their use in identifyinZ judividugls. Pp M@44@5 In: R. Payne (ed.) Communiation and Behabior' of Whates. WS selecteT Symposium No. 76. Westview Pres, Roulder, Co. Peddicord, R.K.and V.A. McFarland. 1978. Effects of Suspended Dredged Material on Aquatic Animals. Tech. Rep. D-78-29. U.S. Army Waterways Exp. Stat. Vicksburg. Miss. Pequegnat, W.E. 1978. An Assessment of the Potential Impact of Dredged Material Disposal in the Open Ocean. Tech. Rep. D-78-2. U.S. Army Waterways Exp. Stat. Vicksburg. Miss. Perkins, J., and H. Whitehead, 1977. Observations on three species of baleen whales off northern Newfoundland and adjacent waters. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 34:1436-1440. Perkins, J.S., K.C. Balcomb, III, C. Nichols, Jr., A.T. Hall, M. Smultea, and N. Thumser, 1985. Status of the west Greenland Humpback whale feeding aggregation, 1981-83. Rep. Int. VAial. Commn. 35:379-383. Perkins, J.S., and P.C. Beamish, 1979. Net entanglements of baleen whales in the inshore fishery of Newfoundland. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 36:521-528. Perkins, J.S., and P.J. Bryant, G. Nichols, and D.R. Patten, 1982. Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) off the west coast of Greenland. Can. J. Zool. 60:2921-2930. Perrin, W.F., R.R. Warner, C.H. Fiscus, and D.B. Holts, 1973. Stomach contents of Porpoises, Stenella spp and yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares in mixed species aggregations. Fish. Bull. 71:1077-1092. Pitcher, K.W. 1980a. Food of the harbor seal: Phoca vitulina richardsi in the Gulf of Alaska. Fish. Bull. 78:544-549. 372 Pitcher, K.W. 1980b. Stomach contents and feces as indicators of harbor seal, Phoca vitukina, foods in the Gulf of Alaska. Fishery Bulletin 78:797-798. Powers, K.D. 1982a. Ecological coherence of Georges Bank to populations of marine birds. Report to NMFS/NEFC, unpublished, 26 pp. Powers K.D. 1982b. A comparison of two methods of counting.birds at sea. J. Field Ornith. 53:209-222. Powers K.D. 1983. Pelagic distributions of marine birds off the north- eastern United States. NOAA Tech. Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-27. Woods Hole, MA. 199 pp. Powers, K.D., and E.H . Backus, 1981. The relationships of marine birds of oceanic fronts off the northeastern United States. D.O.E. Techn. Prog. Rept. (DOE Contract No. DE-AC02-78EV04706). Nov. 1981. Powers, K.D., and E.H. Backus. In press. Estimates of consumption by seabirds on Georges Bank. In R.H. Backus (ed.) Georges Bank and its surroundings. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 02139. Powers, K.D., and R.G. Brown. In press.. Bird life on Georges Bank to populations of cetaceans. Report to NMFSINEFC, unpublished, 20 pp. Powers, K.D. and P.M. Payne, 1983. Distribution of marine mammals, birds and turtles near the Deepwater Dumpsite 106 (DWD-106) and the Philadelphia Dumpsite (PDS). In J.B. Pearce et al. (eds.) Northeast Monitoring Program, 106-Mile STte Characterization Update, NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-26, Chap. 11. Powers, K.D., P.M. Payne, and S.J. Fitch, 1982. Distribution of Cetaceans, Seabirds and Turtles, Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia, June 1980-December.1981. Final Report to NMFSINEFC Contract No. NA-81-FA- C-00023. 163 pp. Powers, K.D., P.M. Payne, and D.S. Miller, 1980. A marine observer training program. Final Rept. to NMFS/NEFC, Contract No. NA-80-FA-D- 0004, Woods Hole, MA. 73 pp. Prescott, J.H., and P.M. Fiorelli, 1980. Review of the harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the U.S. Northwest Atlantic. Final Rept. to Marine Mamm..Commission Contract No. MM8ACO16, NTIS PB80-176928. 55 pp. Prescott, J.H., S.D. Kraus, P. Fiorelli, D.E. Caskin, G.J.D. Smith, and M. Brander, 1981. Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) distribution, abundance, survey methodology and preliminary notes on habitual use and threats. Final Rept. to National Marine Fish. Service (NEFC), Contract No. NA-80-FA-D-00009. 373 Prescott, R. 1986. Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepisochqiys kempi). In T. French (ed.). Endangered, threatened and spebial concern verteb-rate species in MassachtisetLs. Mass. Div. o4' Fisheries and Wildtil'o, Nongame and Endangered Species Program, Boston, MA. 02202 Gn press). Proni, J.K. 1976. Acoustic trac'king of oc"n-dqmped sewage sludge. Science 193:1005-1007. Pruell, R.J. and J.G. Quiun, 1985. Geochemistry of organic contaminant, in Narragansett Bay Sediments. Est. Cstl. Shlf. Sei. 21: 295-312. Rae, B.B 1965. The food of the common porp Ivise (Ph9coena phocoena). J. Zool. Lond. 146:114-122. Rand, G.M. and S.R. Petrocelli. 1985. Ft4rida-Mentals of Aquatic Toxicology. Hemispshere Publ. Co. W'404. Raytheon, 1974. Massport Marine Deepwater Terminal Study: Site and Terminal Selection. Raytheon Company,, Portsmouth, R.I. Prepared for the Massacahusetts Port Authority. Reese, J. R. and S. A. Chesser, 1985. Implementation of Corps/EPA Ocean Disposal Site Designation Gudiance at Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Environmental Effects of Dredging, Ir4ormation Exchange Bulleting. October 1985. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Reeves. R.R. 1975. The right whale. Conservationist 30:32-33, 45. Reeves, R.R. and R.L. Brownell, 1982. Baleen Whales Eubalaeha gacialis' and allies. Pp 415-444 In J.A. Chapman and G.A. Te7ldhamer (eds.) Wild Mammals of North America. Biology, Man,%gement and Economics. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore. 1147 pp. Reeves, R.R., S. Kraus, and P. Turnbull, 1983. Right whale refuge? Nat. His. 92:40-45. Reeves, R.R., J.G. Mead, and S. Katona, 1978. The right whale, Eubalaena glacialis in the western North Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 28:303-312. Rhoads, D.C., J.Y. Yingst and W. Ullman, 1978. Seafloor stability in central Long Island Sound: Pt. 1: Temporal changes in erodibility of fine-grained sediment, in Estuarine Interactions, M.L. Wiley, ed., Academic Press, 221-244. Rhoads, D.C. and L.F. Boyer, 1982. The effects of marine benthos on physical properties of sediments: a successional perspective. In Animal-Sediment Relations, P.L. McCall and M.J. Tevesz (Eds.). Plenum Press, New York, NY. pp. 3-15. 374 Richardson, D., S.K. Katona, and K. Darling, 1974. Marine Mammals pp. 9- 37 of Chapter 14 In TGIGOM (The research institute of the Gulf of Maine). A socio-economic and environmental inventory of the North Atlantic region, Sandy Hook to Bay of Fundy. V.1.(4) Bureau of Land Mgt. Marine Minerals Div. Contract #08550-CT3-8. Riser, N.W. and C.M. Jankowski, 1974. Physical, chemical, biological and oceanographic factors relating to disposal of dredged material in Massachusetts Bay - Phase 1. Northeastern University, Marine Science Institute, Nahant, MA. Riznyk, R.Z., J.T. Hardy, W. Pearson ' and L. Jabs. 1987. Short-term effects of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons on sea-surface microlayer phytoneuston. Bull. Environ. Contam.. Toxicol. 38: 1037-1043. Rosenthal, H. and D.F. Alderdice. 1976. Sublethal effects of environmental stressors, natural and pollutional on marine fish eggs and larvae. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33: 2047-2065. Ross, J.P. 1986. Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys cariacea). -In T. French (ed.). Endangered, threatened and special concern vertebrate species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife, Nongame and Endangered Species Program, Boston, MA. 02202 (in press). Rowlett, R.A. 1980.. Observations of. marine birds and mammals in the northern Chesapeake Bight. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Serv. Progr. FWS/OBS-80/04. Rubinstein, N.I., E. Lores and N. Gregory. 1983. Accumulation of PCBs, mercury and cadmium by Nereis virens, Mercenaria mercenaria and Palaemopotes Ra&j2 from contaminated harbor sediments. Technical Report D-83-4. Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, Fla. for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss. Saemundsson, B. 1939. Zoology of Iceland. Muntsgaard. Copenhagen. S.A.I.C., 1987. FADS Site Designation Study Data Report. Volumes I to III. Science Applications International Corporation. Contract DACW33-86-D- 0004 to New England Division, Corps of Engineers. Sailia, S.B., S.D. Pratt, T.T. Polgar. 1972. Dredge Spoil Disposal in Rhode Island Sound. Mar'. Tech. Rep. No. 2. U. Rhode Island. Kingston. Scammon, C.M. 1874. The marine mammals of the North-western coast of North America. Dover Publ., New York, NY. Schevill, C.M. 1956. Lagenorhynchus acutus off Cape Cod. J. Mammal. 27:128-129. 375 Schevill, W.E., and R.H. Backus, 1960. Daily patrol of a Megaptera. J. of Mamm. 41:279-281. Schevill, W.E., K.E. Moore, and W.E. WaLkins. 1981. RiLght Whale, Eubaletia glacialis, sightings in Cape Cod waters. Woods Hole Ocean. Inst. Tech. Rept. WHOI-81-50, Woods Hole, MA. 16 pp. Schimidly, D.J. 1981. Marine mammals of the southeastern United States coast and the Culf of Mexico. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Service, Biol. Serv. Progr. FWS/OBS-80/41. Schlee, J., D.W. Folger, and C.J. O'Hara, 1973. Bottom sediments on the Continental Shelf off the Northeastern UniteA States - Cape Cod to Cape Ann, Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey. Misc. geological Investigations Map 1-746. U.S.C.S. Washington, DC. Schoener, T.W. 1971. Theory of feeding strategies. Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2:369-404. Schubel, J.R. and J.C.S. Wang. 1973. The Effects of Suspended Sediment on the Hatching Success of Perca flavescens (Yellow Perch), Morone americana (White Perch), Monroe saxatilis (Striped Bass), and Alosa pseudoharengus (Alewife) Eggs. Chesp. Bay Inst. Spec. Rep. 30. Ref. 73-3. Schubel, J.R. and J.C.S. Wang. 1973. The Effects of Suspended Sediment on the Hatching Success of Perca flavescens (Yellow Perch), Morone americana (White Perch), Monroe saxatilis (Striped Bass), and Alosa pseudoharengus (Alewife) Eggs.- Chesp. Bay Inst. Spec. Rep. 30. Ref. 73-3. Schurman, V.R. 1983. Report on Nantucket grey seals, winter and spring 1983. NMFS/NEFC Contract No. NA-83-FB-A-00075. Schurman, V.R. 1986. Cray Seal (Halichoerus grypus). In T. French (ed.) Endangered, threatened.and special concern vertebrate species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife, Nongame and Endangered Species Program, Boston MA. 02202 (in press). Schwartz, J.P. 1987. 'PCB concentrations in marine fish and shellfish from Boston and Salem Harbors, and coastal Massachusett 's. Mass. Div. Ma'r. Fish. Cat Cove Marine Laboratory. Publication #14,997-36-110-8-87-CR. Science Applications, Inc. (SAI), 1985 Summary of Program Results 1981- 1984 DAMOS. Newport, RI. Scott, C.P. and J.R. Cilbert, 1982. Problems and Progress in the U.S. BLM-sponsored CETAP surveys. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 32:587-600. 376 Scott, C.P., R.D. Kenney, J.G. Gilbert, and R.K. Edel, 1981. Estimates of cetacean and turtle abundance in the CETAP study area with an analysis of factors affecting them. In A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the Mid- and Rorth Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer Continental Shelf. Ann. Rept. 1979, CETAP Program, Univ. of Rhode Island, prepared for Bureau of Land Mgmt., U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C. Scott, C.P., R.D. Kenney, T.J. Thompson, and H.E. Winn, 1983. Functional roles and ecological impacts of the cetacean community in the waters of the northeastern U.S. continental shelf. Int. Cons. Explor. Sea., C.M. 1983/N:12. Scott, G.P., and H.E. Winn, 19M Comparative evaluation of aerial and shipboard sampling techniques for estimating the abundance of Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Marine Mammal Comm. Contr. No. MM 7ACO29. Seber, G.A.F. 1973. The estimation of animal abundance. Hafner Publ. Co., Inc. New York. 506 pp. Sergeant, D.E. 1953. Whaling in Newfoundland and Labrador waters. Nor Hvalfang'st-Ticlencle, Aarg. 42:687-695. (439-447 in some vols.) Sergeant, D.E. 1958. Dolphins in Newfoundland waters. Can. field Nat. 72:156-159. Sergeant, D.E. 1961. Whales and Dolphins of the Canadian East Coast. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada., Circular No. 7. '17 pp. Sergeant, D.E 1962. The biology of the pilot or pothead whale (Globicephala melaena (Trail)) 1'n Newfoundland waters. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 132. 84pp. Sergeant, D.E. 1963. Minke Whales, Balaenoptera acutorostrata Lacepede, of the western North Atlantic. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 20:1489-1504. Sergeant, D.E. 1966. Populations of large whale species in the western North Atlantic with special references to the Fin Whale. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., circ. No. 9. Sergeant, D.E. 1968. Sightings of marine mammals. Int., Comm. North. Atl. Fish. Spec. Publ. No. 7:241-244. Sergeant, D.E. 1975. An additional food supply for Humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) and'Minke Whale's (Balaenoptera acuLorostrata). Int. Council. Expor. Sea..Mar. Mamm. Comm. CM 1975/No. 13:1-7. Sergeant, D.E. 1977. Stocks of Fin Whales Balaenoptera physalus L. in the North Atlantic Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 27:460-473. 377 Sergeant, D.E., and H.D. Fisher, 1957. The Smaller Cetacea of Eastern Canadian Waters. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 114:83-115. Sergeant, D.E., A.W. Mansfield, and B. Beck, 1970. Inshore records of Cetacea for eastern Canada, 1949-1968. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 27:1903- 1915. Sergeant, D.E., D.J. St. Aubin, and J.R. Ceraci, 1980. Life History and northwest Atlantic status of the Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus. Cetology 37:1-12. Setlow, L.W. 1973. Geological Investigation of the Project NOMES Dredging site. Publication No. 6937. Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA. Sherk, J.A., J.M. O'Connor, and D.A. Neumann. 1975. Effects of suspended sediments on estuarine environments. In Estuarine Research. L.E. Cronin (ed.). pp. 541-558. Sherman, K., M. Grosslein, D. Mountain, D. B;usch, J. O'Reilly, and R. Theroux. 1988. The continental shelf ecosystem off the Northeast Coast of the United States. In Ecosystems of the World Elsevier. Amsterdam. Sherman, K, M. Grosslein, D. Mountain, D. Busch, J. O'Reilly,and R. Thenouy 1988. The continental shelf ecosystem off the northeast coast of the United States. In (H. Poatma and JJ Zielstra PP 279.337 eds). Ecosystems of the World no. 27 Contenental Shelf. Elsevier. Sherman, K.C., C. Jones, L. Sullivan, W. Smith, P. Berrein, and L. Ejustment, 1981. Congruent shifts in sand eel abundance in western and eastern north Atlantic exosystems. Nature 291:486-489. Sherman, K., W. Smith, W. Morse, M. Berman J. Green, and Ejsymont. 1984. Spawning strategies of fishes in relation to circulation, phytoplankton production, and pulses in zooplankton off the northeastern United States. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 18: 1-19. Shettig, P., S. Chenworth, B. Surgens. 1980. Fishes. In: "An Ecological Characterization of Coastal Maine. Biological Serv. Prog. FWS 1OBS- 80/29. Vol 3. Shoop, C.R. 1980. Sea turtles in the northeast.. Maritmes, Nov. 1980 p. 9-11. Shoop, C.R., T.L. Doty, and N.E. Bray, 1981. Sea turtles in the region between Cape Hatteras and Nova Scotia in 1979. In A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the Mid- and North Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer contiental shelf. CETAP Program, Univ. of Rhode Island, prepared for Bureau of Land Mgmt., U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washinton, D.C. 378 Shoop, C.R., and C.A. Ruckdeschel, 1986. Atlantic Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmocely imbricata imbricata). :In T. French (ed.). Endangered, ti@reatened and specialconcern vert@-brate species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife, Nongame and Endangered Species Program, Boston, MA. 02202 (in press). Shoop, C.R., and C.A. Ruckdeschel, 1986. Atlantic Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas mydas). In T. French (ed.). Endangered, threatened and special concern vertebrate.species in Massachusetts. Mass. Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife, Nongame and Endangered Species Program, Boston, MA. 02202 (in press). Sinderman, C.J. 1979. Pollution associated diseases and abnormalities of fish and shellfish. Fish. Bull. 76: 719-749. Sissenwine, M.P., B.E. Brown, J.E. Palmer, and R.J. Essig, 1982. Emprical examination of population interactions for the fishery resources off the Northeastern USA. In M.C. Mercer (ed.) Multispecies approaches to fisheries Managment advice. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59;82-94. Sissenwine, M.P., W.J. Overholtz, and S.H. Clark. 1983. In search of density dependence., Pp. 119-138 In B.R. Melteff (ed.) Proceedings of the workshop on Marine Mammal Fishery - Interactions of the east Bering Sea. Univ. of Alaska Sea Grant, Fairbanks, AK. 300 pp. Smigielski, A.S., T.A. Halavik, L.J. Buckley, S.M. Drew, C.C. Laurence.. 1984. Spawning, embryo development and growth of the American sand lance Ammodytes ameridanus in the laboratory. Mar. Ecol, Prog. Ser. 14: 287-292. Smith, F.G. Walton, 1974. Handbook of Marine Science. Volume I. CRC Press. Smith, G.J.D., and D.E. Gaskin, 1974. The diet of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena [L.]) in,coastal waters of eastern Canada, with special reference to the Bay of Fundy. Can. J. Zool. 52:777-782. Smith, J., J.Y. Hauser and J. Bagg, 1985. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in sediments of the Great Barrier Reef region, Australia. Mar. Poll. Bull. 16: 110-114. Smith, W.D., L. Sullivan, and P. Berrien,.1978. Fluctuations in production of sand lance larvae in coastal waters off the northeastern United States, 1974 to 1977. ICES C.M. 1978/L:30, unpubl. Doc., 8 pp. Smith, W.O., Jr. 1982. The relative importance of chlorophyll, dissolved and particulate material and seawater to the vertical extinction of light. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 15: 459-465. 379 Sonstegard, R.A. and J.F. Leatherland. 1984 . Comparative epidemiology: the uses of fishes in assesssing carcinogenic contaminants. pp 224- 231 In: (V.W. Cainns et al. eds). Advances in Environmental Science and Technology. Contaminant effects on fisheries. Wiley. Sowl, L.W. and J.C. Bartonek, 1974. Seabirds - Alaska's most neglected resource. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 39:117-126. Stern, E.M. and W.B. Stickle. 1978. Effects of Turbidity and Suspended Material in Aquatic Environments. Tech. Rep. D-78-21. U.S. Army Waterways Exp. Stat. Vicksburg. Miss. Stick, D. 1958. The outer banks of North Carolina 1584-1958. U. No. Caro. Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Stoddard, A., R. Wells, and K. Devonald, 1985. Development and application of a deepwater ocean waste disposal model for dredged material: Yabucoa Harbor, Puerto Rico. MTS Jour. 19:26@39. Stone, G., S. Katona, and J. Beard, 1983. Whales in the Gulf of Maine 1978-1981. Report of the Gulf of Maine Whale Sighting Network. Sub-Sea Surveyors, Inc. 1973. Report of underwater television survey of Massachusetts Bay "Massachusetts Bay - Explosives" for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, MA. Kittery, ME. Sulivari-, B.K. and D. Hancock. 1977. Zooplankton and dredging: research perspectives from a critical review. Water Res. Bull. 13: 461-467. Sutcliffe, W.H., and P.F. Brodie, 1977. Whale distributions on Nova Scotia Waters Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Report No. 722. Fisheries and Mariene Service, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. 83 pp. Sutcliffe, W.H. Jr., R.H. Loucks, and K.F. Drinkwater, 1976. Coastal circulation and physical 'oceanography of the Scotian Shelf and the Culf of Maine. J. of the Fish. Res. Board of Canada. 33:98-115. Sweeney, R.A. 1978. Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations Ashtabula River Disposal Site, Ohio. Evaluative Summary. Tech. Rep. D-77-42. U.S. Army Waterways Exp. StAt. Vicksburg. Miss. Swenson, W.A. and M.A. Mat.son. 1976. Influence of turbidity on survival, growth, and distribution of larval lake herring (Coregonus artedii). Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 4: 541-545. Symada, T.J. 1983. The phytoplanklton of estuaries. In Estuaries of the World 26. Estuaries ani..t0c,losed Seas. B.H. Ketchum (ed.). Elsevier. pp. 65-102. 38U Tavolaro, J.F. 1982. Sediment budget study for clamshell dredging and disposal activities. Tech. Manuscript. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. Testaverde, S.A., and J.G. Mead, 1980. Southern distribution of the Atlantic whitesided dolphin, Lagenorgynchus acutus, in the western North Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 78:167-169. Thurston, R.U., R.C. Russo, C.M. Fetterolf, Jr., T.A. Edsall and Y. M. Barber, Jr. (Eds.) 1979. A review of the EPA Red Book: Quality criteria for water. Water Quality Section, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 313 p. Townsend, C.H. 1935. The distribution of certain whales as shown by logbook records of American whaleships. Zoologica 19:3-17. TRIGOM. 1974. A Socio-Economic and Environmental Inventory of the North Atlantic Region (Vol 1, Book 3). South Portland, Maine. True, F.W. 1904. The Whalebone Whales of the western North Atlantic compared with those occurring in European waters. Smithson. Contrib. Knwl. 33:1-332. Truitt, C.L. 1986. Fate of Dredged Material During Open-water Disposal. Envir. Effects Dredg. Tech. Notes. EEDP-01-2. U.S. Army Waterways Exp. Stat. Vicksburg. Miss. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Environmental Data Service, National Climatic Center, 1979. Climate of Massachusetts. Climatography of the United States, Asheville, NC. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Survey, 1980. Outer Continental Shelf Resource Management Map, Boston, NOS NK 19-4 (OCS), Rockville, MD. Van Bree, P.J., and H. Nigssen, 1964. On three specimens of Lagenorhynchus albirostris gray, 1846 (Mammalia, Cetacea). Beaufortia. 11:85-93. Viarengo, A. 1985. Biochemical effects of trace metals. Mar. Poll. Bull. 16:153-158 Wakeman, T., R. Peddicord, and J. Sustar. 1975. Effects of suspended solids associated with dredging operations on estuarine organisms. IEEE Ocean '75. pp. 4317-436. Watkins, W.A., K.E. Moore, J. Sigurjonsson, D. Wartzok, and G.N. di Sciara, 1981. Finback whale, Balaenoptera physalus tracked by radio from Icelandic to Greenlandic waters. ICES-CM-1981/N:16. 381 Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Schevill, 1976. Right whale feeding and baleen rattle. J. Mamm. 57:58-66. Watkins, W.A. and W.E. Schevill, 1979. Aerial observation of feeding behavior in four baleen whales: Eubalaena glaciais, Balaenoptera borealis, Magaptera novaeangliae, and Balaenoptera physalus. J. Mamm. 60:155-63. Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Schevill, 1982. Observations of right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, in Cape Cod waters. Fishery Bulletin 80:875-880. Watson, L. 1981. Sea guide to whales of the world. E.P. Dutton, New York. 302 pp. Wedemeyer, G.A., D.J. McLeay, and C.P. GOGdyear. 1984. Assessing the tolerance of fish and fish populations to environmental stress: the problems and methods of monitoring. In Contaminant Effects on Fisheries. V.W. Cairns et al. (eds.). Advances in Environ. Sci. Tech. Wiley. pp. 163-195. Weinrich, M.T. 1982. Biology of the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae): Northern Stellwagen Bank, Summer, 1981. Cetacean Researc Unit Special Report No. 1. Weinrich, M.T. 1985. Long term association patterns of humpback whales in the southern Gulf of Maine. Pp. 18-27 In Humpback whales of the southern Gulf of Maine: recent findings on habitat use, social behavior and feeding patterns. Cet. Res. Unit, Clouc. Fish. Mus.f Gloucester, MA. Weinrich, M.T., C.R. Belt, H.J. Iken, and M.R. Schilling. 1985. Individual variation in feeding patterns of humpback whales (Megatera novaeangliae) in New England. Pp. 28-41 In Humpback whales of the southern Gulf of Maine: recent findings on habitat use, social behavior and feeding patterns. Get. Res. Unit, Glouc. Fish. Mus., Gloucester, MA. W@iss, H.B. 1974. Whaling in New Jersey. N.J. Agricul. Soc., Trenton, NJ. Whitehead, H. 1982. Populations of humpback whales in the northwest. Atlantic. Rept. Int. Whal. Comm. 32:345-353. Whitehead, H., K. Chui J. Perkins, P. Bryant, and C. Nichols, Jr. 1983. Population size, stock identity and distribution of the humpback whales off West Greenland summer 1981. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 33:497-502. 382 Whitehead, H., and C. Glass. 1985a. The significance of the southeast Shoal of the Grand Bank to humpback whales and other cetacean species. Can. J. Zool. 63:2617-2625. Whitehead, H.', and C. Glass. 1985b. Orcas (killer whaLes)'-attack humpback whales. J. Mamm. 66:183-185. Whitehead, H., P. Harcourt, K. Inghamy' and H. Clark. 1980.' The mi gration of humpback whales, past the,Bay de Verde Peninsula, Newfoundland, during June and July, 1978". Can. J. Zool. 58:687-692. Whitehead, H., and M.J. Moore. 1982. Distribution and movements of West Indian humpback whales in winter. Can. J. Zool. 60:2203-2211.. Whitehead, H., R. Silver, and P. Harcourt. 1982. The migration of humpback whales along the northeast coast of Newfoundland. Can. J. Zool. 60:2173-2179. Wildish, D.J. and J. Power. 1985. Avoidance of suspended sediments by smelt as determined by a new "single fish" behavioral bioassay. Bull. Environ. Contam. Tox. 34: 770-774. Willett, C.F. 1972. Final Report of Massachusetts Coastal Mineral Inventory Survey. Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA. Williams, A. B. 1984. Shrimps, Lobsters, and Crabs of the Atlantic Coast of the Eastern United States, Maine to Florida. Smith. Inst. Press. Washington D.C. Windsor, J.G. Jr. and R.A. Hites, 1979. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Gulf of Maine sediments and Nova Scotia soils. Geo. ef. Cosno. Acta. 43: 27-33. Winn, H.E., R.K. Edel, and A.G. Taruski. 1975. Population estimates of the humpback whale (Magaptea novaeangliae) in the West Indies by visual and acoustic techniques. J. Fish. Res. Rd. Can. 32:499-506. Winn, H.E., D.R. Goodale, M.A.M. Hyman, R.D. Kenney, C.A. Price, and G. P. Scott. 1981. Right whale sightings and the right whale minimum count. In 'A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the Mid- and North-Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer Continental Shelf. Ann. Rept. 1979, CETAP Program, Univ. of Rhode Island, prepared for Bureau of Lnd Mgmt., U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington D.C. Winn, H.E., P.W. Sorenson, and C.A. Price. 1984. The distributional biology of the right whale, Eubalaena galacialis, from Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia. Draft Final Rept., Contract No. 14-12-0001-30091. Min. Mgmt. Serv., U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 383 Wolf,D.A. et. al. 1982. Effects of toxic substances on communities and ecosystems. In Ecologicasl Stress and the New York.Bight. Science and Management. G.F. Myer (ed.). Est. res. Fed. South. Carolina. pp. 68- 86. Wright, T.D. 1978. Aquatic Dredged Material Disposal Impacts. Tech. Rep. DS-78-1. U.S. Army Waterways Exp. Stat. Vicksburg, Miss. Yingst, J Y. and D.C. Rhoads. 1978. Seafloor stability in central Long Island Sound. Pt. II. Biological interactions and their potential importance for seafloor erodibility, in Estuarine Interactions, M.L. Wiley, ed., Academic Press, N.Y., 603 pp. Ziskowski, J.J., L. Despres-Patanjo, R.A. Murchelano, A.B. Howe, D. Ralph, and S. Atran. 1987. Disease of commercially valuable fish stocks in the nortwest Atlantic. Mar. Pol. Bull. 18: 496-594. 384 APPENDIX I Ai APPENDIX LIST OF TABLES Page Table I-1 Results of the Bivariate Analysis of A-1 Near-surface (10 m) 3-HLP Current Speed and Direction at FADS (20 Sept. - 18 Oct., 1985). Table 1-2 Results of the Bivariate Analysis of A-2 Near-bottom (82m) 3-HLP Current Speed and Direction at, FADS (20 Sept. - 18 Oct., 1985). Table 1-3 Results of the Bivariate Analysis of A-3 Near-bottom (82m) 3-HLP Current Speed and Direction at FADS (15 Feb. - 2 Apr., 1986) Table 1-4 Results of the Bivariate Analysis of A-4 Near-surf ace (8 m) 3-HLP Current Speed and Direction at FADS (12 Sept. - 19 Oct., 1987) Table 1-5 Results of the Bivariate Analysis of Mid- A-5 depth (25 m) 3-HLP Current Speed and Direction at FADS (12 Sept. - 19 Oct. , 1987) Table 1-6 Results of the Bivariate Analysis of Mid- A-6 depth (55 m) 3-HLP Current Speed and Direction at FADS (12 Sept. - 19 Oct., 1987) Table 1-7 Results of the Bivariate Analysis of A-7 Near-bottom (84 m) 3-HLP Current Speed and Direction at FADS (12 Sept. - 19 Oct., 1987) Aii APPENDIX LIST OF FIGURES Eage Figure I-1 Results of Direct Reading Current Meter A-8 (DRCM) casts at the Foul Area Disposal Site. Figure 1-2 Results of CTD cast at the Foul Area, 1 A-20 September 1987 Aiii Table I-1 Results Of The Bivariate Analysis Of 3-HLP Current Meter Data Collected At FADS At A Depth Of 10m For The Period Of Sep 20 - Oct 18, 1985 "I 1.0 OKI MIA 5TAYIm FMI 3w VA11111111 Vinim To IfiIlia 674 MIA Folms 11RECTIN KKW NEN Nil NAI its. W.- KGREES WW IKED V111 1- 30 .4 4.6 3.0 1.8 .1 .6 .1 .3 11.9 23.34 3.14 77.44 14.24 30-0 .1 2.410.4 5.3 .1 .1 .1 .0 20.2 77.11 5.36 63.17 8.31 w 1.3 2.1 1.3 4.5 .1 .6 .0 .6 17.1 24.0 3.62 0.30 9.21 W120 .3 1.2 3.3 .6 .3 .1 .0 .1 3.6 23. n 2.46 mas 9.26 120-150 .6 1.4 2.1 .4 .4 . 1 .6 . 0 4.3 23. Oil It." 31." MW IWIN 12.1 1.2 .6 . 1 .3 . 1 .0 4.6 25.0 7.63 U.53 14.14 IW218 11.9 1.6 .6 .6 .3 .1 .0 3.1 22.74 33.12 I5.n 210-20 1.2 2.2 1.2 1.2 .1 .1 .4 .0 6.1 20.20 3.39 $3.23 12.93 ZW270 1.1 2.4 .& .4 .1 .# .0 .8 5.5 15.72 2.11 43.50 11.71 270-300 2.1 3.1 2.1 .1 .6 .0 .1 7.9 16.42 1.0 30.12 1.63 300-330 3.1 1.3 .3 .0 .4 .0 .9 3.3 14.17 S." 32.14 7.11 330-= 1.2 3.3 1.6 .6 .0 .1 .1 .1 3.5 13.47 2.10 28.29 4.30 RID A 10 20 34 0 30 W 70 Coll It 20 R 0 54 U 70 10 KRCENT 11.0 29.1 31.1 16.3 2.4 1.0 .4 .3 IN." NEAK 011 214 183 Ill 14 123 lit 64 9 $TO KV 104 114 f3 74 79 31 " 17 KMWV ITATIVICS NEM PEED v 22.41 CN/S 1141110 a 77.44 CN/3 NININIM 8 .43 CNIS RANK 77.01 CH/I ITANHAI KVIATION a 10.60 CNIB KERESS a v 11 A COONDINATE BVITEN 9W V ARM 11 MITIOKI .0 KWIJ CLOCKNIK FM 11% OWN OEM I CWOKNl 9 1.16 m/1 ITANW KVIATION a 16.41 CNIS KIVNFU a -.24 Ilm I CNPMT a 4.81 CNIS SIMON KVIATIN @ 14.32 CN/1 IMEWAN a -.43 Table 1-2 Results Of The Bivariate Analysis of 3-HLP Current Meter Data Collected At PADS At A Depth Of 82m (4m from the bottom) For The Period Of September 20 - October 18, 1985 mom 11111111111111110 1.0 MAI SAII1 MATIEN run 31111Y WANNINS 9/20/03 M If/joIn 675 MIA "IN" IIIAECIIN PMW KAN Vs AU DID. W. DEWS SPEED SKES rut 0- 34 2.1 1.2 .3 A .6 .1 .6 3.1 6.31 .43 17.0 S.T5 2.5 .1 .1 1.6 1.0 .1 .0 6.2 1.61 .21 21.33 1.23 4.1 1.2 .3 .1 1.1 1 .4 1.4 7.43 .11 ?1.11 7.4 W120 3.1 3.4 2.1 1.3 1.9 A .0 13.6 1.13 .11 21.31 -6.9 120-150 33 .6 .7 3 .9 .9 .0 7.1 1.35 .17 23.16 7.0 IWI14 2.4 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .6 3.4 5.63 A 23.P 3.61 IW211 2.1 .4 .1 .4 .1 .4 .6 33 S." .33 16.36 4.06 ):0 210-246 4.4 .6 .1 .3 ..4 .0 .6 3.1 4.37 .62 19.63 4.97 2"-270 5.2 2.2 .0 .6 1.3 .4 . 1 9.9 4.56 .21 24.91 1.13 2@0-VG 7.4 4.3 1.4 2.2 3.6 1.1 .0 20.3 9.02 .43 23.39 7.34 300-330 4.0 .6 .4 .6 1.3 .1 .0 7.3 1.2 .17 20.011 7.06 330-UO 3.7 .4 .0 3 .7 .0 .6 1.6 .23 6.0 SPEEB 4 4 1 12 16 20 24 CNIS 4 8 12 11 20 24 21 PEAUNT 49.0 1&.0 3.3 11.3 14.2 4.6 .1 100.00 KAN sit 113 117 160 171 114 199 2113 sic KY 102 Its 104 it 0 SLOINARY STATISTICS NEAN SPEED a 7.0 CNIS NAZINLIN a 24.59 CH/S NINIMIN a .02 CNIS UM 24.57 CIUS STANDARD DEVIATIN a 1.1111 CN/S SrENNESS a .70 lot A CMINATE SISTER WS I MIS 11 PBSIIIWI .0 USKEI CLOUN16E FIN TAX 10111 MEN I CWWNT a -.33 CN/1 STARMS KVIATIN a 1.0 CNIS INEVIESS 0 -.1& KAN I CWIPQKNI a .53 CN/1 STANDARD DEVIATION N 3.11 MIS UUNESS a .21 Table 1-3 Results of the Bivariate Analysis of Near-bottom (82m) 3-HLP Current Speed and Direction at FADS (15 Feb. - 2 Apr., 1986) I.1111 WAV WIN 17011111 F031 SW WON 21151% To $13116 fill MIA Polm IIKCTIN MUNI am NIN W M. NEW. KOKO INOW go Wo 0- 31 4.1 .6 .1 .0 .6 .0 .1 -0 -1 -4 -4 4.6 1.* 1& &.n 210 0 5.1 .1 .1 .1 .9 .0 .4 .1 .1 .1 .0 6.4 2.100 .13 7.12 2.23 " L92 1.5v 96-129 14.6 3.6 .3 .1 .0 .0 .4 .1 .9 .6 .0 11.5 3-15 -21 16-14 2.61 In-ISO 14.4 1.3 .1 .4 .1 .1 .0 .4 .1 .1 .0 13.9 3.72 .13 JIM 2.33 twin 4.1 1.3 .1 .0 .6 .1 .1 .1 .1 .6 .0 5.6 3.62 A 7.34 2.65 IW-210 6.2 1.2 .1 .4 .1 .2 .0 .1 .1 .0 .6 8.1 4." .21 0.16 6.0 211-20 43 1.2 .6 .4 .6 .1 .2 .1 .1 .4 .2 7.1 9.43 X 54.56 13.31 240-210 i.1 .3 .3 A .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 LIS LIS .17 17.27 21" 270-306 7.6 1.2 .7 .1 .4 A A .1 .6 .0 .0 9.5 3.91 .33 16-50 3.37 30-:136 5.1 .1 .1 .6 .0 .0 .6 .1 .4 .6 .6 6.1 3.63 .11 10.5 2.2 331-3ia L2 .5 .6 .0 .6 .6 .1 .4 .1 .4 .0 3.7 3.29 .17 7.11 1.61 0 S 14 13 X 25 X X 6 31 an I It Is it 23 x is 0 45 31 9 HXUI 79.2 16.2 2.4 1.6 .1 .2 .2 .1 .2 .4 .2 too." KAN Ill 169 IN 211 210 0 JU 213 211 269 213 212 M KV a P n 31 1 44 " I x " IM PATIPIC11 MEM ro a 4.07 04 1101111111 0 54.36 Clus 11111lu 0 .0 C11111 1W 34.41 all IT KVIATIN a 4.91 C1111 11111103 a 6.04 to A COMINIT "M wit Y 11131 Is PWITIND A IF Fir CIMNIF Wool! 11K MTN RAN I C101KNO 0 .21 CIUS ITAN10111=4111111m 4.111CII/I 1KIEWA a -2.04 I W11131 0 -1.0 Clio mown KVIATIN 11.61 CNIII 0KEIK11 * -1.14 Table 1-4 Results of the Bivariate Analysis of Near-surface (8 m) 3-HLP Current Speed and Direction at FADS (12 Sept. - 19 Oct., 1987) F:I9UINCv 91111111MITION .00 HOURLY DATA 144 DATA POINTS ECTION PERCENT NEAR him RAI ITS. DEVI SPEED SPEED SPEED 0- 30 5.1 2.1 1.2 .1 .1 .6 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 8.0 0.34 .36 5O.T5 8.09 so- 60 10.7 1.1 5.1 2.6 1.1 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 30.0 32.33 .08 52.94 1.52 60- 90 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .0 .1 .31 .31 .31 .00 90-120 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .36 .19 .33 4.24 120-150 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .44 .44 .44 .00 150-140 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .46 .45 .47 4.Vi M-210 9.2 4.1 2.0 .7 .0 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .0 15.2 7.11 .22 261.24 6.63 210-240 11.0 11.5 7.1 2.1 3.4 2.3 I.S .1 1.5 .7 .2 44.4 18.19 .23 72.03 16.44 240-2?0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .43 .43 .43 .00 2?0-100 .1 .0 .0 1* .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .29 .29 .79 .00 300-330 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .43 .35 .31 4.91 330-360 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .31 .12 .64 4.27 SPEED 0 1 14 21 28 35 42 49 36 63 70 Coll 7 14 21 26 35 42 49 Sh 6j 70 17 PERCENT 36.6 27.1 16.0 7.3 3.3 2.4 1.3 1.2 1.5 .7 .2 100.00 MEAN oil IS4 115 140 144 151 M 179 173 Ill 211 211 M BEV 95 99 102 104 161 99 IDS to? 22 96 1101 SUMMARY STATISTICS MEAN SPEED - 13.99 CRIS NAIIHUN - 72.03 CNIS MINIMUM a .09 CRIS RANGE 71.93 CRIS STANDARD DEVIATION - 13.34 CM/5 SKEWNESS - 1.79 IN A COORDINATE SYSTEM WHOSE Y Axis Is POSITIONED .00 DEGREES CLOCKWISE FROM TRUE MONTH MEAN I CONPONINI - -2.60 CRIS STANDARD DEVIATION - 9.56 CRIS SKEWNESS - -.73 "IAN I COMPONENT - -4.41 Cools STANDARD DEVIATION - 15.99 CN/s SKEWNESS - -.17 Table 1-5 Results of the Bivariate Analysis of Mid-depth (25 m) 3-HLP Current Speed and Direction at FADS (12 Sept6 19 Oct., 1987), Ullon 941 SAVA POINTS : 1CI;oM PERCENT MEAN Him "As M. DIV. 11:11EI spite SPEED Spite 0- 30 .7 3.9 3.3 1.9 1.2 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11.2 12.74 .23 29.89 4.43 30 - 60 .7 1.5 2.7 1.2 .6 .7 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.4 13.38 1.27 30.40 9.06 60- 90 .7 .7 1.9 2.4 .3 .1 .0 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 6.3 13.93 2.91 25.50 5.34 90 -120 .1 t.3 1.7 2.1 .4 .0 .0 .0 :0 .0 .0 .0 5.4 13.36 4.51 21.13 5.97 120-130 .4 1.9 2.1 .9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 10.69 .82 19.32 4.06 '50-'mo -6 .6 .0 .6 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 11.14 1.02 22.91 6.34 too -210 :44 '2-'0 .98 .2 .1 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.8 13.23 2.01 26.14 2.42 210 -240 1 3 2.0 2.3 2.0 .9 .4 .4 S .0 .0 .0 .0 9.8 14.98 .96 39.17 9.43 240 -210 :2 2.0 2.5 2.4 .9 .6 .4 .4 . 1- .7 .6 .1 10.9 20.77 .9 56.39 14.19 270-300 .3 2.0 4.3 2.0 .1 .5 .11 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10.7 14.59 1.69 31.93 6.70 300-310 .6 1.9 4.0 2.3 2.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11.0 14.34 2.33 24.94 5.71 330-3&0 .1 2.7 4.3 3.0 1.1 .2 .0 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.0 12.87 2.15 26.70 6.13 SPEED 0 S 10 13 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 35 CNII 5 to Is 30 23 30 3 40 45 50 55 60 Ln PERCENT 7.0 23.5 31.2 20.9 9.9 3.7 1.5 .8 .1 .7 .6 .1 100.00 REA" Din 195 163 200 1% 213 164 235 241 265 232 259 731 $is DEV 109 113 Ill 114 106 115 69 31 0 40 52 01 SUMMARY STATISTICS MEAN SPEED * 14.22 CHI$ MAXIMUM - 56.39 CHI$ MINIMUM e .23 CNIS RANIE 56.14 CNIS STANDARD DEVIATION a 9.02 CHI$ SKIVNESS - 1.64 IN A COORDINATE SYSTEM VNOSE v Ails Is POSITIONED .00 SEIRE16 LLOCKNIIE FROM TRUE WORTH MEAN A COMPONENT 0 -3.26 CM/5 STANDARD DEVIATION - 12.09 CHIS SKEWNESS 75 MEAN I COMPONENT - 2.10 CHI$ STANDARD DEVIATION - 10.39 CRIB SKENNEss -.20 Table 1-6 Results of the Bivariate Analysis of Kid-depth (55 m) 3-HLP Current Speed and Direction at FADS (12 Sept. 19 Oct., 1987) FIkfQU9*Cv DISTRIBUTION 1.00 NOUALV BAIA 947 DATA POINTS : RECTION PERCENT HE" NIN RAI M. DIV. tIMAILS SPEED SPEED SPEED 3:_ 30 .1 .7 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.2 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.6 7.72 1.38 13.00 3.32 A 4 1.69 14.37 2.71 60 -90 1A I : 1 '14 : 1 :2, :01 :00 :00 :00 3 :7 '402 2.48 16.54 3.41 90-120 .1 .7 2.2 1.6 2.2 .4 .7 .1 .6 .0 .0 .0 9.9 8.04 1.39 11.22 3.69 120 -151 .0 -3 .9 1.2 1.9 1.3 .6 .3 .2 .0 .0 .0 7.4 9.37 2.21 11.40 3.10 151-111 :1 :1 1:1 1 2:16 .8 :2 :1 :10 :: :0 :0 7 2 a 9 14.22 3.36 1 3 7 0 0 is - 5 7:2 8:'882 1:'03 " 44 3 25 21: 240 .11 .0 .0 .41 .0 .0 6.3 7.64 .79 $,:It 2:94 - 0 240 210 35 .4 .6 5.4 7.41 .49 11.. 94 1.41 '7 .1 .0 13.6 9.18 1.79 10.40 3.04 270 300 1 1.2 a 3 Soo 330 3.2 1: 15.3 10.49 1.31 21.16 3.49 :' S:1' ;:26 2.0 1.' :0, :6' :10 330 360 .0 4 2 2 a 9.7 9.11 2.29 32.66 3.07 SPEED 4 2 4 A I to 12 14 14 Is 20 22 CRIS 2 4 6 1 10 12 14 14 18 2* 22 24 mcm 1.9 3.9 14.2 20.7 23.8 13.1 11.2 4.4 1.9 .2 .1 .1 100.00 NEAR Din III 1@$ 172 193 199 217 232 239 It? 302 324 331 %is SEV is Sit 104 104 SOS III too 92 so11 45 0 01 SURMARV STATISTICS NEAR SPHO - L, CRIS HANINUN - 22.64 Call NININUN - .69 CII/s NANG[ 21.97 CNII w IS DEVIATION - 3.43 CRIS SKEWNESS a .2# IN a COORDINATE ITITIN "most v Axis Is POSITIONED .00 MAKES CLOCKWISE FRON TRUE NORIN AN COMPOHM a -1.26 Call NIANDAND DEVIATION - 6.56 CRIS SKEWNESS - .16 :,,AN COMPONIMI 0 .97 CRIS STANDARD DEVIATION - 6.36 CM SKEWNESS a -.20 Table 1-7 Results or the Bivariate Analysis or Near-bottom (84 m) 3-HLP current,Speed and Direction at FADS (12 Sept. - 19 Oct., 1987) FREQUENCY 612FRIGUIJORS 1.09 HOURLY DATA 9414 PERCENT HEAR "IN MAE BID. DIV. D16NEES 11?1411 Mae still 0- so 4.0 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 4.4 1.47 .91 3.60 .72 30- 60 &.1 .6 .4 .4 .0 .0 1 .0 .0 .0 7.6 2.14 .69 IS.11 1.14 io- 90 5.4 .1 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .1 .4 .0 7.4 2.10 .54 14.02 1.01 90-120 I.t 1.1 .3 .3 .6 .0 .1 .01 .0 .0 .0 16.4 3.2k .39 12.73 3.19 120-150 6.0 1.9 .6 .2 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.0 2.30 .33 9.041 1.35 150-180 5.3 .6 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.6 1.66 .33 4.14 .34 lot)-2.10 3.1 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 1.54 .81 3.11 .27 21o-24v 3-2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.2 1.33 .49 1.91 .08 240-2)o 4.6 .6 .1 1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 1.16 .44 9.41 1.22 210-300 11.3 2.2 .7 .3 1.1 .4 .3 .9 .4 .1 .0 is.2 3.91 .23 12.20 4.47 Soo-330 10.9 2.0 1.2 A- .6 .5 .5 .1 .1 .1 .1 16.6 3.39 .21 21.41 3.78 330-JAU 4.3 .9 .4 .2 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.0 2.24 .463 9.72 1.91 SPEED 0 2 4 h I to 12 14 Ill Is 20 W11 2 4 6 1 10 12 14 IS, 1$ 20 22 PERCENT 73.4 11.7 4.6 2.6 2.0 1.7 1.2 1.2 .5 .3 .1 106.011 NEAR AIR 192 20S 201 207 243 207 25? 2&7 294 29? 301 SIR Div 103 1*$ Sao 114 so 93 91 47 13 45 01 SUMMARY STATISTICS -j MEAN SPEED e 2-68 CRIS HAIINUM - 21.47 CNIS MINIMUM - .23 Coll 14*61 21.24 CHM SIANDARS, bEVIATION e 3.01 CRIS IKEMNE69 a 3.00 IN A COORDINATE IIVSTEN WHOSE v All$ Is POSITION[at .00 DEGREES CLOCKWISE FRON TRUE NORIN MEAN I COMPUNENI . -.49 CHI& SIAMOAkG DEVIATION - 3.41 CHIII SKINNE1111 a -1.41 Mlok v ConvUhial - .43 CRIS STANDARD DEVIATION - 2.62 CRIS SKEWNESS a 1.33 0 - 0- June 6, 1985 to - 10 - Buoy "A" 20 - 20 No Date Available 42* 25.671N 30 - 30 - 700 35.004W 40 - 40 - 50 - 50 4-j CL 60 M 60 70 - 70 80 - 80 90 - 90 - too 100 t I I I I --I 0 90 180 270 360 25 27 29 31 33 35 Direction (deg T) Salinity (ppt) 0- 0- -10- to - 20 - 20 - 30 - 30 - 40 - 40 - 50 - 50 - OL 60 - OL 60 - CS 70 - 70 - so - so - 90 90 100 100 0 20 40 60 0 3 6 9 12 15 Speed (cm/s Temperature (deg Q Figure I-1 Results of direct reading current meter casts at the Foul Area Disposal Site. 0 - 0 - July 2, 1985 10 - to - No Data Available 420 25.647N 20 - 20 - 700134.413W 30 - 30 - -g 40 - 40 - 50 - 50 - Cx 60,- 60 - Cs 70 - 70 - 80 - 80 - 90 90 too 100 0 90 180 270 360 25 27 29 31 33 35 Direction (deg T) Salinity (ppt) 0- 0 - 10 - 10 - 20 - 30 30 - 40 - 40 - 50 - 50 - CL 60 - OL 60 - 70 - 70 - 80 - 80 - 90 90 too too 0 20 40 60 0 3 6 9 12 15 Speed (cm/s Temperature (deg C) .Figure I-1 continued 0 0 10 - to- August 6, 1985 20 - 20 No Data Available Buoy "All 30 - 30 42* 25.67IN 40 - 40 700 35.004W 50 - 50 CL 60 - CX 60 70 - 70 80 - 80 90 - 90 too i I I 1 --1 100 0 90 180 270 360 25 27 29 31 33 35 Direction (deg T) Salinity (ppt) 0 - 0- 10 - 10- 20 - 20- 30 - 30- 40 - 40- 50 - 50- 1% cL 60 - -.'% CL so- CS -j CS 70 - 70- BO - 80- 90 - 90 too - 100 0 20 40 60 5 8 11 14 17 20 Speed (cm/s Temperature (deg C) Figure I-I continued 0 0 10 - 10 September 19, 1985 20 - 21 420 25.993N 30 -4 30 700 34.926W 40 E 40 7!; 50 50 CL 0 C3 60 60 70 70 J 80 - 80 90 - 90 100 100 0 90 180 270 360 29 30 31 32 33 34 Direction (deg T) Salinity (ppt) 0 0 0 10 10 - L 10 20 20 20 - 30 - 30 30 I %E 40 E 40 E 40 50 - 50 50 CL 6o - 60 cL 60 70 - 70 70 80 80 80 90 90 90 100 100 00 0 20 40 60 5 8 11 14 17 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 Speed (cm/s Temperature (deg C) Sigma-t Figure continued 11 0 0 0 10 - 10- October 17, 1985 20 - 20- Cast # 1 30 - 30- Buoy "A" 40 - 40- 420 25.671N 50 - 50- 700 35.004W 4j C@. 60 - C3- 60- CIE 70 - 70- 80 - 80- 90 90 i0o 1001 0 90 180 270 360 29 30 31 32 33 34 Direction (deg T) Salinity (ppt) 0- 0 - 10 - 10- 10 - 2o - 20- 20 - 30 - 30- 30 - 40 - 401- rr4 40 - 50 - 50,- 50 - C3. Cx 60 - 60- a) 60 - 70 - 70- 70 80 - 80- 80 - 90 90 90 - 100 100 100- 0 20 40 60 5 8 11 14 17 20 22 23 24 25 26 Speed (cm/s Temperature (deg Q Sigma-t Figure I-1 continued 0 0 0 January 31, 1986 10 - 10 Cast # 2 20 20 Buoy "A" 30 - 30 420 25.6,71N E 40 - E 40 700 35.004W -C 50 50 CL 60 - R- 60 70 - 70 80 - 80 90 - 90 100 100 ------ 0 90 180 270 360 29 30 31 32 33 34 Direction (deq T) Salinity (ppt) 0 0 10 - 10 10 20 - 20 20 30 - 31 30 40 - E 40 E 40 50 - 50 50 IL 60 CEDL 60 cL 60 M 70 70 70 BO 80 80 90 90 90 100 . .. ............... 100 100 0 20 40 60 0 1 2 3 4 5 22 23 24 25 26 27 Speed (cm/9 Temperature (dog 0 Si9mo-t Figure I-1 continued 0 0 to to - January 31, 1906 Cast # 3 20 20- Buoy "A" 30 30- 420 25.671N ZR 40 40- 700 35.004W A-- 50 50- 4-a 60 60- 70 70- 80 80- 90 90 too o 10 0 90 180 270 360 29 30 31 32 33 34 Direction (deg T) Salinity (ppt) 0 - 0- 0- 10 - 10- 10- 20 - 20- 20- 30 - 30- 30- -a 40 - 40- 40- 50 - 50- 50- CL 60 - 6o- w 60- 70 - 70- 70- 80 - 80- 60- 90 90- 90- 100 100 100 -1 0 20 40 60 0 1 2 3 4 5 22 23 24 25 26 27 speed (CM/S Temperature (deg C) Sigma-t Figure I-1 continued 0 0 0 January 31, 1986 10 10 Cast # 4 20 20 Buoy $'A@' 30 30 420 25.671N 40 40 700 35.0-04W 50 50- 4-j '. 60 - 60- CS CS 70 - 70- 80 - 80- 90 - 90- 100 100- 01 90 180 270 360 29 30 31 32 33 34 Direction (deg T) Salinity (ppt) 0 - 0- 0- to - 0- 10 - Ln 20 - 20- 20 - 30 - 30- 30 - v 40 - 40- 40 - 50 - 50- 50 - OL 60 - 60- 60 - CS 70- 70 - 70 - 80 - 80- 80 - 90 90 90 too 100 100 0 20 40 60 0 1 2 3 4 5 22 23 24 25 26 27 Speed (cm/s Temperature (deg Q Sigma-t Figure 1-1 continued 0 0 1, 1986 10 - to February Cast # 5 20 - 20 Buoy "All 30 - 30 - 420 25.671N 40 - 40 - 700 35.004W 50 - 50 - 60 - CX 60 - IM 70 - 70 - 80 - 80 - 90 90 100 -1 i0o 0 90 180 270 360 29 30 31 32 33 34 Direction (deg T) Salinity (Opt) 0 - 0 - 10 - to - 20 - 20 - 20 - 30 - 30 - 30 - 40 - 40 - 40 - 50 - 50 - 50 - CL c' 60 - 60 - cx 60 - CS CS 70 - 70 - 70 - 80 - 80 - BO - 90 90 - 90 100 1 100 I I I too- 0 20 40 60 3 4 5 6 7 8 22 23 24 25 26 23 Speed (cm/s Temperature (deg Q Sigma t Figure I-1 continued 0 0 February 1, 1986 10 - 10 Cast # 6 "A" Buoy 20 - 20 420 25.671N 30 - 30 700 35.004W iff 40 - 40 50 - 50 60 CU 60 - Cm 70 - 70 80 - 80 90 90 L 100 too 0 90 IBO 270 360 29 30 31 32 33 34 Direction (deg T) Salinity (ppt) 0 - 0- 0 10 - to- 10- 20 - 20- 20- 30 - 30- 30- 40- 40 - 40- 50 - 50- 50- 60 - 60- 60- CD 70 - 70- 70- 80 - 80- 80- 90 90- 90 L 100 100- 100 0 20 40 60 0 1 2 3 4 5 22 23 24 25 26 27 Speed (cm/s Temperature (deg C) Sigma-t Figure I-I continued 0 0 10 - to - February 14, 1986 20 - 20 - 42* 25.40ON 30'::'- 30 - 700 32.995W :9 40 - 40 - 50 - 50 - 60 - 60 - 70 - 70 - 80 - 80 - 90 90 too to() 0 90 180 270 360 29 30 31 32 33 34 Direction (deg T) Salinity (ppt) 0 - 0 - 0 - OD ....... 10 - 10 - 10 - 20 - 20 - 20 - 30 30 - 30 - 40 - 19 40 - 40 - 50 - 50 - ic 50 - Cs - C3. 60 - OL 60 - 70 - 70 - 70 80 - 80 - Bo - 90 - 90 90 too 10C 100 IT-- I 0 20 40 60 0 1 2 3 4 5 22 23 24 25 26 27 Speed (cm/s Temperature (deg Q Sigma-t Figure I-I continued 0 - 0 - April 2, 1986: Buoy $'A" 10 - 10 - 20 - No Data Available 20 420 25.671N 30 - 30 700 35.004W 40 - 40 50 - 50 CX E;o - C2. 60 is 70 - 70 80 - 80 90 so too 100 0 90 180 270 360 29 30 31 32 33 34 Direction (deg T) Salinity (ppQ 0 0- 0 - 10 - 10 - 10 20 - No Data Available 20 - 20 - 30- 30 - 30 - 40 - -fi@ 40- 40 - 50 - 50 - 50 - -f-j Cw:I- 60- cL 60 - cx 60 - 70 - 70 - 70 - 80 - 80 - so - 90 90 90 I too 100 too -1 0 20 40 60 3 4 5 6 7 8 22 23 24 25 26 2' Speed (cm/s Temperature (deg C) Sigma-t Figure I-1 continued Temperature (de Q Salinity (Ppt) 0 5 10 IV 20 30 31 32 373' 34 35 20 20 t E 40 40 E -C 60 630 80 80 Pi 100 100 SiCIMCI-t 20 21 W 23 24 25 0 20 40 60 80 100J Figure 1-2 Results of CTD cast at the Foul Area, i september 1987 A-20 -C APPENDIX II 1) 0 A-21 Table II-Al Results of Chemical Analysis - Boston Foul Grounds. Arranged From West to East July, 19P,2 PPM Volatile PPM X10-5 Solids PPM PPM PPM PPM X10-4 PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM LOCdtion COD NED C:N t2_ As Pb Zn Fe Cr CU Mg Ca M gi'r- a NH@ BF18 102,000 4.8 16.3 0.13 14 100 240 1.60 42 38 6,300 300 21.0 231 BF17 76,472 3.9 16.6 0.14 12 150 270 1.50 45 55 6,600 680 9.7 57 BF21 48,800 4.5 14.2 0.07 12 30 150 1.70 38 21 6,700 170 39.4 23 J@ BF19 128,000 5.5 17.5 0.20 19 31 260 39 39 7,200 1,900 3-E 29 > BF7 100,460 4.7 16.1 0.24 12 190 210 2.10 60 65 6,600 280 23.71 52 BF16 77,343 3.8 15.4 0.12 10 100 190 1.40 38 36 5,200 160 32.z- 170 BF20 84,500 3.2 13.6 0.07 13 57 140 1.0-0 45 31 6,800 220 3G-@ 31 BF9(REF) 76,000 4.7 10.3 19 51 170 1.10 64 21 5,900 360 16.4 136 REF-#I 90,300 4.7 10.1 17 59 200 1.60 75 25 7,800 470 16 . E 39 REF-#2 73,700 4.6 10.2 22 23 99 1. 40 72 21 7,600 350 21,7 67 REF-#3 58,500 4.2 10.8 18 190 1.00 61 17 6,100 330 18.:-7 55 REF-#4 42,700 3.8 jo.o 18 24 150 .1.20 67 19 7,100 330 21.: 38 REF-;5 52,000 4.5 9.9 17 28 150 1.30 72 20 7,000 330 21.2 337 b E I-ow minimuitt detection limit. Table II A-2 North-South Transect Near 70 0 34'.0 - BFG April 1983 Volatiles PPM-5 PPM_4 PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM Location NED CODx1O FeX10 C:N Mg:Cr Oil & Grease Cr Zn Cu As 100ON-850E 1.71 0.51 2.07 14.8 25.2 681 37 179 39 9.0 3051 50ON-850E 3.64 0.73 2.32 11.7 10.4 761 76 175 .43 9.3 3056 850E 4.22 0.93 2.70 10.1 26.8 1,210 90 196 43 10.0 3057 50OS-850E 4.82 0.48 2.46 9.2 24.6 201 74 206 23 8.6 3058 4.95 0.79 2.57 9.1 26.8 282 74 156 23 10.0 100OS-850E 3059 North-South Transect at 70 0 33.5 100ON-1850E 0.72 1.44 3.4 41 75 12 3052 50ON-1850E 2.90 0.54 2.19 9.3 23.1 170 61 124 20 7.6 3053 REF 4.22 0.53 2.58 8.8 18.3 242 70 168 22 8.8 3054 50OS-1850E 4.60 0.72 2.52 8.8 20.7 282 70 152 21 8.6 3055 11:1:@, jo Tabfe' 11 A-3 East-West - BFG April 1983 Volatiles ppm-C PPM ppm ppm ppm PPM ppm Loc'ation NED CODxIO Fex1o -4 C:N Mg:Ca Oil & Grease Cr Zn Cu As 40OW 2.22 0.83 2.09 - 21.6 13.3 6,510 444 469 114 10.2 3065 275W 3.66 0.81 2.03 12.4 5.0 1,830 225 266 100 5.4 3066 150W 4.39 0.87 2.08 11.5 8.8 2,790 215 285 100 5.8 3063 50W 2.99 0.74 1.80 13.0 4.9 1,840 176 168 81 5.2 3067 CTR 1.65 0.80 2.21 9.0 14.5 158 38 92 17 5.0 3049 850E 4.22 0.93 2.70 10.1 26.8 1,210 90 196 43 10.0 3057 1850E-REF 4.22 0.53 2.58 8.8 18.3 242 70 168 22 8.8 3054 Bulk sediment metals and PCB. data are expressed in ppm or ppb based on dry weight of sample. Ta Ib le- 71 A-4 Trace metal concentrations from NMFS surveys approximately 10 km SSW of MBDS disposal buoy (1979-1982). Parameter Average S. D. N Cadmium ppm 0.27 0.05 20 Chromium ppm 35.21 8.41 20 Copper ppm. 7.78 1.53 20 Lead ppm 20.02 3.67 20 Nickel ppm 11.04 2.43 20 Zinc ppm 37.12 5.49 20 includes detection limits as values when less than detectable. A-25 Table II A-5 National Marine Fisheries Service (UMFS) and Massachusettes Division of Marine Resources (MDMF) bottom trawls in the vicinity of MBDS (1979-1984)@a Agency/Date Stratab Depth Distance c Latitude/Longitude (m) from MBDS (degrees-minutes) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N'MFS Spring 1980 a 26 88 4.1 42 22' N 70 .31'W Sprina 1980 b 26 73 5.7 A2 20' N 70 34' W Spring 1983 26 73 2.8 42 28' N 70 36' W Summer 1981 66 72 4.6 42 25' N 70 40' W Fall 1980 a 66 63 3.9 42 27' N 70 39' W Fall 1980 b 26 66 5.7 42 20' N 70 34' W Fall 1981 26 83 6.0 42 26' N 70 36 W Fall 1983 a 26 84 1.5 42 27' N 70 36' W Fall 1983 b 66 64 4.9 42 25' N 70 41' W Winter 1982 a 26 80 3.0 42 27' N 70 35' W .Winter 1982 b 26 78 4.6 42 21' N 70 34' W Winter 1983 26 87 3.0 42 25' N 70 38' W MDMF Spring 1979 a 36 73 4.3 42 29' N 70 38' W Spring 1979 b 36 75 4.5 42 25' N 70 37' W Spring 1981 36 77 4.1 42 25' N 70 40' W Spring 1982 a 36 66 4.3 42 29' N 70 37' W Spring 1982 b 36 73 3.2 42 27' N 70 38' W Spring 1984 136 75 3.5 42 28' N 70 38' W Fall 1978 36 67 5.7 42 30 N 70 39' W Fall 1979 a 36 77 4.3 42 29 N 70 39' W Fall 1979 b 36 75 4.3 42 26' N 70 40' W Fall 1980 36 68 5.4 42 30' N 70 39' W Fall 1981 36 73 3.9 42 25' N 70 39' W Fall 1983 a 36 65- 5.1 42 29' -N 70 39' W Fall 1983 b 36 73 3.7 42 28' N 70 38' W Fall 1984 36 71 5.0 42 25' N 70 37' W --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a.NMFS trawls were during March-May and September-November; MDMF trawls were principally during May and September b,sampling areas defined by NMFS and MDMR based on geographic location and water depth. c.approximate distance (in nautical miles) of trawl starting point (NMFS) or approximate mid point (MDMF) from the center of MBDS. Table II A-6 Data from N'@TS and MDN,1F trawls in the viCiTlit'; of @IBDS. NM1?S Winter 1982 Winter 1982 Winter 1983 N WT N WT N WT :;VATF 8 ).0 A'I*T,ANT[(' HERRING 96 4. 2 ALEWIFE 11 14.0 BLUEBACK HERRING 1 0.1 SILVER HAKE 11 88 2.0 14 0.4 ATLANTIC 'COD 8 9.5 4 7.5 3 7.0 HADDOCK 1 25 4.4 POLLOCK 1 0.3 157 9.3 WHITE HAKE 1 0.2 RED HAKE 7 0.4 AMERICAN PLAICE 553 53.0 166 22.5 534 62.0 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER 2 1.1 1 3 1.0 WINTER FLOUNDER 67 26.5 9 5.0 16 7.1 WITCH FLOUNDER 26 13.5 3 6.4 LONGHORN SCULPIN 6 0.9 8 1.5 15 2.1 SEA R@VEN 3 2.8 2 2.7 1 2.5 ATLANTIC WOLFFISH 1 7.2 OCEAN POUT 9 @10.7 3 0.7 7 5.2 GOLDEN REDFISH 2 0.2 17 9.2 1 0.6 Total: 760 116*.4 333 69.8 798 116.5 Spring 1980a Spring 1980b Spring 1983 N WT N WT N WT THORNY SKATE 5 15.5 13 12.5 13 6.6 SILVER HAKE 9 0.1 6 0,2 13 1.6 ATLANTIC COD 2 29.0 5 25.0 8 24.7 HADDOCK 7 4.5 1 0.1 POLLOCK 1 (0.1 RED HAKE 6 0.6 1 0.6 6 1.3 AMERICAN PLAICE 284 50.0 290 50.0 248 61.5 FOURSPOT FLOUNDER 1 0.3 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER 3 0.6 11 4.5 3 1.6 WINTER FLOUNDER 1 0.6 WITCH FLOUNDER 124 29.0 16 6.2 36 14.8 LONGHORN SCULPIN 26 4.9 SEA RAVEN 1 0.2 11 6.7 AMERICAN SAND LANCE 62 0.2 ATLANTIC WOLFFISH 1 (0.1 OCEAN POUT 3 2.0 12 7.8 GOOSEFISH 1 7.5 1 2.7 WINTER SKATE 3 15.3 Total: 503 129.8 348 109.3 383 14().,6 A-27 Table 11 A-7 continued. MDMF Spring 79 Spring 79 Spring 81 Spring 82 Spring 82 Spring 84 N WT N WT N WT N WT N WT N WT THORNY SKATE 2 3.4 1 0.1 ATLANTIC HERRING ALEWIFE 63 13.3 4 0.1 15 0.7 17 13.0 BLUEBACK HERRING 2 (0.1 6 0.2 5 0.5 2 5 0.1 1 (0.1 SILVER HAKE 34 0.7 27 0.8 5 0.2 26 1.0 53 3.7 ATLANTIC COD 2 0.2 87 44.6 4 5.3 14 6.1 2 1.5 1 0.8 HADDOCK 1 1.4 2 0.7 WHITE HAKE 30 2.4 18 1.0 2 0.1 8 0.2 RED HAKE 17 2.3 17 4.3 1.3 15 4.3 1 0.1 8 00 FOURBEARD ROCKLING 4 0' 1 11 0.6 11 0.2 13 0.7 AMERICAN PLAICE 1127 87.1 831 81.5 1M 88.8 903 76.8 2104 209.0 277 38.0 FOURSPOT FLOUNDER 1 0.2 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER 6 3.8 110 5.1 2 1.1 10 4.7 4 0.8 3 0.9 WINTER FLOUNDER 2 0.4 7 2.3 3 0.3 2' 0.6 2 0.2 WITCH FLOUNDER 4 2.4 10 7.6 2 0.1 1 0.4 2 0.3 7 28.0 LONGHORN SCULPIN 4 0.5 22 3.0 1 (0.1 48 4.3 14 1.3 11 1.6 SEA RAVEN 1 0.1 5 6.3 1 0.4 3 4.5 ALLIGATOR FISH 2 (0.1 1 (0.1 6 (O'l 10 0.1 2 <0.1 5 (0.1 SNAKEBLENY 40 1.2 168 11.1 1 <0.1 5 0.1 35 0.1 DAUBED SHANNY 10 0.1 22 0.1 105 0.5 12 0.2 9 0.1 24 0.1 ATLANTIC WOLFFISH 1 2.5 .OCEAN POUT 92 43.7 98 29.6 27 16.7 38 25.7 107 55.6 40 24.0 GOOSEFISH 1 0.1 REDFISH 1 0.1 Total: 1377 145.0 1121 186.3 1785 143.6 1056 120.0 2318 279.4 506 116.1 Table 11 A-8 continued. NMFS Fall 1980a Fa 1 1 l')R()b Fa 11 11181 N WT N WT N WT THORNY SKATE 9 41.0 ATLANTIC HERRING ALEWIFE 18 4.0 390 83.0 7 1.7 SILVER HAKE 126 11.5 62 6.6 61 10.0 ATLANTIC COD 2 2.5 151 171.0 1 0.2 HADDOCK 2 0.1 1 0.0 1 0.2 POLLOCK WHITE HAKE 4 1.5 1 0.1 3 1.5 RED HAKE 8 3.0 23 13.5 39 21.5, CUSK 1 0.5 AMERICAN PLAICE 176 16.5 103 27.0 121 20.0 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER 5 2.4 WINTER FLOUNDER 2 0.9 WITCH FLOUNDER 12 8.5 6 6.5 1 0.2 ATLANTIC MACKEREL 1 0.7 BUTTERFISH 3 0.1 4 0.4 SCUP 1 0.2 GOLDEN REDFISH 3 0.5 59 22.7 LONGHORN SCULPIN 1 0.2 7 2.0 1 0.1 SEA RAVEN 4 2.0 5 6.1 3 1.7 CUNNER 27 4.1 3 0.5 ATLANTIC WOLFFISH .1 1.0 OCEAN POUT 17 9.5 19 8.9 7 2.5 GOOSEFISH 1 10.0 1 20.0 1 3.5 SPINY DOGFISH Total: 378 70.1 878 418.4 249 63.6 NMFS Fall 1983a Fall 1983b N WT N WT THORNY SKATE 2 2.8 ATLANTIC HERRING 8 2.2 ALEWIFE 10 2.3 34 9.5 SILVER HAKE 44 6.5@ 63 10.8 ATLANTIC COD 19 12.2 3 6.8 HADDOCK POLLOCK 8 1.6 WHITE HAKE RED HAKE 8 3.4 7 6.6 CUSK AMERICAN PLAICE 11 2.0 148 26.5 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER WINTER FLOUNDER 4 1.4 WITCH FLOUNDER 7 5.4 ATLANTIC MACKEREL 1 0.5 BUTTERFISH SCUP GOLDEN REDFISH 4 0.2 33 9.2 LONGHORN SCULPIN 8 13.0 SEA RAVEN 5 3.0 CUNNER 1 0.2 ATLANTIC WOLFFISH 31 9.0 OCEAN POUT 5 1.5 2 1.0 GOOSEFISH SPINY DOGFISH 1 1.5 Total: 123 54.1 335 84.0 A-29 L L A-, -,)nt i.nuad. KDMF Fall 1978 Fall 1979 Fall 1979 Fall 1980 N WT N WT NWT N WT THORNY SKATE 11.4 10.5 ATLANTIC HERRING 101 2.5 1(0.1 ALEWIFE 31 1.4 10.1 60.3 SILVER HAKE 104 7.7 306 18.6 215 19.1 48 7.7 ATLANTIC COD 35.0 WHITE HAKE 21 4.5 14 5.2 83.4 15 1.9 RED HAKE 55 24.0 22 10.8 37 20.2 28 15.1 FOURBEARD ROCKLING 11 0.6 1(0.1 20.1 AMERICAN PLAICE 400 17.7 84 13.2 464 58.0 330 14.9 FOURSPOT FLOUNDER 3 1.9 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER 10.6 10.7 WITCH FLOUNDER 53.2 6 1.8 55 32.2 41.7 BUTTERFISH 90.2 1(0.1 LONGHORN SCULPIN 20.3 be SER RAVEN 62.0 SNAKEBLENY 22 16.0 WRYMOUTH 11.2 10.9 OCEAN POUT 71.5 26 15.0 47 14.1 GOOSEFISH 2 28.6 33.9 Haddock 20.2 Alligatorfish 1(0.1 Total: 768 81.1 463 95.1 844 160.4 437 43.3 NDMF Fall 1981 Fall 1983 Fall 1983 Fall 1984 N WT N WT m WT N WT .THORNY SKATE 1 0.2 2 0.5 4 5.2 ATLANTIC HERRING 1 68 4.7 159 13.2 4 0.5 ALEWIFE 9 0.6 6 0.4 .4 0.1 BLUEBACK HERRING 2 0.1 2 0.1 AMERICAN SHAD 4 0.5 5 0.7 SILVER HAKE 91 6.5 75 9.0 168 19.8 60 24.2 ATLANTIC COD 3 2.1 1 0.0 70 2.7 POLLOCK 3 0.9 WHITE HAKE 5 1.0 2 0.4 RED HAKE 22 9.0 246 85.6 102 51.6 58 28.5 FOURBEARD ROCKLING 3 0.4 4 0.3 9 1.0 AMERICAN PLAICE 390 51.3 688 27.6 i224 63.9 473 50.4 FOURSPOT FLOUNDER 1 0.2 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER 1 0.6 WINTER FLOUNDER 1 0.9 WITCH FLOUNDER 22 12.1 2 0.9 34 13.0 10 4.1 WINDOWPANE 1 0.2 BUTTERFISH 12 1.3 11 1.2 1 (0.1 GOLDEN REDFISH 2 1.0 C) LONGHORN SCULPIN 1 0.1 1 0.2 3 0.5 9 1.9 SEA RAVEN 4 3.0 1 0.5 4 2.5 ALLIGATOR FISH 1 (0.1 3 (0.1 7 (0.1 CUNNER 1 0.2 9 0.6 SNAKEBLENY 63 2.7 112 3.8 2 (O.i DAUBED SHANNY 4 <0.1 18 0.2 6 0.1 VRYMOUTH 1 1.6 OCEAN POUT 16 6.3 7 0.7 10 4.0 17 4.6 GOOSEFISH 2 0.5 3 3.5 Total 563 93.2 1191 136.2 1983 177.7 734 128.9 A-30 Table II A-10 ALL TRA14LS NFMS: Winter N WT % N % WT AMERICAN PLAICE 1253 137.5 66.3 45.4 POLLOCK 158 9.6 8.4 3.2 SILVER HAKE 113 2.4 6.0 0.8 ATLANTIC HERRING 96 4.2 5.1 1.4 WINTER FLOUNDER 92 38.6 4.9 12.8 WITCH FLOUNDER 29 13.9 .1.5 4.6 LONGHORN SCULPIN 29 4.5 1.5 1.5 HADDOCK 26 4.4 1.4 1.5 REDFISH 20 10.0 1.1 3.3 OCEAN POUT 19 16.6 1.0 5.5 ATLANTIC COD 15 24.0 0.8 7.9 ALEWIFE 11 14.0 0.6 4.6 LITTLE SKATE 8 5.0 0.4 1.7 RED HAKE 7 0.4 0.4 0.1 SEA RAVEN 6 8.0 0.3 2.6 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER 6 2.1 0.3 0.7 ATLANTIC WOLFFISH 1 7.2 0.1 2.4 WHITE HAKE 1 -0.2 0.1 0.1 BLUEBACK HERRING 1 0.1 0.1 (0.1 Total: 1891 302.7 NMFS: Summer N WT % N % WT AMERICAN PLAICE 280 36.5 80.2 32.0 WITCH FLOUNDER 23 19oo 6.6 16.7 RED HAKE 10 7.1 2.9 6.2 THORNY SKATE 7 23.5 2.0 20.6 ATLANTIC COD 7 8.4 2.0 7.4 HADDOCK 5 1.3 1.4 1.1 FOURSPOT FLOUNDER 4 4.5 1.1 3.9 SPINY DOGFISH 3 9.9 0.9 8.7 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER 3 1.5 0.9 1.3 SILVER HAKE 2 1.0 0.6 0.9 OCEAN POUT 2 0.9 0.6 0.8 WHITE HAKE 1 0.4, 0.3 0.4 GOLDEN REDFISH 1 0.1 0.3 0.1 BUTTERFISH 1 0.1 0.3 0.1 Total: 349 114 A-31 ALL TRAWLS MDMF: Spring N WT % N % WT AMERICAN PLAICE 6584 581.2 80.7 58.7 OCEAN POUT 402 195.3 4.1.) 19.7 SNAKEBLENY 249 12.5 3.1 1.3 DAUBED SHANNY 182 1.1 2.2 o,j SILVER HAKE 145 6.4 1.8 0.6 ATLANTIC COD 110 58.5 1.3 5.9 LONGHORN SCULPIN 100 10.7 1.2 1.1 ATLANTIC HERRING 63 13.3 0.8 1.3 RED HAKE 58 12.3 0.7 1.2 WHITE HAKE 58 3.7 0.7 0.4 ALEWIFE 36 13.8 0.4 1.4 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER 35 16.4 0.4 1.7 FOURBEARD ROCKLING 29 1.6 0.4 0.2 ALLIGATOR FISH 26 0.1 0.3 0.0 WITCH FLOUNDER 26 .38-.8 0.3 3.9 BLUEBACK HERRING 21 0.8 0.3 0.1 *WINTER FLOUNDER 16 3.8 i 0.2 0.4 SEA RAVEN 10 11.1 0.1 1.1 FOURSPOT FLOUNDER 4. 0.5 o.j 0.1 HADDOCK 3 2.1 (0.1 0.2 THORNY SKATE 3.5 (0.1 0.4 GOOSEFISH 0.1 <0.1 (0.1 ATLANTIC WOLFFISH 2.5 (0.1 0.3 REDFISH 0.1 (0.1 (0.1 Total: 8163 990 NMFS: Spring N WT % N % WT AMERICAN PLAICE 822 161.5 66.6 41.5 WITCH FLOUNDER 176 50.0 14.3 12.9 AMERICAN SANDLANCE. 62 0.2 5.0 0.1 THORNY SKATE 31 34.6 2.5 8.9 SILVER HAKE 28 1.9 2.3 0.5 LONGHORN SCULPIN 26 4.9 2.1 1.3 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER 17 6.7 1.4 1.7 ATLANTIC COD 15 78.7 1.2 20.2 OCEAN POUT is 9.8 1.2 2.5 RED HAKE 13 2.5 1.1 0.6 SEA RAVEN 12 6.9 1.0 1.8 HADDOCK 8 4.6 0.6 1.2 WINTER SKATE 3 15.3 0.2 3.9 GOOSEFISH 2 10.2 0.2 2.6 WINTER FLOUNDER 1 0.6 0.1 0.2 FOURSPOT FLOUNDER 1 0.3 0.1 0.1 ATLANTIC WOLFFISH 1 (0.1 0.1 0.0 POLLOCK. 1 (0.1 0.1 0.0 Total: 1234 388.7 A-32 Table II A-12 MDMF: Fall N WT N "Z wr AMERICAN PLAICE 4053 297.0 58.9 32.4 SILVER HAKE 1067 112.6 15.5 12.3 RED HAKE 570 244.8 8.3 26.7 ATLANTIC HERRING 20.9 4.9 2.3 SNAKEBLENY 199 22.5 2.9 2.5 WITCH FLOUNDER 138 69.0 2.0 7.5 OCEAN POUT 130 46.2 1.9 5.o ATLANTIC COD 77 9.8 1.1 1.1 WHITE HAKE 65 16.4 0.9 1.8 ALEWIFE 57 2.9 0.8 0.3 BUTTERFISH 34 2.7 0.5 0.3 FOURBEARD ROCKLING 30 2.4 0.4 0.3 DAUBED SHANNY 28 0.3 0.4 0.0 LONGHORN SCULPIN 16 3.0 0.2 0.3 SEA RAVEN 15 8.0 0.2 0.9 ALLIGATOR FISH 12 0.0 0.2 0.0 GOOSEFISH 10 36.5 0.1 4.0 CUNNER 10 0.8 0.1 0.1 AMERICAN SHAD 9 1.2 0.1 0.1 THOR4Y SKATE 9 7.8 0.1 0.9 FOURSPOT FLOUNDER 4 2.1 0.1 0.2 BLUEBACK HERRING 4 0.2 0.1 0.0 WRYMOUTH 3 3.7 0.0 0.4 YELLbWTAIL FLOUNDER 3 1.9 0.0 0.2 POLLOCK 3 0.9 0.0 0.1 GOLDEN REDFISH 2 1.0 0.0 0.1 HADDOCK 2 0.2 0.0 0.0 WINDOWPANE 1 0.2 0.0 0.0 WINTER FLOUNDER 1 0.9 0.0 0.1 Total: .6886 916 NMFS: Fall N WT % N % WT AMERICAN PLAICE 559 92.0 28.5 13.3 ALEWIFE 459 100.5 23.4 @14.5 SILVER HAKE 356 45.4 18.1 6.6 ATLANTIC COD 167 192.7 8..5 27.9 GOLDEN REDFISH 99 32.6 5.0 4.7 RED HAKE 85 48.0 4.3 6.9 OCEAN POUT 50 23.4 2.5 3.4 ATLANTIC WOLFFISH 32 10.0 1.6 1.4 CUNNER 31 4.8 1.6 0.7 WITCH FLOUNDER 26 20.6 1.3 3.0 LONGHORN SCULPIN 17 15.3 0.9 2.2 SEA RAVEN 17 12.8 0.9 1.9 THORNY SKATE 11 43.8 0.6 6.3 WHITE HAKE a 3.1 0.4 0.4 ATLANTIC HERRING 8 2.2 0.4 0.3 POLLOCK 8 1.6 0.4 0.2 BUTTERFIS,H 7 0.5 0.4 0.1 WINTER FLOUNDER 6 2.3 0.3 0.3 YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER 5 2.4 0.3 0.3 HADDOCK 4 0.3 0.2 0.0 GOOSEFISH 3 33.5 0.2 4.8 ATLANTIC MACKEREL 2 1.2 0.1 0.2 SPINY DOGFISH 1.5 0.1 0.2 CUSK 0.5 0.1 0.1 SCUP 0.2 0.1 0.0 Total: 1963 691.2 A-33 Table ii A-13 Analysis of Variance comparing NMFS and MDMF spring and fall bottom trawls in the vicinity of MBDS. N.umber.of Fish Captured oer Trawl Source df MS F P NMFS vs MDMF 1 2321632 10.6 0.04 Spring vs Fall 1 576487 2.6 0.10 Interaction 1 280457 1.3 ns Error 18 218116 Weicrht of Fish Captured per Trawl Source df MS F P NMFS vs MDMF 1 9 <0.1 ns Spring vs Fall 1 4679 0.6 ns Interaction 1 4227 0.6 ns Error 18 7341 Number of Species Caught ver Trawl Source df MS F P NMFS vs MDMF 1 19.64 1.6 ns Spring vs Fall 1 0.04 <0.1 ns Interaction 1 24.18 2.0 ns Source 18 12.00 A-34 APPENDIX III A-35 Table III A-1 1.177""'! ^.1 v*: a. M !,!r:,!S 1-31 1314111"311 113's" Tr.".1 LIS - 11.13 111 T1171 2"33 LIVILlu 133S.'"sLUIFEF ,:* i 9: .3 qq1I,t17 .44 j 1 61, 121 0 1. 1! 2 5 f T! 'I,'n 11.10 I-Ir. qS 1:31 L a 4 S. V.-S. ST I " "11. MN311 S11-11,135 *11112@1.!SIM mir. :,.B., In Tim 13: In MAI! 73:,849 1131"MM 0.4:!C, .11 LIVII s:111.1161MO 161.1:3 40ji".11" MMI, S:413A' ".1".."VOSIM W 111.1161,100 40.121.1:19 S3,93MU1.60 2,48.845 ULU 0.51481! 1H 10.00 4111-10 5117,1541.10 53? -:11 (441 2!.ID) I .14IM: s:V?,41!.M3 :,3619 LIM!! DAM", V33M T 526 11-11,331 W.M. 11.191.11f $3,*9D.33:.oo MAN 31H.W.50 o.:I:!: 1111.:5.10.49 fill "11111LIS/9 736 21550 P i I : I., 1 ;.005461 $:.VSXVIM@ 30'!,61111 IC1271.0! MP.13 L-07.24 08.1 MIS) 24-M !!.0.303 M.!M. -W 1141VAO %!1614! sn,mm, Tu- s , n 096 QJ2.110 SIVII-TO.00 51,10: 68U.1 C.0911:11 $54.51 11 118 .011, MIMS v,vs.3: Tn:v, mm 10 V.j 11 .0 & UA 3 ?!.$to 0 3 iol.ooo 2.?7?X D.?SICI SIPX T11 1". .1! S !P. no 1211 111 1115C."1141.10 :!1.!?? sl@YY 71, OXM S.ILVISA", 0.3:S!t' W!.@! !Xo 7.455 111:: 60 MISS, 14:438.?o C.613,111 U-1:111.16 'Ill. 1". IM 1 71 153,150 MXH. 1711.119i.10 2:91,915 741.13 0.31NE SIM-02 YLL".11111.1.1111 lis 1*315,16,200 3.00311", 7,32.1,15 14,165,017.29 0.11:W s 2, 2s c x, Tum,-v3sin 24C 9! 3.2' 0-03HI SUSICIS.03 12,013 I'slols 0-IS351 SWAS TL7. 'LSSM 269 !1530 11114f,133 DAN,", 13,931,7112.00 221,8116 1414C.71 0.01.119 $13:141A T11.11"MILIS"n 539 11111111V :-M!N0 0.51.915 441,163 P.M.111 0.09471 $8.1811-35 T1.1ril"ISITE 512 1 It I,, P1111D OACH $1811:50.0.1 16 14 131,11, 141114:.1.34 SIN1.116 TL I, "LIS IITI 521 2,300 41SAI 0.01474 $1,190,33..00 5111113,14 1111129.40 12,1Q.P TLIMI.IHIM 0811 OW, N-603 911!1310 0.01118R, $6,539,131.00 1 IMMIX LIM'S vmlmm 120 21!,!%, sg!,O:c 31.51M 12.40!1941.00 AS9,5145 lo2,29(.40 C.:!5j*S W.!!332 T1.7V.!S,n 123 37.01: US-113 o.M131 $11MI388.00 4110-5:7 173,889.77 0.21114 S37,91,7.2! TL.".,'L)!:n 147 'Alto: 445!1600 0.00M $715,396.00 21085 6?520.54 0.39136 $2.5?7.52 VILUMIsm 010 13,12iXo U090 $37.05,130.01 359AIM03 0.0i.657 $1,NMIE TIM. ;IMBSIITI So! 33,000 11CH1110 6.03M S4,127,M.00 447,763 115,05!.07 0.09471 $13-134-08 51.2 113 PAN 0.00144 $1814,11,10.00 11,329 C16MS 0.061M $31.93 !26 11,100 WIDOD 0.0387( $3,190,331.00 92.313 123,661.11 mvui Tumasm 73( 200 Asi'loo 0,0054 111,81151134.00 309,645 :261.25 0.16513 $1,35.73 TIL".111.1sin 21,600 735,11,00 0.53911 114,311,51LOO 131,52! 194,231.17 0.1513 13D,331.22 TILM!'LISIn : 100,401.00 77,573 77,159.30 0.11401 $1,176.119 TLI ri I'lls"n 137,200 0.1-1443 1 1 120 2,300 MICH mov@ $193,582.00 32JU 103.0 0.16880 $135.66 TLM7rjM!SJ1 1,700 SS41100 0-023o7 $193,96'.00 3:Jlf 593.92 0.16881 $@10-25 T1L"6T;LV,T1 7,3DO 543,000 Lo"4344 S135,3012.00 26,87S 1.811.18 0.19863 $361.30 YOULssin 13,S3O 0.06531 S186.511.01.1 IC1119 511,1H.91 0.1035 $1114161.6s TILWILISIM AN 41100 147 11. no 351800 0-135120 SCA5,293.00 177,516 SE1116.84 0.411M 124,010.65 M"IMBSM 153 5111.00 111431 0.29341 $2.2,2330.00 101111 6561,591.51 misn s49.3smo Timi.,ss/n 11,69 1,300 1 12,4944 1 N415 0.0014of $11,40,777.00 201,6618 215!9.91 0.0:441 s2igm TLn,,,,ss,,n solo 30,000 2,495,000 LICH' S110,743,59LOO 138.793 1,582,932.63 0.05941 S94,414.1t TILMOLIS ' 11 51 A' 13,010 0.10169 $54,335.00 3,541 51151.46 0.05526 $381.11 VLDT. ' 1, 1 S, 11 T I A-36 I t:. 11: "1 1111.1w,"Elo :41.938 E.11111.9* 1.: 411111 S111,011SA: TL7 ITF AD 113.10? 111-81.1.11111A t.23(38 S,7,9131.41 TILU".M-2 A A A 83S !111 1 f@E? .11: TI.:1 :13 1 1. Q1A O.A '3S.OC 3611.:6114 512i DAMS $1.98-358.00 348,930 66-116.0 MOW $13,82CAll TIM 11"IsfIrl I @ m 13F 3111.W 441,401 1.07793 4,24!,915 L2083HA.' 0.;73,51 $330019%1.21 TIM 11W11 oil, (11011V 6111,610 735.000 0.01.155 $5,30376.00 138,521 201,595.5: MH119 S.".4VA: UL01,11.3s"n 111C io'61.11 55111,100 0.011911 S1193,9141.00 32,676 6,111.14, 0.1080 11,1H.111 T111IL111111SIM 123 111.11,40 543.810 0.05339 S,135,3061.0: 26-875 CW1.35 0.19863 S1454.13 TIMILISM 1 1!,500 CAME SWAIM MAI! 11205.56 0.16335 SINAS MvMlsm 3. Ul 15,100 0.16,350 AU.06 03:350 SCl.ll ULITLISM 153 1.50 1.8,100 0.5211141 161,1(1 1011(25.79 0.01.50 TIM !1XIM 168 !"I'loll1w, S.R2.010 364,2115 101"NO.19 C.031158 13,2911.9 TIL"41"Lls"n 20 No LMMOD 206,6118 200.00 C.38441 varmo m" n n 52f 3.01,10, W-M 0.003,11 1:313451.00 30193101 5-T.11 CO.NW, $1,18f.30 TIM oil, 1,28:,369 45,11,42.112 ME?"! M31111.87 TILMILISIM 096 3.0 0.1451.3 SCIVAC TILCT.;'JS,n SV 26,1450 RWAIM13 SU911:11.00 11:388 119SI.44 0.311.91 imm.79 mrot ,,.I sm 11.03555 V,59111511MO 6741(91 119,M.63 o.Aim vmcms 4.1 373 1111.111 1 (OA 11,329.00 1018,91,16 11, li3 22.300 4 15 lu, 3 7 9 A 18.134.6f 0.1:1:611 111.117 11 U S 11 T1 A TL,,,"6 i ;., i s , n its 1. A W-099.ll UL"-E,`.3S;Tf 509 ?. .11.30 : I . is I if . A V's", 01 .613OS41 V11,09MA 1. . I , V I'll 411 A., M 'MIR .3 D S I I . 3 4, TT M% D.06023 S,11.?,1111,103.31 8111.190, 41(1974.111, M7,331f $49,14!3? Tu 13f 10, 14, 411 .111 , IV, 0. 11, 0 - 1., 9 "1 ! 1$411:1014,51 .311 2011.1 15:1190.95 71, ".Valls In 5.0; St. 805.16 MR.100 Oil (7031; A 3 IS SN47,91.13 TUMUS,,n No 39,38f3c 0.11,611?11 mil-mi Y.,,.n:LIS,,n 1 1 1.201.14 123 5,901 M,200 O-MV, 41.1.118.11f 311 , ODA 1,591,410 SOC413 109,S2,034 misig numusm SO! 1 IV, 0 C.600 0.00235 $211,49S.00 11.641, 611.05 0.1f,125 $41.4' YLLMUSin 526 600 "X7,000 $4,74:1103.00 1211,902 2662.985.61 C.11336 $41j,59l.33mmusm 0.2(013 $5,121.22 Tt.".I;L!S;n 574,800 0.01,949 SWS41,990.00 1161111,30 1314,512.21 0.11375 $24,90.52 TILtIT..,115111 120 .1!9.700 0.03,11.5 310,192 SI,32..10 0.2355 $13,352.93 TUM'35m 123 10,100 !73,6200 0.014,894 12159111,S79.00 611111,698 75.014.21 0.26004 WX'S.011 TIMILBS111 512 200 ULM O.OM9 S2811199.00 17,641 11352.09 0.06125 $82.12 TIMMUSm TEIRLY TCULS 1972 ILL-LIS IMS41741 149714, MI-S $402,551.16 0100111 T11,111-72 1973 ILL-LIS IS,716,197 19?3 11LI 11-56,591.08 9,0111 ULIT-73 1974 LLL-LIS 1!,474,311 19714 ILL-$ $36948l.12 730M TILMR T11 1419 TOMS nit LINMI towom 19,82 4225 7025 4111f,184.00 S211,311.04 TOTIL-S/10 13 422S INS CK2,003.00 IS4,124.24 TOUL-S1116 1141 7045 41371,554.00 $136,122.18 TOTIA/10 I'll -A-37 Salo,,. V 10 MIOL MI, 3j'jj'jl 3, M I"CL 13 :11 118 ij: ciis Ta''b'le III A-72 IIR ill:, lolls 514 703S 1045 5114 S"MM 1".1.1 1"XIM, 1*3!3) TIL"If LIS - 133 Itf TIL".r 17P LUJIL.".1 131MILL"TIN 0.540@ S1.2:2,21".V Ta".' 6113 :,31,j 1 1 , A ju 051, 31i 31.1.103 41.1:03f $16,81,41.00 2?.38! 79S.43 DAME $3U.1,', Tl."MIJIS.11 Do! 831.1111 111311 .14131 s131!98'1.?3.oo CSSIVI-82? c9s 3.111? 61,085 OASM 13,919.14 MM4 M."MIX11 C.?t" 111131111 V.085118 V.831.1611.111; 6211,98f 3315ES.611 O.MM SU.M.41! 11M..11SM 711,0l'0.03 MUCH MME.46 M."MILBS,11 A, !1j.!H 310, 11:2 0 . 16 11W4 4 A 50,251.414 0.541-IN SM,3P.711 T IL '.,r 13 S 11 y I I : 4 Uf-fl? O.of'Mr D-WIff 9!M1 C.114!71 S131.?E T 1 1. ". 1 111. 1 S i T1 4 Is M."vE, LIS 11 16 10-6. . 147 731-M3 D.01:1111 1;:?711 :4.511.10 03111.0 si-as!.U "l 'TV is, A A IA 14, 1.:11.390 o . 111. "17 9ST.W1.111 !111M "I'll - !114 .64 DAM 711231S,11 1!3 11.311111 'fj!.S,o MiM st.35-NI:.1111 1111X! N-MIM :.21114711 S 2 3 9 . 'N' TL".1 I SM! A 1, 6 15! 0.%:f! S115101111.00 17,1114 3 4111. 7 i DIM! T11"11, 111 SM, 161 8 SP.1.11P.1410 91-241! 7.1411U! c A!:f: $111, - fl S. i I, TL .1 11! In 210 6112.1114, 9 5 Is 3 is 0.!?3:3 T11".111411 SM .0 4- "MIR 11.0610, 1 D' '0 lo S35S,:3.00 NMI 318.13JO MON S20-03!1@ TIM.11S111 14, 0.4911:6 & 1, A .6611. :-311-292 396.1.3 2,978.111.4f CAM: TL".1 ILI S,TI 3 f A'M 4.9,11.17 23.39, 0 . III ? 91, IV, $11,711,46.87 T1111cl All$ 111 so? f,:.432 397.384 C."157112 $100,6911.30 !9:"7111 0.119to 3:510 1129JI: 1111ISM 511", 1,3C 74,5111, 0.0,981f SM's:3.00 17,S91, P.4115.09 0.19,1113 slJO.S&I TILMILM111 521 43136 O.H788 $104C..48!.00 2,39!P: R.30.03 0.101!0 $225,831.0' TILM"'ISITI 529 "loc. 7,350 0.3203 112111V11.00 10,916 111,003.111 DAMS S3,361.111 73f A41165 11,31305 0.019:11 !301329 411MAD CA4,229 126,181.04' TILMLIS11 I OIL 11800 315 M11532 $2,610.00 4143 12,202.6c MIM $2,1117.12 M 1.11 S ! T1 IN (103s) 1514 44,984 0.00336 SSA1111461.00 302,467 1,752.45 C.S7936 S13111.31 TIL111LISM 0:11 1814is 111,017,0311 0.01910, S1.313911S73.00 ('580.83? 251,071.61 omm smin.6, mm,LISITI 199 1113 C1.115 0.10112 S2115,9911.00 S3.224 502.33 0.194,84 MAI TILn 3IS m 120 0.11801 S31,52!.39 ILLFE.Ilsm 122 4.39s !141-970 DAM! SW,149.Avo C11.98f 36.9411.59 DAMS S24.113.94 TUMUs., n 123 7X! M1841411 0 16,395. $3,864,5114.05 1611 10 ! 174, 8 U1170.1i 0.5.1.06 144AM1.126 TIMILISm 124 215:3 509,13? 'O.CO495 $51615,9.17.00 21!N1327 27 M.04 0.436 121 11240 14.740 0.014141, 01.113.00 HIM 603.11 0.41231 mus.1, "n A A 141 570 738.363 0.00077 $1,393,004.00 7512,771 1,075.37 MOO $511.13 TIMILISITI 221 2,264,960 11,116,980 0.11848 s".3041180.00 439388 2,524,097.19 0.02M $522,09.11 TIMAIS/n 240 450 :30.3415 0.4419s S38('802.00 104.149 Iss.72 0.2692( S203.41 ILMUSM 20 710!11 I-350"F53 0.0156'42 SMSS.303.00 148,022 11'sis.115 0.1?313 $3,312.96 TILITEILISITI S12 ".?31 14.5111, OAHU $39?,5143.00 77,597 14,63:.23 0.1194,13 SLIC.84 TLLCULISITI 0:2 EMS 14,841 0.08039, SMA81.1.0 20.303 37,343.60 omsu v-j.m.ci Ti,.n/L3S/ll 0123 'Ass 18.011 0.09204' SA'SS,3310.00 36,873 23,195.69 0.14411: $3.39MAI TUM111.1151TI 051 145 MO 0.014,1111, $611,1311.0011 HAN 11151.81 O.C.131 SSUM M,711LISM 4,80r..270 0.24909 CUM!: 3,51MICIA: 0.309" S1,23!,122.07 TILMUSi'll 196 4,372 90,355 0.0-1183! $111.7362.00 $11,126 91,43,41.16 0.27H? S2,C3.111 TLLrE;LISIII 120 30,111,45 4011-291, 0.07,119 S2,13(376.00 1.11M,4110 SWIM.05 S96,397.110 TIL I, I'll S J? 4114 5A ;. or, AAA w 41V@ 0.03(@S s3o'soi.oo 50.011 !.311Q: VIVID T 11 1w 1111 s 'A-39 ~0 Art ~-~I~J~A A ~~~ ~j ~1~q8~1~, ~6. ~J~4~0 ~ A I ~W~ ~q6~q!~q: .~q8~q3~1~, ~qO~8qW~.~, ~q$~q4 ~I~W~1 ~.~1~q: ~q3~qO~l ~q0 ~qo ~i~8qm~qf~q5 ~qs~q; ~qs~.~, .3~qt~w~A ~qc~. ~"~. r ~0qT ~1~6~, ~1~1 ~2qH ~1~0~1 ~8qN~q! ~2qX ~qT~a~'~*~,~"~q!~:"~.~q! ~q5 ~-~'T~q? ~~2~6 0.~q49933 ~q$~q31,3~q4~q6~2qM ~q1 ~q4~1 ~q3 ~q!~q!~.~qf~1~j~8qM~q3 I.,. MIN ~4qM ~"~4qM~q"~qI~qS ~2qJ~q? ~q0.~q5~q2~q0~q5~, ~qs~qf ~qS~.~qS~4qr~4qm ~6qx ~0q1~q1 80 ~qI~2qf~2ql~-~q5~2q9 ~q6~-~q0~q3~'~2q9~q3 ~qV~A ~q51 ~.~q4~q4~1~, . 00 1 1 1~q3~q5~,~q3~q79 ~q5~q4~,~q8~6q3~.~q0~1 DAME ~q1~9~1~,~1~q8~q3.~q2~q4 ~qT~q1~.~1~1~4q1~1~1~4q1~qS~I~qT~qI ~~5~3 ~.330.22 ~q0. ~q! 1 ~1~1 $~q6 1 ~q2 ~(~1~q7 ~. I ~qc~8qM~, ~I~4qX IT I 7A~qU ~q:2~'~,~,~q1~q3~q4 ~q0.~1~1~,~1~1~#~q1~q1~4~4 ~q$~q5~q8~q3~,~q5~q0~q0.~q0~q0 l~qD~qf~0qX~q0 3~q4 IS! ~q2~q7~1~, 3~-39~4~1 9~1~q4~q:~q8 ~q7~q4~qS.~q4~q4 ~1~1.~q1~q1~q1~qf~qo ~q$~q1~q(~q0.3~,~' ~~~qH ~qI~qD ~q0 . ~q0 ~q5 ~i~1~o~, ~1~4~, ~q2~q6~q0~,~2qM~V~, 'A ~q1~q3 ~. ~6qH MIMI~, SIAS ~qT~qE~.~"~4qU~q"~qI~qS~2qM 2 11~~ 1~q5~-~qS~qH ~q0 . ~q"~&~.~,~I1 ~q$~q1~q7~q6~q3~q7~1~1~1~.~q0~q0 '~43~q6,~q178 ~2~4~2 ~q0 ~- 1~q23.~901 ~6qM~q7~q036~i ~q$~q5~q9,~q6~q9~6'.~q!~q5 ~q7~q1~q:~8q7~,~q1~q3~.~1~,~'~rl AID .~q7~q0 ~q2~1~1~.~1~1~q0~8q0 ~q0 ~. ~q0 ~q$~q3~4q0.~q5~q0~q3~.~q0~q: ~q1~1~1~,~1~1~,~q7~q4 ~q2~qS~1~q1~1~q8~.~q0~q8 ~qC.~q2~q3~q5~q4~q0 ~qs~qi~l~qe~q?~q"~.~q1~q7 ~qT~q1~1. ~1~1 ~ ~1 ~q0.017~q" ~~5~: 1.~q6~q1~q0 ~4~1~q0~,~1~1~0~q0 ~8qU~qAI~qE ~q1~.~q0~6~,~1~q1~,~q5~q1~q1 ~q0.~q161~,~1~q3 ~q$~q4~1~1.~q5~q4~5~4.~q1~q3 ~qT~A~0qL~qT~qI :~q1~q3 ~qS~2qJI ~q0.~q0~q9~q1~q0~q8 ~2qV~.~q"~6qM~qo ~~~ ~.~.~q6~q3~q6~1~q0~q1~1~0~1 ~1~5,~2qP~q1~,~q7~q5~q1 CAME ~8qP~qA~2qH~'~qI~qS~qC~8qA~qD ~8q0~q1.~q3~q0~1~. ~q2~,~q9~1~6q0~q1~q6.~1~q1 ~2qL~qO~2qV~1~q2 ~qS~q1~q1~1~1~q1~q4~6~1~.~q1~q4 ~qT~q"~I~4qM~q/~I~2qX~1~1~4q"~. 3~6~5 3,~q4~7~4~1 SLIM DAVIS~q! ~q1~1~1~.~q5~1~1~1~8qM~2qM~qO 2~7~1~-~q0~q83 3~q0~-~q8~q4~q6.~8q0 ~q0~.~q0~q5~2qM ~q$~'~1~1~-~q1~q3~qE~8qX~, ~4qm~u~f~f~8qr~.~'~qI ~qS ~1~1~qT~qI ~qW ~1~2qM~.~1~1~q4~1~. ~qI~'~2qV~1~q1~1~1~q2 MAIN~,~q? ~4qV~I~qA~qM~I~6qX3.~q0~q0 ~q!~.~1~q:~q3~q2~1~q9 ~q1~.3~qS~q3,~q4~q9~C~L~O~N~" L~qI~2qM~qC ~qS~q1~q7~q1.~q7~q6~q3.~q1~1~1 ~qT~8qU~qI ~1~1 I'll ~qS ~1~1 ~qT~q1 ~5~~~~ 2~7~1 ~2qX~q!~, ~qO~qJ3~.~q9~,~' ~S~6qM~q:~.~q1~q1~q2.~q0~q0 l3~q!~6qX: ~q93~,~23~q7.~q6~q3 ~q0.~q1~q1~q9~qn ~qT~L~,:~"~.~6qv~4qa~qs~,~1~0qn A ~6 ;1 ~. ~5~2~f ~2qN~i~q!~1~q1~q7~q5 I . ~q! ~0~, ~q2 ~q1.1 ~q$~q7~q7~q8~,~q1~q1~q5.~q0~q0 ~q1 ~4~4~,~q9~1~1~1~1~. 70.119.3~q4 ~q0.~q2~q3~q5~q3~q! ~qI~0qN~-~q4~q1~1~1~1.~q1~q3 ~qI~qT~qI ~7~3~6 ~q1~q9~,~q7~1~1~q5 ~q5~q9~.3~q7~q5 ~q1.~q3~q3~q2~1~.~1 ~qs~l~o~o~'~q?~1~q8~1~-~q0~.~q0~q0 ~q3~q03.259 ~q1~q1~q1,~q1~6~1~.~1~1~1.1~1~1~1~1 ~qO.~2qW~1~23 ~qS~q!~q0~q0~-~q8~q4~q7~qA~qS ~8qU~q!~"~2qT~"~.~q1~qVT~q1 ~01 ~"~ ~(1~03~5) 1~1~q1~q7~q0 ~0qU~-~qI~ll~q? ~q0~.~q0~1~1~1~1~2q9 ~qS~2qM~.~2qM.~q0~q0 MIX~q? ~q1~1~1~1~8qM~.~q4~q2 MEW ~qT~qL~.~q1~q7~1~1~-~,~". I ~qS ~q" T~q? ~1~2~3 ~q4~q4 ~q1~q8~1~q0~q1~q8 ~q0.~q0~q0~q:~4~1~q4 ~q$~A~8qM~,33~q5.~q0~q0 ~8qH~1~q8~1~-3 ~q6~q23.~q5~q3 ~q0.~1~1~q4~,~1~1~1~1~1~, ~q$~q9~1~w~'~.~1~4~q3 ~e~s~"~ 1~4q0 ~qf ~. ~q6~1~1~1~q! ~2qM~I~qS~qI~qS HAIN ~q!~qf~qf~.~q8~q0 ~qO~8qX~q131 ~qS~8qT~qA~qS ~qT~qI~4qM~q;~@~q?~qS ~8qM I Oil ~4~q7~q8~-~q1~q:~q8 ~q4~.~q8~4q3.~6~1~q7~q0 ~V.~1~1~1~q3~,~1~1~1~q: ~6qML~qIN~-~A~2qM~.~q0~q0 ~1~1~.~q9~.~1~1~-~2qM ~q5~1~1~,~1~1~1~,~q2~q5.~q7~q3 ~q0.3~q4~6qM $1~q8~q3~,~q1~q9~6qM~q7 ~0~9~( 33~q4 ~q9~O~8qU~qS~qS ~q0.~q0~2q0~2q% ~qS~2q3~q1~,~q7~q3~2qM~qO ~q51.~1~.~4~1~q6 ~2q0~1~1~.~q1~q5 ~q0~.~4~1~q1~q0~q19 ~qS~4q3~q1~.~q9~q9 T~qL~qL~4q2~,~4qJ~qS~2qM 1~2~0 13.8~,~0~q3 ~q4 IV, ~1~1 ~q9 ~1~1~, ~q1~.~1~0~1~q3~1~1~4~1~q0 ~qS~A~1~1~q9~q3~q6~,~1~1~q7~q6.~q0~q0 1,299.~q41~q0 10~q3,13~q3.53 ~q0 . ~0qU ~q2 ~q5 S ~q$~q4~q4,31~q4.~q2~7~. ~qT~2qU~q1~0q3 I'll ~I~~ US ~q$~9~,~1~1~,9~q1~q3.~q0~q0 ~q3~q0~,~q50~q6 ~q2~1~q4~q79.~q1~q2 ~q0.~q7~q2~q6~q6~q3 ~qs~qi~2qx~2qm~,~, ~8qu~8qm~qi~0qa~qs~6qm ~~ A ~q4~1~q8~q2~q5 ~q0~.~q0~1~1~,~0~q0~q7 1~2~2 ~2p~1~q61 ~1~4~q3~qi~'~ql~qi~qs ~q0~.~q0~6~1~1~.~q1~q3 ~q$~1. ~'~q5~q5~q5 ~.~q1~2q0.~q0~q0 W~.~q1~q2~q0 ~q23~,~q0~q1~q2.~q2~q0 ~6qm~qs~qo~6qn ~qs~qi~qc~2qm~2qx ~2qmn~0qn~8qa~qs~qin ~1~2~3 2~A~qL~1~29~1~9~1 ~q3~1~q0~1~q6~q8~1~1 ~8qM~qE~q0~q7~q1 ~q1~1~1~1~,~q1~q8~q3~1~q1~qS~q9.~q0~q0 ~qL~qI~qS~q0~,~q4~q4~q! 13~q2,~q7~q4~q1.3~q5 ~q0.~q52~0q0~q9 $~q5~q9~,92~1~1.~q4~q2 ~qT~qI~qL~"~1~q1~q"~qL~ql~qs~q"~0qn ~1~2~4 ~q2~q0~,~4~1~qH ~0q0~q1~,~q8~q3~q7 ~q@ ~. ~1~w~, ~1~, ~1. ~4~1~1~1 ~6~1~1~1~.~q5~q:~1~q2~q1~q5 ~q1~q1~4~1.~q309.~q53 L~0qM~qS ~2qW,91~q8.~q2~qf ~qIL~qL~.~"~6qV~IL~qI~qS~0qm IN ISO 1~q4~,9~q5~q0 ~q0.~q01~q0~q0~q3 ~qS3~q1~,~q3~q4~q6.~q0~q0 1~1~4~1~-~q4~1~.~q3 3~q1~q4.51 ~q0.~q39~q6~q0~q0 ~4qM~qC~qS~q! ~qT~8qL ~8q7~- ~q1~8q3 S Ill ~1~&~1 ~q1~.~q5~q5~q1 ~q1~q1~q1~1~q1~q2~q1 ~q0.~q0~q0~1~,~q0~1~4 ~q$~q1~q3~q5~q2.~1~1~q6~q1.~q0~q0 ~q1~,~q0~1~1~q5~,~q1~q6~1~4 ~q3,33~q3.~q6~1~1 ~q0~.~q1~1~.~1~q0~q5~1~, $~1~6~.~q0~q6~q1~.~2q1 ~qI~4qL~"~.~7~.~1~1~1~o~ql~qs~q"~qT~qi 152 ~q4~1~q4~2qH ~q1~q1~q3~,~q59~q0 ~q0.~q0~q2~1~,~q2~q3 ~q13S~,3~q7~q9 ~q4~4~1~6~,~q2~q5~q0.~q0~q6 ~q0~.~2q9~q7~2qH ~q$~q3~,~8q0~q6~.~q7~q4 ~qT~qI~qL~I~.V~1~1~q1~qS~qI~qT~qI is) lit ~q1~q2~q1~,~q9~q1~q4 ~q0.~q0~q0~q211 ~q$~q5~q8~q3~,~q6~q0~q0.~q0~q0 IRISH ~1~4~.~q2~q3~q1.~q1~q5 0.~q1~q12~q51 ~q1~'~1~q2~q5.1~q4 ~qT~qI~qL~1~1~1~q3~2q3~q1~2qVT~q1 ~l~i~t ~2q0~q9~1~q7~q1~q0 2,153,071 0.3~4~4500 ~q$~q5~,~2q0~q1~,~q1~q5~q0~.~q0~q0 26~q0,~q0~q9~qD 1,138.172.~q40 ~q0.~q0~q4~q59~q1 $~q1~q4.~q5~q2~q1.~q0~q4 ~qT~qEM ~qIL~qI~qS~qI~4qn 221 ~1~1~6~q7~q7~,~q4~q4~q0 ~q3~q2~-~q4~q2~q3.1~q5~q0 ~q0.~q0~q0~q3~q5~q6 $~q4~q4~,~q7~q2~q3~,5~q15.~q0~q0 7~q77,~q3~q;~q4 ~q3~q1~q2,~2q02.~q31 ~q1.01738 ~qS~0qM~qS~qI~8qM ~qT~qIL~2qM~"~M~qi~qs~qin ~2~1~D ~q1~1~q6~q10 ~q2~q4~q4~,~q0~q9~q! ~q1.006~q60 ~q$~q1~q19,503.00 ~q1~q2~,~q2~q1~q4 ~q2~1~q3~q0~q5.~q21 ~q0.~q23S~qA~qD MIMS ~qT~qI~8qM~qI~qL~qI~qS/n 2~19 ~q7~,~q3~q0~q1 1~1~q02~q8~,5~q7~q7 ~q0.00710 ~q13,~4~1~q4~q0,2~q5~q0.~q0~q0 ~q5~q2~qS~I~6qM ~q2~q2~,~q3~q0~q1.~q30 ~qC~qA~2qV~2qO ~q$~q3~1~q7~q3~q5~2qM ~qY~qL~qL~"~1~q1~1~1~2q0~q5~1~1~4qn ~3~52 ~q1~,~q0~q0~q0 ~q5~1~q391~,~q1~q5~q5 ~q0.~q0~q01~q4~q8 ~q1~q9~1~q9~q8~qf~,~q3~q5~q0~.~q0~q0 (30,301 ~q1~q1~q3~q1~q7.~q2~q2 0.0~q6312 1935.21 ~4qR~8qM~qA~qL~qI~qS/Y~ql ~3~6~5 9~q7~q6 ~q5~q1~,~q2~1p~2p~ ~q0.0190~q5 ~q$~q45~q4~-931.00 ~qj~q1~,~q0~q1~q3 ~q1~1~q1~q6~q6.~q20 ~q0.05953 ~qS~qS~q1~q5.~q9~q2 ~qT~qI~qL~2qM~I~qL~qI~qS~0qM solo ~q4,19~q0 1,5~q07,112 ~q0~.~q0~q0~q2~q7~q8 $7,~q499,013.00 ~qf~q5~qi~'~0qM ~q2~q0~,~q1~q3~q1~.~q11 ~6qU~q2~q6~q9~q0 ~2qU~-~0q0~q4~q3~q5 ~qT~qI~AL~2qM~2qU~qS~1~1~q1~q1 ~q5~q:~q2 ~2q1~q19~8q0~2q4 ~0q20~0q2~q,~6q5~6q5~6q5 ~6q1.~6q0~6q4~2q39~2q6 ~52q0~6q9~8q1~q1~6q1~2q7~6q1~q.~2q0~6q0 131,262 ~6q3~6q0~q,313.10 ~6qe~q-~44qu~6qg~6qgi ~2qi~0qs~56qm~6qo~36qx ~32qu~44qa~q,~q,~36qas~8qin ~q5~q2~q6 I~q'M ~2q1~2q0~2q5~q,~8q1~4q7~2q5 0.01~8q411 ~4q$711,18~2q5.~8q0~2q0 1~8q82,9~8q41 11~q,~8q57~8q6.31 0.23509 ~8q$2,~8q721.~8q4~8q4 ~4qY~4qL~4qL~0qO~28qV~28qas~0qin ~q7~q3~q1 7,130 ~6qS~2q9~q,~6q3~8q7~6qs ~0q0.~6q1~q1~q6~8q0~2q0~2q8 ~6q$~6qS~2q9~2q7~q,~6q1~8q7~2q0~q.~2q6~6q6 ~0q3~2q03,~6q2~6q59 71,~2q79~6q4.75 1.507~2q23 MANX ~4qI~8qLL~q"~q.~8q1~44q3~2q3~8q3~4qin ~q01~q2 (70~q15~q1 ~8q110 ~4q7~8q4.~8q1~2q(7 ~8q0.~8q0~4q01~8q4~4q7 ~8q$~8q1~4q1~4q1~q,~4q6~4q1~4q1.~8q0~4q0 ~2q2~4q6~4q3~q,~0q3~4q0~0q3 ~4q6~8q1~2q2.9~4q3 0.5~8q6663 ~6q$~4q3~4q16.~4q17 ~6qT~0qIL~16qF~q.~2q/~24qas~2qin ~q0~q81 ~2q1~q,~4q1~2q8~2q6 ~0q4~q1~6q1~6q0~6qf.~0q2~2q7~0q0 0.001~6q62 $1~6q4,~6q!2~0q4~q,~0q1~6q9~2q0.~6q0~6q0 4, 9 ~0q(~q1~q1~q6 ~q1 ~6q1~q1~q4 222,110.19 0.~6q3~6q4~2q9~2q9~q1~q6~q, $~2q8~q,~2q0~2q0~2q1.~6q5~6q5 ~4qv~8qv~36qm~ql~32qas~4qln Ott ~8q7~2q3 90,355 ~2q1.~2q0~8q0~8q0~8q8~q1 $~8q51~q,~2q1~2q2~2q6.~2q0~8q0 ~6q1~8q1~2q8~q,~4q1~8q3~2q2 ~6q41.~8q31 ~8q3~q.~2q69~q1~q,~6q5~q1~q, ~8qV~qI~6qS~2q2.~2q4~8q1 ~0qT~4qIL~0qU~36qV~28qAS~36qM ~6q4~2q0~8q7~q,~6q291 0.00972 $2,93~8q;~q,1~0q7~8q6.~8q0~4q0 ~2q1~q,2~8q9~8q9~q,~8q4~8q1~4q0 ~40qM~8q5~2q4~4q7.~4q79 0.~8q4~2q4255 ~40qWJ~4q3~8q3.11 ~0qTI~6qL~28qM~0qL~0qI~0qS~6qI~0qT~0qI 1~q22 1,23~8q5 23~44qM~8q6~2q5 0.00~2q522 ~8q$1,055,7~2q4~2q0.~8q0~2q0 ~6q117,120 5,513.1~8q3 ~8q0~8q3~2q5~2q0~8q8~2q4 $3~q,~8q5~8q1~8q8~2qA~4qS ~0qT~8qE~4qX~4qE~qI~qI~qI~q.~28qW~4qr~0qi 123 ~8q1~q1~4q6~4q6~4q5 ~8q3~2q4~8q1~q,~2q6~4q1~0q7 0.00~2q476 $2,11~2q3,159.~2q10 1.1~0q5~2q0,~2q1~6q4~2q5 1~2q0,39~8q1.23 1.526~8q79 ~8q1~2q5,~2q471.73 ~6qT~4qI~28qM~44qAI~0qS/~4q1~4q1 ~q1~q2~q4 3,5~2q90 ~36q0~8q1~q,~2q1~8q3~8q1 ~2q0.~2q0~8q0~6q5~2q5~q1~q, ~8q$~44q0~8q1~8q0~q,~8q1~2q1~8q3.~8q0~2q0 ~2q2~q1~2q1~8q5~8q1~q1~2q2~2q1~8q5 ~6q2~2q5~q,~6q11~8q3.~2q2~8q6 ~6q0.~6q4~0q1~8q0~2q1~2q5 ~2q1~2q1~2q1~q1~8q1~2q4~0q1~q.~6q1~6q4 ~4qT~8q1~8q1~36qM~qI~8qL~4qI~8qS~40qM lit ~0q1~0q1~6q2~q,~8q7~6q40 ~0q2~q,~2q1~4q5~6q3.~2q0~2q7? 0.~2q0~6q5236 ~6q1~8q6.~2q0~2q0 1 ~0q0.~2q00 ill ~2q10.~6q00 ~4qTI~8qL~4qU~0qL~40qUS~4qIT~4qI ~q21~q2 so's ~36qU~q1~2q0~2q4~8q1 ~2q1~q.~6q0~2q0~2q1~6q01 ~2q1~2q1~8q1~2qi~q'~32qV~2qe.~2q0~2q0 ~6q2~2q1~8q6~q,~2q9~8q1~8q1 ~2q7~q1~2q1~2q1~8q1~q.~2q4~4q1 ~2q1.~2q2~0q1~8q0~8q12 $2,1~8q15.01 ~4qT~4qI~8qL~0qL~36qU~4qL~4qI~4qS~28qM 2~q21~, ~0q6~q,~6q1~6q1~2q9~q,~40q0~6q0 ~6q3~0q2~q.~0q42~6q3.15~6q0 ~6q0.~q1~q4~4q1~6q1~36q" ~2q7~8q7~2q1~q,~6q3~2q6~2q4 ~0qI~q'~0qS~6q3~2q7~q,~2q1~2q7~2q1~q.~2q1~2q4 ~6q0.~2q01~4q7~2q3~2q8 ~2qS~36qA~2q8~q1~2q4~6q2~q.~2q4~2q4 ~0qT~8qL~8qL~q-~q,~qi~36qv~q'~32qa~8qs~8q@~28qn ~4q1~q1~8q6~8q5~4q0 ~2q2~4q1~4q4.~4q0~8q49 MOM ~8q$3~0q4~0q9.~q1~q1~0q0~4q3~q.~0qD~0qo A~q-40 ~4q1~0q7~,~0q7~4q7~q.~q1~q1 ~0q2~q.~q1~12q0 ~0q4~q1 ~qI~6qM~qA ~6qM~qr It ~qV~q1~q1~4q"~q1~q1~q1~q-~qI~qr~qb ~0 ~D~~~ ~q!~q"~q90~1~,~1~1~-~1~q3~6~1~q5~q) ~q5~,~1~1~,~1~q5 ~4qP.~1~1~q15 ~q0.~q3~q6~q0~,~1~6 $~1~4qM~I~1~.~q7~q3~1~4~.~q0~q0 ~q29~q6~,1~1~41 ~q29~-~q19~q5~.~1~.~q1 ~qO~qA~q:3~q4~qE ~0~~) ~q3~q6~q0 ~q2~,~q23~q0 MEW ~.~0 ~v ~q2~8qM~8qU ~qI~qS~1~q6~q2~q1~.~2q0 LIM~, $~q4~,~q7~q1~q2.~q6~q1 ~q1~1~I~qL~4q2~1~,~1~1~qI~qS~1~1~qT~qE oil ~q43~0~0.~q1~2q0 ~q2.~q1~q0~q4~-~q1~q2~q1 ~q0.~1~6~q0~,~1~q3~q8 ~q$~q7~,~1~4~,~q0~1~2q0~q5.~q0~q0 2.~q7~q13,05~q4 I~.~qS~8qC~,~q3~q1~qS.~q4~q7 ~q0.~q3~q1~q6~q61 ~8qW~q8~,~q8~q0~q0.~q7~q4 ~qT~qL~qL~4qn ~1~1~,~9~q1~qs~i~l~qy~ql ~0~q5 ~6~4~,~q3~q4~C~. ~q8~1~1.~q1~q6~q1 ~q0.~q0~q2~q83~4~1 ~q$1~q9~5~0,~q4~q1~q6.~q0~q0 ~q1~q3~,9~q9~q1 ~qS~I~qS~6qO~6qM 0.32~q7~q4~q0 ~q$1,~q113.91 ~qT~8qU~6qV~8qO~qS~I'll ~1~2~0 ~8qU~.~qS~q6~q5 ~q4~q7~1~.~q6~4q0 ~qO~qA~qS~2qM~I ~qS~qL~qS~q5~q1~q3~q83.~q0~q6 ~qlj~q73.~q0~q9~q0 1~q3~q3.1~q3~q7.~q1~q1 ~q0.~q6~q53~q9( ~q$~q1~q7~,~q0~q63~8qM ~qTIL~2qM~0qO~qS~6q1~q1 121 ~q4~qS ~qj~,~q1~q0~q3 ~q0.~q0~q4~'~q0~'~q8~q0 ~qS~.~'~q9,71~q0.~q0~q0 15~,~q05~q3 1~q0~q4.13 ~~q0.7~q6~q4~q23 $~q61~q4.5~q4 1~22 ~q39~,~q2~q4~q0 MOMS ~q0~.~q0~q1~q5~4~8q3 ~6qP~q6.~q0~q0 1~q4~q73.3~q13 ~q1~q4~7~1~,93~q2~q31 ~qC~.~q"~8qW~qo ~q$~1~4~6q3~,~q5~q5~q5~8qM ~qT~qL~8qO~0qV~I~U~2qM~1~q1~q1 ~1~23 1~4~1~6~-~q3~1~.~q5 ~q2~q8~q2~,~qS~qI~qA ~q0.~q0~q43~q79 ~q$~1~1~,~q3~q19~,~q0~q0~q0~.~q0~q0 ~q9~qS~q1~,~q1~2q0 ~q5~q1~,~q1~q1~q4.~q0~q7 ~q0.~q7~q2~q1~q1~q1 ~qS~q1~q1~,~q6~q5~q4~.~q2~qs ~qT~qi~l~d~"~.~q1~1~,~q1~1~qI~qS~q/~qT~qi ~q1.~q0~q4~q49~q0 ~q$~q3~1~q2~8q0~q3~q4~q1~.~q6~q6 ~q2~,~1~q0~q6~,~q61~q2 ~q1~q4~q6~,~q61~q3.~q4~q0 ~q6.~q1~q4510 ~8qM~qC~qI~6qA~qB~qS~,~q1~q1 12~5 ~q1~q0~q0 ~q2~q6~,~2qM ~q0.~q0~1~.~q3~q8~q2 ~q$~4~1~1~1~qS~,~q2~q1~q4.~q0~q0 ~q31~,~q59~q8 ~q5~q59.09 ~q0~.~q2~q1~8q0~q2 ~q$120.7~q7 ~qI~qL~qL~q7~6qV~4qUS~qI~qT~qI 12~6 ~q2~1~q0~&~1~q5 ~q1~q5~,~q3~q1~q5 ~q0.13~q1~q6~q2 ~qS~4~1~q2~,~6q0~q0.~q0~q0 ~q2~q(~q3~1~1~1~, ~q5~q3~q0~q1.~q4~q0 LEM~q$ $3.~q4~q8~q4.95 ~qT~qL~qLn~,~'L~qIS~,~,n 1~4~7 ~q2~q3.~q9~q0~q( ~q0.~q0~q5~2qH~I~A ~q1~1~q0~q4~q9~,1~1~1~q3 ~1~,~6~1~1~,~0q3~1~1~.~q7~q3 ~q0.~q8~q2~qE9 ~q$~q5~q9~q3~8q2.~q2~1~4 152 ~q1~19~q4~q5 ~q1~q5~q1.~q1~q4~q5 ~q0.~q0~q5~2~63~q9 ~qS~q1~q3~q51~q3~q2~q1.~q0~q0 ~q1~q2~q1~q3~qi~qo 8~q6,~q532.05 ~q0~.~q0~1~,~q3~q3~q1 ~8qW3~q4~q1.~q83 1~5~3 ~q6~1~q2~q4~q1 ~q2~q1~q8~,~q7~q3~q6 ~q0.~q0~q2~q8~q5~q5 ~q$~q7~q0~q2~,~q42~q3.~q0~q0 13~7~1,3~q6~q3 ~q2~q0,~q0~q51.2~qS ~q0.~q19~q5~q5~q6 ~qT~qU~8qO~4qUL~qI~qS~I~8qM 1~59 ~q1~q0~q1 ~q2~.~2q0~q6 ~q0.~q0~q4~q0~q4~q6 ~8qR~-~q5~q5~q0~.~q0~q0 9.~q1~q8~q0 ~q3~q0~q5~.~q51 1~.~q3~q0~q1~qC~A ~qS~2qH~q9.~q1~1~, ~qT~ql~'~.~P~,~qt~q;~qL~ql~,~qS~qI~qT~qI ~2~1~~2 ~q1~1~q30~q5 ~qf~q2~1~3~,~q1~q8~q1 ~q0.~q01~8qM ~qS1~,~q112~,~q4~q7~q2.~q0~q0 ~q1~8q6~,~q13~q2 ~q1~q4~,~q8~q2~9~5~.~q5~q3 ~q0~.~q1~q3~q1~8q0 $1~q1S~qI~8qA~qS ~qT~qI~4qU~4qM~L~qI~qS~8q1~q1 ~2~4~0 ~1~1~,~1~q3~q1~q0 223,1~q6~4' ~q0.~q0~q51~q4~q2 ~q$32~q7~,~q1~q7~2qL~qO~qO ~q1~1~1~,~q8~q2~q1 HALO ~q0.~q2~2q0~q6~q4 ~qS~q4~,~q2~q0~q7.~6q3 ~qT~qIL~2qM~qL~qI~qS~4qM 2~(~9 1~q0~q7~,~q51~q5 ~q2~-~0qH~I~P~qA~qS~q3 ~q0.~q0~q4~1~4~'~, ~qS~0qM~q2~q9~,~q3~q73.~q6~q0 ~6qW~,~0qM 235~,920.1~q4 ~q0.1~q11~q62 ~qS~qH~O~0qX~2qM~qI ~qT~qI~qL~0qM~'~1~1~,~q1~q5~2q1~q1 ~3~4~1 ~q40 ~1~4~-~q5~q3~q8 ~q0~.~q0~4~q2~1~,~q2~q1 ~qS~I~'~L~qi~-~q41~q5.~q0~q0 ~q2,~q0~4q0 ~qs~qk~q6~.~q!~q( 0.09~q133 ~q!~qs~8qm~q; n~2qa~'~0qW~q/n ~~5~~~ 3,13~q2,~q6~q1~q0 3,~6qV3,9~q8~q0 0. ~6qW~qf ~q7.~q)~q(~q2~,~q01~qS.~q3~q2 ~q0.~q0~q5~q5~q5~q! ~q13~q1~q2~-~qD~qOL~qS~q& ~qT~qIL~"~C~ql~q/L~qi~qs~6qm sit ~q933.~q805 ~q2~1~q59~q1~,~q1~q5~q6 ~'~4.32~1~,3~q3 ~6qP~-~q8~1~19~-~q091.~q0~q0 1.1~4q3,~q2~q5~qC 3~,~q1~q5~q5~,~8q3~q1.~q2~q1 0.113~q48 ~0qM~qI~-~q5~4~13~qAS TIM ~'~,~,~qs~qs~ln ~4qM~6qW~qL~qI~qS~8qM ~IT~qI ~52~6 ~qS~.~qf~qS~qs 73.~q530 ~q3.~q6~7~q3~q8~q5 ~qS~2qM~-3~4~1~q9.~q0~q0 1~q4~1~4.3~1~1~q6 ~q2~qE~.~8qW~.~q5~1 ~q0.~4~1~qO~qC~'~qS ~qS~q1~q0.~2q9~1~1.~q0~q! ~qT~qI~qL~"~.~q1~,~1~q3S~I ~$~~~9 ~q13~,~0qQ~q5 ~q5~q9~,~q1~8q9 ~4qW~O~2qM~q0~q3.~q0~q0 2~q2.3~1~43 ~q1~q:~1~q1~,~1~q7~4qM ~q0~.~q0~q6~q29~1~, ~qS~qS~8qM~qS~qA~I~J ~qT~qI~0qM~1~,~1~1~V~qI~qS~I~8qM ~7~2~? ~q2~q13 ~1~1~q3~qJ~q3~q8 ~q2~2qX~2qV~q! ~q1~q4~q5~,~q3~q8~1~i.~q0~q0 ~q1~q1~q0~.~q3~q9~qi HIM ~q2.~q4~q3~q:~qE~q5 ~qS~1~1~1~q:~q9~qD.~q1~1~, ~qT~qL~I~2qM~qi~qL~qB~qS~1~,~q1~q1 ~7~3~f ~q1~1~q1~q1~q0 ~q7~q2~,~q5~q25 ~q0.~q1~q0~q71~q4 $~q52~q2~,~q2~q2~q9.~q0~q0 ~q2~q5~q7~,~q1~4~q2~1~, ~q5~1~4~,~q9~q49.~q2~q5 ~qc.~q4~q9~4~,3~qs ~qs~q2~qi~4qm~qs~8qm ~qv~qi~,,n~q/L~qI~qS/n Igo ~q5~q4~1~,~4~4~1~q8 ~qS~qo~ql~-~q(~1~q9 ~q0.~q6~8qm~ql ~qs~qi~qs~0qm~q(~q9~.~q0~q0 ~q45~q1.9~q6~q5 ~8qU~6~,21~q2~.2~q7 ~8qM~4qW~I~qS ~q$~q41,~q2~q93.~q2~,~' ~qT~qL~qLn/~qL~ql~qS~qin ~10~2 ~q2~1~q0~q1~q5 ~q2~,~q8~q9~1~. ~q0.~q719~q71 ~qS~q8~,~q1~2q0.~q2~q0 ~q1~1~q1~2q9 ~q1~,~q3~q7~q6.~q1~q3 ~q0~.~q2~q2~!~q1~q1 ~qS~l~I.~0qM.~q9~q1 ~qY~qL~qL~4qW~a~l~ql~qs/~q1~q1 012 (~q70~q3~q5) ~q1~1~q7~q20 ~q1~q9~,~q1~q1~q! ~q0~.0~q19~,~19 ~q1~q4~1~q0.~q7~q3~q5.~q0~q0 ~q29~q(~1~q1~q5~q1 9.~q4~q6~q4.~1~49 ~q0.~q6~q034~q8 ~qs~0qmi~ql.~qs~qo ~4qm~2qm-~b~qi~qs~6qm ~0~8~~ 2~q5,~q9~6q3 ~q2~,~q1~q0~q4~.~1~,~q21 ~q0~.~q01231 ~q$~8qM~q5~q0~,~2q0~q5~.~q0~q0 ~q2~1~q?~q1~q3~1~q0~q5~q4 9~q0~,~q51~q1.~q1~q0 0.318~q61 ~q13~q1~,~1~2~q6~q8~q3~q0 ~qT~qU~2qM~4qA~qSS~6qm Of ~q3~q2~q8 ~2qC~.~q7~8q0 0.~q5~q03~q9~q1 ~qS1~q9~q5~-~q1~q7~qf.~q00 ~8q0~:~q19~q8 ~q7~q1~q4A~qS 0.~q3~q2~,~0~q40 ~qs:~.~8qu~2qx ~qT~4qun,L~qI~qS/n LAID ~q1~1~,~1~q0~q0~qS ~q4~q72~,~q0~q6~q3 ~q0.~q0~q2~q9~8q0 ~q$~q2~,~q5~q5~q1~,~q4~q1~q3.~q0~q0 ~q1~q3~q7~q3~,~q5~q9~q0 1~q5~,~q1~q0~q4.~q1~q8 ~8qm~qs~8qm ~qs~8qm~8qu~8qc~qi~qs ~qv~qi~0qm~4qus~qin 12~2 ~&~4~q3~1~q9~q4~q5 ~q460.~q775 ~q0.~q0~.~q0~q4~qf ~qS'~A~,~q731~,~q0~q5~q(~.00 ~qI~2qX3.3~q13 11,~q1~q11.~q41 0.19060 ~q$~2qQ~-~q1~1~2qN.~q71 ~qY~qL~O~2qWL~qI~qS~6qM ~1~2~3 ~q4~8q3~4~1~q! ~q2 ~q1 ~1~1~; ~. ~q5 ~1~1 ~q4LUSH 9~1~0~q1~1~,~1~q4~q4 ~q20~,~q1~5~0~q5.~q13 ~qc~6qm~,111 ~qs~qi~qc~qi~qg~qi~6qm ~qT~qi~0qa~8qa~qs~2qm lit ~q1~q3~1~I~L~q2~q5 ~q(~q3~q0~'~8qm ~q0.~q0~q2~q0~q8~1~, $~q3~,~q2~2q0~,~q5~q41.~q0~q0 ~q2~.~q1~q0~q6~,~q61~q2 ~q1~q7~,~q1~q6~q3.~q1~q1 ~q0.~q6~4~1~2qM ~qS~q43,1~qC.~q5~q4 ~qT~q1~' ~u~4qn~t~"~.~, I ~qS In 1~2~1 ~q2~1~q6~q0~q5 ~q1~q5~,~q3~q8~1~, ~q0~.~q1~q1~q9~q3~q2 ~2qW~1~q1~q1~q0~.~q0~q0 ~q2~qC~qA~q1~q7 1~1~q21~q4~.~q7~q1 LODI ~qS~q4,~q1~q13~.11 111 ~q4~1~q1~q1~q6 ~q4~q20~.~q7~q8~q4 ~q0~.~q0~q1~q1~q6~q0 ~qSl~I~8qN~q9~q4~q2~q1.~q0~q0 ~q1~1~q0~q49~1~,~4~1~1~q3 ~q1~q4~,~q7~q2~q6.~q7~q0 ~q0.~q8~q2~8qM $1~q2,16~q6.91 ~qT~qI~qL~2qM~4qU~qS~8qm 1~5~2 ~q$~1~q1~q0~q0 MAIM ~q0.~q03~q5~q(~q1 ~q$~q1~,~q6~q5~q1~,~q1~q2~qC~qO~qO ~q1~q2~q1~1~2qH~qO ~q5~q1~,~q1~q1~q3.~q4~q1 ~q0.0~q7~q3~q3~q6 ~qs~0qo~6qu~2qm ~4qmn~,~'~8qU~0qn 1~5~3 9~q5~q1 ~q2~q:~q1.~q7~q3~q( ~q0.0~q1~q4~q3~q1 $~q7~q0~q2~,~q4~q2~q3.~q0~q0 131,3~q1) ~q3~1~q0~q1~q1.~q41 ~q0.19~q55~q6 ~qi~qs~qo~6qm~qi ~qv~8qan,~'L~ql~qS~0qm 1~6~8 ~q1~1~q1~q9~q3~q2~q6 ~q1~q1~q,~q1~q4~q5~q1~q1~q2~q( ~q0.~q0~q1~q5~q1~q1 ~8qW~q19~q0~q2~q,~q0~q6~q9.~q0~q0 1~q93~q:~q1~1~q1~q2 ~q3~q01,~q1~q11.19 ~q0.~q0~q4~q19~1~q4 ~q1~q1~q3~q,~q5~q5~q4~q.~q3~q7 ~4qM~T ~qT~r~q. 1 ~1~4q3 S ! T~q1 212 3.515 9~8q4.~8q3~8q1~2q6 0.03~4q727 $1,112.~6q4~4q72.00 ~2q1~36q0~q:~32q0~2q2 ~2q41.159.91 ~2q1.1316~2q3 ~8qs~48qm~2qsm~8qi ~28qmn~q,~28qU~4qS/n ~q2~q4~q0 ~2q!~q133~2q0 2~2q:~2q!~q,~2q1~2q1~2q2 MASS ~8q1~2q3~6q2~q1~q1~q-~2q7~8q7~2q6.~6q0~2q0 ~2q11~q,~2q1~2q2~2q7 ~2q1~q1~2q8~4q7~2q5.~8q7~8q5 0.2496~2q4 ~2q$1~q,~6q21~0q7.~6q2~8q0 ~0qT~8qI~28qM~0qIL~4qI~0qS/~4q1~4q1 2~q19 ~2q409 ~2q2~q,~2q1~32q0.~2q4~8q53 ~4q0.~8q0~8q0~8q01~4q1 ~4q$~8q5~2q1~2q29,~8q373.~8q0~8q0 ~2qI~36qH~8q3~2q5~6q5 ~2q1~2q9~0q7.~2q4~4q7 ~8q0.~2q1~8q4~8q8~2q6~8q2 $~q1~q,3~8q3.~8q3~4q9 ~6qT~4qL1,~4q7~4q1~40q3~0qI~0qS~6qin ~q3~q4~q7 ~2q4~8q9~8q0 ~2q1~q,~2q5~2q3~2q8 ~2q6.31860 ~4q$21,~2q4~2q1~2q5.~2q0~2q0 2,~2q0~32q0 ~44qC~2q1~6q2~6q2.~2q7~6q2 0.0~6q9~2q533 ~2q1~2q1~q1~q47.2~8q6 ~0qY~8qL~8qL~44qw~28qa~8qs~4qin ~2qH~qS ~6q31~2q9 ~6q43.22~4q7 0.00~8q736 ~8q$~2q161,163.00 ~6q2~4q7~q,~8q9~8q0~2q0 3,~6q392.55 ~8q0.~8q0~8q6~8q0~q,~q0~8q0 ~4qS~2q2~8q0~2qS. 2 ~q1~q4 ~0qT~8qI~8qL~40qW~8qL~8qI~4qS~4qin ~q5~q0~q9 ~8q5~8q7~q1~2q5~2q(~2q5 ~0qS~8q2~8q4~q-~6q71~2q1~36qM ~0qT~4qI~28qMI~4qL~4qI~0qS~6qin ~q5~q1~q2 ~8q1.~4q7~8q3~8q4 1~8q1~q4.~2q1~q1~2q4 ~8qO~28qX~28qH~8qI ~4q$331,~2q657.00 ~6q6~8q8~q,~2q3~2q1~8q8 ~6q5~q11~2q4~q6~q1.~8q8~2q4 ~8q0.~2q20~8q6~2q2~8q0 ~0qS~8qI~40qM~8qO~32qM T~0qL1,~0q0~4q1~6q1~q1~0q3~0qs~6qi~24qn ~qg~q2~qf ~4q7 ~4q3~q1~8q1~4q30 ~4q3~q,~8q6~4q3~4q0 0.~4q0~4q4~4q251 ~6q$~4q3~4q5~8q0~q,~4q3~4q1~4q9.~4q0~0q0 ~4q1~8q4~8q2~q,~4q3~8q2~8q( 1~4q4~q-~4q892.~4q01 ~8q0.~4q4~4q0~0q6~0q2~0q8 ~6qT~0q1~q, ~28qm~0qi~24qa~0qs~36qm ~q1~q4~q,0~4q00 ~2q59~q,~0q7~8q50 0.01~8q67~8q4 ~8q$355,903.00 ~6q2~6q2~q,~2q3~2q9~2q3 ~6q5 ~2q1 .~2q5 ~2q4 LOW~q,~q, ~2q$37~2q4.~0q71 ~6qT~4qIL~44qML~0qI~8qS~32qm ~12~q1 ~6q3~2qS3 13,~36q0~8q1 ~2q0.~6q0~6q2~2qS~8qI~8qS ~2qS~36qC~48qM~2q1~q.~2q0~6q0 1~6q1~6q0~q,~6q39~6q1 1,114.12 LOS~q'~6q(~6q! ~2qs~48qm~6qs~6qi~36qm ~32qm~q, ~4qc~48qv~q,J~8qs~44qm ~q1~q3~q1 2.300 ~6q7~8q2~q,~8q52~8q5 ~4q0.~4q0~4q3~32q0~8q1 ~0qS~8q5~4q:~8q2~q1~8q2~8q2~8q9.~0q0~0q0 ~2q2~4q5~0q1~q,~4q1~8q2~q1~q6 ~8q1~8q1~q,~2q5~4q6~4q:~4q35 0.~4q4~4q9235 ~4qS~4qI~q.~32qM.~4ql~4qi ~6qT~0qL~q'~q.~q"~q.~0qI~q,~q'~6qL~0qls~q,~q,n ~q0~q;~q2 ~4q1~6q70~6q45) 2~8q0 PAIS ~2q0~q.~2q0~2q0~2q0~6q2~2q2 W~8q0~40q1~8q3~6qS~q.~q,~6q0~8q0 29~2q6~q,1~q1~q1~8q! ~q1~q.10.0~2q5 ~2q0~2q3~8q3~8q3~q,~q1~8q1 ~2qs~8qi~qt'.C~q, ~0qT~8q1~q1~q.~32q1~0q1~q.~q1~q1~4q1~0qS ~q1~8q7~0q1 0~q8~q1 13.339 ~8q2~q,~4q1~4q0~4q4~q-~0q7~q1~q11 ~4q0.~4q0~0q3~4q1~0q3~8q4 2.~4q183,05~8q4 ~8q4~4q6~q,~8q5~4q8~4q6.~4q1~q1~4q8 ~0q0.3~q7~q1~0q6~4q(~ql ~6q$~4q1~0q7~q,~32q0~0q8.~6q0~0q4 ~8qT~0q1~q*~q.~6q:~0q1~2q:~q'~q.!~6qS~q!T~6q1 A-4 1 ~0 ~q0 ~qI~t~-~8qq ~q$~q3.~q8~q8~q?.~q!~qf ~4qW~.~"~qT~,~"~4qT ~'T~qf ~6qX~q! 1 3 ~qS~q:~q1~q3~7~q1~2qW.~qI~q: 3~' .3~q4~q1 ~4q0~1~q5.1~q8 :~.~I~qK ~q5~q1 ~6qC~1~q0~.~1~q1~q4 ~q0~.~q0~1~1~1~6qT~, ~q2 ~q:~1~q0~2qP~.~1~1~q1~q3 ~q1~q!~q3~.~q9~A~, ~qO~2qX~-~1~0 ~qI~0qM~2qM ~q1~q1~,~q8~1~1~q!~"~l~2qu ~qC AT 3 ~q1~q9~q3~.~q8?~q2 ~q1~,~q4~q9~q!~q"~q(~q3~.~q7~q2 ~q0. ~6qU~.~1~q9~' 1 ~q1~2q0.~q1~q!~q3.~q0~q7 ~qT~ql~'~,~,~"~qr "LIS ~8q1~q1 ~qL~q!~q"~q7~q1~,~1~q1 ~q43.~q:~q3~q4.~6q3~q0 ~q0~.~q0~q"~4~7~q2 ~qS ~q21 ~q$~1~1 A ~2qW,~6qM.~q0~q4 ~qI~qLL~"~2qT~'~qL~ql~qS~8ql~qY ~0~6 1 ~'~8qX~'~q0.~q0~q0 1,~q0~q43.330 ~'~4~13 ~1~4~1~1~8qH~I~J~-~q3~q1~q3 ~q0.~q0~q0~q00~1~, ~qS~8qM~A~1~q9~1~8qM.~q0~q0 13~q6~,~8q0~q5 ~.~00.~q4~1 ~q0~.~1~1~q4~q1~qf~, ~q$~q7.~q50 ~q3~3~1~q1 ~qi~q:~q1~1~q8~6~1~q1 ~q0.~q0~q03~q0~q0 ~qS~q33~.~1~,~2q0~q7.~q0~q0 ~q18,3~q8~q8 99~q6.~q5~q4 ~q0~.~q2~q0~q1~1~1~q0 ~ql~d~l~q5~qs~.~q4~q9 ~qT~q1 ~q1~0~q7 ~q1 "LIS I I ~q1~1~,~1~q5 ~q7~q3~.~q6~q30 ~q0.~q0~a~q"~'~7~1~q0 ~ ~qS~q3~q5~q0 ~, 3~q: 9 1~q4~q2~,3~q2~q6 S9~q4.13 DAMS ~q$~q2~q41.~2qC ~qT~qI~4qM~6qA~qI~qS~q/n ~qT~q1~q11~q1~q? ~T~I~qO~4qUL ~1~19~q8~q2 ~q3~q2~,1~q1~q1~,~q499 ~1~4~2qM ~2qM~-$ ~qS3~qA~q1~q9~,~'~4~1~*~4.~.~q3 ~qT~qO~qTIL ~qT~qI~qL~qI~qT-~q1~2~1 ~q19~q8~q3 ~q1~1~.~0~1~.-~M~qI~qS ~q1~q3~,~qS~qi~qg~,~q03~q5 ~q1913 ~q1~q1~qL~-$ ~q$~q3~1~2q3~q1~1~8qM~.~q4~qi ~qT~8qM~qL ~qT~qE~4qM~-~q1~q3 ~1 ~qT~qI~qL~qU~qI-1~q4 ~q1~q0 ~q1~1~4~q1 ~qT~W~O~8qU~qL~qS Tin ~4qu~u~8qm~4qm~qi ~q1~q01~q1~8qC~O~1~8q3~q1 19~q1~q2 ~q1~q2~q2~9 ~q1~q6~q2~q5 ~q1~q3~1~q2~q1~q9~0qM~C~1~.~q1~1~1 ~q10~,~0~0~, ~qV I ~"'~qD~8qM A~q2~q2~q5 ~q703~q5 13,909,13~q7 ~qS~1~21~q0~,~q"~q02.~q1~qf ~O~qN~I~O~0qU~qL~4qT~qI~qC I'll ~q4~1~6~,~q2~q5 ~q70~q1~q5 ? ~q4~4~-~I~qS ~6~A~, ~q1~q0~,~6~q5 ~qI~.~qN~q5 ~q1~1~0~.~q79~V~I~I~qI~2qN ~qS~1~8q9~q9~1~q1~q3~q3~q3~q9 ~qT~1~9~1~0~I~qL~qL~-~qS~1~1~1~1~q0 Bill ~q1~q2~-~q43~q6~,~q2~q8~q1 ~qS~1~1~8q9~-~q5~1"~A.~q83 ~qI~8qM~8qU~qL~I~0qV~qI~qD III ~q4~q2~q2~qS 1~q02~q5 ~q1~q1.3~4~2~q1~,9~8q9 ~qS~1~1~-~q8~1~1~q9~1~q5~qS~q7.9~qi ~0~1 ~%~I~qT~qL~qL~-~0qV~qI~qC I'll ~q1~1~,~q2~q5 1035 ~q1~q1~,~q2~q8~q5~,~q1~q3~qS ~q$~1~,~q5~1~1~-~q0~q4~q0~.~q0~q3 ~1~1~1~8qM~I~J ~- ~qS ,1~q0 ~q1~q1~q1 ~q1~q2~q2~q5 ~q7~q0~q4~q5 13,33~q0~,~2q9~q3 ~qS~q21~q5~,~q2~q0~q8~.~q1~q1 ~qT~qO~4qM~0qA~q/~q1~q0 ~q9~4~1~q1 A~q-42 ~0 ~qB: Table III A~-~q3 ~qi~0qr ~8qM~8qa ~q1~q1~q1~q1~q5~q1~q4 ~q19~q72 -~q19~q74 ~q19~q13 ~8q9 A ~q1~q9 ~q2 ~qL~ql~qg~q:~q:~qi~v~^~qs ~- ~qL~qt~qs ~qT~qE~qL~P~.~q1 ~4qU~4qM~qR~.~'~q! - LIS TIL~qT~qE U~4qn~qi~qf~q; - LIS ~qT~q1~q1~1~.~q7 ~q4 L~0qN ~qt ~q7~.~0q7~,~q1~'~, ~qL~qB~-~1 MOM (001~' ~q0 ~4q0.~q0~q0 ~q5~1~0~q0~-~q2~q0~q0 $1~q1~1~q5~,~1~q5~.0~q0 1~q21.9~q3~q5 ~q1~q5~-~q41~q6.~q0~q0 ~q0~.~q0~q0~q% ~q0.~q6~q4~q% ~q0~.~q1~q4 ~L~I~qZ~E~q1 ~q0~.~1~1~q2~"~. ~q219.~q0~q80 ~q$~q1~q2~-~8q0~q5.~q0~q3 ~2qM~'~q1~q4~q2 $~q41~-~q3~q7~q8.~q0~q0 ~q5~q6~q2~,~q1~6qv ~q$~ql~qf~,~q7~q1~q5~.~q0~q0 ~q0.~q2~q0~q% ~q0.~q4~q4~q1 MIA ~I~qM~~~qI~qT~qI~qS~q1 (~q0~q1~q9~" ~q0 $~q0.~q00 1~119~q5 $~1~,~q8~q6.~q0~q0 $0.~q00 ~q0.~q0~q0~q1 ~q0~.~q0~q0~q% ~q0~:~~~8qH~qI~qS~q1 ~8qM~4qA ~1~1~qa~r~l~qs~qi NEON (~q5~q3~q3) $~q0.~q00 ~q1 ~q$~q0.00 ~q1~,~q59~q1 ~q1~q3~2qH.~q0~q0 ~q0~.~q0~q0~q% CAR ~qO.~q;~q:~qk ~qW~~qM~T~4qH~qE (~q0~q5~q1) ~q$~q0.~q0~q0 ~q3~.~q4~q6~q7 ~q$~q1~1~q0~q6~qC~qO~qO ~q1~1~q3~q3~q2 ~q1~1~,~1~q1~q4~q9.~q0~q0 ~q0~q3~q0~q% ~q0.~q00~q1 ~qC.~qC~1~q1 ~1~4~1~.~1~q5~q5~q0 PIMA ~q0 $~q0.~q00 ~q0 $~q0.00 ~q0~.~q0~q5~q% ~q0~.~q0~q0~q% 0.~q50~q% ~4qC~q5~q0~q9~,~q5~q0~q7 ~2qC~2qM,~q5~q7~q1 ~q51~,~q2~q43,~q9~q4~q6.0~q0 ~q6,~q7~q5~q2.~q5~q9~q0 ~q$~1~,~q2~q1~q:~q3~q6~q9.~q0~q0 ~qS~.~q8~q6~q% ~q1.~q4~-~q1 M~qi~qk ~q(~q0~q9~q0 ~q6~1~4~1~q2~-~q1~q2~q7 ~q$~2q9~.~q1~q0~1~1~.~q0~q0 1~,~q0~q6~q7~,~q1~q7~q2 $~q1~q2~q1~,~q10~q6~.0~q0 ~2qU~ql~ql~-~qc~qo~qs ~q$~q1~8q0~-~qS~qC~I~qA~q1~. ~q0.~q5~q6~q% ~q1~.~q2~q4% ~8qM~qs~q% Cos[ ~q(~'~4~4~0qA) ~q0 ~q$~q0~.~q0~q3 ~q3~1~q5~q8~1~1~, ~q$~qi~,~q2~q2~q3.~q0~q0 ~q31~q5 $1~q8~q7.~q0~q0 0.~q0~q3% ~q0~.~q0~q0~q% ~q0.~q0~q0~q1 ~S. ~TL~qO~4qU ~q1~1~1~,~q1~1~1 ~qI~qS~qC~qA~qD~qO ~qS~2qW~I~8qM~qA~qO ~q6~q4~q9 ~q$2~q7~q7.0~q0 ~q5~q1~I~qF~q1~q7 ~q$~q1~1~1.~q4~8qH ~.~q0~q0 ~q0~q3~q8~q% ~q5.~q0~q0~q% ~q0~.~q0~6q1 ~W~~~qM 1. ~q(1~q2~q2~q1 2~q3~,~q1~q3~q5 ~8qv ~.~q4~q6~q5.0~q0 ~q1~q1~q0~-~q0~q7~q1 ~q$~q2~q5~q8~q3~q1~q1~.~q0~q0 ~6q6~q9~,~q4~q2~q2 ~q1~q1~q1~1~1~1~q1~q1~1~1.~q00 ~q0.0~q2~q1 ~q0~.~2q9~q1 ~qO~2qM~qI ~Y~I~qU~qM~2qM ~q(~4~,~q2~1~1~1~1 ~q1~1~q9~q0~q!~1~q3~q1~q8 ~q$~q"!~2qM~qV.~qD~qo ~1~,2~q6~q4~,~q5~1~1~q8 $~q5~q5~1~1~-~q1~q8~q3.~q0~q0 ~q2~.~q5~q9~q1~-~q5~q7~q1 ~q1.~q1~q1~q1 ~q2~qA~q4~q1 ~q2~.~4q9% WE ~qP~.~1~q1~q1~1~1~q1~q1~q1~q2~q4~q! ~q0 ~q$0.~q00 ~6qW~-~6qM $~q9~q4~,~q5~q9~q3.~q00 ~q9~q6~1~6~,~2q9~q9 ~8qW~qO~-~q700~.0~q0 ~q0.~q0~q0~q% ~q0~q3~q3~q% ~.~q0~2q9 ~qr~ ~s ~qr~-~q1~9~2~1 ~q1~4~1~.~1~q!~q" ~q0 $0.~q0~q0 ~q0 ~q$~q0.0~q0 ~q2~q5~1~, ~q$~q13~q4.~2q0 ~q0.~q0~q0~q% ~q0~.~q0~1~q1 ~q0~.~q0~.~1~q1 ~I~qr~~~qN~q"~qT ~qQ~4qV~qI ~q7~'~1~q5~-3~q9~q6 ~q$~"~8qM~I~qA~qI~8qM~qO ~8qV~q6~,~q0~8q6 ~qS~q2~q0~1~1~1~q0~q(~41~.~q0~q0 ~q4~q4~q6~,~1~1~q2~4 ~q0.~q1~q4~q1 ~q0~.~q!~q5~q% ~q0~.~q5~q1~q% ~qM~ I~8qM ~1~1~.~1~q5~q:~, ~q6~q0~-~q3~q5~q1 ~qS~q3~q1~.~q6~1~1~-~q5.~q0~q0 ~2qW~.~-~6qM ~qV~A~qI~-~q3~q1~q1~.~q0~q0 ~q6~q5~,~4~1~qr~o~qo ~q1~q3~q6.~q3~q3~q1.~q0~q0 0.5~q8~q1 ~q5.~q49% ~q0.~q7~q3~q% ~qr~~:~T~t ~q1~q1~4qH ~q!~q1~5~53~'~ ~0qP~.~1~-~2q1~q4 ~qS~8qH~.~1~8q3~qS~.~q0~q0 ~q1~.~q0~q4~q0~-~9~.~q29 ~q3~6~q0~q0~-~q3~q6~1~1~.~q0~q0 1~.~4~1~qi~i~.~q2~q4~q! ~qO~qA~1~1~q% ~q1.~q2~8q3 ~q1.~q3~q7~q1 ~1~1~~q3~q"~.~6 Sri ~qr~E~2qM~0qN~1~q1~q6~qV ~;~q7~.~1~1~8qH~qA~qS~qO ~q3~.~q9~q4~0qM ~q1 $~1~4~4~1~q7~-~q433.00 10.~q7~q6~q3~.~1~,~q3~q3 ~q3~q3.~q7~1~1~q% ~q4~.~4q0~q% ~1~4~q2~.~8q3~q% ~I~qM~qM~qE~. ~q(~1~1~1~4~1~@~: ~qs~qi~1~1~-~q0~q8~0~.~q3~q0 ~q!~q5~q5~1~q4~q3~q7 ~qS~8qH~qA~.~1~1~4.~q0~q3 ~qP~q9,13~q1 ~8qP~q3~1~q1~q3~q0~.~q0~q0 1.~q7~8q4 ~q0~.~2q0~q% ~q0~.~q3~q1~q% ~qK~Y~qW~4qH~qY ~q(~1~1~4~4~q!~1 ~q1~q!~-~q2~8qV~-~k~1~qI~q7 ~qs~6q"~J~I~.~6qW~.~q0~q0 ~q4~1~1~1~-~q4~q2~q8~-~q3~q4~q5 ~q4~q2~.~q0~q1~q3~,~q8~q:~q7 ~q$~2q0~q0~.~q0~q0~q0~.~q0~q0 ~1~q"~V~1~.~1~1~q6~q% ~q4~q8~.~q3~1~4q9 ~6qV~qA~q1~q1 3~q51~,11~q0 ~qS~q2~q4~r~q,~r ~I~I~~~~T~1~q5~q1 ~q1~9~,~q4~q0~1~: 2~q2~1-~q1~q2~q5 ~qS~I~A~.~@~,~q0~q13.~q0~q0 ~J3.~q0~q0 ~q2~q0~1~A~1~q0~q9~q0 ~q1~q1~q4~,~q4~q4~c~.~q0~q0 ~q0~.~2~1~q0~q% 0.3~q6~q% ~q0.~1~1~q3~q% ~P~0~1~~~0~qc~ql ~q(~q2~2q0~1~1 ~2qM~8qP~'~q7~q1~q0 3.104,5~q7~q4 ~q$212,0~q4~q7.00 ~4qM~2q3~.~q1~q6~q1 $~q3~q1~q7~-~q0~q9~q1~.0~q0 ~2qH~q!~q% ~q4~.~q4~q4~q% ~q4.~q4~1~1~q1 ~S~qU~1~q3 ~q0~q0~1~4~, ~q0 ~q$~q5.~q00 $2~q5.~q00 ~q2~q1 ~q$3~q5.~q00 0.~q0~q0~q1 ~q0~.~q0~q0~q% MCI~q% ~S~~"~~1~~P~qI~8qR (3~4~2qM~) ~q0 ~q$~q3.~q0~q0 ~q0 ~q$~q0.00 ~q4~1~10 ~q$~q8~q4.~q0~q0 ~q0.~q0~q0~q% ~q0.~q1~q0~q1 ~qQ.~q0~q1~q% ~s~c~qr ~q(~q3~2~1~q9~1~1 Is MAO ~q1~1~q2~qS~qI ~qS~q2~q3~q9~qS.~q0~q3 ~q0~.~q0~q0~q% ~qO~.~qO~qD~q% ~q0~.~q0~q1~q% ~I.~S. ~qs~qi~qs~qs ~q1~q3~q3~q5~q1 ~6qP~qo ~1~4~1~q:~q7~q9.~q1~q1 336 ~q$133.0~q0 LEH ~qS~q:~1~1~6~q1~qi~.~qo~ql ~q0.~q0~q0~q% ~qO~.~4qH~q% ~q0~.~q0~2q3 I~~S. BUS ~q0~q3~q0 ~q!~q2 ~q0 ~qS~qO.~qD~qo ~q0 ~q$~q1.~q0~q0 ~q0.~q0~q0~q% ~q0~.~q0~q1~q% ~q0.~q0~q3~q% ~S~E~I ~1~q:~q3~8q3~qs ~qO~6qV~; ~q0 ~q$~q0.~q10 ~q0 ~q1~q0.~q3~q0 ~6qM ~q$~q2~q8.~q0~q0 ~q0~,~q0~q0~q% ~q0.~q0~q0~q% ~q0~.~q0~q:~q% ~s~g~r~~qm~ql ~2qM~. (~q3~q4~qc ~q0 MOD ~q0 $0.~q00 ~q4~,99~q5 ~q0.~q0~q0~q% ~q0.~q0~1~4~q% 0.~1~4~4q1 ~SI~L~D 1347) 315 ~q$21.~q00 ~q4~q5~q2 WAD 1~,2~q81 ~qS~1~q3~q8.~q00 ~q0~.~q0~q0~q% ~q0~.~q0~q0~q% ~q0~.~q0~2qA ~I~qN~T~I~qS~q1 (~q3~q5~q0~1~, ~q5~1~q1~q1~q1 $~q3~q0~1~1.00 1~q0~,~q8~q3~q1 ~qs~qi~l~.~1-~q0~q0 (,ISO $~q49~q4.~q0~q0 ~q0.~q3~q1~q% ~q0.~q0~q1~q1 ~q0~.~q0~*~1~q% SIMS III ~8qM~qS) ~q1~q0~q6~,~q12~q5 $~q7.~q1~q4~q1.~q00 11~q6~,~q4~q59 ~q$9~,~q5~q4~q1~.~q0~q0 10~q4~,9~q4~q5 ~q$~q9~,~q4~q52.00 ~q0~.~q1~q0~q% ~q0.1~q4~q1 ~q0~.~1~q2~1~q% ~q"~I~~qM~q: ~q1. ~q(~q1~q1~q1~)~, ~q1~q0~q1~,~q2~2~4~q9 ~q$~1~1~0~,~q1~q4~q0.~q0~q0 ~q1~.~!~1~q"~q6~q1~q1 ~2qW~4qM~6qM~qO MINI ~q$~q5~q5~q3~q12.~q0~q0 ~q0.10% ~q0~.~q1~q3~q% ~q0.1~q4~q1 ~sm~qa~4qn~qs ~q(~q4~q2~q1~q) ~q2~1~q0~q8~q3 ~qs~l~8qm.~qoo ~qI~'~2qM ~q1203.~q00 ~q2~1~q00~q4 ~q$2~q11.~q0~q0 ~q0~.~q0~q0~q% ~q0~.~q00~q% ~qO~.~8qH~q% WHIM ~4q(~2q1~8q3~2q2~8qi ~8q0 ~8q1~8q0.~2q00 ~2q0 $~8q0.~2q0~2q0 ~8q1~q.~8q1~8q7~4q1 ~2q$~2q5~0q3~2q5~4q7~q.~2q0~4q0 ~2q0.~2q0~2q0~2q1 ~2q0~q.~8q0~8q0~8q% ~2q0.~2q0~q1~q1~4q% ~q?~q1~1~1~q7~q0~0q; ~4q1~2q4~2q4~4q1) 1~2q4~q,123 $~6q1~4q7~4q7.~2q0~8q0 ~4q1~q1~2q1~2q8~2q4 ~6q1~6q9~2q2~2q1.~2q0~6q0 ~4q7~q,~6q1~6q6~2q0 ~2qS~0q4~36q9.~6q00 ~0q0.01~2q% ~2q5~q.~2q0~q1~qA~8q% ~6qO~6qA~28qA ~qT~qI~qL~8qM~4qS~8q1 1~2q4~2q1~4q7~4q1 ~2q0 PA~q.~8q: ~2q0 ~8q$~8q0.0~2q0 1,139 ~6qS~q1~q4~4q8~8q1.~2q0~4q0 ~8q0~q.~8q0~4q0~4q% 0.~4q30~4q% ~8qQ~q.~q.~4q)~6q;~4q% ~qL~q1~7~,~0~1~qL~8qI ~q'~qI~q'M~0qR~2q6~q5~8q1 ~6qS~32qH,~2q31~8q8 ~8q$~0q71.~2q138.~2q00 ~2q1~q,~8q!~6q!~6q!~q.~2q2~2q1~q1~q1 ~2q$~36qK~6q2~q.~2q3~2q5~8q5~32qM MAN ~4qS~36qM~q.~36qM~q.~8q0~8q0 ~2q0~q.~2q5~q1~q1~2q% ~8q:~q.~2q3~8q9~4q1 0.~8q6~8q1~2q% KITH ~8q1~4q1~4q1~8q1~0q(~8qs~8qo ~40q0~8q2~2q?~q'~8q5~32q3 $~8q4~8q4~0q7~q1~6q7~24q0~q.~28q0 ~2q7~q,~8q6~8q5~8qC~qI~0q7~4q3~q1~q, ~4q$~8q5~4q2~8q6~q,~4q8~4q8~8q5.~4q0~4q0 ~8qS~q.~28qM~q'~4q0~8q4~4q9 $~8q5~q1~q,~q1~8q4~q,~4q4~0q7~0q3~q.~4q0~4q: ~4q4~q.~8q2~4q6~0q1 ~4q1~q.~4q9~q1~20q3 ~4q6.~4q5~8q5~0q1 ~q1~q3~L~I~qT~qTI~4qS~8qI~4qE~4qS ~4q(~2q5~2q1~6q2~q1~q, ~2q1~2q1~q1~q1~q-~2q2~q1~2q5~2q1 ~4qS~q1~6q2~q,~2q3~q6~q1~2q9~32qM ~6q"~qA~q'~2qS~44qX~q-~8q8 ~8q$~2q13~q,~2q0~32q9A~2qD 2~2q1~4q7~q-99~2q6 ~2q1~2q1~8q1~q1~6q6~2q4~8q1~q.~2q0~2q0 ~2q0~q.~2q1~2q6~2q% ~8q0~q.~q1~6q2~28q1 ~8q0~q.~2q3~q1~24q3 ~q11~q1~q1 ~8q1~0q0~q"~qW~q"~qa~q; ~0qH~qP2~2q6) 31,900,331 ~4qSS~4q8~2q2,31~2q4.~8q0~8q0 ~2q5,~8q029~6q3~q1~qJ~4qI ~4qS1,~8q0~6q1~8q1~q,~8q6~2q8~q1~q2.~2q0~8q0 ~2q4~q,~6q1~8q4~q1,103 ~4q$~8q8~2q2:~2q3~8q0~2q2~q.~8q0~4q0 ~2q2~4q1.1~8q2~4q% ~2q5~q.~8q1~8q6~8q1 ~8qS.~36qM ME ~24q3~8qD ON WISH ~8q1~2q5~q,~2q8~4q72.~8q00 ~32qM~q1~2q1~4q7~8q9 ~8q$19~q,~8q3~8q1~8q3.~8q00 2~6q73,935 $9~q,9~8q4~0q7.0~4q1 0.~8q1~8q8~4q% ~8qO.~0q@~0qI~4q% ~28qM~q1~8q1 ~qL~qO~qI~qS~q1~,~4q1~4q1 RIP), ~2q0 ~4q$~8q0.~8q0~8q0 ~8q112 ~4qS~4q7~28q0~q.~8q0~8q0 ~8q8~4q3 ~4q112~8q1.~8q0~8q0 ~8q0.0~4q0~4q1 ~8q0~q.~8q0~8q1~4q% ~2q0~q.~8q0~8q1~8q% ~qS~8qW~8qU ~8q(~4q7~8q3~4q0 ~2q1~q1~2q8~8q7~6q5~q,~6q1~8q1~q1~q, WHOM ~0q2,~8q73~2q8~q,~2q1~6q5~6qS ~8qS~2q1~2q8~2q8~q1~6q1~2q:~0q2.~6q00 ~40qL~2qI~2qS~6q5~q,~6q5~6q8~6q5 ~8qS~36qH~2q1~q.3~2q71.~2q0~2q0 1.~2q49~2q% 3.~36q1~8q% ~2q2.~2q4~8q3~8q% ~qS ~qS~2qM~q'~8q1~0q0~8q7~4q5 ~8q(1~6q0~6q0) ~4q$~8q37~2q5~q,~2q(~2q2~2q1.~8q0~4q0 1~q1~2q7~2q4~8q1~q,~2q3~8q5~8q1 ~0q1~8q39~8q1~q19~8q!9.~8q0~8q0 ~8q3~4q89.0~8q6~4q6 ~4q1~4q79~q,~8q5~4q1~q1.~4q0~q1~q, ~8q1.~8q4~8q2~4q% 2.0~4q4~4q% ~8q0.~8q4~4q4~4q% ~qS~2qNI~qD~4qS ~8q(~2q1~8q1~8q3~q1~q, ~4q1~8qS~44qX~2q8~q.~8q0~8q0 ~2q9~8q1~q,~8q1~8q1~8q0 ~2q$1~2q0~q,52~0q7.~4q0~8q0 ~2q1~8q3~2q(~q,~2q9~8q3~2q2 ~8q$~8q1~6q2~q,~2q8~8q1~2q2.~8q0~8q0 ~8q0.~8q0~8q6~8q% ~8q0.~8q1~8q1~4q1 ~8q0.~8q1~2q5~4q1 ~qT~q:~qF ~2q2~4q4~8q4~2q4~q-~8q!~8q!~4q! ~qt~4qi~qo~q'~q1~2q2~8q3~2q5~q.~8q0~4q0 ~8qI~q-~28qM~q-~8qO~4qt~8q: ~52qA~q-4 3 Table III A-4 LIF!"M IV 711M IRU 5:4 1983 1984 143 1984 LIMUS Tibul UEJUS Mul I v TIM % LIS TOTU', !.IS T@711*.- "IS pouir-S S POMS $ 151.111"15 S MIR (012i 5241.0ft $1011.4011.00 464-68! $263.303.00 411D.735 SM1,151.00 0.59% 0.13% 0.40% !On) 432-Ps S1,65.00 255,335 $31,173.00 151.112 $29,M.Oo 0.49% 0.23% 0.113% HIMIF1.1104111 76-8:., S29-31S.Do W244 53,421 $422.850.00 0.09% 0.06% 0.0114 COD WEI 13,398373 $4.513.839.00 14,124,290 $2.713.31.5.00 IS.20% 12.961 5.93% cost 109C. 27!,!94 $53,221.00 188,132 $51,126.00 MAU $0.98.00 0.314% 0.11% 0.16% 11 fril (1142) 0 $1.00 0 $0.00 INIM S2114H.00 0.00% 0.001 0.09 ELL Lill (1415) ASC, $23.00 0 $0.00 470 $11.00 0.001 0.001 0.00% III CON 1110 25 $4.00 0 10.00 0 $0.00 0.00% 0.0111 0.0141% T. S. if. TH-1.7 IN,,; 941,44? silili.98-1.00 1065-S-744, S621,120.00 1.731.091 $1.373.313.00 1.011 QX% 1 .111% TILUTILIV1231; MU,5414 S11-133-7118.00 14-181-19 S111150.11S.30 141310-006 4.31% 2.001 1.06% a PLUCI (1114) 5315'M S."SKA27.10 4.570,113 S2,1511.215.00 3,265,54C 1.31% 4.201 2.63% Sir, DIS (11251 186,6(2 S4111,210.00 111-154 $17.410.00 146,274 SHIS92.00 0.4111% 0.11,11 0.17% RIVIMER Wf;@ 6M:! $314.453.00 31,34i 112,4:3.00 441-610 SH1477.00 0.08% 0.03% 0.03% fonsfoT (1211 3.5115 S00.00 3,214 1394.00 14,61! S216.00 0.00% 0.00% 1111DIII (141; M4,1171.00 11021,761 S!102S.6611.00 1,269,1411 $11001113.00 1.58% 1.52% 1.041% it", lilt (152). S11I.Q.01J.10 !.S!!.A4S $135,379.00 1, W .1,4164 S1121.30.00 42.14% 1.0 1.331 TUTI WM!3) SNIXi.00 583.605 $36.551.00 7114.421 M7,363.00 0.12% 0.5111% 0.17% ILLILBUT (159i 15-M 5,36 $9.418-00 7.550 P18111.00 0.01% 0.01t 0.01% S $260,090.00 5.19% 16.05% WOMEN (21121) $98.128.00 17f.Vo S113f.978.00 1,112,472 116,432.00 0.45% 0.80% Me% KIRAIHI 11411:1 $11139,01.00 44,1213X5 $111MA.60 SMS2,510 $1.0113-330.00 24.11% 41.05% 4.1.071 1IMS1 (240) 31E.102 s*404.10.00 30.503 M.M.00 321.1% $81,127.00 0.44% 0.32% 0.24% OCILK P.11".N25011 W13415 694.391 $5115H.110 2101.11042 $19.387.00 03A 0.14% 1.111% POLLICK (269) 3.3114@303 MI-0122.00 3.140,250 $525,H6.00 5,129,373 $83f,(!S.OQ 3.11% 2311% 4.54% SLAO11305) 0 $0.00 0 10.00 9 $20.00 OAR 0.00% 0.00% SM (329) , 5,429 $1.650.00 71239 14,013.00 SOS SAS8.00 0.01% 0.01% 0.011 B.S. BISS (335) 4.194 $6.116.00 3,424 1!,924.00 4,169 $1,120.00 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% Sjur, 11got (344) 20 $12.00 0 HAD H $34.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.001 Sm 1347) 5,H] SCION 5,797 1551.00 21,415 12,063.00 0.01% 0.01% OAA IOGFISI (350) 303,110 $20.038.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0.351 0.00% 0.001 DF.SROOT1051) 0 $0.00 42 $111.00 0 $0.00 0.001 0.00% 0.00% 11. SPIW M21 f,028,11il $39f,141.00 9,186,350 $00,301.00 1,114,094 $412,531.00 ;.141 9.11% 1.59% SISPIELD (35f) 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Al 11.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SISFIELD (357) 2,947 $1,1211.00 11969 11130.00 I'M $729.00 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% S1111 R (359) 1109 $3,834.00 4.013 12,205 .00 142 $792.00 0.01% 0.001 0.00% SILTUSID10121 40 $4.00 0 10.00 0 $0.00 0.00% 0.001 0.001 stilts 111365) 23S,316 $23.397.00 AS4,931 $21.013.00 61,163 121,900.00 0.211 0.12% 0.371 M? liss 1418) C024 $8,128.00 21581 N1143.00 11088 $2.163.00 0.011 0.00% 0.00% MUM (4211) 1,286 $321.00 M22 $480.00 3,292 1115.00 OADI 0.001 0.00% SIDIMS] (4321 0 $0.00 Is $285.00 0 $0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7MOG (4381, IS'119 12,145.00 9,360 $1,240.00 61551 $1,150.00 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% TITITISR 1441) 27 $4.00 332 S122.00 $12 $235.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.001 Allp it (4671 461,411 S1,00,601AD 1,011,291 S3,035,11S.00 07,121 $2,283.102.00 0.53% 0.13% 0.51t "n Pi (506) 0 $0.00 125 150.00 700 $286.00 0.00% 0.001 0.001 S fill (509" 4,961,697 P91,771.00 I,M.013 19SI,149.00 9,119.091 $1,114.256.00 S.131 1.181 7.911 (5!2) 399,513 $77,597.00 691,111 $13112(2.00 331,65? $68,3181.00 0.45% 033% 0.21% A-45 3: .11! S: [email protected] C31 1*1 0.03% 0,01% 0. 13k "Xi $23 .00 0 $0.01 31 $2.00 0.00% 0.004 @Acl sit SCIL". (0010! 111V'141! S:,1631809.00 689,959 S451,116.00 1.35% 1.62% 0.41 spir Ln, Rr 9.!92 $3.140-00 54,671 $18,11413.00 34,415 $15,917.00 0.0141 Los% 0.03% S;::t ILVIV) D5,014 116-616-00 3,713 $915.00 CHO $11,959.00 0.15% 0.001 DA11% 32-nalls) 1303) 2,S'O $453.00 $1,130.00 11611 $436.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.013 I L S 123,112,150 $11,140,350.00 103.001 150.00% A-46 Table 11I.B-1 Calculatiori Of RE11OTS ut-@jan_ism-@:)ecimenl_- 1,,@,jex Th,:@ REMOTS Organism-Sediment Index is arrived at by summing the subset indices below: Mean RPD Depth Index Value > 0 - 0.75 cm. I 0 .76- 1.50 cm 2 1.51 - 2.25 cm 3 2.26 - 3.00 cm 4 3.01 - 3.75 cm, 5 > 3.75 cm 6 Chemical Parameters Index Value Methane present -2 No/low dissolved oxygen -4 Successional Stage Index Value (primary succession) Azoic -4 Stage 1 1 Stage 1-2 Stage 2 3 Stage 2-3 4 Stage 3 5 Successional Stage Index Value (secondary succession) Stage 1 on a Stage 3 5 Stage 2 on a Stage 3 5 -------------- RE140TS ORGANISM-SEDIMENT INDEX Total of all subset indices RANGE -10 to +'11 A-47 Table III.B-2 Summary Of Benthic Sampling Parameters At FADS For June And September Cruises, 1985 And January 1986 #Smith-McIntyre Biological Grab Samples Grab Core Samples Station For Benthic Samples For Fine - Date Saml Coordinates De Analysi Analyz Siev 6/6/85 Mud 42924.686N 92m 4 3 1 Reference 70*32.814W (18-17) 10/7 - Sand 42*25.497N 76m 6 3 1 10/8/85 Reference 70*31.755W Sand 42*26.443N 50m 6 3 1 Station 70*34.274W (5-9) Mud 42*25.903N 78m 6 3 1 Station 70*34.456W On CM (9-8) Mud 42'24.956N 84m 6 3 1 Station 70*33.909W Off EM (16-11) Mud 42*24.686N 92m 6 3 1 Reference 70*32.814W (18-17) 1/31/86 Sand 42*25.497N 76m 5 3 0 Reference 70*31.755W MUd 42*24.686N 92m 5 3 0 Reference 70'32.814W (18-17) 700 meters east of station 12-20 TABLE III.B-3 RPD Depths, At FADS Mean Value Anionq- (Number of Samples) Sca--on June Sept. Jan. ANOVA DATA SET 1985 1985 1986 Results Entire FADS Area 4.92 5.59 3.52 P<.001 (106) (155) (92) On Dredged Material 4.96 5.12 2.64 p<.001 (32) (27) (47) Within Site, Off 4.73 6.22 4.15 P<.001 Dredged Material (39) (30) (33) Reference Area 3.99 5.81 5.45 p=.02 (SE Quadrant Outside (11) (47) (10) Disposal Site), NOTE: Results of Scheffd test on ANOVA results are indicated by solid line; those values with solid line underneath are not significantly different from each other. A-49 Table III-B-4 Summary Iof Grain Size And Wentworth Size Class Of Sediments From Sampling Stations (Grid Location) At FADS sampling Location Median Grain Size Wentworth Class Date and Replicate (mm) (50% finer) Size mud Reference (18-17) June, 1985 1 0.0080 Fine Silt 2 0.0090 Fine Silt 3 .0.0120 Fine Silt Sand Reference* September 1985 1 1.000 Very Coarse Sand 2 0.7000 Coarse Sand 3 0.5000 Coarse Sand Sand Station (5-9) September 1985 1 0.4200 Medium Sand 2 0.7000 Coarse Sand 3 0.7500 Coarse Sand mud Station on Dredged Material (9-8) September 1985 1 0.0130 Fine Silt 2 0.0150 Fine Silt 39 0.0170 Medium Silt Mud Station Off Dredged Material (16-11) September 1985 1 0.0120 Fine Silt 2 0.0095 Fine Silt 3 0.0120 Fine Silt A-50 Table III.B-4 (continued) Sampling Location Median Grain Size Wentworth Class Date and Replicate (mm) (50-'19 finer) Size Mud Reference (18-17) September 1985 1 0.0100 Fine Silt 2 0.0120 Fine Silt 3 0.0120 Fine Silt Sand Reference* January 1986 1 0.400 Medium Sand 2 0.520 Coarse Sand 3 0.400 Medium Sand Mud Reference (18-17) January 1986 1 0.0090 Fine Silt 2 0.0075 Very Fine Silt 31 0.0070 Very Fine Silt *700 meters east of Station 12-20. A-51 TABLE III.B-5 Number Of Replicate Samples Needed At Four Levels Of Precision For Population Densities Of Dominant Taxa At FADS SPECIES LEVEL OF PRECISION .10 .20 .30 .40 Annelida oligochaeta sp. 18 5 2 1 Polychaeta Ampharetidae Anobothrus gracilis 34 8 4 2 Capitellidae Heteromastus fililformis 54 1-3 6 3 mediomastus ambiseta 31 8 3 2 Cirratulidae chaetozone setosa 29 7 3 2 Paraonidae Levinsenia gracilis 39 10 4 2 Aricidea auadrilobata 24 6 3 2 Spionidae Prionospio steenstrurd 26 7 3 2 5p@io r)ettibonae 23 6 3 1 Syllidae Exogone verucrera profunda 36 9 4 2 Mollusca Bivalvia Thyasiridae Thyasira flexuosa. 45 11 5 3 A-52 TABLE III.B-6 Comparison Of 1.0mm And 0.5mm Size Fractions From FADS Infaunal Samples From The June And September 1985 Surveys. (Total individuals are reported as no./m2) REPLICATE 1 2 3 SIEVE FRACTION (mm) 1.0 0.5 i.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 Mud Ref - June 1985 Species/Fraction 27 28 22 21 23 22 Species/Sample 40 33 33 Individual/Fraction 2980 2200 1430 1540 2140 2210 Total Individuals 5400 3096 4535 Mud Ref - Sept. 19.85 Species/Fraction 35 33 34 29 29 24 Species/Sample 49 43 37 Individual/Fraction 3900 4840 5480 2690 6540 3080 Total Individuals 9111 8517 10028 Mud Station Off DM September 1985 Species/Fraction 31 28 32 25 30 16 Species/Sample 43 37 32 Individuals/Fraction 4040 5330 7480 2690 4540 1090 Total Individuals 9768 10602 5869 Mud Station On DM September 1985 Species/Fraction 24 46 46 44 40 39 Species/Sample 49 62 53 D individuals/Fraction 1420 13000 9310 22190 14520 15960 Total Individuals 15032 32837 31774 Sand Ref - Sept. 1985 Species/Fraction 67 38 44 35 46 34 species/Sample 76 56 58 Individual/Fraction 5680 6060 3010 5150 3480 3070 Total Individuals 12238 8506 6828 Sand Station Sept. 1985 A-53 Table III.B-6 continued. REPLICATE 1 2 3 SIEVE FRACTION (mm) 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 Species/Fraction 45 31 58 37 50 47 Species/Sample 63 79 65 Individual/Fraction 1580 1430 2660 2090 2560 -1980 Total Individuals 3138 4952 5775L A-54 @j I TB - Total Number Of Individuals And Spec.@es Tn The 0.S mm And 0.3 mm Sieve Fractlons ([email protected] crn- Cor-@ At FAL).q In Junt-- And STATION Mud Ref Sand Ref Mud ReT GRID LOCATION 18-17 700m E of 12-20 18-17 DATE June 1985 Sept. 1985 Sept. 19'85 SIEVE SIZE 0.5mm 0.3mm 0.5mm 0.3mm 0.5mm 0.3mm Total No. of Individuals 23 5 45 23 21 24 Total No. of Species 14 2 21 8 14 STATION Sand Stati-on Mud Station on DM Mud Station. off 0,111 GRID LOCATION 5-9 9-8 16-1-1 DATE Sept. 1985 Sept. 1985 Sept. 1Q85 SIEVE. SIZE 0.5mm 0. 3m O.5MM 0 . 3wn 0.5mm 0. 3m Total No. of Individuals 22 5 74 18 11 Total No. of Species 15 @3 17 8..,;. 7 A-55 TABLE III.B-8 Summary of Mean Dehsity-And Of Species Per Station Per Season At FADS. SITE and Mean Density No. of species COLLECTION DATE (#/m2) Mud Ref (18-17) 4344 1.5 June 1985 Sand Ref 9190 63 September 1985 Sand Station (5-9) 4622 69 September 1985 Mud Station on DM (9-6) 26548 55 September 1985 Mud Station off 8746 37 September 1985 Mud Ref (18-17) 9218 43 September 1985 Sand Ref 11907 125 January 1986 Mud Ref (18-17) 4246 54 January 1986 DM Dredged Material 700 meters east of station 12-20 A-56 TABLE III'.B-9 Mean Abundance (No./m') Of Selected Taxa At FAD' In September 1985 STATION Mud Sta. Mud Sta. Mud Ref. Sand Ref Sand Sta. on DM off DM 700m E. GRID LOCATION 9-8 16-11 18-17 of 12-20 5-9 SPECIES RHYNCHOCOELA 143 278 26.8 20 34 ANNELIDA Oligochaeta sp. 6560 1095 587 45 10 Polychaeta Ampharetidae Anobothrus crracilis 1264 52 274 1285 45 Capitellidae Heteromastim filiformis 250 664 472 10 7 mediomastus ambiseta 1832 722 657 149 139 cirratulidae Chaetozone setosa 2252 792 730 59 10 Tharyx marioni 445 107 159 21 21 Cossuridae Cossura longocirrata 920 414 Soo 115 55 Lumbrineridae Ninoe nigrines 167 59 107 7 18 Nephtyidae Nephtys incisa 80 38 39 7 21 Oweniidae Myriochele oculata 156 76 73 216 91 Paraonidae Aricidea cruadrilobata 1477 365 459 34 .7 Levinsenia gracilis 754 1650 1880 563 365 Sigalionidae Pholoe minuta 128 10 28 177 219 Spionidae Prignospio steenstrupi 1561 566 761 1324 326 Spio ipettibonae 4803 229 274 122 45 Sternaspidae Sternasr)is fossor 3 347 493 24 10 A-57 Table III.B-9 continued. STATION Mud Sta. Mud Sta. Mud Ref. Sand Ref Sand Sta. on DM off DM 700m E. GRID LOCATION 9-8 16-11 18-17 of 12-20 5-9 SPECIES @Syllidae Exogone verugera profunda 188 52 55 1418 945 Trochochaetidae Trochochaeta multisetosa 625 180 351 3 3 MOLLUSCA Bivalvia Thyasiridae Thyasira flexuosa 1018 320 472 14 49 A-58 TABLE 11I.B-10 Mean Abundance (No./m2) Of Seiected Taxa At FADS Reference Station In June And September 1985 And January 1986. STATION Mud Mud Mud Sand Sand Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref GRID LOCATION 18-17 18-17 18-17 700mE. 700mE. of 12-20 of 12-20 DATE June Sept. January Sept. January @1985 1985 1986 1985 1986 SPECIES RHYNCHOCOELA 70 268 87 20 10 ANNELIDA oligochaeta sp. 212 587 197 45 57 Polychaeta Ampharetidae Anobothrus gracilis 21 274 100 .1285 884 Capitellidae Heteromastus filiformis 570 472 546 472 25 Mediomastus ambiseta 107 657 110 149 477 Cirratulidae, Chaetozone setosa 167 730 197 59 83 Tharvx marioni 56 159 187 21 175 Cossuridae Cossura longocirrata 310 500 213 115 183 Lumbrineridae Ninoe nigripes 63 107 83 7 10 Nephtyidae Nephtys incisa 7 39 14 7 3 Oweniidae M,vriochele oculata 87 73 151 216 646 Paraonidae Aricidea cTuadrilobata 70 459 126 34 57 Levinsenia gracilis 1689 1880 1239 563 636 Sigalionidae Pholoe minuta 10 28 7 177 116 Spionidae Prionospio steenstrupi 70 761 107 1324 2692 Spio yettibonae g285 274 251 122 255 A-59 Table III-B-10 continued. STATION Mud Mud Mud Sand Sand Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref GRID LOCATION 18-17 18-17 18-17 700mE. 700mE. of 12-20 of 12-20 DATE June Sept. January Sept. January 1985 1985 1986 1985 1986 SPECIES Sternaspidae Sternaspis fossor 59 493 126 24 is Syllidae Exocrone verugera profunda 10 55 3 1418 1850 Trochochaetidae Trochochaeta multisetosa 66 351 129 3 10 MOLLUSCA Bivalvia Thyasiridae Thyasira flexuosa 45 472 119 14 32 A-60 Table III.B-11 Mean Density Of Oligochaetes, And Top 3 Species of Polychaetes, Crustaceans And Molluscs (plus Arctica) Per Season At The Mud Reference (18-17) Station Species Mean Density (#/m2) June 1985 Oligchaeta 212 Polychaeta Levinsenia gracilis 1689 Heteromastus filiformis 570 Cossura longocirrata 310 Mollusca Thyasira Flexuosa 45 Chaetoderma nitidulum 18 Si-phonodentalium sp. 10 Arctica islandica 0 Crustacea Harpinia propincrua 3 Photis reinhardi 3 Eudorella hisipida 3 Sentember 1985 oligochaeta 587 Polychaeta Levinsednia crracilis 1880 Prionospio steenstruvi 761 Chaetozone setosa 710 Mollusca Thyasira flexuosa 472 Nucula tenuis 42 Yoldia thraciaeformis 18 Arctica islandica 0 Crustacea Harpinia propincrua 28 Leucon Nasicoides 18 Erichthonius sp. 14 January 1986 oligochaeta 191 Polychaeta Levinsenia gracilis 1281 Heteromastus filiformis 528 Spio pettibonae 243 Mollusca Thyasira flexuosa 115 Nucula delr)hinodonta 6 Portlandia lenticula 6 Arctica islandica 3 Crustacea Harpinia propinqua 23 Eudorella sp. A 23 Eudorella trumculata 3 A-61 Table III.B-12 Mean Density Of oligochaetes, And Top 3 Species of Polychaetes, Crustaceans And Molluscs (plus Arctica) Per Season At The Sand Reference Station (700 Meters East of 12-20) September 1985 Species Mean Density (#/m2) oligochaeta 45 Polychaeta Exogone veructera profunda 141S Prionospio steenstrupi 1324 Anobothrus gracilis 1285 Mollusca Astarte undata 222 Crenella decussata 94 Astarte crenata subiecruilatera 83 Arctica islandica 0 Crustacea Calathura branc iata 132 Haploops tubicola 101 Harpinia prorancrua 63 January 1986 oligochaeta 55 Polychaeta Prionospio steenstrupi 2601 Exogone verucfera profunda 1790 Anobothrus gracilis 855 Mollusca Arctica islandica 186 Astarte. undata 186 Crenella decussata 161 Crustacea Harr)iniA propincrua 331 Haploons tubicola 281 Aeginina longicornis? 126 A-62 Table III.E-13 Percent Contribu-ion of The Total Mean Abundance By Categor' L les Per Station Per Season At FADS Site Mud Ref Sand Ref Sand Station Mud Station on DM Date June 1985 Sept. 1985 Sept. 1985 Sept. 1985 POLYCHAETA 92.5% 84.5% 76.4% 70.3% OLIGOCHAETA 4.9% 0.05% 0.2% 24.7% CRUSTACEA 0.2% 4.2% 6.7% 0.43% MOLLUSCA 1.8% 8.3% 1.3.1% 4.3% OTHERS 0.5% 2.0% 3.3% 0.15% Site Mud Station off OM Mud Ref Sand Ref Mud Ref Date Sept. 1985 Sept. 1985 Jan. 1986 Jan. 1986 POLYCHAETA 81.2% 85.8% 84.7% 89.2% OLIGOCHAETA 12.8% 6.5% 0.45% 4.6% CRUSTACEA 0. 3W@ 0.84% 8.6% 1.0% MOLLUSCA 4.9% 6.5% 5.5% 3.7% 4 OTHERS 0.52% 0.26% 0.68% 1.3% 014 Dredged Material A-63 Table III.B-14 Rank Abundance Of Top Ten Species At The Mud Reference (18-17) Station Per June 1985 Mean Density #/m2 1985 1. Levinsenia gracilis 1689 Levinsenia gracili 2. Heteromastus filiformi 570 Prionospio steenstrupi 3. Cossura longocirrata 310 Chaetozone setosa 4. Spio pettibonae 284 Mediomastus ambi 5. Oligochaeta 212 Oligochaeta 6. Chaetozone 167 Cossura longocirrata 7. Mediomastus ambiseta 107 Sternaspis fossor 8. Myriochele oculata 86 Thyasira flexuosa 9. Prionospio steenstrupi 70 Heteromastus filiformis 10. Arici quadrilobata 70 Aricidea guadrilobata Table III.B-14(cont.) January 1986 Mean Density #/m2 1. Levinsenia gracilis 1239 2. Heteromastus filiformis 546 3. Spio pettibonae 251 4. Cossura longocirrata 213 5. Oligochaeta 197 6. Chaetozone setosa 197 7. Tharyx sp. 187 8. Myriochele oculata 151 9. Arici quadrilobata 126 10. Sternaspis fossor 126 Table III. B-15 Rank Abundance of Top Ten Species At The Sand Reference Station Per S September 1985 Mean Density #/m2 January 1986 1. Exogone verugera profunda 1418 Prionspio steenstrupi 2. Prionspio steenstrupi 1324 Exogone verugera profunda 3. Anobothrus gracilis 1285 Anobothrus gracilis 4. Praxillella longissima 570 Myriochele oculata 5. Levinsenia gracilis 563 Levinsenia gracilis 6. Ampharetidae 521 Praxillella longissima 7. Myriochele oculata 216 Exogone hebes 8. Astarte undata 222 Mediamastus ambiseta 9. Chone infundibuliformis 185 Harpinia propinqau 10. Pholoe minuta 177 Haploops tubicola TABLE III.B-16 ANOVA Results For Fourth Root Transformed Data Of FADS Dominant Taxa Among Among SPECIES Stations Seasons Annelida Sept. 1985 Mud Reference Oligochaeta sp. NS Polychaeta Ampharetidae Anobothrus gracillis Capitellidae Heteromastus fillilformis NS Mediomastus ambiseta Cirratulidae Chaetozone setosa Paraonidae Levinsenia ciracilis NS Aricidea cruadrilobata Spionidae Prionosnio steenstrupi NS Spio pettibonae NS Syllidae Exocrone verucrera Mollusca Bivalvia Thyrasiridae Thyasira flexuosa Species/Sample NS Total Individuals/Sample p<.05 p<.01 p<.001 NS Not Significant A-67 TABLE III.B-17 Scheffe Test Results Of ANOVAS For Dominant Taxa At FADS September 1985 (stations connected by lines are statistically similar Mud Mud Mud Sand Sand Station Reference Station Station Reference SPECIES on DM (9-8) (18-17) Off DM(16-11) (5-9) Annelida Oligochaeta sp. Polychaeta Ampharetidae Anobothrus gracilis Capitellidae Heteromastus fililformis Mediomastus ambiseta 89Y Cirratulidae Chaetozone setosa Paraonidae Levinsenia gracilis Aricidea guadrilobata spionidae Prionospio steenstrupi Spio pettibonae Syllidae Exogone verugera profunda Mollusca Bivalvia Thyasiridae Thyasira flexuosa Species/Sample Total Individuals/Sample * Mud station on DM and Sand Reference similar for this taxon. TABLE III.B-18 ScheffE Test Results Of ANOVAS For Dominant Taxa At Mud Reference Station At FADS (Dates connected by lines are statistically similar.) SPECI June 1985 January 1986 Annelida Oligochaeta sp. Polychaeta Ampharetidae Anobothrus gracilis capitellidae Heteromastus fililformi Mediomastus ambiseta Cirratulidae Chaetozone Olt Paraonidae Levinsenia gracilis Aricidea quadrilobata spionidae Prionospio steenstrupi Spio pettibonae Syllidae Exogone verugera profunda Mollusca Bivalvia Thyasiridae Thyasira flexuosa Species/Sample Total Individuals/Sample Table III.B-19 Observations Of Invertebrates (#/m2) From Submersible Transects Foul Area Disposal Site, June 1985 Dive 1-2 2-3 3-4 3-4 Habitats SE Mud/Clav Dredge Material NE Mud/Clay NE Cobble Area M 2 388.3m 2 44m2 188.6m2 246.6m2 SPECIES PORIFERA Halichondridae Halichondria sp. 0.87 3.04 CNIDARIA Actinidae Tealia sp. 0.03 0.01 Ceriantharidae Cerianthid (sm.) - 2.56 12.40 Cerianthid (1g.) .003 0.76 2.32 Cerianthid tubes - 1.34 1.31 ANNELIDA Polychaeta Sabellidae Myxicola sp. 0.56 7.13 BRACHIOPODA Terebratulina sp. - 0.09 MOLLUSCA Bivalvia Pectinidae Placopecten sp. 0.01 ARTHROPODA Crustacea Caridea Pandalidae Pandalid (sm.) 6.40 2.16 3.60 1.10 Pandalid (1g.) 0.87 0.34 0.91 0.18 Mysidacea Mysidae Mysid sp. 14.1 5.80 10.60 - Decapoda Paguridae Pagurus sp. - 0.023 - 0.01 ECHINODERMATA Asterias/Leptasterias 0.03 0.09 0.28 0.58 Goniasteridae A-70 Table Seasonal mean densities of the 10 most abundant seabirds (birds/km 2) with sta in each season in the contiguous waters inshore of the MBDS and offshore of t INSHORE OF THE DISPOSAL SITE Species Winter Spring Summer Herring Gull 5.542 (18.994) 2.922 (6.534) 1.653 (3.525) Great Black-backed Gull 5.341 (17.045) 1.286 (2.139) 2.109 (4.823) Black-legged Kittiwake 6.729 (34.865) 0.307 (0.998) Northern Fulmer 0.245 (1.091) Common Eider 1.124 (5.513) 1.143 (4.918) Oldsquaw 0.138 (1.032) 5.152(20.928) White-winged Scoter 16.450(113.699) 0.230 (1.346) 0.047 (0.412) Surf Scoter 0.094 (0.548) Ring-billed Gull Bonaparte's Gull 1.090 (6.991) Laughing Gull 0.053 (0.350) Common Tern 0.044 (0.241) Common Loon 0.031 (0.204 Red-throated Loon Red-breasted Merganser 0.173 (1.165) Alcidae spp. 0.229 (1.087) 0.322 (0.804) Cory's Shearwater 0.037 (0.330) Greater Shearwater 2.547 (8.940) Sooty Shearwater 0.375 (1.425) Wilson's Storm-Petrel 2.950 (6.549) Northern Phalarope Pomarine Jaeger Double-crested Cormorant Northern Gannet 0.785 (1.431) 0.155 (0.352) A-71 Table III-C-4 continued) OFFSHORE OF THE DISPOSAL SITE Species Winter Spring Summer Fall Herring Gull 2.148 (2.806) 7.312(19.893) 7.640(25.079) 32.538 (95.698) Great Black-backed Gull 4.714 (8.753) 7.209(22.514) 3.325(12.721) 5.616 (8.586) Black-legged Kittiwake 12.651(52.138) 0.849 (2.359) 52.579(149.995) Northern Fulmar 0.334 (1.552) 0.130 (0.360) 0.491 (1.502) Common Eider 0.218 (1.617) 0.123 (0.489) 0.207 (1.077) Oldsquaw 0.163 (0.917) 0.066 (0.346) White-winged Scoter Surf Scoter Ring-billed Gull 0.041 (0.248) Bonaparte's Gull 0.196 (1.456) Laughing Gull 0.049 (0.364) 0.152 (0.791) Common Tern 0.007 (0.381) 0.147 (0.731) Common Loon 0.090 (0.291) Red-throated Loon 0.037 (0.212) Red-breasted Merganser Alcidae spp. 1.847(10.282) 0.269 (1.527) Cory's Shearwater 0. 035 (0.219) Greater Shearwater 3.640(13.743) 65.532(204.160) Sooty Shearwater 0.085 (0.280) Wilson's Storm Petrel l1.224(23.030) Northern Phalarope 0.162 (1.394) Pomarine Jaeger 0.076 (0.395) Double-crested Cormorant 0.251 (1.826) Northern Gannet 0.920 (1.760) 1.110 (1.447) 3.317 (3.394) A-72 Table III-C-4b Seasonal mean densities of the 10 most abundant seabirds (birds/km2) wit stand each season in the contiguous waters inshore of the CADS and offshore of the C INSHORE OF THE DISPOSAL SITE Species Winter Spring Summer FALL (No Data) Herring Gull 2.758 (7.587) 0.718 (0.864) 1.842 (1.368) Great Black-backed Gull 3.980(10.467) 1.608 (1.369) 0.474 (0.685) Black-legged Kittiwake 5.693(13.302) Iceland Gull 0.050 (0.200) Northern Fulmar 0.343 (1.004) 0.342 (0.629) Common Eider 1.350 (3.904) 1.028 (2.721) Oldsquaw 0.105 (0.340) 0.457 (1.209) White-winged Scoter 0.146 (0.591) 0.114 (0.302) Greater Shearwater 0.028 (0.159) 0.228 (0.604) Alcidae spp. 0.252 (0.692) 2.203 (5.391) Wilson's Storm-Petrel 0.440 (1.166) Arctic Tern 0.257 (0.680) Northern Phalarope 3.820(10.107) Northern Gannet 0.228 (0.604) 0.319 (0.576) Pomarine Jaeger 0.114 (0.302) Common Loon 0.114 (0.302) Glaucous Gull Black Scoter Double-created Cormorant Red-throated Loon Sooty Shearwater Common Tern Leach's Storm-Petrel A-73 Table III-C-4b (continued) OFFSHORE OF THE DISPOSAL SITE Species Winter Spring Summer Fall Herring Gull 5.442(12.656) 1.443 (2.239) 2.647 (8.633) 2.288 (4.100) Great Black-backed Gull 7.028(16.651) 1.170 (1.880) 1.913 (5.015) 5.253(13.604) Black-legged Kittiwake 7.953(20.867) 1.424 (3.162) Iceland Gull Northern Fulmar 1.169 (5.837) 0.080 (0.272) 0.045 (0.270) Common Eider 0.516 (2.274) 0.918 (2.479) Oldsquaw 0.051 (0.304) White-winged Scoter 0.043 (0.371) Greater Shearwater 0.901 (1.985) 0.259 (0.868) Alcidae app. 0.819 (6.071) Wilson's Storm-Petrel 0.040 (0.200) 3.764 (7.498) Arctic Tern Northern Phalarope 0.156 (1.061) Northern Gannet 0.136 (0.341) 0.845 (1.232) 0.038 (0.183) 1.847 (2.351) Pomarine Jaeger 0.017 (0.117) Common Loon 0.205 (0.575) 0.070 (0.237) Glaucous Gull 0.038 (0.187) Black Scoter 0.064 (0.557) Double-created Cormorant 1.887 (8.338) 0.020 (0.121) Red-throated Loon 0.044 (0.220) Sooty Shearwater 0.170 (0.441) Common Tern 0.100 (0.386) Leach's Storm-Petrel 0.017 (0.117) A-74 4 7 MASSACHUSErrs BAY Z) .... . . .... 4 DEFT.. -7 t: T r u :ep wi. lit X'W 7 FIGURE III @'A 7 1 MASSACHUSETTS BAY ff NORT, V., V. DATE DUE. GAYLORDINO. 2333 3 666 14106 9478