Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site 1992-1998 Volume II Seawolf Mound Disposal Area Monitoring System DAMOS DA;|M O §$ DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING SYSTEM Contribution 132 December 2001 ie De ne. 132. my Corps igineers e England District : 2 ' I { i, i rl wy 7 an ( Z ' a ' 4 : Z cy : y form approved OMB No. 0704-0188 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Public reporting concern for the collection of information is estimated to average | hour per response including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and measuring the data needed and correcting and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Observations and Records, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302 and to the Office of Management and Support, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, D.C. 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (LEAVE BLANK) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED December 2001 FINAL REPORT 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, 1992-1998. Volume II, Seawolf Mound 6. AUTHOR(S Science Applications International 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Science Applications International Corporation 221 Third Street Newport, RI 02840 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER SAIC No. 525 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) US Army Corps of Engineers-New England Division 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA 01742-2751 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Available from DAMOS Program Manager, Regulatory Division USACE-NAE, 696 Virginia Road, Concord, MA 01742-2751 DAMOS Contribution Number 132 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 13. ABSTRACT Monitoring surveys of the U.S. Navy Seawolf Mound within the New London Disposal Site (NLDS) were conducted in September 1997 and July 1998. Field operations included data collection of one or more of the following: precision bathymetric surveys, Remote Ecological Monitoring of the Seafloor (REMOTS), sediment-profile surveys, grab sampling of benthic invertebrates, and sediment coring. This report summarizes the disposal and monitoring activities at the Seawolf Disposal Mound from 1995-1998. A companion report, Volume I, covers monitoring conducted at other mounds in the site from 1992-1998. The NLDS has been used for on-going disposal throughout the 1990’s, including unconfined disposal of suitable sediments, and capped disposal of unsuitable sediments. During 1995-1996, the NLDS received a total barge volume of 877,500 m° of dredged material generated from three separate projects (Seawolf, Venetian Harbor and Mystic River) in the eastern Long Island Sound region. Disposal resulted in creation of one disposal mound, the U.S. Navy Seawolf Mound, consisting of unsuitable dredged material (Thames River channel and berthing areas, and Mystic River) and suitable cap material (Thames River channel, Venetian Harbor and Mystic River). Bathymetric surveys, REMOTS data and sediment core data confirmed that the Seawolf Mound was capped with at least 50 cm of suitable dredged material. The Seawolf Mound formed a flat, nearly circular deposit with a diameter of approximately 600 m. After an initial period of consolidation (9 months to 1 year), the mound settled to an average height of 2 m with a small oval apex of 3 m. Across the surface of this mound, a layer (0.5-3 m) of suitable material formed a cap consisting of sandy sediments and gray glacial clays from improvement dredging in the Thames River channel. Based on visual analysis and benthic sampling, recolonization of the fresh dredged material by marine invertebrates proceeded as expected with biological characteristics similar to NLDS reference areas. Physical and chemical analysis of sediment cores collected in 1997 and 1998 confirmed that the top 50 cm of the mound was chemically consistent with the suitable capping material. There was no evidence of migration or release of contaminants from layers beneath the cap. Only long cores (>2m) clearly penetrated beneath the cap into either ambient sediments or unsuitable material. These results are consistent with the conclusion that the cap is a stable, thick layer that has effectively isolated the unsuitable sediments from the environment of Long Island Sound. 14. SUBJECT TERMS DAMOS, Seawolf, Sediment Cores, Capping, Benthic Recolonization 15. NUMBER OF TEXT PAGES: 146 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF |18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION |19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION |20. LIMITATION OF REPORT Unclassified OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT ABSTRACT 4 i] i) - 1 a pre dus way i i Geer ROY CMe te Raut a ie e 4 +h , abn ° jh ED A agegrton My _ 5 ' CA oT ay ah ’ t s. BARING A iis ia its BUTANE } tera ie ney ‘ uy , , ats a aD pate sid 4 Satiwctingl, ‘saan: ei a eh Aare me ar er he Teer yao an ine) Roemer dy Yea “ ra in r - Whey vy aot hl ee ty STE Ase ase lat ae as a $60 ERG) eo ames ie it A ith Were ears Role Fr Rrra ana : * a al ais Fis BET, The 4 baFe i n ne vet woeiawt ay Ley é i ‘ to A ett OF pando : ; ve i : lee ER per 7 ih o, ere io weak at ’ P vatar i ; 5s > 3 } 5a Se yt lesan bower iu 5 ee Pe a ep ae tid ates Mi cit Ad Avie iy Hike? aaa Fae ethan a8 vg SGP ORT LEO ALT NORGE A oth me AE wb Or PS wi ie ELAS an Mt Sip hat alee Ua TE aah Panag rig) day : Mig ur i i f x MBL/WHO! KOA NN 441 5 0 0301 0044 MONITORING CRUISE AT THE NEW LONDON DISPOSAL SITE 1992-1998 Volume II Seawolf Mound CONTRIBUTION #132 December 2001 Report No. SAIC-525 Submitted to: Regulatory Division New England District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA 01742-2751 Submitted by: Science Applications International Corporation Admiral’s Gate 221 Third Street Newport, RI 02840 (401) 847-4210 US Army Corps of Engineers New England District et 2 i aaa anepnaremng MOG a aie. 8808 i | tee boinc ay tes oi avid iia bas aa pee in a Ne ee He SAMOA room TABLE OF CONTENTS Page METS TOR DABS erecc cei iasec sale cieuces cecebeacesaccoes pees hese NEM Bk wea Rial el cose os socs Vv ETSI OR FIGURES series.) PIA woes inhi, Dieta. ll ue MRA Nas co LR eM tal eR ET Bs cn Boonces' Vii EOE CUTIVE SUMMARY oie iclcsscccescacesecconcusessecevadssosdebonscusemes sae testtectuenen RM sco cE. loccouee X OF PIN TRODUGTION (2. Bee Bee aa usceaucbvossetibuodssceueseveacevtaususitlonualrsueuniwuslsouabavoratodedsot 1 MEV BaCk Ground i.e ise c.ciucec ashe ct ctesssneseuceseussccnsssebeeausncuevsidesesececesvecceso tem eater ta meee: 1 M2 Seawolf*Disposal Mound ei rescues cd oseenctctceseneesiauncamcolsemeuceceorsess heen 6 eel U.S. Navy Seawolf Disposal Activity ...............::cssssscssseesseseeees 6 123"), Momitoring “ACtivitys. £5.17) eee et BI RUS cc wocaces osbeuoweuenssees 9 LES September 997 Monitoring: Sutveyercesrs cece cero ercrseccerceeses 9 L857 July 1998 Monitoring SUIVEY sent nce. ete crests cenesoncrensss 10 DAO MONIES AOD) Soe esrececcere ce cease osce cotan reve teycuussatceehce tears secectaceoeweretat tees cctesie creeeee ere eee 11 Digg wBathymethy ang Navi GatiOmerccccecsececcesscestccteccsas cues coussse soceccestaeaecsso. tecewes sess 11 Zale 1997 andit998 Survey Activityscc...1ce.scsrenseess ceees ence eeonceeeses 11 Dale? Bathymetric) Data: Collection. ess cess eee sceees cesses rene eee conte 13 Med) Bathymetric DatayProcessin gweessscccerscossceceescssteee see sececeenocnece 13 2-2) Sediment. profile Photography ce esc c.csccas cute. ncssseeeseces tees one teessoscceseccosessoees US ZO Seawolf;Disposali Mound reece. Sccveccas eect ocesetescesctesestce oust 20 Dee, NEDSS Reference Areas enone ieee ercrseat at ass conscdessanewewsiacessects 24 2 MUBENthic COMMUMIby;Satmplim Gere tesease eesascessaceecsesctersssceessacceensteesecteeee ences 24 BeSoN SedimentiGrab) Sampling acre eee cee errata cannes 24 Be? Laboratory Amaliysisi...0sisscos. cuss ciesencosseee Siccsstsnasoossoss sbeasece Pil) 224s GSOCIMENMEOTES ose. cad sascoss nc caatesseceucncesssctsuscousussaescoseseoseneussssuosetancubaeeuelorssate 2] 2.4.1 Field! Collections 28 eset cect ce eetaoaecentmeaeeswecumlennaiebes cates 28 2.4.2 Sediment,Samplimg) oe 5.03.2. cs de ssaees-scssasccomnsse nts ssacssentereness 32 2.4.3 aboratory Analysis) Methods. cers ecree se enone sesse secs: 32 2.4.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ................sscsssecesseeseeseeeee 36 BLO Mie RESULTS ee SA, TRU HOt STS ISL aad SOR A Dee Bo oo aca 42 SHE CSCAWwOll MOUNG ion iyi eke et ie alee aclusts ie Ueccenstclasel cau etecessuereh sat vote autacseseees 42 Salat Bath ymictrye te ee ee oe ee ee ONS, Men es coe 42 Sill REMOTS® Sediment-Profile Photography...............:..sccsses a1) Shales) Benthic) Commiunity/Amalysis(c.cccccssccsers cece secessctevoweresenceceres 69 3.1.4 Sediment Corning 8 eek CEN UR IN Os SA cess 76 3:2), SNIEDS'Reterence*Areas tiers: ssstines uv ostssrsehsoaeceses tae cuvsciossssteaaceeaworsentesev secs 102 AOE We DIS CUSSION oa esse lies che cdosessataals cele cecsuestasssctnesseesuntsuazaeticentucssacesvanavaedealeus 105 4.1 _ Historical Disposal and Biological Response at the NLDS....................0000 105 42 SeAWwOlts Disposal Moun Gin ieee seer est ane ese sc lsars saodssesestarseesaeeceuan deans 107 4.2.1 Topographic Changes of the Seawolf Mound..................000 108 4.2.2 Benthic Community Recolonization ...............::csscsesssseceseeees 109 4.2.3 Potential Resuspension from the Seawolf Mound................. 122 4.2.4 Sediment Chemistry of the Seawolf Mound...............se0 130 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........cceeccceesscessecsseeesseeesneeennees 138 51+ - Overview of: NEDS: Monitorin gs ocsiccsscccesstecescccetsncessnecsssessencsencstace te oneeveee 138 5:2) WeSs Navy Seawolf/Moumd sites cesccssccssscsosscssscsersssenssccstcccoscessaeetacseceesne eens 139 S03 RECOmMMEN ath OMS s2eeces.ssecesssceeccsssercesesacecsesseccesstcs-obonecteseecestoentes ssecnacmemncens 142 (FAO) aH VSN SIN (EIS a cnpacacoccadacncconcoccodcocoocadercacédoe cence ouasuosonsocoadeaspcopAdoaoadaoGdon0oeNceC40360% 143 APPENDICES INDEX ili Table 1-1. Table 2-1. Table 2-2. Table 2-3. Table 2-4. Table 2-5. Table 2-6. Table 2-7. Table 2-8. Table 3-1. Table 3-2. Table 3-3. Table 3-4. Table 3-5. Table 3-6. Table 3-7. LIST OF TABLES Page Time series of Bathymetric Surveys of the Seawolf Mound................::ccesecees 9 Summary of Survey activity performed over the Seawolf Disposal Mound in? 199 7 andst998 coe, oes MRNA Ecos Lab eed baa cocsesesecteonee 12 GraintSize Scales fOr SEGumMeMiSe sss esereens ee eentee oc cceeete ceneeerer eee eres tteenees 18 Calculation of REMOTS® Organism Sediment Index ValUe............c.cscseseeee 21 Seawolf Disposal Mound and NLDS Reference Areas 1997 and 1998 REMOTS® Sediment-Profile Photography Stations .........c.cscssessessessessesseseeseeeees 23 Seawolf Disposal Mound 1997 Sediment Grab Samples ................:essssessseeeeees ay} Seawolf Disposal Mound 1997 Sediment Cores................:cseccssecessesssceereseeeeees 30 Seawolf Disposal Mound 1998 Sediment Cores................sscsscsscessseseeecsseseeeeees Sill Methods of Physical and Chemical Analyses for NLDS Seawolf Core BSNL KSAT a 0} Verhagen dle alpah. tae, Lesa algeateal iy iae dade lei a eRe ances 33 REMOTS® Data Collected at the Seawolf Disposal Mound in September 1997 ANG TUly; WOO Siscs sv cccenccecsesceelceseossusesscesGauscccsscosssarsonuestesstsuceseeaccessaecevseecsnstetactscteecs 59 REMOTS® Data Collected at the NLDS Reference Areas in September 1997 ANG TUT yO Se eee ane ULI OBS e One ek tataed Orel ls l eunael aa eB gs Ua sgata te 60 Benthic Community Parameters at the NLDS Seawolf Disposal Mound ............ 74 Results of Physical Analysis of Samples Collected from the Seawolf Cores, Sepremiberhli99 Juecteceswitae wnsa key nine hekemecalaan iicea ti aate a AY IEE MULE Me raeeestaet 79 Trace Metal Concentrations in Samples Collected from the Seawolf Cores, SEplemberd]O 9 7 ei Pe Unset es Wen UL ARS anc asaAR ILE ee Cock tte eee el eete sae 80 1997 Results of Trace Metals Normalized to the Fine-Grained Fraction in’ Samples'€ollected) fromthe Seawolf Cores stscescssccssssecceccescsesessssccssnccecscessceseces 82 PAH Concentrations in Samples Collected from the Short Seawolf Cores (O0!5hm) #Septem ber W997 Ure Site eee eA eA UE eae es 86 Table 3-8. Table 3-9. Table 3-10. Table 3-11. Table 3-12. Table 3-13. Table 4-1. LIST OF TABLES (continued) Page PAH Concentrations in Samples Collected from the Long Seawolf Cores, September 99 fe ci..c.cccsscscesectsetcocstevcssveteceeces vasersnceonce csntossecesuacecose-ctarcescse se eee 87 Results of Physical Analyses of Samples Collected from the Seawolf Mound Gores, July 1998 5 ..5..50ticsesccacivessusvsscecsstecsetccueessard tule sontseusssoucensusececesteseeoetaeeeeeeees 92 Trace Metal Concentrations in Samples Collected from the Seawolf Mound Cores, July 1998... i cscsicatssoutssecisosnessienstss Moeueutees ask seh dhs os nest auctaceutealths. cose eee 95 Results of Trace Metals Normalized to the Fine-Grained Fraction in Samples Collected from the Seawolf Mound Cores, July 1998 20.0.0... ce eescesessseeeeneeeeeens 96 Results of PAH Analyses of Samples Collected from the Short Seawolf Mound Cores:(0-0:5 m); Jualy 1998 o.. socicececscccccsccencsedsncsstecsssesescsnsctevecoesesevccessecroesmecmeneee 98 Results of PAH Analyses of Samples Collected from the Long Seawolf Mound Gores, July 1998 ....c..s.crsssuescesteuiesteshegedstcdessensacestotenaasencetee-seescoccussecsess eeeeeeneraD 99 Infaunal successional stage classifications for selected taxa collected across the Seawolf Mound (descriptions for polychaete families are based on Fauchald and Jumiars; 1979) sc.cccccc.ccctsscososeccocceccssssnsssccctccuscssoescsccenesoetstcceceseeseess 111 Figure 1-1. Figure 1-2. Figure 1-3. Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2. Figure 2-3. Figure 2-4. Figure 2-5. Figure 2-6. Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2. Figure 3-3. Figure 3-4. Figure 3-5. LIST OF FIGURES Page Location of the New London Disposal Site................::ccsssccesssssecessecesseceseeees 2 Bathymetric chart of New London Disposal Site .................esceeeecceseeeeereeeeeeeees 5 Timeline of disposal and MOMitoring ACtiVItY..............:ccsscccesscesscceseccssecceeesees v Location of the bathymetric survey area over the Seawolf Mound relative to the disposal site boundaries, US Navy submarine lane, and New York- GONMECHCUES tale MMe Tree eckccetes sc tccesceecoatoeer necces es eat tecesaeeet ee See CACC ase ee aceon 14 Schematic diagram of Benthos, Inc. Model 3731 REMOTS® sediment- profile camera and sequence of operation on deployment................:ccsccescceceseeees 17 Distribution of 1997 and 1998 REMOTS® sediment-profile photography stations (29) over the Seawolf Disposal Mound, relative to 1000 x 1000 m survey area, disposal site boundary, and US Navy submarine lane...................... 22 Location of the NLDS Reference areas relative to the disposal site boundary andeNewavork- Connecticut, State Linen nncsccsccosr corte teen eere renee 25 Locations of sediment grab samples collected over the Seawolf Mound dunnegthes| SO 7pmonitonn gisutvieyyeceerette cece nent esseee teeter eee eect 26 Locations of cores collected during the 1997 and 1998 NLDS monitoring SURVEY SawithinespeCetOsradial ZOMESyceseeeece cee se eee ane set tence ease nae eee eae 29 Baseline bathymetry of the Seawolf Mound area, October 1995 (Gahagan ANG Bryant) ie cscs: cum saesoacooscorsceehc eines ac iecs eeced Cane ital one eeutc ce sy cagenwee celica eae 43 Precap bathymetric survey of the Seawolf Mound area (Gahagan CcUa Vall ©} e422 0018) pensar seep INN A A Ose A on Sc ag 44 Thickness of UDM at the Seawolf Mound (contour interval = 0.25 m) OVErlainvonybaseline bathwyime tyme ees eee eee ce nee aeeea a reece ate 45 Postcap bathymetric survey of the Seawolf Mound area conducted in Februaryl996 (Gahaganvand Bryant) ieee coerce ce ccce cece cree eteeeereeerecconcnen eerste 47 Total thickness of capped Seawolf Mound (contour interval = 0.25 m) Overlainionibaseline bath ymettyver-csse cee ceere re eee eee eee ese enor eae 48 vi Figure 3-6. Figure 3-7. Figure 3-8. Figure 3-9. Figure 3-10. Figure 3-11. Figure 3-12. Figure 3-13. Figure 3-14. Figure 3-15. Figure 3-16. Figure 3-17. Figure 3-18. LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Page Apparent thickness of CDM at the Seawolf Mound (contour interval = 0.25 m). Red line represents extent of UDM deposit (O:25 ‘My CONCOUL) je here Ase Keats, Decent taacadlbatebelscovecercausdadeeuittssssas Sue meouemeee 49 Postcap bathymetric survey of the Seawolf Mound area conducted in isottennloese Oe ee ies cacao eScosodo056040G0000406035 000000 aS GIS oaaodBadbaoda roo Sabocdaddnbacc00000000 50 Total thickness of capped Seawolf Mound (contour interval = 0.25 m) as measureed in September 1997 compared to the February 1996 footprint overlainionibaselinejbathymetiyrc.: screc-voce meee sccosecesecssecsssnessecccsnesene. san ceecnameanenecet Sill Thicknesses of apparent consolidation and accumulation of material over the seawolf Mound, September 1997 (contour interval = 0.25 M)............s:csscssseeseees 33 Bathymetric chart of the 1000 x 1000 m Seawolf Mound survey area, ALU Al ALS Serco ee pee cee RAS ey URE RE Reape nr CoO bEL Boece acEDscn000000055500 54 Depth difference comparison between 1998 and 1995 1000 x 1000 m bathymetric surveys showing the Seawolf Mound ..............cscsscsesessensenseeseeseenes 55 Depth difference comparison between 1998 and 1997 1000 x 1000 m bathymetric surveys showing minor consolidation and accumulation.................. 56 Location of Seawolf REMOTS® stations relative to areal extent (0.25 m) of Seawolf dredged'materialic.. es ccceccceesescrctceeccecemtesceteseeconese ee coteeencccetoneeeaerees 58 Map of average OSI values at the Seawolf Mound REMOTS® stations in |KO. dae iin ail ain ne an eel ero Tadic i Nok bar naad Carbo enann aco oda0.000000 63 REMOTS? sediment profile photographs from 1997 showing variation in CDM over the Seawolf Mound (glacial gray clay at the center station and brown sand'and’silt'at 300E A) esi ceerceresocsssecer ster veeteseeete cess ceusceceemmnnes 64 Detection of glacial clay at Station 300E in 1997 provides evidence of capping TIKES OTA ce Sc enc ppscodacoceovcaocceda5acooccobcboadcbiuotbsecococoosobcobBaaNocbBbondosdbeocodconcocosaccoGoaNGUNGICS 65 Seawolf Mound REMOTS® stations showing variable surface conditions........... 67 Mean RPD depths (cm) over the Seawolf Mound in 1998...........ssccseceseeseeeerees 68 vil Figure 3-19. Figure 3-20. Figure 3-21. Figure 3-22. Figure 3-23. Figure 3-24. Figure 3-25. Figure 3-26. Figure 3-27. Figure 3-28. Figure 4-1. Figure 4-2. Figure 4-3. LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Page Evidence of advanced benthic recolonization and limited winnowing in 1998 ....70 Presence of gray clay and sulfidic sediments (at depth) in 1998 REMOTS® EPIC ALCS soe so ue Re see a Sa Saar Pinay oe oben Rat sain deceit Rh ache Wee ge 71 Median OSI values over the Seawolf Mound and changes relative to 1997 Rarefaction curves showing the relative effect of species density and GUNA EST aot iy RRNA ION oR TE NU MR aE SRR ETN ae RA a 1S Metal concentrations measured in predredge surveys and 1997 postcap Metal concentrations normalized to grain size from predredge surveys andnl OSO7Mostcap COrES Mts she OVE SNe Lia SCS NS aN) eee ed aeeoees ees SEAR, 84 Average concentrations of five individual PAH compounds from the dredge site (UDM, CDM) and the Seawolf cores. Note the different scale of the 1992 WDM av cra gesy id. cei sacs eee see vacate cu dic cad emeeunme ns as acclede tad vaaahcdactayecatecsetess 88 Phenanthrene and pyrene concentrations measured in the long cores shown with respect to the average predredge UDM samples ...............:cccsccseseeeeteeeeees 89 Trace metal concentrations in sediment from the Seawolf Mound designated dredging areas (classified as UDM or CDM), the Seawolf Mound 1998 and L997 coress andthe WE SmRERireterence,arcar (i998) ee meses sae eaten eee 100 Normalized trace metal concentrations in sediment from the Seawolf Mound designated dredging areas (classified as UDM or CDM), the Seawolf Mound 1998 and 1997 cores, and the WESTREF reference area (1998) ..............cc:ceee 101 SAB curves along a gradient of organic enrichments. S = number of SPEClESsy AN ra DUN Gane: — IDIOMA mate merase ee eee eee eer oe enous antes IS) Distribution of species abundance and number of individuals over the SSH SEENON DEIN (OND YEG ah eth alae I a ue tn me tl ac 116 Diversity indices (Shannon-Wiener H’ and Evenness J’) distributed over the SSJEPENS IG) BEING CoN UTE haha neste rita ter an aha i ere 7 vill Figure 4-4. Figure 4-5. Figure 4-6. Figure 4-7. Figure 4-8. Figure 4-9. Figure 4-10. Figure 4-11. Figure 4-12. Figure 4-13. Figure 4-14. LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Page Abundance species ratios (with and without dominants) and dominants as a percentage of total abundance distributed over the Seawolf Mound................... 118 Frequency distribution of mean apparent RPDs at stations sampled at the Seawolf Mound in 1997 and 1998, and at the other NLDS reference areas....... 121 Evidence of sediment recolonization at NLDS; A) September 1997 CTR Station’compared'to’B) July 99 8 eee es eee eee ee eee 123 Comparison of September 1997 and July 1998 Seawolf REMOTS® stations .... 124 Evidencelol/sedimentdisturbanceat NED Streeter oe ee 126 Cycle of Ampeliscid tube mat development, decay, and disturbance................. 127 Three characteristics of small-scale winnowing over the Seawolf Disposal Mound documented during the September 1997 survey ............:sccsccscceseeceereeees 128 A) Clumps of glacial gray Gardiners clay at center of Seawolf Mound. B) Shell lag with disturbed tube mats at Seawolf Station 300N ................:eee00 129 Spatial distribution of observed winnowing evidence over the Seawolf Moundiduringithe 99 8isurveyescinrs.erccccteccccstcertcccretcencctncectecet ens eaeeeneen 131 1997 and 1998 sediment core locations with respect to the UDM deposit and the capped’ Seawolf Mound footprint 120o cov. cccccececceescersccceseoecseceesecees 133 Concentration of HMW versus LMW PAHs normalized by TOC in Seawolf Mound and WEST REF sediment samples shown in relation to (A) sample depth and’to\(B)iradiali zone Weer enn tener steerer trent cee ence teen 136 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of the Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) Program, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) conducted monitoring surveys of the U.S. Navy Seawolf Mound within the New London Disposal Site (NLDS) in September 1997 and July 1998. Field operations in each survey year included data collection of one or more of the following: precision bathymetric surveys, Remote Ecological Monitoring of the Seafloor (REMOTS*) sediment-profile surveys, grab sampling of benthic invertebrates, and sediment coring. This report summarizes the disposal and monitoring activities at the U.S. Navy Seawolf Disposal Mound from 1995-1998. This information is presented as a single report to provide a clear, concise picture of the use of the Seawolf Mound during this time frame and to synthesize important monitoring information related to this dredged material mound. A companion report, Volume I, covers monitoring conducted at other mounds in the site from 1992-1998. Since its inception in 1977, the DAMOS Program has investigated dredging and dredged material disposal practices in an effort to minimize adverse physical, chemical, and biological impacts. DAMOS utilizes a flexible, tiered management approach centered on comprehensive environmental monitoring to oversee the placement of sediments at nine open water disposal sites along the coast of New England. Active disposal sites are surveyed on a regular basis to ensure the environmental effects of dredged material deposition on the benthic habitat are localized and temporary. There has been an active dredged material disposal site near New London since at least 1955. DAMOS monitoring of the New London Disposal Site started in 1977 when the program was established. The New London disposal site has been used for on-going disposal throughout the 1990’s, including unconfined disposal of suitable sediments, and capped disposal of unsuitable sediments. During the 1995-1996 disposal season, the NLDS received a total barge volume of 877,500 m’ of dredged material generated from three separate projects in the eastern Long Island Sound region (Seawolf, Venetian Harbor, Mystic River). Disposal resulted in creation of one disposal mound, the U.S. Navy Seawolf Mound, consisting of unsuitable dredged material (channel, berthing areas and Mystic River) and suitable cap material (Thames River channel, Venetian Harbor and Mystic River). Bathymetric surveys, REMOTS® data and sediment core data confirmed that the Seawolf Mound was capped with at least 50 cm of suitable dredged material. The Seawolf Mound formed a flat, nearly circular deposit with a diameter of approximately 600 m. After an initial period of consolidation of the fresh dredged material (9 months to 1 year), the mound settled to an average height of 2 m with a small oval apex of 3 m. Across the surface of this mound, a thick layer (0.5-3 m) of suitable material formed a cap consisting of sandy sediments and gray glacial clays from improvement dredging in the Thames River channel. Based on visual analysis and direct sampling of animals in this surface layer, recolonization of the fresh dredged material by marine invertebrates proceeded as expected. The stiff clay EXECUTIVE SUMMARY sediments require a longer period to recolonize than harbor silts, but their biological characteristics are very close to the reference areas of NLDS. Physical and chemical analysis of sediment cores collected in 1997 and 1998 confirmed that the top 50 cm of the mound was chemically consistent with the suitable capping material. There was no evidence of migration or release of contaminants from layers beneath the cap. Only long cores (>2 m) clearly penetrated beneath the cap into either ambient sediments or unsuitable material. These results are consistent with the conclusion that the cap is a stable, thick layer that has effectively isolated the unsuitable sediments from the environment of Long Island Sound. xi 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes disposal and monitoring activities conducted at the Seawolf Mound of the New London Disposal Site (NLDS) from the 1995-1996 dredging season through monitoring in July 1998. This information is presented as a single report to provide a clear, concise picture of use of the Seawolf Mound during this time frame and to include important monitoring information related to this dredged material mound. This is Volume II of a report which covers all monitoring activities at the NLDS from 1992-1998. A companion report (Volume I, SAIC 2001) presented results of activities at all other NLDS mounds during this period. 1.1. Background Monitoring of the impacts associated with the subaqueous disposal of sediments dredged from harbors, inlets, and bays in the New England region has been overseen by the Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) Program since its inception in 1977. The goals of the DAMOS Program pertain to detailed investigation and reduction of any adverse physical, chemical, and biological effects on the benthic environment associated with dredged material disposal activities. The activity conducted by DAMOS helps to ensure that the effects of sediment deposition over pre-defined areas of seafloor are local and temporary. A flexible, tiered management protocol is applied in the long-term monitoring of sediment disposal at ten open-water dredged material disposal sites along the coast of New England (Germano et al. 1994). There has been an active dredged material disposal site near New London since at least 1955. Disposal activity was focused on 19 disposal sites in Long Island Sound (LIS) until the mid-1970s, when the number was reduced to four, including New London (Fredette et al. 1993). The Navy began detailed environmental assessment of the New London site in 1973 (U.S. Navy 1973, 1975). In 1977, the DAMOS Program assumed the monitoring responsibility for active disposal sites in New England including the New London Disposal Site (NLDS) (NUSC 1979; Figure 1-1). The New London Disposal Site (NLDS) is an active open-water dredged material disposal site located 5.38 km (3.1 nmi) south of Eastern Point, Groton, Connecticut. Centered at 41° 16.306’ N, 72° 04.571’ W (NAD 83), the 3.42 km? NLDS has water depths which range from 14 m over the NL-RELIC Mound to 24 m at the southern disposal site boundary. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 New London Disposal Site NAD 83 Figure 1-1. Location of the New London Disposal Site Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 - 1998 From 1977 to 1992, DAMOS conducted monitoring surveys based on a 1 nmi (nautical mile) square disposal site centered at 41° 16.100' N, 72° 04.600' W (NUSC 1979). In 1982, the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) for the disposal of dredged material in the LIS region recommended the continued use of the four existing disposal sites in LIS, including New London (USACE 1982). These four sites had been identified prior to the completion of the FPEIS by the Connecticut-New York Interim Plan (NERBC 1980). The Interim Plan identified center coordinates for a slightly different location (0.2 nmi due north of the DAMOS coordinates). As of 1 January 1996, the DAMOS program resolved this discrepancy by adopting the new center coordinates as defined in the Interim Plan as 41° 16.300' N, 72° 04.600' W in North Atlantic Datum 1927 (NAD 27). It is unknown why the original DAMOS center coordinates were not in agreement with the Interim Plan, but no projects were directed to the southern edge of the site during this period, so the change has had no effect on disposal site management or monitoring. This change corrects the slight discrepancy and brings DAMOS into agreement with the FPEIS. Similar changes have been made to the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site and the Cornfield Shoals Disposal Site. The location of NLDS intersects with two important management boundaries: a 300 m wide submarine transit corridor; and the New York-Connecticut state boundary (Figure 1-1). The submarine transit corridor has been established to minimize conflict between submarine traffic to, and from, the submarine base in Groton, CT and disposal buoys that may not be seen when submarines transit submerged. The state boundary affects state regulatory authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and the issuance of state water quality certification for disposal permits (Carey 1998). Under the CZMA, states must concur that disposal activities in their state waters are consistent with their federally approved Coastal Zone Management Plans before permits are issued by the USACE. The long-term observation of the effects of disposed dredged material is facilitated by the construction of distinct sediment mounds within a disposal site. Development of disposal mounds is achieved by directing barges to predetermined locations typically marked by surface buoys, which have taut-line moorings to maximize position stability. When necessary, mounds are constructed in phases to allow for capping of material deemed unsuitable for open-water disposal. Capping is a subaqueous containment method that utilizes material determined to be suitable for open-water disposal (hereafter referred to as capping dredged material, or CDM) to overlay and isolate deposits of unacceptably- contaminated dredged material (UDM) from the surrounding environment (Fredette 1994). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 Recent disposal activity has been located to take advantage of the bottom topography created by historical disposal mounds. Two management objectives have been sought: creation of a “bowl” by placement of mounds in a “ring”; and constraint on the spread of dredged material disposed at the site. The lateral spread of dredged material disposed through the water column is strongly affected by bottom slope (Bokuniewicz et al. 1978). By placement of the taut-wire moored disposal buoys, disposal activity can be directed to specific locations and thereby limit the horizontal spread of material by filling depressions or confining material between adjacent, older mounds. Minimizing lateral spreading of mounds can increase site capacity and reduce the volume of material required for capping. Additionally, in order to reduce the potential effects of bottom currents and storm-generated waves, sediment mounds at the NLDS are developed in a broad, flat manner, maintaining a minimum water depth of 14 meters. This minimum depth also allows for the safe passage of deep draft vessels transiting through the disposal site (NUSC 1979). Presently, there are 10 discernible mounds (NL-95 is merged with the Seawolf Mound) within the boundaries of the disposal site (Figure 1-2). The Thames River, located in southeastern Connecticut, discharges fresh water and sediment from the interior of eastern Connecticut into Long Island Sound. The mile-wide basin of the lower Thames River and New London Harbor is utilized by military, commercial, and recreational vessels seeking protection from the open waters of Long Island Sound (Figure 1-1). Maintenance dredging of New London Harbor and adjacent coastal areas, overseen by the NAE, is required to insure navigable waterways and adequate dockage for deep draft vessels. Most of the material generated from dredging operations is transported by barge and deposited at the New London Disposal Site (NLDS) in Long Island Sound. Disposal of dredged material occurred within and around the NLDS area for a number of years before the inception of the DAMOS Program. The formation of the NL-RELIC Mound was a result of dredging and disposal of sediments from the Thames River and New London Harbor prior to 1977 and during the early 1980s (NUSC 1979; SAIC et al. 1985). The area surrounding the NLDS is subject to moderate to high bottom currents (maximum bottom current of 55 cm-s’) relative to other containment disposal sites in Long Island Sound (Waddell et al. 2001). However, the shelter provided by Fisher’s Island, the southern fork of Long Island and the Connecticut shoreline, protect the disposal site from the effects of major storm waves. This inference is supported by the fact that historic disposal mounds have remained stable in both height and shape over at least ten years, and in some cases (such as NL-RELIC) twenty years or more (Figure 1-2). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 September 1997 Master Bathymetric Survey 41° 16.750" N 41° 16.500" N 41° 16.250" N 41° 16.000° N 41° 15.750° N 72° 05.000° W 72° 04.500° W 72° 04.000° W NLDS Depth in meters NAD 83 Figure 1-2. Bathymetric chart of New London Disposal Site (contour interval = 0.25 m) Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 6 1.2. Seawolf Disposal Mound In September 1997, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) conducted a master bathymetric survey at the NLDS (Figure 1-2). The master bathymetric survey provides a reference frame for locating the disposal and monitoring activities conducted from 1991-1998. The disposal history of each mound complex has been described in Volume I of this report (SAIC 2001). The disposal history of the U.S. Navy Seawolf Mound is described below, followed by a summary of monitoring activities. A timeline of all activities associated with the Seawolf Mound (Figure 1-3) has been provided to summarize the events; details of the survey methods are provided in Section 2.0. The September 1997 master bathymetric survey also marked the conversion from the horizontal navigational reference system of the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) for all future bathymetric surveys conducted at this site (see Methods section). 1.2.1 U.S. Navy Seawolf Disposal Activity The decision by the U.S. Navy to homeport Seawolf class submarines in Groton, CT required deepening of the federal navigation channel and berthing areas in the Thames River to provide safe navigational depth for submerged transit (Maguire Group, 1995). Permits were issued in 1995 to dredge the channel and berthing areas and deposit the materials at NLDS. The work was completed during the 1995-1996 dredging season (September-May). Disposal of maintenance work (material dredged within an authorized depth) and new work (material dredged to a newly authorized depth) resulted in a total estimated disposal volume of 877,500 m’ of sediments. The first portion of the project, an approximate barge volume of 305,200 m’ of UDM originating primarily from the New London Naval Submarine Base (Piers 8, 10 [and 17 under a separate permit]) and the Thames River navigational channel (a 1.92 km reach north of I-95 bridge), was deposited at a temporary buoy labeled “Navy” deployed by the U.S. Navy at 41° 16.506’ N, 72° 04.797’ W (41° 16.500’ N, 72° 04.826’ W, NAD 27). In addition, 800 m’° of UDM from a separate project in the Mystic River (Mystic Seaport) was disposed at the Navy buoy prior to capping operations (Figure 1-3). Following the placement of UDM, capping operations began. Between 8 December 1995 and 31 January 1996, an estimated barge volume of 556,000 m’ of CDM dredged from the Thames River channel was placed over the Seawolf Mound area, yielding a 1.82 to 1.0 CDM to UDM ratio. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 Ayanjoe Sulsojuowu pur jesodsip jo ourloul |, = *¢- J aANBIy JOA SaweYy| ay) pue aseg suNeWANS jeAeN ay) WOd jeva}eW 0} JaJa) WQD pue WGN slomeas , “payeuijsa Saul} |eAaiuja1 pue JuawAo\dap Aong Aven + OIvs ‘Buvoju0ow SOWVG | § Su09 'sqeid ‘@ SLOWAY ‘MewAyeg Divs ‘BunojuoW SOWVG 10/19/95 Ajawkyeg os ‘OUI GBD (WD) deojsog jjomeas fremigee Ui ‘oul ‘B89 (WAN) desaig jomeas Anaudueg Of ‘Duy ‘QD ‘auljaseg jjomeas ’ @ SLOWS ‘AjawAyeg I] Olvs ‘6uuojuo, SOWVva Joqiey uenaua) Joqiey uenauan "yy OSA ‘pueA JYOeA SIaMaig (Aong sé wan) [eee | “Y ONSAW ‘pueA yYyORA SIEMaIg lesodsiq wa i | i i “Yy ONSAW) ‘pueA JYOeA SIaMaIg i (Kong AneN “s'n) le a -INGO J1omeas lesodsig Wa | ‘ve | i JELAIEW Z| 12ld +WGN slomeasS WGN Hodeas ashy juguifojdeq Wis sat Aong S6-VON i fong hs el | i i +Ahong Anen g6-das 86-1dy 26-190 26-Aew 96-99Q g6-unr g6-uer g6-Bny Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 In September 1995, the NDA 95 buoy was deployed at 41° 16.402 N, 72° 04.905° W (41° 16.396’ N, 72° 04.934° W, NAD 27), approximately 245 m southwest of the central disposal point for the Seawolf Mound. DAMOS disposal logs indicated a total estimated barge volume of 10,590 m3 of sediments determined to be suitable for unconfined open-water disposal was deposited at the NDA 95 buoy; this material was dredged from Venetian Harbor and Mystic River in southeastern Connecticut and disposed at the site between 25 November 1995 through 11 March 1996 (Figure 1-3 and Appendix A). The resulting dredged material deposit overlapped the Seawolf Mound. After postcapping surveys conducted in February 1996 (see below), a small volume of CDM sediment (4,900 m’) from Mystic River was placed near NDA 95 through 11 March 1996. Pre-dredging characterization of the Seawolf Project sediments detected elevated levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and trace metals (Cu, Cr, and Zn) ina small area adjacent to the proposed submarine berthing areas (Maguire Group 1995). These contaminants were found in low (Class I) to moderate (Class II) concentrations (NERBC 1980) and were attributed to storage and maintenance of vessels in the area (Maguire Group 1995). A fraction of these Seawolf Project sediments with elevated contaminant levels were classified as UDM based on biological testing. In addition, a small volume of the Mystic River sediments from Mystic Seaport was also classified as UDM. The unacceptably contaminated sediments from these projects required a comprehensive disposal site monitoring program to insure adequate coverage of CDM to isolate the UDM from the marine environment. The monitoring program included baseline, precapping, and postcapping surveys to ensure the proper placement of UDM and adequate coverage with CDM (Figure 1-3). Several bathymetric surveys were sponsored by the U.S. Navy during the 1995-1996 disposal season to track post-depositional changes in the Seawolf Disposal Mound (Table 1- 1). A summary of these earlier monitoring efforts conducted under contract to the Navy by Gahagan and Bryant, Inc. of Baltimore, MD is included in the Results section of this report. SAIC conducted surveys at the Seawolf Mound in 1997 and 1998 through the DAMOS Program to meet technical and management objectives of the U.S. Navy monitoring plan (Maguire Group 1995). Bathymetric surveys were conducted to document the changes in bottom topography due to dredged material disposal (Table 1-1). Sediment profile imaging was used to assess the benthic recolonization status of the Seawolf Mound relative to three reference areas surrounding NLDS. Sediment grab samples were collected to examine the benthic infaunal species diversity and relative abundance over the surface of the Seawolf Mound. Finally, cores were collected at the mound to assess the physical and chemical composition of the deposited sediments and to determine the thickness of the cap material layer. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 Table 1-1 Time series of Bathymetric Surveys over the Seawolf Mound July 1998 1.3 Monitoring Activity 1.3.1 September 1997 Monitoring Survey The September 1997 field effort consisted of a 1000 x 1000 m bathymetric survey, Remote Ecological Monitoring of the Seafloor (REMOTS°) sediment-profile photography, benthic grab sampling, and sediment coring over the Seawolf Mound. The specific objectives of the 1997 monitoring survey over the New London Disposal Site and the Seawolf Mound were to: e Use sediment profile photography to assess the benthic recolonization status of the Seawolf Mound relative to the three reference areas surrounding NLDS; e Collect cores along cross-sections of the Seawolf Disposal Mound to characterize the physical and chemical composition of the sediments and to verify the presence of at least 50 cm of cap material; e Examine the benthic infaunal species diversity and relative abundance over the surface of the Seawolf Mound through analysis of six sediment grab samples; e Perform a detailed master bathymetric survey of the region surrounding NLDS as defined by the 1982 FPEIS; and e Document and delineate any changes in bottom topography (accumulation and consolidation) in the areas of concentrated disposal since August 1995. Analyses of data collected during the September 1997 field effort at NLDS were used to test several hypotheses consistent with the DAMOS Tiered Monitoring Protocols (Germano et al. 1994). First, it was hypothesized that the past two years of disposal activity at NLDS had Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 10 resulted in the formation of a broad, flat sediment mound encompassing material deposited at both the US NAVY and NDA 95 buoys. Second, a Stage I to II benthic infaunal community was expected over the majority of the Seawolf Mound, with some progression into Stage III on the mound periphery. Third, contaminant levels in the top 50 cm of the mound were predicted to be consistent with CDM material. 1.3.2 July 1998 Monitoring Survey Field operations at the NLDS in July 1998 consisted of a 1000 x 1000 m bathymetric survey, REMOTS® sediment-profile photography, and sediment coring over the Seawolf Mound. These surveys repeated those conducted in 1997. The objectives of the 1998 monitoring surveys were to: e Document and delineate any changes in bottom topography over the Seawolf Mound since September 1997; e Collect cores along cross-sections of the Seawolf Mound to continue characterizing the physical and chemical composition of the sediments and verify the presence of at least 50 cm of cap material; and e Assess the benthic recolonization status of the Seawolf Mound relative to the three reference areas surrounding the NLDS and to the 1997 survey. Analyses of data collected during the July 1998 field effort at the NLDS were used to test several hypotheses consistent with the DAMOS Tiered Monitoring Protocols (Germano et al. 1994). First, it was hypothesized that consolidation over the Seawolf Mound would decrease relative to that observed during the first year and a half after the postcap survey. Second, geochemical analysis was predicted to show an absence of UDM in the top 50 cm of the mound based on contaminant levels consistent with CDM material. Third, healthy benthic assemblages with Stage III individuals were expected over the Seawolf Mound. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 1 2.0 METHODS Upon completion of the UDM and CDM placement activities during the 1995-1996 disposal seasons, the DAMOS Program with funding from the Navy, implemented the long- term monitoring of the capped Seawolf Mound. The environmental monitoring surveys presented in this report were performed in September 1997 and July 1998 order to document cap integrity, disposal mound consolidation, and benthic recolonization over the Seawolf Mound. Precision bathymetry and REMOTS® sediment-profile photography have been employed as standard tools for tracking the placement of dredged material, examining long term fate of individual sediment deposits, and assessing biological conditions over a disposal mound relative to nearby reference areas. These methods were developed in the context of a rigorous tiered monitoring approach (Germano et al. 1994). Sediment sampling (grab sampling and vibracoring) also was utilized to examine benthic infaunal species diversity and cap integrity, over the Seawolf Mound in the surveys conducted in September 1997 and July 1998 (Table 2-1). 2.1 Bathymetry and Navigation 2.1.1 1997 and 1998 Survey Activity During both the 1997 and 1998 field efforts, SAIC’s Portable Integrated Navigation and Survey System (PINSS) was used for precision navigation and data acquisition. This system utilizes a Toshiba® 3200DX series computer to provide real-time navigation, as well as collect position, depth, and time data for later analysis. In addition, PINSS provides a helm- display and a project database, which stored planned bathymetric survey lines, as well as multiple station locations to facilitate point sampling (i.e, REMOTS®, grabs, and cores). Positioning information for the field efforts over the Seawolf Mound was obtained via differentially corrected Global Position System (DGPS) data in the horizontal control of North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). In 1997, a Magnavox MX4200D GPS receiver was used to provide real-time positioning while a Trimble 4000 GPS receiver was used during the 1998 field effort. In both instances, the GPS receivers were interfaced with a Leica MX41R differential beacon receiver to improve the overall accuracy of the positioning data. Signals broadcast from the U.S. Coast Guard differential beacon at Montauk Point, New York (293 kHz) were utilized for satellite corrections due to its geographic position relative to NLDS. When merged with the satellite data, the correctors provide DGPS positions to an accuracy of +3 m with an update rate of 1 Hz. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 12 Table 2-1. Summary of Survey activity performed over the Seawolf Disposal Mound in 1997 and 1998. NUMBER OF YEAR AREA STATIONS PATTERN 1997 Bathymetry 2100 x 2100 m 25-m lane spacing Master Bathymetric Survey (NAD 83) 1000 x 1000 m 25-m lane spacing REMOTS® Sediment Profile Photography Vibracores Grab Sampling 1998 Bathymetry REMOTS® Sediment Profile Photography Vibracores Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 Bathymetric Survey over the Seawolf Mound (NAD 83) Seawolf Mound W-REF NE-REF NLON-REF Seawolf Mound WEST REF Seawolf Mound 1000 x 1000 m (NAD 83) Seawolf Mound W-REF NE-REF NLON-REF Seawolf Mound WEST REF LOntbW Radial (8 Arm) Random Random Random 25-m lane spacing Radial (8 Arm) Random Random Random 13 In accordance with the bathymetric surveys performed by Gahagan and Bryant Associates, a 1000 x 1000 m bathymetric survey grid, centered on the reported position of the US Navy disposal buoy (41° 16.506 N, 72° 04.797° W), was established over the northwest quadrant of NLDS (Figure 2-1). A total of 41 lanes, oriented north-south with a 25 m lane spacing, were occupied during the September 1997 and July 1998 field operations to confirm disposal mound stability and quantify mound consolidation. 2.1.2 Bathymetric Data Collection During the 1997 and 1998 bathymetric surveys, an ODOM DF3200 Echotrac® Survey Fathometer equipped with a narrow beam, 208 kHz transducer was used to measure individual depths to a vertical resolution of 3.0 cm (0.1 ft; Murray and Selvitelli 1996). The fathometer was interfaced directly with the navigation system. Depth soundings were collected along each of the 41 survey lanes established over the Seawolf project area. The depth soundings collected by the Odom fathometer were adjusted for transducer depth and transmitted to PINSS at a frequency of 10 Hz. The soundings were averaged by PINSS, merged with positional and time information, and recorded at a frequency of 1 Hz. Survey vessel speed and course were tightly controlled (2 to 3 meters per second) to ensure adequate numbers of depth values collected along the survey lane. A Seabird Instruments, Inc. SEACAT SBE 19-01 Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth (CTD) probe was used to obtain sound velocity measurements at the start, midpoint, and end of each survey day. The data collected by the CTD probe were bin-averaged to 1 meter depth intervals to account for any pycnoclines, rapid changes in density that create distinct layers within the water column. Sound velocity correction factors were then calculated using the bin-averaged values. 2.1.3 Bathymetric Data Processing During data analysis, the raw bathymetric data from PINSS were corrected for changes in tidal height and sound velocity. Tidal height corrections were based on the observed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data for the New London, Connecticut tidal station. Six-minute observed tidal data obtained via NOAA’s Ocean and Lake Levels Division's National Water Level Observation Network were utilized for the surveys performed over NLDS. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 -— 1998 September 1997 Bathymetric Survey Area 41° 16.750° N 41° 16.500° N 41° 16.250° N 41° 16.000° N 41° 15.750°N ae Survey Area 72° 05.000° W 72° 04.500° W 72° 04.000° W Figure 2-1. Location of the bathymetric survey area over the Seawolf Mound relative to the disposal site boundaries, US Navy submarine lane, and New York- Connecticut State Line. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 iS) Observed tide data are downloaded through the Internet in a station datum or referenced to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) and based on Coordinated Universal Time. For the 1997 and 1998 surveys over the Seawolf Mound, data from NOAA tide station 8461490 in New London Harbor, New London, Connecticut were downloaded in the MLLW and corrected for local time. Tide differences based on the entrance to West Harbor, Fishers Island, New York were applied to the observed data. The bathymetric data were analyzed using SAIC’s Hydrographic Data Analysis System (HDAS), version 1.03. Raw bathymetric data were imported into HDAS, corrected for sound velocity, and standardized to MLLW using the NOAA observed tides. The bathymetric data were then processed to produce depth models of the survey area. A model is a depth matrix used to generate graphical representations of the survey area (i.e., three- dimensional plots and depth contours). A detailed discussion of the bathymetric analysis technique is provided in the DAMOS Navigation and Bathymetry Standard Operating Procedures (Murray and Selvitelli, 1996). The depth models constructed for each survey performed over the Seawolf Disposal Mound were subjected to depth difference routines in HDAS to document the formation and consolidation of the bottom feature over time. The end result of each depth difference comparison was a graphical representation of the disposal mound or changes in mound morphology. However, due to a variety of factors (tidal corrections, changes in sound velocity through the water column, slope of the bottom, and vertical motion of the survey vessel) comparisons of sequential bathymetric surveys can only reliably detect changes in depth of 20 cm or greater. These factors often introduce artifacts that may appear to be small areas of depth increase or decrease. As a result, the lateral extent of a disposal mound or apron is often below the threshold of the bathymetric data products. Other monitoring techniques are often employed to define the thinner margins of the disposal mound (.e., sediment-profile photography). 2.2 Sediment Profile Photography REMOTS® sediment-profile photography is a benthic sampling technique used to detect and map the distribution of thin (<20 cm) dredged material layers, map benthic disturbance gradients, and monitor the process of benthic recolonization over the disposal mound. This is a reconnaissance survey technique used for rapid collection, interpretation and mapping of data on physical and biological seafloor characteristics. REMOTS® utilizes a Benthos Model 3731 Sediment-Profile Camera, designed to obtain undisturbed, vertical cross-section photographs (in situ profiles) of the upper 15 to 20 cm of the seafloor, for analysis and interpretation. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 16 The REMOTS* hardware consists of a wedge-shaped optical prism having a standard 35mm-camera mounted horizontally above in a watertight housing (Figure 2-2). The prism resembles an inverted periscope, with a clear Plexiglas window measuring 15 cm wide and 20 cm high and an internal mirror mounted at a 45° angle to reflect the image in the window up to the camera. Light is provided by an internal strobe that resides within the optical prism. In order to equalize pressure and reduce refraction, the prism is filled with distilled water. The prism sits inside a stainless steel external frame, and the entire assembly is lowered to the seafloor using a standard winch mounted aboard the survey vessel. Upon contact with the bottom, the prism descends slowly into the seafloor, cutting a vertical cross- section profile of the upper 15 to 20 cm of sediment, and a photograph is taken of the sediment in contact with the window. The resulting 35-mm slides (images) showing relatively undisturbed sediment profiles are then analyzed for a standard suite of measured parameters (Rhoads and Germano 1982; 1986). Computer-aided analysis of each REMOTS* sediment profile image yields a series of measurements. The standard measured parameters include sediment grain size major mode, camera prism penetration depth (an indirect measure of sediment bearing capacity/density), small-scale surface boundary roughness, depth of the apparent redox potential discontinuity (RPD), infaunal successional stage, and Organism-Sediment Index (a summary parameter reflecting the overall benthic habitat quality). A detailed description of REMOTS® photograph acquisition and interpretive rationale is given in DAMOS Contribution No. 60 (Parker and Revelas 1989), as well as in Rhoads and Germano (1982; 1986). The following paragraphs provide brief descriptions of the interpretive framework and methods used for the various measurement parameters. The sediment grain size major mode values are visually estimated from the REMOTS® photographs by overlaying a grain size comparator that is at the same scale. For REMOTS*” analysis, sediment grain size major mode is expressed in phi units. This measurement represents the dominant grain size in the entire frame (field of view) and may not distinguish layers of coarser or finer material. A grain size scale for sediments has been provided in Table 2-2, to allow easy conversion between phi units, millimeters, and standard sieve sizes. The REMOTS sediment profile camera consists of an optical prism, which penetrates the bottom under a static driving force imparted by its own weight. The penetration depth into the bottom depends on the force exerted by the optical prism and the Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 END CAP (HOUSING FOR ELECTRONICS) MUD DOOR DEPLOYED ON THE SEAFLOOR y ACOUSTIC SIGNAL TO THE “~ SURFACE PINGER WINDOW MIRROR LIFTING BAR INNER FRAME OUTER FRAME WEIGHT WEIGHT PACK MUD DOOR | ELASTIC STRAP MUD DOOR BASE (SLED) "DOWN" POSITION Transecting the Sediment-Water Interface ~ az “" 2) ae ~ DOUBLES SEAFLOOR 1, FACEPLATE ===> or "WINDOW" OF PRISM AGAINST SURFACE TO BE Figure 2-2. Schematic diagram of Benthos, Inc. Model 3731 REMOTS® sediment-profile 3, CAMERA PHOTOGRAPHS OF*SEDIMENT PROFILE 2.IMAGE REFLECTS OFF 45 ° <— MIRROR PHOTOGRAPHED DISTILLED WATER INSIDE PRISM camera and sequence of operation on deployment. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 17 18 Table 2-2. Grain Size Scales for Sediments ASTM (Unified) Classification’ Wentworth Classification’ Boulder Boulder 12 in (300 mm) Large Cobble Cobble Small Cobble 3 in (75mm) Very Large Pebble Coarse Gravel 3/4 in (19 mm) Large Pebble Medium Pebble Fine Gravel 25 3 3.5 4 (4.75 mm) ; : Small Pebble 5 z d 6 Coarse Sand 4] 8 fe * 10 (2.0 mm) ef { Granule Very Coarse Sand Medium Sand Coarse Sand Medium Sand 0.149 Fine Sand 0.125 0.105 Fine Sand 0.088 200 (0.075 mm) 0.074 230 0.0625 J REET 270 0.0526 m Very Fine Sand Fine-grained Soil: 325 0.0442 400 0.0372 Clay if PI? 4 and plot of PI vs. LL 0.0312 4 is on or above "A" line aa D Coarse Silt Silt e PI <4 and piotof PI vs. 0.0039 LL is below "A" line 001s I ene é : 0.00049 Fine Silt bes ne ere Shans Matter 0.00024 Very Fine Silt oes not influence 0.00012 i mage 0.000061 i Medium Cla Fine Cla’ 1. ASTM Standard D 2487-92. This is the ASTM version of the Unified Soil Classification System. Both systems are similar (from ASTM (1993). 2. Note that British Standard, French, and German DIN mesh sizes and classifications are different. 3. Wentworth sizes (in inches) cited in Krumbein and Sloss (1963). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 19 bearing strength of the sediment. If the weight of the camera prism is held constant, the change in penetration depth over a surveyed site will reflect changes in geotechnical properties of the bottom. In this sense, the camera prism acts as a static-load penetrometer. The depth of penetration of the optical prism into the bottom can be a useful parameter, because dredged and capped materials often will have different shear strengths and bearing capacities. Small-scale surface boundary roughness is the amount of surface relief at the sediment-water interface, and is calculated by measuring the vertical distance between the high and low points of the interface in each sediment-profile photograph. Boundary roughness can be categorized as biological, physical, or indeterminate. Biological disturbances, typically the result of macrofaunal activity, usually result in only a small increase is boundary roughness (<1 cm). A mature and undisturbed benthic environment tends to have biological boundary roughness. Physical disturbances can be anthropogenic in origin (for example, by bottom trawling or dredged material disposal) or attributed to natural processes such as wave and current motion. The Apparent Redox Potential Discontinuity (RPD) depth is the boundary between oxygenated sediment and the underlying hypoxic or anoxic sediment. The RPD depth is a sensitive indicator of the biological mixing depth, infaunal successional status, and within- station patchiness (Revelas et al. 1987). The RPD is determined by measuring the thickness of the high reflectance sediment layer at the sediment-water interface formed by light- colored oxygenated or oxidized sediment. Successional stage mapping is based upon the hypothesis that organism-sediment interactions follow a predictable successional sequence after a major seafloor disturbance (Rhoads and Germano 1986). A disturbance can be any type of event that induces seafloor erosion, changes seafloor chemistry, or causes major reorganization of the resident benthos. These perturbations can be natural events (i.e., strong currents or a passing storm) or anthropogenic events (i.e., dredged material disposal or power plant effluent). Pioneering assemblages (Stage I) usually consist of dense aggregations of near- surface living, tube-dwelling polychaetes. These organisms begin to populate a sediment deposit within days of a benthic disturbance, as they readily exploit the competition-free space. Due to their limited interaction with the sediment, these organisms are usually associated with a shallow RPD. In more stable environments Stage I assemblages are replaced by infaunal deposit feeders or larger tube dwellers (Stage II). Typical Stage II organisms in Long Island Sound include shallow-dwelling bivalves and tubicolous amphipods. In general, tubicolous Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 20 amphipods are common in eastern Long Island Sound. The presence of dense aggregations of these amphipods (Ampelisca sp.) in the area surrounding NLDS has been identified as a cyclical phenomenon as the spring-summer and over-winter populations mature, reproduce, and decline. As a result, the timing of the individual REMOTS® surveys over the years have documented the amphipod populations in eastern Long Island Sound during different stages of the life cycle. Stage III biota represent a high-order successional stage and are usually associated with areas of seafloor that are not usually subject to surface disturbances. Stage III assemblages (infaunal invertebrates) are typically head-down deposit feeders whose feeding behavior usually results in distinctive subsurface voids. The foraging activities of Stage III organisms are capable of introducing oxygen-rich bottom water to the sediment at depths approaching 10-20 cm below the sediment-water interface. As a result, the bioturbational activity of Stage II organisms tends to cause the deepening of the RPD. A multi-parameter REMOTS® Organism-Sediment Index (OSI) has been constructed to characterize habitat quality (Table 2-3). Habitat quality is defined relative to two end- member standards. The lowest value is given to those sediments that have low or no dissolved oxygen in the overlying bottom water, very shallow RPD depth, no apparent macrofaunal life, and methane gas present in the sediment. The REMOTS® OSI value for such a condition is minus 10 (-10). At the other end of the scale, an aerobic bottom with a deep RPD, evidence of a mature macrofaunal assemblage, and no apparent methane gas bubbles at depth will have an OSI value of plus 11 (+11). OSI values of +6 or less are indicative of chronically stressed benthic habitats and/or those that have experienced recent disturbance (i.e., erosion, sediment transport, dredged material disposal, hypoxia, intense demersal predator foraging, etc.; Rhoads and Germano 1982). 2.2.1 Seawolf Disposal Mound The Seawolf Mound was first examined with the use of sediment-profile photography in September 1997. A 29-station REMOTS® sampling grid centered at 41°16.456° N, 72°04.863° W was established over the disposal mound, based on the reported size and morphology of the bottom feature upon completion of capping operations. Four stations were established at distances of 75 m, 150 m, 300 m, and 450 m along each of seven arms radiating from the center station (Figure 2-3; Table 2-4). The follow-on survey performed in July 1998 occupied the same station grid to facilitate comparisons with the 1997 data set. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 2] Table 2-3 Calculation of REMOTS® Organism Sediment Index Value A. CHOOSE ONE VALUE: Mean RPD Depth Index Value 0.00 cm >0-0.75 cm 0.75 - 1.50 cm 1.51 - 2.25 cm 2.26 - 3.00 cm 3.01 - 3.75 cm > 3.75 cm B. CHOOSE ONE VALUE: Successional Stage Index Value Azoic Stage I Stage I — II Stage II Stage II — Ill Stage III Stage I on Il Stage II on Ill AMAA RWN Ee C. CHOOSE ONE OR BOTH IF APPROPRIATE: Chemical Parameters Index Value Methane Present -2 No/Low Dissolved Oxygen** 4 REMOTS® ORGANISM-SEDIMENT INDEX = Total of above subset indices (A+B+C) RANGE: -10- +11 ** Note: This is not based on a Winkler or polarigraphic electrode measurement. It is based on the imaged evidence of reduced, low reflectance (i.e., high oxygen demand) sediment at the sediment-water interface. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 9661 — S661 punoyp fromvas ‘ajis jpsodsig uopuoT] man ay) 10 asiniD Suu0nucp ‘Que] ouLTeWgns AAeN Sf pue ‘Arepunog ays jesodsip ‘eare AdAINS W QOOT X OOOT 0} cAneIol ‘punoul Jesodsip Jjomevas ay) JOAO (67) Sunes Aydesso}oyd o[1yOId-jUOWIIPIS @S.LOWAA 8661 PUe L661 JO UONNGINsSIq *¢-7 sANsIy + : ) Cz fer Me A > ° Nf | (hoot ost Vas." ul yaw Most D ‘MOOE : °° vi VMNSZ SNoSt sv Vv MNOS: Nos} £8 GVN suojeyg AydesBojoyud GO] YOd-JUSW PSS ,SLOWSY 866) PUue 266) ays jesodsig uopuo7 MeN > PuNnoWomeas = ay} josuibs eee) a1qe19q39P-AljeoySNOoYy (a4 8661 — S661 punop fjompas ‘alls jvsodsig uopuoT Man ay) 1D asinsD SulsojUuOp M.1+60°S0 .c2 | N 82991 olp M.StO'SO 22 | N IZG9L olb M.6€6'0 .c2 | N HlG9l lb MNOSPb AANOOE MNOS1 M.106'%0 o¢Z2 | N.S8b 91 Lb MNSZ M.820°SO .c2 | N .9SH 91 olp MOO0e M.026'60 .c2 | N 9S 91 olb MOS1 M.Zt60 2 | N 9S 9L ole Msz M.2evl'SO0 cL | N PEE OL oLb | MSMOSP M.6~0'SO .c2 | N .SZE9L obb | MSMOOE M.9S6'00 .cZ | N.SIb9L.Lb | MSMOSL M.Ol6'%0 cL | N.9EH 91 obb | MSMSZ M.€98'¢0 .c2 | N $6291 olb SO0E M.€98'b0 .c2 | N.SZE9L olb Sost M.€98'70 .c2 | N SIP 9l olb M.tLL v0 cL | N ChE SL Obb M.282 0 cL | N.66€ 91 Lb N. Zt 9 bb | EL LVIS |M.126°S0 oc 4 N.S28'70 2 | N.2ep9l ob ssZ M.€98'~0 cL ASo0e N.9SP'9L ov asost 866! pue 2661 3assZ Puno; somess M.6¢8'SO 22 | N.CLE 91 obh N.1Z6°S0 o2Z M.6¢8'S0 ocZ N.826'S0 .cZ | N,00Z 91 oLb N.90291 olP §: M.8Z6'S0 cL | N.00291 lb | ch IVIS |N.90¢ 91 olb M.8v9'¥0 .cZ | N 9S 91 obb 300e N.1S8'SO eZ | N. FEE OL ole 8661 ( M.4+S8'SO .cZ | N. LEE OL ob | LE LVIS L661 M.9S2 0 cL | N .9SH91 olb 30st N.S26'S0 .cZ | N.802 91 olb 43ay ISAM M.S26'S0 cL | N.80c91 olv | Ol IVIS | 49H ISAM M.608'¥0 .c2 | N 9S 91 olb asZ M.SEE'EO 22 | N.6Z9°91 obb JEL LVLS M.¥S2'€0 ocZ | N.SZ991 oth M.9€9'90 cL | N 22991 obb | ANOSb M.18€°€0 .c2 | N.9L9°91 oth |2L IWLS| M_LZE'EO oc M.¥bS'€0 cL | N.€6991 ole M.tZE€0 o&L M.tEL 0 22 | N.IZS 91 oky | ANOOE M.ZSS'€0 cL |N. bb 9l obb | LL LVLS|N.989'91 olP M.09€'€0 .cZ | N.S9Z 91 ole N.989°91 ol? M.2Z82Z 0 cL | N.vIS9L ob | ANOSI M.S2€€0 2 |N SEL OL ob JOL IVLS 8661 M.€ZE'€0 cL | N.#8991 Lb 2661 M.¥28'¥0 cL | N.S8b9l Lb ANSZ M.SZE'E0 cL | N.09991 oth | 6 LVLS dau IN “| MELE €O ocd | N.€9991 ole day AN ; M.€98'70 .cZ | N.66991 olt NOSb M.4S610 22 | N.8S9°91 Lb N.1Z6°40 o&Z M.8€8'10 ocZ | N.c9S 91 oLb M.4L6°LO o&Z fF M.€98'00 cL | N.8LO9! Lb NOOE M.160°20 .22 | N.€99°91 Lb N.999°91 ol P M.S68'10 oc2 | N.S6991 olb N.999°91 oLP NM.€98'b0 ocL | N.LES OL bb NOSI M.828'10 22 | N.69S°91 ole 8661 M.9¢0'20 ocZ | N.89S°91 olb L661 M.€98'10 22 | N 96h 91 oth NSZ VN VN tivis | 4434 NOIN M.€96'10 ocZ | N.20Z 91 ole 43u NOIN ‘ N.€98'b0 .cZ | N.9Sb9l Lb t= Ke) esaqVvNn 8661 Pepaibuoy | spnmet | vones | cay | E€s0VN L661 €80VN 8661 Pus /661 suoneis Aydesoj0y 21JO1g-JUSUIIPIg @SLOWAA 8661 PUe L66I SvalTY JDUdIZJOY SC’IN Pue punoyy [esodsiq Jjomvas p-7 Ge &7 24 2.2.2 NLDS Reference Areas Data from three reference areas (NLON REF, NE REF, and WEST REF) were used for comparison of ambient eastern Long Island Sound sediments relative to the material deposited at NLDS through disposal operations (Figure 2-4). These three reference areas are often sampled as part of sediment chemistry and benthic habitat surveys at NLDS. During the 1997 and 1998 surveys, the NLDS reference areas were sampled as part of the sediment- profile photography surveys over the Seawolf Mound. In addition, sediment cores were obtained from randomly selected locations within WEST REF in 1997 and 1998 to serve as a basis of comparison with sediment samples collected over the Seawolf Mound. A random sampling scheme was used each year to select stations within a 300 m radius of the center of each reference area. A total of 13 stations were distributed between the three reference areas. NLON REF (41°16.666’ N, 72°01.971° W) and WEST REF (41°16.206° N, 72°05.971° W) were each sampled at four randomly selected stations. NE REF (41°16.686° N, 72°03.371° W) was sampled at five randomly selected stations (Table 2-4). 2.3 Benthic Community Sampling 2.3.1 Sediment Grab Sampling Sediment grab samples were collected at 6 of the 29 REMOTS® stations established over the Seawolf Disposal Mound during the September 1997 monitoring survey only (Figure 2-5; Table 2-5). The grab samples were used to examine the benthic infauna population and diversity, supplementing the benthic community assessment information provided by the 1997 sediment-profile photographs. A 0.04 m? Young-modified Van Veen grab sampler was used to obtain sediment samples from Stations CTR, 75E, 150N, 150W, 300SE, and 300WSW. One bottom grab was recovered from each station, and the sediments were examined for color, texture, and redox potential discontinuity (RPD) depth. The sediment samples were then washed into a bucket and sieved through a 0.5 mm screen. All material remaining on the screen (biota, shell, wood fragments, etc.) was transferred to individual one liter plastic containers and fixed with a 10% buffered formalin/seawater solution. The samples were left undisturbed for 48 hours, then re-sieved with fresh water and transferred to a Rose Bengal stained, 70% methanol solution for long- term preservation. The samples were then shipped to Cove Corporation of Lusby, Maryland for species identification and enumeration (Blake and Williams 1997). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 25 41° 17.000° N 41° 16.500" Nj WEST REE 41° 16.000" N Figure 2-4. Location of the NLDS Reference areas relative to the disposal site boundary and New York-Connecticut State Line. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 26 Seawolf Disposal Mound Sediment Grab Sample Locations 41° 46.700°N 4 41° 16.600" N 41° 16.500’ N 41° 16.400° N : 41° 16.300° N- 1997 .« Baseline | Figure 2-5. Locations of sediment grab samples collected over the Seawolf Mound during the 1997 monitoring survey. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 Oi Table 2-5 Seawolf Disposal Mound 1997 Sediment Grab Samples 41° 16.452° N | 72° 04.858° W Seawolf Mound 41° 16.455° N | 72° 04.833" W 41° 16.464’ N | 72° 04.979° W 41° 16.456" N 41° 16.542° N | 72° 04.873° W 72° 04.863" W 41° 16.335° N | 72° 04.688° W 41° 16.382" N | 72° 05.068" W 2.3.2 Laboratory Analysis Each taxon and its number of representative individuals were recorded within a spreadsheet for each sediment sample in the order of its respective National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) code. These data were then incorporated into a database to aid in statistical analysis. Total faunal abundance and number of species were calculated for each station, with the ten most abundant species determined and displayed within a species list. Juvenile and undeterminable organisms were included in calculations of relative density, but were excluded from diversity analyses unless no other species belonging to those taxa were present in the sample. Diversity was calculated as Shannon-Weiner index H’ and the associated evenness J” as well as by the rarefaction method (Sanders 1968). The Shannon- Wiener index was calculated using the base log,; for the rarefaction, the number of individuals was set at defined points between 25 and 800 (Blake and Williams 1997). 2.4 Sediment Cores Sediment cores were collected over the Seawolf Disposal Mound as part of both the 1997 and 1998 environmental monitoring surveys. The cores provided visual cross-sections of the dredged material deposited during the 1995-1996 disposal season and aided in developing sediment chemistry profiles to verify the integrity of the cap. In accordance with the U.S. Navy monitoring plan, 12 stations were placed within three separate zones established over the Seawolf Mound. These zones were designed to facilitate spatial comparison of potential contaminants on the horizontal plane, with proximity to the mound apex. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 28 The sampling zones were based on radial distance intervals of 200 m (0-200 m, 200-400 m, 400-600 m) from the reported position of the U.S. Navy disposal buoy (41° 16.506’ N, 72° 04.797’ W; Figure 2-6). In order to assess the vertical stratification of the mound, both short and long cores were collected and strategically sampled. Three short cores, at least 50 cm in length, and one long core, not to exceed 3.0 m, were taken in each of the three designated zones: inner (0-200 m), middle (200-400 m), and outer (400-600 m). In addition, one short core was obtained from WEST REF each year to represent ambient sediment and provide information on background contaminant concentrations. 2.4.1 Field Collections All cores were obtained with the use of Ocean Surveys Incorporated (OSI) Model 1500 pneumatic vibratory corer attached to a 1.5 m or 3 m steel barrel (9.5 cm I.D.). A chemically inert, clear Lexane® liner (8.9 cm I.D.) was fitted within the core barrel, with stainless steel core cutter and catcher assemblies secured to the end. Upon retrieval of the coring device, the internal liner containing the sediment sample was removed from the core barrel, capped, labeled, and stored at 4°C with minimal exposure to sunlight. At the conclusion of the field operations, all cores were transported to the University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography (GSO) laboratory facilities and refrigerated during storage. A total of 15 vibracores were taken during the September 1997 survey: 14 cores collected at the Seawolf Mound, and one core obtained from the WEST REF reference area (Table 2-6). The sampling locations were labeled Station 1 through Station 13, with Stations 1 through 12 placed over the Seawolf Mound and Station 13 representing the WEST REF sampling location (Figure 2-6). During this survey, two additional cores (2B and 3B) were obtained in the outer (400-600 m) zone due to shallow penetration (less than 80 cm) of the coring device on the first sampling attempts. The coring survey was repeated in July 1998, as a total of 15 sediment cores were collected from 12 stations over the disposal site and one station at WEST REF (Table 2-7). During this survey, sampling locations were designated Station 14 through Station 26, with. Stations 14 through 25 placed over the Seawolf Mound and Station 26 representing the WEST REF sampling location (Figure 2-6). Duplicate cores were collected at two stations (14 and 20) to insure adequate core-length for sampling. The second sample was collected at Station 14 due to loss of the top portion of the sample, while an oblique angle of penetration of the first core was cause for a second attempt at Station 20. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 Seawolf Mound 1997 and 1998 Coring Locations 41° 16.800° N 41° 16.700° N 41° 16.600° N 41° 16.500° N 41° 16.400° N 41° 16.300° N 41° 16.200° N 72° 05.000°'W 72°04.800°W 72° 04.600° W © - 1997 Coring Locations NLDS > - 1998 Coring Locations NAD 83 om 200 m Figure 2-6. Locations of cores collected during the 1997 and 1998 NLDS monitoring surveys with respect to radial zones. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 30 Table 2-6 Seawolf Disposal Mound 1997 Sediment Cores See) abe ee ane ee _| cit im) | Semmpting mervelis) 41° 16.414°N| 72° 05.084°W | Outer 400-600 m 41° 16.422°N| 72° 05.086°W | Outer 400-600 m 41° 16.365°N| 72° 05.027°W | Outer 400-600 m 41° 16.359" N | 72° 05.033°W_| Outer 400-600 m 41° 16.641°N | 72° 04.970°W | Middle 200-400 m 41° 16.471°N| 72° 05.020°W | Middle 200-400 m 41° 16.374°N| 72° 04. ay Middle 200-400 m 41° 16.558" N | 72° 04.951 Middle 200-400 m 38 ! 7 41° 16.520°N } 72° 04.891" r Inner 0-200 m 1.50 0-0.50 m 11A | 41° 16.435°N ] 72° 04.802° W Inner 0-200 m 1.08 0-0.50 m 12A | 41° 16.542’ N | 72° _04.756° W Inner 0-200 m 1.53 0-0.50 m 0-0.50 m archived 0.50-0.75 m 0.75-1.0 m 1.0-1.6m >1.6 m archived 0-0.50 m archived 0.50-0.75 m 0.75-1.0 m 1.0-2.0m >2.0 m archived 0-0.50 m archived 0.50-0.75 m 0.75-1.0m 1.0-1.75m >1.75 m archived 41° 16.362°N] 72° 05.093° W Outer 400-600 m 41° 16.433°N] 72° 04.974°W | Middle 200-400 m =p 41° 16.458°N]| 72° 04.868’ W Inner 0-200 m Pea 41° 16.203’ N | 72° 05.977°W WEST REF i SHOrt aos | LEIL1L4 SO || O=O!5 0m * Core collected at Reference Area. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 3] Table 2-7 Seawolf Disposal Mound 1998 Sediment Cores Core | Latitude | _Longltude | ____zone__1_Type_1_tength (m) Sampling Interval(s 14A | 41° 16.375°N| 72° 05.152°W]| Outer 400-600 m Short 14B | 41° 16.375’ N| 72° 05.153°W| Outer 400-600 m 15A | 41° 16.325°N| 72° 05.080°W | Outer 400-600 m 16A | 41° 16.274’ N|72° 04.937°W|__Outer 400-600 m 18A | 41° 16.536’ N|72° 05.028’ W| Middle 200-400 m 20A | 41° 16.604°N|72° 04.925°W]| Middle 200-400 m 20B | 41° 16.601°N| 72° 04. Sap Middle 200-400 m 21A | 41° 16.607" N|72° 04.695 Middle 200-400 m 22A | 41° 16.457°N] 72° 04.715" = Inner 0-200 m 1.21 0-0.5 m 24A | 41° 16.488’ N | 72° 04.786° W Inner 0-200 m 0.92 0-0.5m 25A | 41° 16.506’ N} 72° 04.865° W Inner 0-200 m 1.78 0-0.5m 17A | 41° 16.362°N]| 72° 05.100°W} Outer 400-600 m Ee 2.88 0-0.5 m archived 0.5-0.75 m 0.75-1.0 m 19A | 41° 16.431°N] 72° 04.966°W | Middle 200-400 m Long 1.0-2.0 m 2.0-2.9 m archived 23A | 41° 16.464’ N] 72° 04.878’ W Inner 0-200 m Long 0-0.5 m archived 0.5-0.75 m 0.75-1.0 m 1.0-1.75 m 2.0-3.0 m archived 1.0-1.7m 72° 05.967" W WESTREF [Short J 1.03 0-05 md 2.0-2.8 m archived * Core eollecied at Reference Area. 0-0.5 m archived 0.5-0.75 m 0.75-1.0 m In order to maximize spatial coverage over the surface of the Seawolf Mound, target locations for the 1998 short cores were carefully distributed in a manner that avoided overlap with the 1997 short core sampling locations. However, the 1998 coring effort specifically targeted the reported 1997 long core locations (Stations 4, 6, and 10) for the collection of additional deep cross-sections (Figure 2-6). Stations 17, 19, and 23 were strategically placed over the reported locations of Cores 4A, 6A, and 10A. One long core was obtained from each location in 1998 to facilitate comparison of chemical concentrations between years. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 32 2.4.2 Sediment Sampling The Seawolf Mound cores were split, visually described, photographed, and prepared for geochemical and grain size sampling at the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography (GSO). In both 1997 and 1998, all the cores were split, described, and photographed. However, only one core from each station (13 cores per survey) was used for detailed analysis. Generally, the 0-50 cm sections of the short cores were used to verify the presence of the capping layer within each zone. The long cores were sampled at consistent vertical intervals to examine the depth of the capping layer and potential differences in the contaminant levels with depth. A sampling plan for analyzing the cores was developed in 1997 based on the US Navy monitoring objectives for the Seawolf Mound (Maguire 1995). The sampling plan and analysis procedures were followed again for the July 1998 cores. The top 50 cm of sediment from each of the short cores was composited in a stainless-steel mixing bowl, sub-sampled, and placed in a series of pre-cleaned glass jars. The short core samples were analyzed for grain size, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and a suite of trace metals including arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg), lead (Pb), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni) and zinc (Zn). The three long cores collected in each of the two years, (4A, 6A, and 10A, 17A, 19A, and 23A) each were divided into five sampling intervals (Tables 2-6 and 2-7). The long core samples were composited in the same manner as the short core samples and labeled according to core and depth interval. The long core samples were analyzed for PAHs, trace metals (Zn only), TOC, and grain size. In addition, a QC sample (NLDS QCA-replicate of 11A) was included with the 1997 shipment to detect any inconsistencies in the laboratory analyses. All archived long core samples were stored at the GSO core storage facility in the event additional analyses are required. 2.4.3 Laboratory Analysis Methods This section describes the methods used for sample preparation, extraction, and analysis of samples. The 1997 sediment samples were analyzed by MAXIM Technologies Inc. in St. Louis, MO, and also by the Woods Hole Group Environmental Laboratories (WHG), in Raynham, MA. WHG was used again in 1998 for the analysis of the geochemistry samples, while the sediment collected for grain size and moisture content were analyzed by GeoTesting Express, Incorporated in Boxborough, MA. The methods used for analysis of each type of analyte are listed in Table 2-8 and are described in detail in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste EPA SW-846 (USEPA 1997). Specific information on data quality is discussed in Section 2.4.4. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 33 Table 2-8 Methods of Physical and Chemical Analyses for NLDS Seawolf Core Subsamples Core Subsample Analysis Method Instrumentation All samples Grain Size ASTM D422 Sieve/Hydrometer All samples Moisture Content CLP ILMO 4.0 SW-846 Method* (USEPA 1997) All samples Total Organic Carbon 9060 All samples PAHs 3550A/8270 Short core samples Trace Metals: Arsenic 3051/6010 Cadmium 3051/6010 Chromium 3051/6010 Copper 3051/6010 Lead 3051/6010 Mercury NA/7471 Nickel 3051/6010 All samples Zinc 3051/6010 * First value refers to extraction method, second value refers to analysis method. PAHs = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons NA = Not Applicable GC/MS = Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer ICP = Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma Emission Spectrometry CVAA =Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption 2.4.3.1 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) The initial PAH data received from the MAXIM laboratory pertaining to the 1997 core sub-samples were deemed not acceptable for this study because the detection limits were too high. The samples were re-analyzed by a new laboratory (WHG); the methods and results presented here are from the WHG analyses. The potential impact to data quality from changing laboratories was considered to be minimal, and is further discussed in Section 2.4.4. Sediment Extraction. According to the Woods Hole Group standard operation procedure, the sediment samples were spiked with surrogate compounds, and extracted by pressurized fluid extraction (Dionex Accelerated Solvent Extractor Model 200) using a methylene chloride: acetone solvent solution. To measure moisture content, samples were weighed, dried in an oven, and re-weighed. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 34 Sediment Analysis. The samples were concentrated and then analyzed using a modified version of EPA SW-846 Method 8270 (USEPA 1997). Analysis of PAHs by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry with Selected Ion Monitoring Method 8270-PAH-SIM (Revision 0; GC/MS-SIM) is a WHG standard operating procedure and a more rigorous method than the standard method 8270. The sample extract containing the semi-volatile compounds was injected into a gas chromatograph (GC) with a narrow-bore fused-silica capillary column. The temperature-programmed GC_column separated the analytes, which were detected with a mass spectrometer with selected ion monitoring. In this method of analysis, qualitative identifications are confirmed by analyzing standards under the same conditions used for samples and comparing mass spectra and GC retention times. The mass spectra of the target analytes were compared with the electron-impact spectra of authentic standards for identification. Quantification was based on a multi-level initial calibration. 2.4.3.2 Metals Sediment Digestion. Sediments require acid digestion for extraction and detection of trace metals. Both the MAXIM laboratory (1997) and WHG (1998) utilized EPA SW- 846 Method 3051 (USEPA 1997), which provides a rapid multi-element acid leach of sediments. A representative sample of up to 0.5 g was placed in a fluorocarbon microwave vessel with 10 ml of concentrated nitric acid. The vessel was capped and heated in the laboratory microwave for 10 minutes. The acid digests the sample at high temperatures. After cooling, the vessel contents were filtered, centrifuged, or allowed to settle and then diluted to volume and analyzed. Sediment Analysis. To determine concentrations of Cr, Pb, Cu, Ni, and Zn, the samples were analyzed using EPA SW-846 Method 6010 (USEPA 1997), which is inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES). Arsenic (As) (Method 7060) and Cadmium (Cd) (Method 1731) were analyzed by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy (GFAA) (USEPA 1997). For the short core samples, EPA SW-846 Method 7471 (USEPA 1997) was used to detect Hg levels using cold vapor atomic absorption. The Hg was reduced to the elemental state and aerated from solution in a closed system. The mercury vapor passed through a cell positioned in the light path of an atomic absorption spectrometer. Absorbance (peak height) was measured as a function of mercury concentration. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 35 2.4.3.3 Sediment Grain Size, Total Organic Carbon, and Moisture Content Grain size analysis was conducted by both the MAXIM laboratory (1997) and GeoTesting Express (1998) using American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D422-63. A sieve analysis was performed in which the sample was separated into size fractions of greater than 62.5 mm (<4 phi; sand and gravel), and less than or equal to 62.5 mm (>4 phi; silt and clay). The wet sieve and dry sieve fractions less than 62.5 mm (silt and clay) were combined for each sample. The silt and clay fraction was then subdivided using a pipette technique in 1997 (Plume/phi) and a hydrometer technique in 1998 (ASTM/mm). Both of these techniques are based upon differential settling rates of particles. The data on grain size were converted from their respective units (phi or mm) to units of gravel and sand, silt, and clay. Although the reported percent of fine sediment seemed accurate in the 1997 results, the independent percentages of silt and clay did not correspond to visual observations of the core samples prior to shipment to the laboratory. In addition, the measured silt-clay percentages were also not consistent with observations of sediment cores collected in 1998 over the mound and results of the 1998 grain size analysis, which suggested a much higher percentage of clay. This may be an artifact of the two different variations employed for differentiation of the fine-grained material. Results are reported as percent fines (silt + clay). Total organic carbon (TOC) analyses were performed using EPA SW-846 Method 9060 (USEPA 1997). In this method, organic carbon is measured using a carbonaceous analyzer that converts the organic carbon in a sample to carbon dioxide (CO,) by wet chemical oxidation. The CO, formed is then measured directly by an infrared detector. The amount of CO, in a sample is directly proportional to the concentration of carbonaceous material in the sample. Results expressed in this report are on a dry weight basis. Moisture content was determined gravimetrically using ASTM Method D2216. Prior to initiating grain size analysis, a sub-sample (approximately 5—20 g) was taken for determination of total solids (%). Total solids in a sediment sample is a measurement of the water content of the sediment. This value is used to normalize chemical data to the actual dry weight of the sample. Wet weights were obtained gravimetrically and recorded prior to drying the samples at 103° C. The percent moisture in each sample was calculated by the following equation: (g sediment wet weight) - (g sediment dry weight) ee (g sediment dry weight) water content (%) = 00 Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 36 2.4.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control The chemistry data for the Seawolf sediment cores reported here were considered acceptable for the objectives of the NLDS Survey. Data quality was assessed in relation to specified criteria for precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness (PARCC). Sample representativeness was ensured during the sampling survey by collecting a sufficient number of cores and subsamples from the project and surrounding areas. All cores were collected and sampled in a uniform manner and are considered to be representative (see Methods). Comparability is a qualitative parameter expressing the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another. Comparability is limited to the other PARCC parameters because precision and accuracy must be known to compare one data set with another. Data completion was ensured through sample tracking protocols (Section 2.4.4.1). One method of assessing analytical accuracy of the laboratory was the quantitative evaluation of the percent recovery of a spiked standard compound added at a known concentration to the sample before the analysis (Section 2.4.4.2). Laboratory accuracy also was evaluated qualitatively by evaluating the laboratory QC information on method blank results, tuning and mass calibration, recovery of internal standards, laboratory quality control samples, and initial and continuing calibration results of analyses of environmental samples. Analytical precision was expressed as the percentage of the difference between results of the replicate samples (relative percent difference [RPD] or relative standard difference [RSD]; Section 2.4.4.3). When spiked duplicates are run, the results can be expressed as an RPD to evaluate precision of the analysis of the spiked compounds. By inference, the precision of analysis of other related compounds should be similar. The following sections define the various QA/QC requirements and summarize the data quality objectives for this project. For data to be considered valid, they must have met all acceptance criteria including accuracy and precision, as well as any other criteria specified by the analytical methods used. 2.4.4.1 Sample Tracking Procedures and Holding Times SAIC Standard Operating Procedures for sample tracking and custody were followed, and all samples from the project were analyzed except for one grain size sample (10A, 0.5— 0.75) due to laboratory oversight. After placing representative composited material in clean glass jars, the containers were labeled with indelible ink and sealed with waterproof tape. Label information included the date, sample location, station number, replicate number, and type of analysis. Remaining material was placed in double-bagged, gallon-sized plastic bags which were sealed and labeled for grain size analysis. All sediment containers and bags were stored at 0-4° C prior to analysis. Chain-of-custody records were maintained for all samples. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 37 The recommended maximum holding times between sampling and extraction for the compounds analyzed for this study are 14 days for PAHs, 28 days for Hg, and 6 months for the remaining trace metals. PAHs must be analyzed within 40 days of extraction (USEPA, 1997). The 1997 sediment cores were collected on 25-26 September 1997 and stored under refrigeration at the GSO in PVC tubing. The cores were split on 15—16 October 1997 and sectioned for sampling. The samples were stored under refrigeration until they could be shipped to the laboratory on 20 October 1997. The laboratory received the samples on 22 October 1997. All sample holding times were met except for the re-analyzed samples for PAHs. After sample data from MAXIM were rejected, the resealed samples were sent to the WHG laboratory. The WHG personnel reported that the containers arrived in good condition and were almost full of material, supplying adequate sediment for the PAH analysis with limited oxidation. The samples were re-extracted, resulting in a total holding time of 118 days - between sampling and extraction. Following extraction, the samples were re-analyzed within three days. Storage of the samples in airtight containers under refrigerated conditions; helped to preserve data quality; previous work with PAHs has shown little change in concentration in sediments held in refrigerated conditions. The 1998 cores were collected from the 22 to 24 July 1998 and stored under refrigeration at the GSO in PVC tubing. The cores were split from 27 to 29 July 1998 and sectioned for sampling. The samples were stored under refrigeration until they could be shipped to the laboratory on 29 July 1998. The laboratory received the samples on 30 July 1998. All of the samples were extracted for PAHs on 31 July 1998 and analyzed for metals by 12 August. Therefore, all samples were processed well within the maximum holding times. 2.4.4.2 Assessment of Analytical Accuracy Analytical accuracy is determined by the percent recovery of a known concentration of a compound that is spiked to the environmental sample before analysis. The closer that the numerical value of the measurement approaches the actual concentration of the compound, the more accurate the measurement. The percent recovery values are calculated using the following equation: Ar- Ao —— « 100 where: A, = total compound concentration detected in the spiked sample A, = concentration of the compound detected in the unspiked sample A, = concentration of the spike added to the sample Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 38 Matrix spike samples (MS) and matrix spike duplicates (MSD) are prepared by dividing a sample into multiple aliquots, spiking an aliquot with a known concentration of analyte, and proceeding with the analysis as though the spike was a sample. In 1997, samples NLDS QCA and NLDS 10A 0.75-1.0 m were selected for matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analysis. In 1998, samples NL-14B and NL-15A were selected for matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analysis. Matrix spike recovery for metals should yield 75 to 125% recovery of the known value, as stated in EPA Method 6010. In 1997, the laboratory reported matrix spike recoveries for As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, and Hg in NLDS QCA ranging between 97 and 122%, within Method 6010 QC acceptance criteria. However, Ni and Zn had recoveries of 138% and 203%, respectively, exceeding the criteria limits. Recovery of Zn in NLDS 10A was 156.6% of the matrix spike sample. Because the laboratory control sample recoveries for all analytes were within control limits, the elevated spike recoveries were attributed to sample non-homogeneity (typical for dredged material) or matrix effect. A laboratory QC sample was prepared with each sample batch. The recovery for the QC sample for eight metals analyzed ranged from 95 to 103%. A second QC sample for Zn had a recovery of 102%. Considering all of the QC information provided for metals, the recoveries for all metals indicated acceptable accuracy. In 1998, WHG reported matrix spike recoveries for As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, and Zn in NLDS NL-14B ranging between 87 and 120%, within Method 6010 QC acceptance criteria. A laboratory QC sample (spiked blank/laboratory control spikes) was prepared with each sample batch. The recovery for the QC sample for eight metals analyzed ranged from 71 to 97%. The recoveries for all metals indicated acceptable accuracy. For TOC, the laboratory standard operating procedure targets a range of 75-125% recovery. In 1997, two samples were spiked for TOC (NLDS QCA and NLDS 10A 0.75- 1.0 m). Recoveries were 104% and 112%, indicating acceptable accuracy for TOC data. In 1998, sample NLDS 14B was spiked for TOC and had recovery of 84%, indicating acceptable accuracy for TOC data. Prior to the analysis of the samples, the laboratory QC sample was analyzed and 99% was recovered. After the samples were analyzed, the laboratory QC sample had a recovery of 106%, within the range of acceptable recovery percentages. Recoveries of PAH matrix spike and matrix spike duplicates must fall within the range of 35-125% as stated in EPA SW-846 Method 8270 (USEPA 1997). Using NLDS 1A for the 1997 MS/MSD analyses, recoveries ranged from 49 to 156%. Fluoranthene and Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 39 pyrene recoveries exceeded these limits in the MSD analysis. Because all other analytes met both accuracy and precision limits, the analytical system was assessed to be in control and no further corrective action was implemented. Fluoranthene and pyrene were reported without laboratory qualification. Using NLDS 15A for the 1998 MS/MSD analyses, recoveries ranged from 84 to 109% and were acceptable. The laboratory QC sample had recoveries that varied from 76 to 92%. The accuracy tests indicated that the PAHs analysis met the QC criteria. Surrogate Recovery. Each sediment sample for PAH analysis was spiked with surrogate compounds as a measure of accuracy. Surrogate samples are analyzed as a check on the laboratory’s ability to extract known concentrations of compounds not normally found in the sample, but having similar characteristics. Surrogate compounds (generally compounds labeled with stable isotopes) are the only means of checking method performance on a sample-by-sample basis. Recoveries of surrogate spikes must fall within a range of 30 to 130%, depending upon the surrogate compound, as stated in the WHG laboratory standard operating procedure. Measured recoveries of surrogate spikes for this data set ranged from 46 to 119%, indicating acceptable recovery. Method Blanks. Method blanks are laboratory QC samples that are processed with the samples but contain only reagents. Method blanks test for contamination that may be contributed by the laboratory during sample preparation. The method blanks for PAHs, TOC, and metals were free from contamination and below the instrument detection limit. 2.4.4.3 Assessment of Analytical Precision Analytical precision can be expressed as the relative percent difference (RPD) between two results, or the relative standard deviation (RSD) between three or more results. To prepare analytical replicates, a sample is homogenized by the laboratory and then divided into two or more subsamples. The subsamples are analyzed independently. The closer the numerical values of the measurements are to each other, the lower the RPD or RSD. Low RPD or RSD values indicate a high degree of analytical precision. The relative percent difference (RPD) between two sample results was calculated using the following equation: (sample result - duplicate result) _ RPD = sample result _- duplicate result x 100 is (sample result + duplicate result) / 2 Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 40 To assess the analytical precision of the laboratory in 1997, sample 11A was homogenized, divided, and sent to the laboratory as two samples: 11A and NLDS QCA. In addition, the laboratory analyzed the duplicate matrix spike samples (Section 2.4.4.2) for additional precision analyses. The RPD for metals in the submitted blind duplicates (11A and QCA) ranged from +2% to 19%, indicating good precision for metals. In addition, the laboratory reported RPDs of two samples, QCA and 10A (0.75-1.0 m) for both non-spiked and spiked matrices. For metal samples with values greater than ten times the instrument detection limit, the control limit is +20% RPD. The spiked sample or spiked duplicate sample recovery must be within +25% of the actual value or within the documented historical acceptance limits. The RPDs were between 0.7-14% for the QCA duplicates, and 0.6% for Zn for 10A. The RPDs of the QCA matrix spiked duplicates ranged from 0-5.5% for the listed metals, excluding Zn which was 20% and therefore within the limit for spiked samples. For the Zn only sample 10A (0.75—1.0 m), the spiked duplicates had an RPD of 1.6%. For TOC analyses of samples QC and 11A, the RPDs were +4.6% and 18.5% for the matrix spike duplicates, and +5.6% for the duplicate RPD, indicating acceptable precision. For TOC method quality control, the laboratory selected samples NLDS7A and NLDS 12A for triplicate analyses. When there are more than two sample values to consider, the relative standard deviation (RSD) is used to assess precision. The RSD is calculated using the following equation: Pio ( SE CE) gt average of samples The RSD was 12.4% for sample 7A and 8.3% for 4A, which also indicated an acceptable level of precision. The PAH MS/MSD sample was NLDS 1A. The RPD values ranged from 12% to 47%. Of the 16 values calculated, only one compound was outside the required range, pyrene. As stated previously, all other analytes met both accuracy and precision limits. Therefore, the analytical system was assessed to be in control and no further corrective action was implemented. The analytical precision results for the 1998 samples indicated the RPD for metals were reported for both non-spiked and spiked matrices. The precision criteria are +20% RPD. The metal MS/MSD RPDs were between 0—-19% for NL-14B for all metals except Cd, which was Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 4] 28%. However, because the Cd was reported at a concentration less than 5% the instrument detection limit, the RPD criterion does not apply. For TOC analyses of sample 14B, the RPDs were +4.8% for the matrix spike duplicates, indicating acceptable precision. The PAH MS/MSD sample, NLDS 15A, had RPD values that ranged from 4 to 10%. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Seawolf Mound 3.1.1 Bathymetry The Seawolf Disposal Mound is a flat, nearly circular capped sediment mound complex composed of an estimated barge volume of 877,500 m? of dredged material. This complex was formed from 862,000 m3 of dredged material (305,200 m3? UDM and 556,000 m3 CDM from the Seawolf Project and 803 m*? UDM from Mystic Seaport) deposited at the U.S. Navy buoy from 21 October 1995 through 31 January 1996. In addition, a total of 15,490 m? of CDM from Mystic River and Venetian Harbor were deposited at the NDA 95 buoy, which also contributed to the Seawolf Mound. In September 1997, a 1000 x 1000 m survey was performed over the Seawolf Mound, replicating the size and orientation of the surveys used to track the development of the sediment deposit. This survey was used to monitor the long-term stability of the disposal mound as well as to measure the amount of dredged material consolidation in the underlying layers since February 1996. Bathymetric results of the entire NLDS for this period are presented in Volume I of this report (SAIC 2001). In October 1995, Gahagan and Bryant, Inc. conducted a 1500 x 1500 m survey over the northwest corner of NLDS to serve as the baseline against which all future Seawolf Mound surveys would be compared (Figure 3-1). Depths within the 1000 x 1000 m analysis area ranged from 13.5 m over the NL-RELIC Mound to 22.5 m along the southwest margin. Dredging operations around Seawolf Piers 8 and 10 and sections of the main channel commenced on 21 October and continued through 7 December 1995, producing large volumes of UDM (Appendix A). Upon the deposition of the final barge load of UDM at the U.S. Navy buoy on 7 December, a precapping survey was completed to determine the thickness and lateral extent of the UDM deposit. A distinct elevation in bottom topography was found near the center of the survey grid, between the U.S. Navy and NDA 95 buoys (Figure 3-2). Depth difference calculations based on comparisons with the baseline bathymetric dataset indicated the disposal operations had formed a discrete UDM deposit approximately 400 m wide and with a maximum height of 3.5 m (Figure 3-3). The apex of the mound was developed 75 m southwest of the Navy buoy position, and the development of the mound seemed to be strongly affected by a consistent disposal pattern (tow boat and barge approach) and the slope of the NLDS seafloor. The deposit also included 2,310 m? of CDM from the Venetian Harbor and Mystic River dredging projects disposed at the NDA 95 buoy prior to the precap survey (Figure 3-3). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 43 U.S. Navy Baseline Survey 1000 X 1000 m Analysis Area Ae) 41° 16.700° N 41° 16.600° N 41° 16.500° N 41° 16.400° N 41° 16.300° N 72° 05.000° W 72° 04.800 ‘W 72° 04.600° W NLDS Depth in meters NAD 83 ————OT Figure 3-1. Baseline bathymetry of the Seawolf Mound area, October 1995 (Gahagan and Bryant) Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 44 U.S. Navy Precap Bathymetic Survey 1000 X 1000 m Survey Area 41° 16.700°N 41° 16.600° N 41° 16.500° N 41° 16.400° N 41° 16.300° N 72° 05.000° W 72° 04.800° W 72° 04.600° W NLDS Depth in meters NAD 83 —— OZ Om 200 m 400 m Figure 3-2. Precap bathymetric survey of the Seawolf Mound area (Gahagan and Bryant) Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 45 Depth Difference October 1995 Baseline versus December 1995 Precap Seawolf UDM Deposit I 41° 16.700° N 41° 16.600’ N 41° 16.500" N 41° 16.400° N 41° 16.300° N Mound height in meters NAD 83 Figure 3-3. Thickness of UDM at the Seawolf Mound (contour interval = 0.25 m) overlain on baseline bathymetry. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 46 An estimated volume of 556,000 m’ of capping dredged material (CDM), originating from the areas of the Thames River channel that had been classified as suitable for unconfined open-water disposal (Maguire Group 1995), was dredged and placed over the UDM (Appendix A). The resulting ratio of CDM to UDM was 1.82:1. CDM placed at the NDA 95 buoy was not included in this ratio (8,280 m’ disposed after the precap survey and another 4,900 m3 after the postcap survey), but this material provided additional cap coverage. Gahagan and Bryant, Inc. conducted a postcap survey in late February 1996 (Figure 3-4). The overall depth difference between the baseline and postcap survey data was calculated to show the distribution and thickness of the entire deposit placed during the Seawolf project. The resulting Seawolf Mound was a flat semi-circular deposit with a diameter of approximately 600 m, with initial peak heights of 3-4 m above the pre-existing seafloor (Figure 3-5). The deposit was elongated down slope (to the southwest) and extended onto the margin of the NL-RELIC Mound to the east (Figure 3-5). The overall apparent thickness of CDM was determined by calculating a depth difference between the precap (December 1995) and postcap (February 1996) surveys. The resulting contour plot indicates that, in the center of the mound above the thickest areas of UDM, the total mound height did not change, which would indicate substantial consolidation of the underlying dredged material due to the placement of CDM (Figure 3-6). This central area of apparent consolidation was analyzed further in the REMOTS® and core data collected in that area (Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 and Appendix D). Outside of these areas of consolidation, apparent cap thickness over the UDM deposit reached up to 3 m or more, assuming some consolidation of UDM everywhere. There was an isolated area of UDM in the farthest eastern edge of the mound, which did not show coverage with CDM detectable by acoustic bathymetry. However, REMOTS® photos did show presence of cap materials (REMOTS? Station 300E), which is discussed in Section 3.1.2.1. The September 1997 bathymetric survey, conducted 18 months following cap placement showed that the mound had a broad, flat plateau ranging from 16 to 18 m water depth, with two small peaks at the apex of the mound to the west of the Navy buoy (Figure 3-7). The Seawolf Mound was a few meters lower than the NL-Relic Mound to the east. In the September 1997 (18 months post cap) versus October 1995 (baseline) depth difference plot, the overall footprint of the Seawolf Mound was similar to that observed the previous year (February 1996 versus October 1995 depth difference; Figure 3-8). However, there were some changes in mound topography in the intervening 1.5 years, shown by a close comparison of Figures 3-5 and 3-8. In February 1996, there were two distinct peaks located just west of the Navy buoy, with the taller peak having a height above baseline of 4.25 m (Figure 3-5). In 1997, the two peaks were less distinct and the maximum height above baseline was 3.5 m (Figure 3-8). Two peaks located further to the west also were no longer as prominent in 1997 (Figures 3-5 and 3-8). A depth difference plot between the Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 US Navy Postcap Bathymetric Survey 1000 X 1000 m Analysis Area 41° 16.700" N 41° 16.600° N 41° 16.500° N 41° 16.400° N 41° 16.300" N 72° 05.000° W NLDS Depth in meters NAD 83 OSE om 200 m 400 m Figure 3-4. Postcap bathymetric survey of the Seawolf Mound area conducted in February 1996 (Gahagan and Bryant) Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1 995 — 1998 48 Depth Difference October 1995 Baseline versus February 1996 Postcap Surveys Capped Disposal Mo und 41° 16.400° N 41° 16.300° N 72° 05.000° W 72° 04.800° W 72° 04.600° W NLDS Mound height in meters NAD 83 Om 200 m Figure 3-5. Total thickness of capped NL-RELIC Mound (contour interval = 0.25 m) overlaid on baseline bathymetry Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 49 Depth Difference December 1995 Precap versus February 1996 Postcap Surveys 41° 16.700" N yy Apparent See \ Cap Thickness 41° 16.600" 41° 16.500" N 41° 16.400° N+ | 9 Pockets of UDM nsolidation 41° 16.300’ Cons 2 72° 05.000° W 72° 04.800° W 72° 04.600° W NLDS Mound height in meters NAD 83 ez 0m 200 m Figure 3-6. | Apparent thickness of CDM at the Seawolf Mound (contour interval = 0.25 m). Red line represents extent of UDM deposit (0.25 m contour). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 50 SAIC September 1997 Bathymetric Survey 1000 X 1000 m Analysis Area 41° 16.700° N 41° 16.600° N 41° 16.500° N 41° 16.400° N 41° 16.300° N 72° 05.000° W 72° 04.800° W 72° 04.600° W NLDS Depth in meters Figure 3-7. Postcap bathymetric survey of the Seawolf Mound area conducted in September 1997 Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 Depth Difference September 1997 Postcap Survey versus October 1995 Baseline Survey 41° 16.600° 41° 16.500" N: 41° 16.400" N 41° 16.300° N Mound height in meters Depth in meters NAD 83 Figure 3-8. Total thickness of capped Seawolf Mound (contour interval = 0.25 m) as measured in September 1997 compared to the February 1996 footprint overlaid on baseline bathymetry. 51 Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 52 February 1996 and September 1997 surveys serves to confirm that up to 1.5 meters of presumed additional consolidation had occurred, primarily in the central, thicker portions of the mound (Figure 3-9). A small area of apparent accumulation is visible in Figure 3-9, in the northwestern area over the naturally occurring slope. It is likely that this apparent change does not represent actual net accumulation of material but rather some settling and redistribution of cap material along the apron of the deposit (this result is discussed further in Section 4.2.1). In the southwestern region of the mound, some apparent accumulation is located in the area where additional CDM was placed after the postcap survey. CDM from the Mystic River (4,900 m’°) was placed near the NDA 95 buoy from February 1 to March 11 1996, and 3,400 m’ material was placed near the NDA 96 buoy during the 1996-97 disposal season. The isolated areas of apparent accumulation in the eastern area of the survey are probably survey artifacts (small errors from sequential surveys, most noticeable over slopes, see Section 2.1.3). The elongated area of apparent consolidation west of NDA 96 is an artifact from the steep slope in this area (see Figure 3-8). The July 1998 bathymetric survey over the Seawolf Mound showed depths ranging from 13.4 m over the apex of the NL-RELIC Mound to 23.0 m in the southwestern corner of the 1000 x 1000 m area (Figure 3-10). Water depths over the Seawolf Mound varied from 16 to 23 m and the mound area appeared as a flat region with a small oval apex, 50 m x 100 m. Depth difference calculations between the July 1998 survey and the October 1995 baseline survey (pre-Seawolf Project) showed a mound with peak heights of 3 to 4 m above the pre-existing seafloor, with an approximate diameter of 600 m (Figure 3-11). The overall configuration of the Seawolf Mound in 1998 was very similar to that measured in 1997 (Figure 3-8). The apparent stability of the Mound was further shown by the minimal amount of consolidation calculated for the period between the September 1997 and July 1998 surveys (Figure 3-12). The decrease in the rate of consolidation two years after placement of the cap followed the typical pattern for dredged material mounds, with most of the consolidation occurring within the first year (Poindexter-Rollings 1990). On the northeast side of the NDA 97 buoy location, a small isolated area of apparent accumulation appeared (Figure 3-12). The disposal logs indicated, however, that no sediment was directed to the NDA 97 buoy, but instead to the NL-91 and D/S Mound Complex (500 m east at the southeast corner of this survey, Figure 1-2). This area of apparent accumulation is located on the same steep slope that produced a survey artifact of consolidation in 1997 (see above). Survey artifacts account for the other isolated apparent increases and decreases of material throughout the survey area (see Section 2.1.3). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 53 Depth Difference February 1996 Postcap versus September 1997 Postcap Surveys Total Apparent Disposal Mound Consolidation 41° 16.700° N7_ 41° 16.600° N 41° 16.500" N 41° 16.400’ N 41° 16.300° N 72° 05.000" W 72° 04.800" W_ 72° 04.600" W Apparent Consolidation Apparent Accumulation Thickness in meters NAD 83 Om Figure 3-9. Thicknesses of apparent consolidation and accumulation of material over the Seawolf Mound, September 1997 (contour interval = 0.25 m). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 54 July 1998 Bathymetric Survey 1000 x 1000 m Survey Area 41° 16.700° 41° 16.600" 41° 16.500° 41° 16.400° 41° 16.300° 72° 05.000° W Corrected to MLLW Contour Interval 0.5 m Depth in meters NAD 83 Figure 3-10. Bathymetric chart of the 1000 x 1000 m Seawolf Mound survey area, July 1998. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 55 Depth Difference July 1998 vs. October 1995 Baseline 41° 16.700' N 41° 16.600' N 41° 16.500" N 41° 16.400' N 41° 16.300' N - 72° 05.000° W 72° 04.800' W 72° 04.600° W NLDS Mound height in meters NAD 83 i —s ca Om 200 m Figure 3-11. Depth difference comparison between 1998 and 1995 1000 x 1000 m bathymetric surveys showing the Seawolf Mound Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 56 Depth Difference Apparent Consolidation and Accummulation over the 1997-1998 Disposal Season July 1998 vs. September 1997 Bathymetric 1000 x 1000 m Survey Area Depth Difference 2.50 Due T ue TO Survey Artifacts 42.25 41° 16.700" 41° 16.600" _(\ 98 Seawolf Disposal 44 \/ Mound Footprint {9 | | | U] -—— 0.75 41° 16.500° N 0.50 41° 16.400° 5 0.755 oe 41° 16.300° -1.25 MZ, GAY ahs LN NS \ 1.50 72° 05 000° W 72° 04.750° W 72° 04.500’ W Corrected to MLLW NLDS Contour Interval 0.25 m Depth in meters NAD 83 OO Om 200 m 400 m Figure 3-12, Depth difference comparison between 1998 and 1997 1000 x 1000 m bathymetric surveys showing minor consolidation and accumulation. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 57 3.1.2 REMOTS® Sediment-Profile Photography REMOTS® sediment profile photography was used to document benthic recolonization, map thin layers of dredged material accumulation (below acoustic bathymetric resolution), and assess the overall impact of dredged material deposition over the surface of the Seawolf Mound. Because of the distinct nature of some of the dredged material deposited during capping operations (gray clay from improvement dredging), particular attention was paid to visual evidence of sediment types and physical or biological disturbance. The sampling grid occupied in September 1997 was repeated in July 1998 (see Figure 3-13 and Section 2 for details). The results are presented separately below. Descriptive results refer to the three zones of the capped mound: a small apex; a broad, flat plateau; and a sloping apron. Zones were assigned based on the location of grid samples relative to the bathymetric profile (Figure 3-11). Complete REMOTS® results for the Seawolf Mound for both years are presented in Appendix B. 3.1.2.1 September 1997 Survey One of the primary objectives of a sediment profile survey after a capping operation is to map the thin layers of dredged material that cannot be reliably detected with detailed bathymetric surveys (layers less than 20-15 cm thick, see Section 2.1.3). Secondly, the nature of the sediment layers near the surface and any progression towards recolonization provide a baseline to compare with reference areas and subsequent surveys. In September 1997, dredged material was present in all profile photographs collected within 300 m of the center station except for 300W. It is notable that for all replicate stations with dredged material, the observed thickness was greater than penetration (Table 3-1, see Appendix B for replicate values). This means that the camera penetration depth did not exceed the thickness of fresh dredged material, and no ambient sediments were visible except where dredged material was not detected. A mix of silt-clay (>4 phi), more common at the inner stations (within 150 m of center), and very fine sand (4—3 phi) characterized the sediments of the surface of the Seawolf Mound (Table 3-1). Dredged material was described as gray clay in many replicates. The grain size at the inner stations was finer than at the reference areas, which were characterized as very fine sand (Table 3-2). One replicate of Station 150S had coarser grain size (fine sand 3-2 phi). Surface sand overlying fine- grained sediment (sand over mud stratigraphy) was noted for most photographs (Appendix B). Many replicate photographs also showed evidence of a shell lag deposit. The dominant grain size at slightly over half the stations was similar to that measured at the reference areas (major mode primarily 4-3 phi, Table 3-2). About 46% of the stations consisted of silt-clay. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 58 REMOTS® Stations over the Seawolf Disposal Mound 41° 16.800° N- 41° 16.700° N 41° 16.600’ N 41° 16.500" N- 41° 16.400’ N- 41° 16.300° N 7 44° 16.200° N+ Y NLDS t Depth in meters NAD 83 OO a Om 200 m Figure 3-13. Location of Seawolf REMOTS:’ stations relative to areal extent (0.25 m) of Seawolf dredged material. The Center and 75 m stations are magnified to the right. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 8661 — S661 punoy fromvas ‘aiis jpsodsiq uopuo] may ays Iw asinsa Sutsonu0op (uBis< ayy Aq payesipul) ssauxo14) aXe] |eUayewW pabpeup jo ayewNsa WNWIUIW e si UMOYs enjeA UGawW eu) Yay) ‘se}ed!|des OMY jseaj Je Ul Udap UoNesjaued Wsud ay) papaeoxe jeuajew pabpaup J) ‘uONe}s Yoea je pazAjeue pue paulejgo sabew! ajeoijday ¢=U Jo) sueawW ase UMOYS SeN|eA ,. ero 00} 00°0 92't 00°0 sve Bes 207 oo'¢e oo€ LLSb< S89l< | S6SL ZO'LL PLE h4 ele 9LtL< bLZi< | SbEL Spel wrt 90 8 6 €%% €Opr | ITNON 1S Wis mn 0 zLe< 198 658 uoidy MNOS?’ 980 vt sv Z b< b< NO Wis .NO I 1S mnt € bLSh< S6St 61 neajeid MSMOSP 80'l 60 8 S €%p €O%F | INO Wu4s POL) 1s mn z 9Le 66bL ees uoidy SNOSP el 60 S 6 b< €%¢ | it NO N 4S -NO WLS mt z 95'6< 696 pL uoidy NoSP bet 80 s‘8 Z p< v< TNO 14s Was w'n't € € Olpl< Tt ] 8 neayeld MNOOE Sst 60 v 9 €%p ECF WoLris | NO ll 1S wl £ 0) WZB< sve 068 uoidy Maoe be bE € € p< p< WwNOWLS INOW 1S wn € € Sv'bL< zs LSI nealeid MSMOOE Bb 60 8 6 €%F EOF Wis WWNO TLS Wl € € bz'8< 998 €9Z uoidy sooe 80 Gt S 8 €%p CAP Wis iNOW Ls Th € € 16'6< 966 ZO UL uoidy 3S00¢ cel et 6 YN €%p EOF | INOW 4S Wis mn € € z9'LL< (7a a A) 9 uosdy 300€ 98'L zt S th b< €%r | IWNO WLS INOW 1S mut € € eg'SL< SL£StL pS EL neajeid 3Nooe Zeb St Z 9 v< €%-r | ITNOTLS Wis wi € € 90'°SL< best 62S) Nealeld NOOE zL0 at st YN vs b< ris WwmNO 14S ! € € 9P'bL< zsvL = LBL neaeld MNOS1 69:0 20 Z v v< p< WwNO 14s Wis mw € € 9Z'HL< Zyob ob bb nealeid Most ss°0 bE 9 6 v< €or | INO TLS WLS mt € € Oz'bh< styl Ost neajeid + MSMOSI (7a) 80 6 th v< €or | INO W1s -NO I 1S wit € € Leeh< eseb ezpt neajeld Sost 60 Or S $8 v< ep | iWNOTLIS i NOT IS wnt € € pEZb< loc 2S rb nealelid 3sost 80 Or v Z v< v< worwis iors mn € € 69°51< Bust Oct nealeld gost te eb Z 9 v< b< WNO Wis ) 1S wit € € GOZL< eozL Sob nealeld 3NOSL 20% 80 v VN p< p< ris ys ro1iozw € € Lz'th< QbeL Zh bb xedy NOS| 6b 60 § 9 b< p< TNO 11s POL Wis mt € € BZ Z< a4 a LALA neajeid MNSZ £8'0 eb 9 Z v< p< Wis )NO 11S Th € € bLph< 6Lyb e991 nealeid MsZ 8h 80 9 Ss b< vs i NO Tis POL is mi z € GLZb< oszh e2St nealeld MSMSZ ob zt 2 g9 €%p E04 Was NO I 4S wh € € SSbL< 6th 6921 nealeid SSZ 19:0 Or 8 9 v< €%p | ITNO 14s WLS mnt Wirt € € OPel< ageh = LL EF neayeld 3aSSZ £80 80 GL SS b< p< WwmNO Ws FOL W 1S wt wit € € vObL< S8pL SBP nealeld aGZ 29°0 60 9 6 p< v< WmNO 11s Wis mt wi € € LO0'Sb< Sst zZ€t nealeld SNSZ ech cas v 8 v< £%p Wis Weis W wil € € z9Zb< eezt os el xady NGZ £0 ca 9 VN v< p< WwmNO 11s 13QNI wnt 130NI € SESL< zsh = ZO-LE xedy yLO 866 2661 s66l 661 866+ ZE6L 866L 26614 8661 2661 sect L661 e664 661 866 2661 g66t 466} ‘Aeains ssauybnoy ueipaw iSO (1ud) apow quasaid abbeys ysaybyy quasald (wo) ueaw ad¥ jeyazyew e(Ul9) (wi) uoye907 uoNeIS Auepunog dofew azjg ues sabeys jeuojssa2ons pabpaigim Ueda SSAUyNIIYL UeaW UO}Je1JQUaG someas sday josaquiny jeyayew pabpag ese 8661 AIN[ pue 66] J9quiesdag ur punoy Jesodsig JjomEag ay) 3 pa}da][0D BIVG @SLOWAU T-€ PBL 8661 — S66I Punop fjomvag ‘ails jvpsodsigq uopuo] Man ayi iv asiniD Suisojluop ‘sisayjuaied ul ase suoNe}s 2661 AUM SI YoIUM AjjUaJay!p pasaquunu aJam pue UO!Ed0] SWS a4} Je JOU JAM QEGI PUB 266} U! SUONE}S ‘Bale aouaJajay Yyoea jnoyBnosy) Ajwopues pajyedo) a49M SUONE}S 99U9I9j9y, :9ION 000 00'0 i sss Ov 000 00°0 F 99° bb 8201 00°0 00'0 i i eel cel Wis Wis VN Ls wWoLris weno wis} wi TNO Tis Wis mut oooo Wis WNO WLS} wt NO 4s Wis wnt i NO TLS Wis wnt Wis FOL as] ot Was WeNOW LS] Wh ooooo wWoLras WeNOW LS} Wt WNOTLS IW OLW is} mt WNO WLS WNO WLS} Wh Wis -NO 11S} Wl oooo geet = ze6) _| 866+ 266i | 8661 L661 8661 661 ge6t = 2661 | 8664 Le6t | 866+ L661 aD 2168) sc Les j:Aaains | ssouybnoy Auepunog UBIPAW ISO 8661 AIn[ puke L661 JoqQuiasdag ul seary 29U919J9y SCIN 24) 38 P279]10D Bed @SLOWAU sofey ezjs ues yuasald abeys ysayubiH quasaid sabes jeuojssaoons c-€ AGEL wo) ual dy jeuaew paBpaigim sday jo Jaquinn ueaw ae TE ueaw seer uoNeIs Boy jeyayew pabpaiq eiawied (26) aouasajay 09 61 The penetration depth of the camera serves as a measure of sediment density or compaction. At the reference areas, the replicate-averaged mean camera penetration ranged from 4.6 to 10.3 cm (7.3 cm average; Table 3-2). The recently deposited dredged material at the Seawolf Mound was less consolidated than the reference area sediments, with deeper penetration values at mound stations ranging from 5.4 to 17.0 cm (13.5 cm average; Table 3-1). Lower values in the range were detected on the apron of the mound, where thin layers of dredged material overlaid ambient sediments. Boundary roughness values at the Seawolf Mound ranged from 0.7 to 1.8 cm, with an average of 1.1 cm, which was higher than the average value measured at the reference areas (0.7 cm). Although there was no obvious spatial pattern of boundary roughness values, several replicates from four stations, including 150E(a), 150S(c), 300N(a and b), and 450NW (a), were identified as having winnowed relief. Shell lag deposits predominated. Boundary roughness at the surface of the Seawolf Mound was primarily attributed to physical forces, as were those at the reference areas, although some surface disturbances were indeterminate or caused by biogenic activity. Further discussion of the potential for physical disturbance of the Seawolf material is provided in Section 4.0. The apparent redox potential discontinuity (RPD) is measured on each photograph to determine the thickness of the aerobically mixed layer of sediment. The replicate-averaged apparent RPD ranged from 0.47 to 5.2 cm (2.5 cm average; Table 3-1). Although the range of RPD values measured at the Seawolf Mound was wider relative to the replicate-averaged reference values (1.8 to 3.5 cm), the average RPD at Seawolf was close to the reference area average (2.4 cm). A low dissolved oxygen (DO) condition (thin or non-existent apparent RPD) was noted at the sediment surface in only one photograph, 150N(c). Some stations had a visible redox rebound varying between 3 and 10 cm depth. The successional status was intermediate to advanced, showing healthy Stage II, Stage II to IIL, or Stage II on I communities inhabiting the sediments of the Seawolf Mound (Table 3-1). In 14 of the 86 replicate images, the infaunal successional stage could not be determined clearly (indeterminate). Stage I organisms were present in 31 replicates and at 21 of 29 stations. Replicate-averaged OSI values ranged from +3 to +11, with an overall average of +7.1, consistent with the median OSI values (Table 3-1). Although the OSI values were more variable than those at the reference areas (range +5 to +10), the average OSI value for the Seawolf Mound was similar to the reference area average (+6.7; Table 3-2). All stations within 75 m of the center station had average OSI values of 2+6, except 75E (+5.5) and 75WSW (+5.5). Past mapping experience has shown that OSI values <+6 tend to be associated with stressed environments or early successional populations. The OSI at Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 62 Stations CTR, 150N, and 1SONW could not be calculated because of an indeterminate successional stage, partially due to smears of gray-black clay from the REMOTS® camera wiper blade obscuring the sediment surface. Outside the central area, stations with average OSI values of <+6 (indicating disturbance) were randomly located (Figure 3-14). CDM was not detected acoustically at Station 300E (Figures 3-6 and 3-13), but CDM was detected in all three REMOTS® replicates. Figures 3-15 and 3-16 show the sediment profile photographs taken at this station as well as a replicate from the center station for comparison. Glacial gray clay was detected in two of the replicates, 300E B and C, similar to the center station (Figure 3-16). Minor surface scour and Stage II tube mats were apparent at 300E and not at the center station, due to the stations’ respective locations on the mound. The color mottling in replicate 300E A (Figure 3-15) indicates multiple source areas of the CDM deposited there. The brown sand and silt is consistent with characteristics of CDM placed in other areas of the mound. 3.1.2.2 July 1998 Survey In July 1998, dredged material was again present in all of the photographs collected within 300 m of the center station (Table 3-1). For all replicate stations with dredged material, the observed thickness was greater than penetration (Table 3-1, see Appendix B for replicate values). This means that the camera penetration depth did not exceed the thickness of the dredged material layer, and no ambient sediments were visible except in two replicate photographs on the mound apron, where dredged material was not detected. A mix of silt and clay (>4 phi), which was more common at the inner stations (within 150 m of center), and very fine (4 to 3 phi) sand characterized the near surface sediments of the Seawolf Mound (Table 3-1). The grain size at the inner stations was finer than at the reference areas, which were characterized as very fine sand (Table 3-2). Stations 150N, 150S and 300S each had one replicate with a coarser grain size of fine sand (3 to 2 phi). Surface sand overlying fine-grained sediment (sand-over-mud stratigraphy) was noted for many photographs (Appendix B). The dominant grain size was similar to that measured at the reference areas (major mode primarily 4 to 3 phi), except for the inner stations dominated by silt/clay. Eight stations had a finer major mode size (>4 phi) in 1998 than observed in 1997 (4 to 3 phi). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 63 REMOTS® Stations over the Seawolf Disposal Mound 41° 16.800" N 41° 16.700" N 41° 16.600° N 41° 16.500° N 41° 16.400° N 41° 16.300" N 41° 16.200° N NLDS Depth in meters NAD 83 Om 200 m Figure 3-14. Map of average OSI values at the Seawolf Mound REMOTS® stations in 1997. Note: N/A means that the OSI value was not available or indeterminant. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 8661 — S661 Puno fromvas ‘ajig jpsodsig uopuoT man ayy Jv asiniD Sulsonuopy ‘(V AOOE UONeIS 3 IIs pue pues UMOIG pUe UONe}s J9}UaD oY) Ie ALTO AvId [eloe[s) punoy J[OMvIE oY} JOAO JCD UI UONeLIRA SUIMOYS 166] WO sydersojoyd sp1yo1d-yuouNIpos eSLOWA “ST-€ 2ansiyq V 400€ oR = i 58) Wa 40 sealy 921n0s F edyiny : Sse@}eoipul BuyNow 10[0D AelD pny/pues Ae ‘Jopul 3S “S ‘JOPUL Ady “ySpu] ISO luo ISS Ba @pUul Gd 78PU/ SO Co Tec yeweqny 11 aes pequrygsiq #9 8661 — S661 punoyp flomvas ‘ajig jpsodsiq uopuoT Man ayi 1D asinid sulsojuOp ‘TeLajeu SuIdded Jo sUSpPIAD SOpIAOId 66] Ul FOOSE UONeIS 3e Avo AvIS JeIOKTSs Jo UONIDIOG “OT-¢ aN 5 400¢ g@ 300¢ 91N}Ie14 ouqe4 oHOeUD Kejp Kelp AKeig Aeis) 4INOIS eune sseUNS a aba i ees aJEUIWNB}IpU| addy sJEUILSJapU] |SO S}JEUILUIZJSpUj Ody BJEUILS}JapU]| |SO 66 The penetration depth of the camera serves as a measure of sediment density or compaction. At the three reference areas, (NLON REF, NE REF, and WEST REF), the replicate-averaged mean camera penetration ranged from 5.6 to 11.7 cm (7.8 cm average; Table 3-2) which was similar to that observed in 1997 (7.3 cm). Penetration was shallower at the reference areas relative to the Seawolf Mound because of the presence of less compact, finer grained sediments at the disposal mound. Penetration depths at the Seawolf Mound varied from 8.45 to 15.78 cm, with an average of 13.06 cm. The average camera penetration decreased by 0.39 cm since 1997. This change may be within the range of measurement error and not significant, although the decreasing trend of camera penetration may suggest increased compaction of the dredged material at the surface. The boundary roughness at the Seawolf Mound ranged from 0.4 to 2.1 cm, with an average of 1.1 cm, which was higher than the average value measured at the reference areas (0.9 cm). There was no obvious spatial pattern of boundary roughness values. Shell lag and surface scour were predominant (Figure 3-4). Shell armoring of the surface was also evident. It is expected that the sand and shell “lag” deposits (large sediment particles that “lag” behind as the finer materials are washed away) would be resistant to further winnowing on the scale experienced regularly. This process is called “textural armoring”. Several replicates were also identified as winnowed: 75SE (c), 150SE (a), ISONW (a and b), 300NW (c), and 450NW (c). The 1998 results have similar winnowed areas (which also includes scour lag and surface scour) compared with those observed in 1997. Varieties of surface types were observed across the mound (Figure 3-17). Surface scour and shell lags also were apparent in some of the photographs of the reference areas. Further discussion of the potential for physical disturbance of the Seawolf Mound material is provided in the Discussion (Section 4.0). The replicate-averaged RPD for each station ranged from 0.30 to 3.75 cm (1.72 cm average; Table 3-1). This value was less than the average calculated for the stations in 1997 (2.5 cm). The implications of the change between 1997 and 1998 are discussed further in Section 4.0. The Seawolf Mound average RPD measured in 1998 also was below the reference area average of 2.6 cm. No low dissolved oxygen (DO) conditions were observed in 1998, compared to one replicate in 1997. Some stations had a visible redox rebound varying in depth between 3 and 10cm. The shallowest RPDs (<1.2 cm) were observed in replicates on the plateau and apex of the mound, although the station average RPD values had a high spatial variability (Figure 3-18). The successional status was advanced, with Stage II, Stage II to I, or Stage II on Il communities inhabiting the sediments of the Seawolf Mound (Table 3-1). Only two of the 86 replicates were indeterminate, in contrast to the higher number classified as Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 67 Evidence of Winnowing i Shell Armoring : 300NW T5N™:.: No Winnowing Evidence Shell Lag and 150wWSW Tube Mats 75S Figure 3-17. Seawolf Mound REMOTS® stations showing variable surface conditions Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 68 Mean RPD Depths (cm) 1998 REMOTS Sediment-Profile Photography Stations with Mound Footprint 0.25 m Contour, 1998 vs. 1995 41° 16.700 N - 41° 16.600° N - 41° 16.500° N 41° 16.400’ N - 41° 16.300° N - Saw 72° 04.750" W 72° 04.500° W 72° 05.000° W | #| REMOTS Station RPD Mean Depth (cm) NLDS RPD Depth (cm) Depth in meters Red- <08 Orange- 0.8-1.2 NAD 83 Yellow- 1.2-1.5 a) Clear- >1.5 Om 200 m 400 m Figure 3-18. Mean RPD depths (cm) over the Seawolf Mound in 1998 Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 69 indeterminate in 1997 (Figure 3-14). Consistent with 1997 results, Stage III organisms were present at many stations of the 1998 survey (21 of 29 stations). One replicate at 1SON, located on the apex of the mound, was classified as azoic. Many of the Stage II amphipod tube mats appeared to be disturbed. However, large chaetopterid tubes with hydroids were visible in several replicates, suggesting advanced recolonization over the Seawolf Mound dredged material with limited winnowing (Figure 3-19). These replicates also showed the widespread distribution of gray clay over the Seawolf Mound. The presence of gray clay may affect the successional status and the measured RPD, both of which are used to calculate the OSI values (Volume I, SAIC 2001). Gray clay was detected only on the apex and plateau region of the mound (Figure 3-20). Sulfidic, organic- rich sediments may also affect recolonization rates and dissolved oxygen levels. Patchy sulfidic sediments were observed in sediment-profile photographs collected over the apex and plateau of the mound. Some sulfidic sediment was also seen on the apron of the mound and was similar to sediments seen in some of the replicates from NE REF. The median of replicate OSI values ranged from +3 to +9, with an overall average of +6.1 (Table 3-1, Figure 3-21). The Seawolf Mound median OSI values were slightly below those of the reference area, which varied between +5.0 to +10.0 (+6.7 average), and the 1997 Seawolf average of +7.5. 3.1.3 Benthic Community Analysis Analysis of benthic grab samples collected in September 1997 indicated that the Seawolf Mound was in the intermediate stages of recolonization, with abundances of organisms increasing with distance from the center of the mound. The total number of individuals sorted from the six Seawolf benthic grab samples was 2,600, of which 100 taxa were identified (Blake and Williams 1997; Appendix C). Of the species used for all analyses, nearly half were polychaetes (39 species). Additional taxa included, (in order of number of species present): amphipods, bivalves, gastropods, decapods, isopods, one mysid, a small number of nemerteans, oligochaetes, phoronids, echinoderms, hemichordates, and chordates (treated as one taxon each). The center (CTR) station (Figure 2-5) had the lowest faunal abundance, with only 50 individuals belonging to 17 taxa. Station 75E had 200 individuals belonging to 26 taxa. Two stations were sampled 150 m from the center station, and both had nearly twice the number of species as measured at 75E. At 15ON, 50 taxa were counted, with twice as many animals, notably Nucula annulata (301 individuals), relative to 150W (46 taxa). Faunal abundances were greatest at the two stations sampled 300 m from the center: at 300WSW, 518 animals belonging to 54 taxa were counted, and at 300SE, 1118 animals belonging to 66 taxa were counted. The trend of increasing faunal abundance with distance from the Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 8661 — S661 Punoyw fjomvas ‘atis josodsiq UuopuoT May ayj ID asiniy Sulsojiuopy "866] Ul SUIMOUUIM Po}IUN] puke UONeZIUOTOIEI OIyJUNG PooULApR JO DDUOPIAT “GI -¢ IAINSIA MSZ ‘a MSMOO?P ‘V mong peidno99 plo, Buipee4 ay épainoos ees SPIO1PAH YIM. ng : | Saqn{snuajdoyeeyo pces 2 Spl a2) : StS ERS Se te = : bs Saqn smuaydojeeyo. 71 Presence of Gray Clay and Sulfidic Sediments in 1998 REMOTS® Replicates with Mound Bathymetric Contour, 1998 vs.1995 41° 16.700° N 41° 16.600° N 41° 16.500° N 41° 16.400" N 41° 16.300° N 72° 05.000° W /\ REMOTS® Station 4. Gray Clay Dominated A. Gray Clay Patchy — Sulfidic Sediment L] Patchy Sulfidic Sediment 72° 04.750° W 72° 04.500° W NLDS Mound height in meters NAD 83 Om 200 m Figure 3-20. Presence of gray clay and sulfidic sediments (at depth) in 1998 REMOTS® replicates Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 72 Median OSI Values 1998 REMOTS® Sediment-Profile Photography Stations with Mound Footprint 0.25 m Contour, 1998 vs. 1995 41° 16.700° N- 41° 16.500° N 41° 16.400" N 41° 16.300" N- 72° 05.000" W 72° 04.750° W 72° 04.500° W ©) Station with decline in OSI since 1997 £a REMOTS Station [_] Station with increase in OSI since 1997 \ OS! Median APEX >3.25m PLATEAU 3.25 -0.25m APRON <0.25m NLDS Mound height in meters NAD 83 a) Om 200 m 400 m Figure 3-21. Median OSI values over the Seawolf Mound and changes relative to 1997 survey Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 73 center of the mound also was apparent in density calculations, ranging from 1.25 x 10° individuals/m’ at CTR to 2.75 x 10° individuals/m’ at 300SE. Polychaetes, with 12 species belonging to nine different families, constituted the largest taxonomic group among the top ten dominant species from each station (Appendix D; Tables 2, 3, 4). The second largest groups were bivalves (four species), with Nucula annulata extremely abundant, and amphipods (genus Ampelisca). Two gastropod taxa, one decapod, and one oligochaeta spp. complete the list of the dominant taxa (Williams and Blake 1997). The most dominant species was the bivalve Nucula annulata, which was among the top ten dominants at all six stations. The polychaetes Mediomastus ambiseta and Prionospio steenstrupi were among the most abundant species at all stations, ranking with the top three species at four stations. The polychaete Tharyx acutus and the gastropod genus Crepidula were represented among the top ten dominants at four and five stations, respectively. Species diversity, as calculated by the Shannon-Wiener index H’ (Section 2.0, Methods), ranged from a low of 2.65 at Station 150N to 4.10 and 3.91 at Stations 150W and 300WSW, respectively (Table 3-3). The low diversity value at Station 150N was attributed to the dominant presence of Nucula annulata. These Stage II deposit feeders physically stir up the surficial sediment thereby decreasing the availability of suitable benthic habitat for colonization by other species (Section 4). The diversity at Station CTR was relatively high considering the low abundance of individuals. The high diversity relative to low species abundance is indicative of an early stage of succession (Pearson and Rosenberg 1978). The Shannon-Wiener index J’, calculated for species evenness (Section 2.0, Methods), ranged from 0.48 at Station 15ON to 0.82 at Station CTR (Table 3-3). Rarefaction curves, showing the relative effect of species density and diversity, were developed for the Seawolf samples (Figure 3-22, see Section 4.2.2.3 for discussion of rarefaction curves). Samples collected at the center and 75 m from the center had relatively lower species abundances and lower to moderate diversity values. The stations 150 and 300 m away from the center had two to three times as many taxa as the two more central stations. Stations 15ON and 300SE had lower to moderate diversity values; lower evenness values, and therefore followed a similar rarefaction curve. Station 75E had similar diversity and evenness values as 150N and 300SE, but the low species abundance depressed the rarefaction curve. The westerly stations had the highest diversity values, with moderately high evenness, and therefore were aligned along a similar rarefaction curve (Table 3-3 and Figure 3-22). The implication of the abundance and diversity information relative to the REMOTS: results is discussed in Section 4. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 74 Table 3-3 Benthic Community Parameters at the NLDS Seawolf Disposal Mound spp/10 spp./25 spp/50 spp/100 spp/200 spp/400 spp/800 Ind. Ind. Ind. ind. Ind. Ind. ind. = Sample too small to measure this parameter. Species excluded from the calculation of H’ Center 75E 150N 150W 300WSW 300SE Ampharetidae Ampharetidae Ampharetidae Ampharetidae Ampharetidae Lumbrineridae spp. - 1 Ind. spp. - 4 Ind. spp. - 9 ind. spp. -3 ind. spp. - 11 ind. spp. -7 ind. Tharyx spp. - 1 ind. Tharyx spp, - 1 ind. Maldanidae spp. - 5 ind. Tharyx spp. - 5 ind. Glycera spp. - 1 ind Polycirrus spp. - 3 ind Ampharetidae spp. Glycera spp. -2ind 4 ind. Odostomia spp. - 1 ind. Pagurus spp. - 3 ind. Polycirrus spp. - 2 ind. Eunicidae spp. - 1 ind. Terebellidae spp. - 1 ind. Crepidula spp. - 1 ind. Astarte spp, - 1 ind. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 75 60 8 r3) Expected number of species L*J oO 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Rarlifled sample size Figure 3-22. Rarefaction curves showing the relative effect of species density and diversity. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 76 3.1.4 Sediment Coring Sediment cores were collected in 1997 and 1998 in a sampling pattern of concentric zones defined by the monitoring plan (see Section 2, Figure 2-6). The objectives of this sampling were to assess the physical and chemical composition of the sediments near the surface of the mound and to verify the presence of at least 50 cm of cap material. The physical and geochemical measurements from the cores are reported in comparison to the following: a core collected simultaneously at the reference area (WEST REF); historic NLDS reference area values used as guidelines in permitting for NLDS (Murray 1995); and samples collected from the dredging area (Maguire Group 1995). Data from the dredging area were classified, based upon location within the Thames River, as “UDM” and “CDM,” assuming that the dredging sequence followed the project design (Appendix E). For the Seawolf project, sediments were dredged from the Thames River channel between the I-95 Bridge and Navy Pier 33. The sediments from Piers 31 to 33 and the central channel were classified as UDM, while sediments from the northern and southern regions of the channel were classified as CDM based on chemical and biological testing. Sediments were tested in 1990, 1992, and 1994 (Maguire Group 1995). There were some discrepancies between the three sediment chemistry datasets used for comparison. The samples collected from sediment cores, tested in 1990, represented sediments planned to be dredged to a depth of -43 feet mean low water (MLW). The regulatory agencies reviewed the data and determined that further testing was required. In 1992, surface layer (0 to 3 feet) and deeper sediment (>3 feet) samples were collected using a clamshell bucket. Because of the different sampling techniques employed, the samples from 1992 and 1990 could not be Statistically compared. The 1992 data did reveal that the near-surface sediments contained higher contaminant levels than deeper sediments. In 1994, the required dredging depth was reduced to -41 feet because the submarines were shown to be capable of transiting in a water depth of 39 feet. The regulatory agencies conducted further testing for the revised dredging depth using the same coring method as 1990. Although some differences in detection limits were observed, the 1990 and 1994 sediment chemistry data were generally comparable. The grain size analyses varied significantly in samples taken from nearby locations in 1990 and 1994. In 1990, the average fraction reported as “‘percent silt or finer” was 46.6% with reasonable variation around the mean. All of the samples collected in 1994 were reported as 100% silt or finer. No grain size data were reported in 1992. For comparison purposes, only grain size data from 1990 were reported. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 77 3.1.4.1 September 1997 1997 Visual Descriptions The lengths of the twelve short cores collected in 1997 ranged from 59 cm (2A) to 153 cm (12A), and the length of the three long cores ranged from 222 to 276 cm (Table 2-6). All cores were comprised predominantly of olive gray silty clay, with common darker black olive gray sediment (Appendix D). Shell hash, black mottling, and streaks were common throughout many of the cores. Discrete gravel and sand layers were present deeper (generally >100 cm) in several short cores (1A, 5A, 7A) and in the deepest intervals of long cores 4A (>160 cm) and 10A (178-276 cm). The deep unit in 10A (178-276 cm) described as black and “oily,” was the only apparent indication of recovery of UDM. The olive gray silty sand layers found deep in the other cores (1A, 4A, 5A, and 7A) were similar to the sediment recovered in the reference core (13A) from WEST REF. There were strong odors emitted from the sediment in several of the cores. Core 5A had an odor best described as a “‘sewer” or “‘septic-system” smell in the middle to lower section. Core 9A also had a sewer odor and “rotten egg” (hydrogen sulfide) odor in the upper section. Below 73 cm, Core 9A had an unidentifiable industrial (petroleum or chemical solvent) odor, as did Cores 2A and 2B throughout and Core 1A below 100 cm. Core 3A and 8A emitted a hydrogen sulfide odor. The lowest section of Core 10A had a distinct petroleum odor. Such observations are obviously limited by subjectivity and the dulling of the sense of smell that occurs with prolonged exposure during core processing. In general, strong sulfide odors are associated with high organic content sediments typically found in embayments, salt marshes and harbors, they are not necessarily associated with sewage. Industrial and petroleum odors are associated with sediments that have been deposited in association with anthropogenic discharges from point and non-point sources. Both sets of smells are indicative of dredged material in the context of the NLDS (ambient sediments at NLDS are not highly sulfidic or enriched in petroleum or industrial compounds). 1997 Physical Parameters Moisture Content. The moisture content was nearly uniform throughout the core samples, ranging from 48 to 56% (Table 3-4). The average moisture content of samples collected from the upper sediment (0-50 cm; short cores) in all three zones was uniformly 52-54%, while the average of samples collected below this interface (>50 cm) in the long cores was slightly lower (49.6%). All of the values of moisture content from the Seawolf cores were significantly higher than measured in the core from the WEST REF reference area (28.6%), primarily due to the difference in sediment grain size (see below). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 78 Grain Size. The balance between the gravel/sand (coarse fraction) and silt/clay (fine fraction) content of the Seawolf Mound core samples was quite consistent among all of the samples from all of the cores. The fine fraction ranged from 63 to 95%, with an average of 81% and a narrow standard deviation of 9.5% (Table 3-4). Comparing the average silt/clay concentration of samples collected in the upper 50 cm of the three zones around the Seawolf Mound, the inner and outer zones were most similar (80%) with the lowest occurrence (69%) in the middle zone. On average, the long cores had the highest fine fraction (88.6%). It appears that sediments sampled in the middle zone were enriched in sand compared to the other zones and that the long cores had consistently high silt and clay content throughout their lengths (Table 3-4). The grain size of the Seawolf Mound cores was clearly different from the WEST REF core which was dominated by sand (72%). The average silt and clay fraction of the core samples (81%) was markedly higher than the average of both the pre-dredge UDM (43%) and CDM (47%) samples collected in 1990 (Maguire Group). The reported fine-grained fraction (silt and clay) measured in 1994, however, was 100%. TOC. Concentrations of total organic carbon (TOC) measured in all of the cores ranged from 1.1 to 2.9%, with an average of 2.1% (Table 3-4). The majority of values were greater than 1.8%, except for one short core sample from the outer zone (2A). The averaged TOC values from the surface samples (0-50 cm) in each zone were higher in the inner zone (2.23%) and lower in the middle and outer zones (2.1%). The sediment collected below the upper 50 cm in the long cores had the highest average TOC concentration (2.26%). Consistent with the grain size data, the measured TOC values in the core samples from the Seawolf Mound were all higher than the value of 0.5% measured at WEST REF. No TOC data were reported for the pre-dredge samples. 1997 Geochemistry Metals. Arsenic and cadmium were not detected in any sample, at detection limits ranging from 14-15 ppm (As) and approximately 0.6 ppm (Cd; Table 3-5). Of the other measured metals, the average concentrations were consistently highest in the short cores of the inner zone for all metals, and lowest in the outer zone for copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), and zinc (Zn). Zone-averaged Cu values ranged from 24.4 mg/kg (outer zone) to 28.1 mg/kg (middle zone) to 34.6 mg/kg (inner zone), although there was much intra-zone variability (Table 3-5). Similarly, zone-averaged Ni ranged from 20.7 mg/kg (outer zone) to 21.5 mg/kg (middle zone) to 25.4 mg/kg (inner zone), and Zn ranged from 82.7 mg/kg (outer zone) to 103.6 mg/kg (middle zone) to 131.0 mg/kg (inner zone). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 79 Table 3-4 Results of Physical Analysis of Samples Collected from the Seawolf Mound Cores — September 1997 Gravel/ CORE/ZONE Depth Radius Core TOC Solids Moisture Sand Fines m m Type Inner zone, core top 0-0.5 0-200 Short 0-0.5 0-200 Short 0-200 Short zone, core top 0-0.5 200-400 0-0.5 200-400 0-0.5 200-400 200-400 Outer zone, core top 0-0.5 400-600 0-0.5 400-600 0-0.5 400-600 400-600 0.5-0.75 400-600 0.75-1.00 400-600 { d 400-600 0. 2 200-400 0.75-1.00 200-400 : 4 200-400 0. 75 0-200 0.75-1.00 0-200 Long 1.0-1.75 0-200 Long N/A Grain size data not available for this sample. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 80 Table 3-5 Trace Metal Concentrations in Samples Collected from the Seawolf Cores — September 1997. (Note: Units are mg/kg dry weight. For data below detection, one half of the reported detection limit was used.) Radius Middle zone All zones, long cores 0.50 - 0.75 1.00 - 1.60 0.50 - 0.75 0.75 - 1.00 1.00 - 2.00 0.50 - 0.75 0.75 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.75 13A UDM average (1992) UDM average (1990, 94) Core Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 81 The difference in metals concentrations was partially a function of grain size. To provide accurate comparisons between different sediment types, metal concentrations are typically normalized to grain size (percent fines) or to one of the dominant metals in crustal rocks (Al or Fe). After normalizing the metals data to the percent of fine-grained sediments (the only consistent analyte available), the inner cores still had the highest average concentrations of lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), Ni, and Zn (Table 3-6). Only Zn was measured in both the short and long cores (Table 3-5). The range of Zn measurements in the long cores was narrow (70.6 to 85.5 mg/kg), except for one higher measurement from the 1 to 1.6 m interval in core 4A (116 mg/kg). The short cores from the inner zone had the highest average Zn level (131.0 mg/kg), while the long cores had the lowest average Zn concentration (84.0 mg/kg). All the averaged metals concentrations in the short cores were higher than the reference values measured at WEST REF (Table 3-5) but this was a function of grain size differences (see below). Because of the difference in sampling methods of the pre-dredge samples, the average of 1990 and 1994 data, representing the entire depth of the channel to be dredged, was reported separately from the 1992 data (Maguire Group 1995). The 1992 data were more influenced by the concentrated contaminants in the upper 3 feet (Appendix E). Comparing raw metals concentrations to the pre-dredge samples, the core average value of the metals As, Cr, Cu, and Hg fell between the average values measured for UDM and CDM in 1990 and 1994 (Table 3-5; Figure 3-23). The average Cd and Pb concentrations measured in the short cores were less than all of the pre-dredge values. Overall, the raw Ni and Zn values were greater than measured in the 1990 and 1994 samples collected in the UDM and CDM, but still significantly less than measured in the most contaminated surface sediments (Figure 3-23). Because there were no grain size data available for the samples collected in 1992 from the project area, only the 1990 and 1994 data were normalized for comparison to the normalized metals concentrations measured in the Seawolf cores (Table 3-6). Normalized to the fine-grained fraction, zone-averaged Cr, Cu, Pb, and Ni were all less than or similar to the average normalized value measured in the CDM of the project area. Zone-averaged Hg and Zn values fell between the averaged pre-dredge UDM and CDM values. Arsenic and Cd were not compared because of the values below detection. In addition, all of the zone-averaged concentrations were less than that calculated for WEST REF. Plotting the average normalized concentrations of all metals in the short cores (short and long cores for Zn) shows the similarity of the Seawolf cores to UDM, CDM and WESTREF (Figure 3-24). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 82 Table 3-6 1997 Results of Trace Metals Normalized to the Fine-Grained Fraction in Samples Collected from the Seawolf Cores CORE/ZONE Depth Radius Core Cr m pe 0-200 Short 0-200 Short 0-200 Short All zones, long cores 0.50 - 0.75 0.75 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.60 0.50 - 0.75 0.75 - 1.00 1.00 - 2.00 0.50 - 0.75 0.75 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.75 37.9 20.2 81.3 70.0 43.3 47.22 0.2 42.8 UDM average (1990 only) 83.8 74.9 101.8 0.35 37.1 Pre-dredge CDM average (1990 onl 58.8 37.8 58.6 0.08 30.7 Units are mg/kg dry weight normalized by the fine-grained fraction. For data below detection, one half of the reported detection limit was used for statistical calculations. N/A Grain size not available for this sample. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 63 Metal (mg/kg) UDM (90, CDM (90, UDM (92) — Short WEST 94) 94) cores REF Zinc (mg/kg) UDM CDM UDM_~ Short Long WEST (90, 94) (90,94) (92) cores cores REF Figure 3-23. Metal concentrations measured in predredge surveys and 1997 postcap cores. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 &4 NMietal, normalized Oo [@) (@) 5g ty a | UDM (90, 94) CDM (90,94) Shortcores WEST REF Zinc, normalized on ro) © UDM CDM Short Long WEST (90,94) (90,94) cores cores REF Figure 3-24, Metal concentrations normalized to grain size from predredge surveys and 1997 postcap cores. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 85 While there are variations between metals and locations across the mound, data normalized for grain size show no distinct metal signature for CDM, UDM, mound sediments or the reference area. PAHs. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were measured in both the short cores (Table 3-7) and the long cores (Table 3-8). In the short cores, several compounds were reported as below the detection limit or estimated (J=below the detection limit, but a value is provided as estimated by the laboratory) in all samples, including naphthalene, 2- methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, fluorene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and dibenzofuran (Table 3-7). Overall, there were fewer low molecular weight (LMW) PAHs detected than high molecular weight (HMW). Values of total LMW PAHs ranged from 29-85 ug/kg, and HMW PAHs ranged from 78-648 g/kg (Table 3-7). In the long cores, several compounds were below the detection limit or estimated (J) in all samples, including 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, fluorene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and dibenzofuran (Table 3-8). Overall, there were fewer low molecular weight (LMW) PAHs detected than high molecular weight (HMW). Values of total LMW PAHs ranged from 36-82 ug/kg, and HMW PAHs ranged from 162-632 pg/kg (Table 3-8). In the short cores, the highest LMW PAH concentration measured was 39 ug/kg (phenanthrene), and the highest HMW PAH measured was 130 pg/kg (pyrene; Table 3-7). Both of these samples were collected from short core 12A (inner zone). In the long cores, the maximum LMW PAH concentration was 36 ug/kg (phenanthrene in 6A [0.75-1.0 m]), and the maximum HMW PAH concentration was 120 ug/kg pyrene (in 4A [0.75—1.0 m]). To compare the PAH results from the Seawolf Mound to samples collected at the dredge site, PAH values were averaged from samples classified as UDM and CDM collected in the Thames River (Appendix E; Maguire Group 1995). As with the metals, the values measured in 1992 were much higher (by an order of magnitude) than in 1990 and 1994, so these data are presented separately. Five individual compounds most commonly analyzed and detected were selected for comparison (fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, and phenanthrene). This comparison shows that the PAHs measured in the short and long cores were higher than WEST REF, but overall less than at the pre-dredge site (Figure 3-25). Note in Figure 3-19 that the 1992 data are all divided by 10 so as to appear to be on a similar scale. In addition, PAH concentrations in the long core 10A decreased slightly with depth or remained fairly constant in the case of pyrene and phenthracene (Figure 3-26). An increase in pyrene and phenanthrene was apparent in both Cores 4A and 6A, between the 0.5 to 0.75 m sample and the 0.75 to 1.0 m sample. However, the measured total PAH concentrations Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 8661 — S661 Punoy fromvag ‘als jpsodsiq uopuoT man ays 1D asinig Sulsonuopy “VEL 4SY-LSAM epnjoul jou op suanengjeo feonsneis *SUONE|NTJEd jeoisije}s 10J pasn Sem anjea payodes |iny ‘anjea payewnsy = ¢ “SUONHE|Ned |EDNSHe}S 10} Pasn SEM PU] UONDaJap payodes ayy Jo yey aUO ‘UONOa}ap MOjeg = yUuWRM Ap by6nen sun [SHvd IFIOL 8 nN 9 c 9 c aua|Aad|[I‘y‘6lozueg 8 n auaoByjue[y‘e]zuaqiq 8 c 9 c 8 c 8 c 8 c 12 6h aueyjueson|4 IYyB1eM Jejnde;0W YOIH bb SHVd M7 Jo wins 9 ausoeyUYy OL auesyjUeUdyd 8 auason|4 8 auayjydeusoy 9 euajAujydeuaoy 8 eugjeyydeuAyjey-z 8 auajeyyydey TYBHIaAA ABjNDajOWW MO} punodwog HVWd vel Aed PIS UBSIWY XeW UIIN Vel Vil vs *OWBN 2109 SCIN ee | (Ww 002-0) seuu) (W 00-002) AIPPIIN (W 009-004) 423NO |:2U0Z |eIpeYy L661 Jaquiajdag ‘(WI S°0-0) SI1OZ) JJOMBIS J.IOYS IY} WOIJ PdI}I9] [02 sajduies UI SUOI}CIJUIIUOD) HVd L-€ AGeL 98 9661 — S661 Punoy fromvas ‘alls jvsodsig uopuoT Man ayi 10 asin Sulsonuopy ‘VEL JAY-LSAM epnjou! jou op suoHeingje0 jeonsIeIS “suOITEINg|ed |eoSHe}s 10} pesn sem enjea peyode) |inj ‘enjen peyewsy =e “SuOl}EiNo}ed |eOI}SI}e}S 10} pesn Sem }IWI] UONO@Jep peyodes eu} Jo sey BUO ‘UO|OeJep Mo|jeg = N ‘UBM Ap By6n ep siIun gé6sy__—SESS zee_| vis tik SHA IEIOL g‘0-0 GLL-OL O'+-SZ0 gZ0-S'0 02-01 Ol-SZO S2Z0-S'°0 9 L-OL O'+-SZ'0 SZ-S'0 Vel ACQPIS ueAyY xXeW UII VOL VOL VOL v9 v9 v9 Vv VW ve 43Y-1S3M (w 002-0) 4euU] (wW 00-002) eIPPIW (Wi 009-00%) 421NO SHVd MMH fo wins ueJnjozueqiq eueJAd[po-¢'z‘ | Jouepu} euaAsed[)‘y‘6jozueg aueoRujue[y‘e]zuaqiq aueyjydeusoy eua|Aujyudeusoy augjeuydeulAuyjey\-z auajeyjydey WYHiaj sejNajoy Mo} punodwo9 HVd :(W) ao9 ul ydeq ‘OWEN 2109 SCN @uoz jeIpey L661 Aaquiazdas ‘sa10_d JJOMvIG SUO'T 94} WOIJ po}da][0D sSojduieg ul suone.1WUIIUOD HVd 8-€ FGeL 88 200.000 150.000 + : a UDM CDM UDM(92) WEST Long Short (1990, 94) (1990,94) (/10) REF cores cores @ Fluoranthene @Benzo(a)anthracene OPyrene OChrysene @ Phenanthrene Figure 3-25. Average concentrations of five individual PAH compounds from the dredge site (UDM and CDM) and the Seawolf cores. Note the different scale of the 1992 UDM averages which have been divided by ten. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 Lee ———ee NLDS 4A 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Phenanthrene (ppb) Pyrene (ppb) UDM Average Phenanthrene NLDS 6A 400 600 @ Phenanthrene (ppb) @ Pyrene (ppb) UDM Average Phenanthrene NLDS 10A 400 600 @ Phenanthrene (ppb) @ Pyrene (ppb) UDM Average UDM Average Phenanthrene P Figure 3-26. Phenanthrene and pyrene concentrations measured in the long cores shown with respect to the average predredge UDM samples. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 90 are not positively correlated with increasing depth in the long cores (Table 3-8). The deep section of 10A was not analyzed, but was re-sampled in 1998 (see below). 3.1.4.2 July 1998 1998 Visual Descriptions Cores were collected in the same areas using the same zonation scheme as in 1997 (Figure 2-6) and sampled for physical characteristics, geochemical analyses and cap verification. Digital photographs of the cores were compiled and are presented in Appendix D. The reference core (26A), collected at WEST REF, was 103 cm in length. The top 5 cm consisted of olive gray-brown, silty fine sand, with an intact tube mat on the surface and wood and plant fibers throughout this top section. Below the surface layer, there was gray, sandy silt mottled with black. From 29 to 73 cm, the sediments contained gray clayey, fine sand. Shell fragments were abundant throughout the core and a few intact shells were identified at 60 cm and 85 cm. Below 73 cm, the clayey, shell-rich fine sand was mottled with cohesive clay patches lacking shell fragments. The July 1998 short cores ranged in length from 84 to 183 cm, while the long cores ranged from 288 to 300 cm (Table 2-7). Similar to the 1997 results, all cores were comprised dominantly of olive gray silty clay, with common darker black olive gray sediment. Shell hash and black marbling and streaks were common throughout many of the cores. Discrete gravel and sand layers were present in a few short cores (14A and B and 21A (18-36 cm), 25A (>175 cm), and in the deepest intervals of long cores 17A (100-135cm, >170 cm), 19A (>260 cm), and 23A (>105 cm). The olive gray, clayey fine sand layers found deep in the other cores (14A [>140 cm], 17A [>217 cm], 25A [>175 cm]) were similar to the ambient sediment recovered in the reference core (26A) from WEST REF. The CDM/UDM boundary was not easily identifiable based on visual analysis alone. Long Core 23A (>110 cm) from the inner zone contained black oily sandy material with some gravel, possibly indicative of UDM. During core processing, odors from the cores were noticeable and recorded. Almost all of the cores collected from the mound emitted a hydrogen sulfide odor upon being split. In contrast, the core at the reference area had only a faint marine smell. Core 14B had a stronger marine odor, with a fishy smell. A hydrocarbon odor was apparent throughout long core 23A and in the lower sections of 15A, 17A (100-220 cm), and 20A, which seemed to increase in areas of black mottling and blackish sediments. These sulfide and hydrocarbon odors are consistent with the interpretation that these sediments were dredged material and distinct from ambient NLDS sediments. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 91 1998 Physical Parameters Both physical and chemical parameters are reported in comparison to the reference core (26A) collected at WEST REF. In addition, the data are compared to the 1997 data presented above. Finally, the physical and chemical data are evaluated relative to samples collected from the dredging area as described above (Maguire Group 1995). Moisture Content. The moisture content was fairly uniform throughout the core samples, ranging from 38-56% (Table 3-9). The average moisture content of samples collected from the upper sediment (0-50 cm; short cores) in the inner and outer zones was uniformly 52%, while the middle zone was slightly lower at 48%. The average of samples collected in the long cores was similar (47%), with the lowest value occurring in the deep sample (1.0-2.0 m) of Core 23A. With the exception of the middle zone, all moisture content zone averages were within 2% of the 1997 averages. The middle zone was 6% less than the 1997 average, due to higher percent gravel and sand values in Core 21A. All of the moisture content values from the Seawolf Mound cores were significantly higher than those measured at the WEST REF reference area (28.4%) due to differences in grain size (see below). Grain Size. Most of the samples collected from the Seawolf Mound consisted of silty clay, containing less than 13% sand and gravel (Table 3-9). Notable exceptions included short Core 21A, which had a high sand component (51%) and only 44% silt/clay, and long Core 23A (1.0-2.0 m), which was predominantly (57%) sand and gravel. Comparison of samples collected from the top 50 cm of the short sediment cores in the three zones of the Seawolf Mound indicated consistently low mean levels of gravel (1.0%, 1.7%, 0.7%, for inner, middle, and outer zones, respectively). The mean percentages of sand increased with distance from the mound center (3.7% to 5.5% to 7.0%), excluding core sample 21A. Core 21A was collected on the northeastern apron of the Seawolf Mound (Figure 2-6), suggesting the incorporation of ambient sandy sediment in this sample. The other cores were collected well within the 0.25-m bathymetric footprint on the western and southwestern sides of the mound (Figure 2-6). The vertical stratification of the mound was assessed with respect to each zone (Table 3-9). The short core samples and long core sample 23A (0.5-0.75 m) collected from the inner zone had consistent grain size distributions. The sand content increased with depth in the inner zone long core from 4% (0.5-0.75 m) to 11% within the 0.75-1.0 m interval. The 1.0-2.0 m sample had a significantly higher gravel (20%) and sand (37%) content than any other sample analyzed. This sample was collected in apparent UDM, according to core descriptions, because of its oily appearance. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 92 Table 3-9 Results of Physical Analysis of Samples Collected from the Seawolf Mound Cores, July 1998 Core/Zone Depth Radius Core TOC Solids Moisture Gravel Sand Fines m m Type % Inner zone, core top 0-0.5 0-200 Short 0-0.5 0-200 = Short 0-200 Short 0-0.5 200-400 0-0.5 200-400 200-400 0-0.5 400-600 0-0.5 400-600 0-0.5 400-600 2.89 1.58 4.7 6.70 62.4 1.80 442 2.13 48.5 51.5 N/A Pre-dredge UDM Mean (1990 only) Pre-dredge CDM Mean (1990 only) N/A% gravel and sand combined in 1997 analysis. * Methods of silt/clay analyses defined between 1997 and 1998; see text for explanation. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 93 The middle zone short Cores 18A and 20A had similar grain size percentages as middle zone long Core 19A, which had remarkably consistent distributions of gravel, sand, and fine sediments with depth. All of these samples were dominated by the fine-grained fraction (>90%). Both the short and long outer zone cores also contained mostly silt and clay (Table 3-9). The cores collected from the Seawolf Mound overall consisted of a much higher fine- grained fraction compared to the reference core (26A). The exception was the grain size distribution of 21A (5%: 51%: 44% for gravel, sand, silt/clay, respectively), which resembled the reference WEST REF sample (3%: 65%: 32%). Again, these data suggested this core consisted primarily of ambient material, consistent with the bathymetric footprint (Figure 2-6). Comparing the 1998 core results with those from the previous year indicated a slight increase in the percentage of fine-grained sediments (87.2%) on the Seawolf Mound than observed in 1997 (81.4%). This is a relatively modest change given the high inherent variability of dredged material. Finally, both of the long cores collected from approximately the same location of the inner zone in 1997 (Core 10A) and in 1998 (23A), indicated patches of black, oily sediment with sand and gravel in deeper intervals. Below 2.4 m, Core 10A was described as an oily gravel, which was the only visual indication of UDM apparent in the 1997 coring survey. Core 23A (Appendix D) showed a black, gravelly sand region from 1.1 to 1.9 m. The oily gravel was not sampled for chemical parameters in 1997, but was sampled in 1998 (see below). TOC. Concentrations of total organic carbon (TOC) measured in the core samples showed a bimodal distribution, with one group of values ranging from 1.8 to 2.4%, and a second group ranging from 5.1 to 6.7%. Overall, TOC ranged from 1.8 to 6.7%, with an average of 2.9% (Table 3-9). The higher TOC values were all in cores from the inner zone, resulting in the highest mean TOC value of the surface samples (0-50 cm) in the inner zone (4.27%) relative to the middle and outer zones (2.17 and 1.97%, respectively). The Seawolf Mound mean TOC value was higher than that measured at WEST REF, (1.6%). The overall mean for the 1998 mound data (2.9%) was greater than the 1997 mean TOC (2.13%). No TOC data were reported for the pre-dredge samples (Maguire Group 1996). 1998 Geochemistry Metals. Trace metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni and Zn) were analyzed from the top 0-0.5 m of the short cores (Table 3-10). Mercury (Hg) was detected in only two of ten samples at levels barely above the detection limit, with the remaining samples below the detection limit of 0.10 mg/kg. Uniformity of concentrations was apparent in all cores for As (4.1-9.4 mg/kg), Cd (0.12-0.25 mg/kg), and Cr (23-51 mg/kg), with standard deviations of Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 94 1.8, 0.04, and 7.6 mg/kg, respectively (for data below detection, /% the detection limit was used for statistical calculations). Concentrations of Cu, Pb, and Ni also were consistent in the short core samples, except for Core 14B in the outer zone. Excluding 14B, Cu ranged from 11 to 29 mg/kg (14B was 120 mg/kg), Pb ranged from 17 to 29 mg/kg (14B was 88 mg/kg), and Ni ranged from 12 to 23 mg/kg (14B was 71 mg/kg). Of the measured metals, the zone-averaged concentrations were highest in the outer 400-600 m for all metals except Cd and Hg, primarily due to Core 14B. Core 21A generally had the lowest concentrations of measured metals. Similarly, Zn, which was measured both in the short and long cores, was relatively consistent with depth and across the mound in both short and long cores. Zinc ranged from 40 to 95 mg/kg, with the exception of Core 14B (340 mg/kg) and the deepest sample from Core 23A (1.0—-2.0m, 130 mg/kg). The range of Zn in the long cores was variable (62-130 mg/kg) and did not appear to correlate with the depth of the sample. The difference in metals concentrations, primarily for Core 21A, was in part a function of grain size. After normalizing the metals data to the percent of fine-grained sediments, the outer cores still had the highest concentrations of Pb, Ni, Zn, and Cr, although the inner and middle zones had similar normalized concentrations of Ni, As, and Cd (Table 3-11). Core 14B contained the maximum normalized values for Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, and Zn. The mean values of the trace metals detected at the mound were consistently higher than at the reference area, WEST REF 26A (Table 3-10; Figure 3-27). For raw metal values, the data for Core 21A tended to be closer to WEST REF than the mean for the Seawolf Mound cores. The normalized data (Table 3-11; Figure 3-28) indicated that the Seawolf Mound metal values were similar to WEST REF. The 1997 short and long core data were very similar to the data collected in 1998 (Figures 3-27 and 3-28). The metals data from the sediment cores were also compared to samples taken from the dredging site prior to dredging operations (Tables 3-10 and 3-11; Figures 3-27 and 3-28). Because of the difference in sampling methods of the pre-dredge samples, the average of 1990 and 1994 data, representing the entire depth of the channel to be dredged, was reported separately from the 1992 data (Maguire Group 1995). The 1992 data were more influenced by the concentrated contaminants in the upper 3 feet (see above). In addition, the grain size data were not consistent for the 1990 and 1994 data sets and not available for the 1992 data set. The 1990 and 1994 data did not show significant differences in metals concentrations for the UDM and CDM designated areas. The 1992 UDM metals values were more representative of the most contaminated sediments. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 Table 3-10 Trace Metal Concentrations in Samples Collected from the Seawolf Mound Cores, July 1998 CORE/ZONE Depth Radius Core (m) (m) All zones, long cores 0.50-0.75 23A 0.75-1.00 1.00-2.00 0.50-0.75 0.75-1.00 1.00-2.00 0.50-0.75 0.75-1.00 1.00-1.70 0.17 36 0.04 8 0.25 51 0.12 23 0.17 34.38 17.00 21.63 0.07 20.00 66.46 0.04 5.55 4.41 4.10 0.05 3.59 12.64 0.25 40 23 29 0.21 23 26A 4.0 0.08 14 8.5 11 <0.10 Pre-dredge UDM Mean (1992) 12.6 2.90 108 139 126 0.40 Pre-dredge UDM Mean (1990, 94) 7.8 1.20 40 32 44 0.20 Pre-dredge CDM Mean ( 1990, 94) 6.3 0.70 39 22 27 0.09 Units are mg/kg dry weight. For data below detection, one half of the reported detection limit was used for statistical calculations. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 96 Table 3-11 Results of Trace Metals Normalized to the Fine-Grained Fraction in Samples Collected from the Seawolf Mound Cores, July 1998 Core/Zone Depth (m Radius (m) Core All zones, long cores 23A 0.50-0.75 23A 0.75-1.00 23A 1.00-2.00 0.50-0.75 0.75-1.00 1.00-2.00 0.50-0.75 0.75-1.00 1.00-1.70 1997 Data Summary Mean References WEST REF 26A Pre-dredge UDM Mean (1990 only) Pre-dredge CDM Mean (1990 only) * Data below detection 1/2 MDL was used for statistical calculations. Units are mg/kg dry weight normalized by the silt + clay fraction. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 97 The Seawolf Mound core data from 1998 were consistent with the values obtained from the 1990 and 1994 in-place UDM and CDM samples. The only average metal core values that were higher than those calculated from the 1990/94 UDM/CDM data were Ni and Zn (Table 3-10); both values were lower than the 1992 UDM averages (Ni 64.6 mg/kg and Zn 235.4 mg/kg). All other 1998 detected metal values were lower than those detected in the 1992 UDM, including 1998 samples from Core 14B and 23A (1.0-2.0 m). Normalized to the fine-grained fraction, zone-averaged values were slightly lower than 1990/94 CDM values, which were lower than the 1990/94 UDM values. PAHs. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were measured in both the short cores (Table 3-12) and the long cores (Table 3-13). For all short core samples, the following compounds were reported as below the detection limit or estimated (“J”’) in all samples: 2- methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, fluorene, and dibenz(a,h)-anthracene (Table 3-12). Values of total LMW PAHs ranged from 35-127 g/kg, and total HMW PAHs ranged from 65-519 g/kg (values below detection were included in the summed parameters at 2 the detection limit). The mean sums of LMW PAHs (83 ug/kg) and HMW PAHs (304 g/kg) measured in the short cores were virtually the same as the values detected at the reference area, WEST REF 26A (85 and 382 g/kg, respectively). However, there was some variation within the PAH levels measured. The lowest PAH values among the short cores, with almost all PAHs reported as below detection, were measured at Core 24A collected from the Seawolf Mound apex near the Navy buoy location. The highest LMW PAH concentration measured, 41 g/kg (phenanthrene), and the highest HMW PAH measured, 120 g/kg (pyrene), were both detected in short Core 20B (middle zone). Overall, the middle zone had higher mean PAH values, including almost twice the concentration of total HMW PAHs (448 pg/kg), compared to the inner (240 g/kg) and outer (225 g/kg) zones. In the long cores, two compounds were below the detection limit or estimated (J) in all samples: acenaphthene and fluorene (Table 3-13). Again, the mean values for mound cores were similar to, although generally higher than, measured values at WEST REF. High molecular weight (HMW) PAHs were predominant in all cores. Values of total LMW PAHs ranged from 63-211 g/kg, and HMW PAHs ranged from 137-849 pg/kg (Table 3-13). In the long cores, the maximum LMW PAH concentration was 58 g/kg (phenanthrene in 17A [1.0-1.7 m]), and the maximum HMW PAH concentration was 180 g/kg pyrene (in both 17A [1.0-1.7 m] and 23A [1.0—2.0 m]). Total PAH values increased with depth in outer Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 8661 — S661 Punoy fjomvas ‘alls jvsodsig uopuoT May ay} 1D asinig Sulsonuopy ‘(44 LSAM) W9z2 epnjou! you op senjea ebeseny “sUO}JEINOJed jeO!NSNe}S JO} pasn seM anjeA peyodai |inj ‘anjeA payewNsy =p *suONEiNo|eo feosHeys 10} pasn sem YUI| UONDa}9p peyodes ay) jo fey @UO ‘UONOe}ep MojEg =F) yBiam Ap 6y/6r ae sup if fob =| eee eee SS ere S'S LS ve é ee ee {| eho HIOOL jose az tte fsiwamoy Oge 9be coe |SHVd IF}0L Gcce |MWH Wns uBay au0Z [| say cote | if 9b eLt L8€ 9¢9 Oot L8v OOoL 6vE 6bb 9v9 82S Ove Clad zee [ob voe 61S s9 v9e 61S o9y 8lz zon sez |SHV¥d MH Jo wns Ol zz 9€ S 1z LL Oz = jeuaAred[i‘y‘6jozueg SY n6 Nit Nie S 61 f OL 91 9 Le 91 92 Ss ed el rad S 12 el 6l Z ze vA kA 9 kd Sl rd el 9 8 MW ung ueayy au0z SHVd MW7 Jo wins aua|Ayjydeuaoy auayeuyydeuey\-z jaueyeujyydey WYHjeM Je/NIejOW MO} punodwos HV¥d SWBN 8109 SIN 9u07 |BIPEH Aeg PIS Use XBW vse ve {W 00c-0) s0uU; vile go0z Vs (W00%-002) SIPPIN 43Y-1S3M 8661 Aine “(wi S-9-0) $2403 puNoy] JJomeag J10Yg ay) WIOAY pa}da][09 sajdureg Jo saskjeuy HVd JO S1Nsey ZI-€ G2 L 86 9661 — S661 punoyy fyomvas ‘ais josodsiq uopuoT Man ays 1D asinsD Sulsonuopy *SUOIE/ND]ed |edI|S!e}s 10} pasn sem anjen peyodas jin} ‘enjea peyewisy =~ “SUONE|NIJed jeo!}seys JO} pesn SEM }ILWI| UONIe\ap payodes ey) jo yey GUO ‘UO!]Oe}ep MojEeg =f ‘\uBiem fup By/6r ese syup ez 98 a Se ae Ee al es 2 PTT 6r8 99b bbe =| SHVd MWH Jo wns Sz eue|Aed[I‘y‘6lozueg Nor eueoesyjue[y‘e]zueqig zz euesAd[po-¢'z' | Jouepuy ze euesAd[elozueg 8z aueyjueson)[yJozuag ez eueujueon)(qlozueg 96 aueshu9 6z eueoesyjue[e]ozueg ss 9s eaue|Aujydeusoy auajeuiydeulAye-2 euegjeujyden, IBM se[NI9}0;y MOT punodwio9 HVd wg00 1-SZ0 SL'0-S'0 1-SL'0 SLO-S'0 1-SZ0 SL0-S'0 W) a409 ul ydaq voz AeOPIS UBaN xXeW vez vez V6L V6L Vl VL VLL saWEN 2109 SCIN d3Y-LSSM (wi 002-0) 40uUU) (wi o0b-002) eIPPIW (w 009-006) 491NO euoz jeIpey 8661 AlN ‘sa10D punoyy JOMBaS SuOT sy) WO.1J p9jd9][0_ sajdures Jo saskjeuy HYVd JO S}[Nsoy €1-€ ANG2L 100 a 5 E ha] g ® = UDM CDM UDM Short WEST _ Short (90,94) (90,94) (92) cores REF cores (98) (98) (97) Zinc (mg/kg) UDM CDM UDM Short Long WEST Short (90,94) (90,94) (92) cores cores REF cores (98) (98) (98) (97) Figure 3-27. Trace metal concentrations in sediment from the Seawolf Mound designated dredging areas (classified as UDM or CDM), the Seawolf Mound 1998 and 1997 cores, and the WEST REF reference area (1998). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 en en es oOo N O Oo a Oo Metal, Normalized N o1 UDM CDM Short WEST — Short (90) (90) cores REF (98) cores (98) (97) Zinc, Normalized UDM CDM _ Short Long WEST Short Long (90) (90) cores cores REF cores. cores (98) (98) (98) (97) (97) Figure 3-28. Normalized trace metal concentrations in sediment from the Seawolf Mound designated dredging areas (classified as UDM or CDM), the Seawolf Mound 1998 and 1997 cores, and the WEST REF reference area (1998). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 102 zone Core 17A and inner zone Core 23A; the values marginally exceeded the WEST REF values for some compounds below 0.75 m in these two zones. In contrast, in the middle zone (Core 19A) the highest total PAH levels occurred within the top (0.5 to 0.75-m) depth interval and decreased with depth. The 1998 short and long core data were compared with the 1997 results. All of the tested analytes were the same, except for dibenzofuran, which was not tested in 1998 and was below detection levels in 1997. The 1998 reference area core contained over double the concentration of total PAHs (457 g/kg) compared to those detected in 1997 (166 g/kg). For the short cores taken at the Seawolf Mound, the mean value of total PAHs in 1998 (387.2 ug/kg) was higher than observed in 1997 (166 pg/kg). The range of values for the total PAHs in the short cores was narrower in 1998 (100-646 pg/kg) than in 1997 (107-— 733 ug/kg). The 1998 long cores were taken from the same stations used in 1997, however, the results were more variable. The 1998 long core data also indicated higher concentrations of PAHs than observed in 1997. Trends and comparisons are described in more detail in the Discussion (Section 4.0). 3.2. NLDS Reference Areas Three reference areas for NLUDS (NLON REF, NE REF and WEST REF) were surveyed with the REMOTS® sediment-profile camera in September 1997 and July 1998. These reference areas provide a basis for comparison with the images collected over the NLDS project mounds and aid in determining the health of the benthic community within the disposal site. The conditions at NUON REF, NE REF, and WEST REF are presumed to reflect seasonal and annual variations in environmental conditions. In each year a total of 13 randomly selected stations were surveyed with the REMOTS® sediment-profile camera at NLON REF, NE REF and WEST REF reference areas. Four stations were surveyed in NLON REF, four at WEST REF, and five in the NE REF. Three replicate photographs were collected at each reference area station and subjected to the identical series of measurements and criteria used to characterize benthic habitat conditions within the disposal site. These data were used as the basis for comparison in assessing benthic habitat quality over the Seawolf Mound. A complete set of REMOTS® image analysis results for each reference area and each survey are presented in Appendix B. 3.2.1 September 1997 Survey No dredged material was present in any of the replicate photographs obtained from the three reference areas. Replicate averaged camera penetration depth ranged from 4.6 cm to 10.3 (Table 3-2). The shallow to moderate camera penetration reflected limited sand-over- mud layering at several stations within each reference area. All of the reference areas showed Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 103 some evidence of physical reworking or erosion/winnowing of sediment as shown by the following characteristics: poor sediment sorting, shell layers near the surface (shell lag), hydroids, or disturbed amphipod tube mats. WEST REF showed the most widespread evidence of physical reworking, with shell lag at 4 out of 6 stations. All of the reference areas were similar in sediment grain size distributions with a predominant major mode of 4 to 3 phi (very fine sand). Station 10 in the WEST REF was an exception to this and exhibited a predominant grain size major mode of 3 to 2 phi (medium to fine sand; Table 3-2). Each of the three reference areas showed relatively low intra- and inter-station mean boundary roughness thickness values, ranging from 0.39 cm to 1.39 cm (Table 3-2). The overall average boundary roughness was 0.73 cm, with the majority of replicates displaying physical disturbances. The replicate averaged RPD ranged from 1.75 cm to 3.48 cm, with an overall mean of 2.35 cm within the three areas (Table 3-2). Redox rebound layers approximately 5 cm deep were identified in two replicates obtained from NE REF. The NE REF and WEST REF reference areas exhibited primarily Stage II populations, with several stations having Stage III present (Table 3-2). The reference area NLON REF showed primarily Stage II organisms progressing to Stage II (three of four stations) and one station in which Stage I organisms were present at the sediment surface over Stage III deposit feeders. The images from NLON REF and NE REF showed dense amphipod tube mats (Stage Il). The mats at NE REF appeared to be in the process of being eroded during the survey, while those at NLON REF were largely intact. Median OSI values for the reference area REMOTS® stations ranged from +5 to +10, with an overall average of +6.8 (Table 3-2). Once again, the reference areas in 1997 showed a small improvement in benthic habitat conditions relative to previous years (1992 and 1995). No low DO conditions or methane gas was detected in any replicate image. 3.2.2 July 1998 Survey Camera penetration ranged from 5.6 cm to 11.7 cm, with an average of 7.8 cm, which was comparable with 1997 results (Table 3-2). No evidence of dredged material was apparent in any of the photographs. Sand or sandy silt over mud stratigraphy was observed in many of the photographs. Sediments at NE REF and NLON REF were moderately sorted, whereas WEST REF sediments were primarily poorly sorted. Organic detritus, surface scour, and/or shell fragments were present at the surface in many of the replicates. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 104 Fine to very fine sands (4 to 3 phi) characterized most of the sediment at the reference areas (Table 3-2). Two stations within NE REF were composed primarily of fine-grained sediments (>4 phi) while WEST REF displayed several stations with a significant fine sand component (3 to 2 phi). Boundary roughness values were generally low (<1 cm), except at WEST REF Station W13 (STA 08), which had a replicate average value of 1.7 cm. Disturbances within the surface sediments at the reference areas were primarily attributed to physical forces. However, evidence of biological activity causing the surface disturbance was present in approximately 33% of the reference area photographs. The RPD depths ranged from 1.55 cm to 3.98 cm, with an overall average of 2.55 cm (Table 3-2). In general, the RPD depths at both NLON REF and WEST REF tended to be deeper than those at NE REF. Redox rebound layers were apparent roughly 4 cm below the sediment-water interface at two stations within NE REF (Stations 10 and 12). Amphipod tube mats were common at the reference areas; some of these mats appeared to be disturbed at NE REF and WEST REF. Stage II was considered the dominant successional stage. Stage I was found at multiple stations in all three reference areas, but only seven replicates had active feeding voids at depth to indicate the presence of Stage II individuals. The OSI median values ranged from +5 to +10, with an overall average of +6.7. These were very similar to values observed in 1997 (+6.8). No replicates had low dissolved oxygen conditions, although a few replicates from NE REF did portray dark, sulfidic sediments. No methane gas pockets were detected in the images obtained from the reference areas in July 1998. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 4.0 DISCUSSION The New London Disposal Site (NLDS) was monitored over four time intervals during the period 1995-1998 and received dredged material from five distinct episodes of disposal associated with the U.S. Navy Seawolf Mound (Figure 1-3). The specific patterns of disposal leave clear results on the seafloor; the monitoring surveys provide an indication of the processes that produce those results and tests of explicit predictions of potential outcomes of disposal. This report presents details of the placement, capping and monitoring of the U.S. Navy Seawolf Mound. It is the second of a two-volume report devoted to disposal and monitoring at NLDS from 1991-1998. The first volume presents monitoring results for three disposal mounds on the NLDS seafloor (NL-91 and D/S, USCGA, and NL- 94), as well as the baseline survey activity over the Northern Region of NLDS (SAIC 2001). The first volume also presents a detailed analysis of recorded changes in the disposal site bathymetry over a ten-year period (1986-1997) and reviews physical and biological response to disposal activity at NLDS based on sediment profile surveys. The results of the long-term monitoring efforts are important for evaluating the context of individual disposal mounds. The following section summarizes findings discussed in Volume I and provides some perspective on survey results (Section 4.1). The history and monitoring results of the U.S. Navy Seawolf Mound are then discussed (Section 4.2). 4.1. Historical Disposal and Biological Response at the NLDS The 1997 master bathymetric survey showed several key features important for the future management of NLDS. First, the spatial distribution and topography of the dredged material mounds coincided well with the known buoy locations and mound growth over time (SAIC 2001). Most significantly, the NL-RELIC Mound has been a prominent and unchanging feature at the site since DAMOS bathymetric surveys began in 1977 (NUSC 1979, SAI 1980). The presence of discrete disposal mounds with consistent heights and shapes provides evidence that dredged material placed on the seafloor at the NLDS has been stable for at least twenty years. The importance of these results should be emphasized. Despite clear evidence of surface winnowing of fine-grained material across the disposal site and a potential for active bedload transport, the consolidated mass of disposal mounds measured in bathymetric depth-difference calculations has been stable over a period of at least twenty years (Knebel et al. 1999, Waddell et al. 2001). The REMOTS® sediment profile data collected from reference areas and within the disposal site from 1991-1998 provide an opportunity to compare and contrast the biological response to disposal activity over a six year period (SAIC 2001). Throughout this period, the fresh and recent (1-6 years old) dredged material showed a rapid recovery from a disturbed surface to a healthy benthic assemblage. Areas of historical dredged material Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 106 (over 6 years old) all supported a healthy mature benthic community. All reference areas experienced some limited patches of disturbance (presence of recolonizing Stage I organisms, eroded tube mats, shallow RPDs) at various times within the survey period. None of the individual reference stations exhibited consistent disturbance, that is, the patches were in different places each year. Overall, the reference areas supported a healthy benthic assemblage and displayed typical features of seasonal settlement and disturbance (see below). Assessment of the health of the benthic community at NLDS requires the ability to separate site-specific characteristics from regional environmental characteristics. During this time, historical dredged material and reference areas experienced very limited direct physical disturbance, whereas areas that received fresh dredged material experienced a short period of physical disturbance followed by recovery. In some areas, dredged material was placed two or three times during the six years. All of the monitoring surveys were conducted in late summer (July 30-September 6), a period with elevated water temperatures and the potential for ecological stress or seasonal senescence of settling organisms (see below). The most consistent biological characteristic observed over the monitoring period was the widespread presence of tube building amphipods in surface sediments. These organisms collect fine-grained sediments to construct their tubes, and the presence of the tubes enhances trapping and deposition of fine sediments (Mills 1967). The mats can become very dense and restrict bioturbation and circulation in sediments below the tubes (the result is a relatively thin redox potential discontinuity or RPD). In both disposal areas and reference areas, a mixed layer of fine sand and coarse shells was present beneath the tubes, but this layer is often difficult to see. Clumps of mussels also were seen and widely reported from the area within and around the disposal site. In areas with shells or pebbles on the surface, hydroids and mussels were seen attached to the hard substrate. When the amphipod tubes are physically disturbed or abandoned (due to natural seasonal decline, senescence or environmental stress), they are easily eroded, and the sand or shell surface is again exposed to bottom currents. As a result, summer periods (when the tube mats are present and widespread in and around the NLDS) may represent active deposition of fine sediment, with subsequent die-off or thinning of the tubes and sediment reworking in the winter. The surface sediment characteristics are a combination of the material deposited and processes of physical and biological reworking. The DAMOS monitoring results reported both here and in Volume II serve to demonstrate that the surface sediment characteristics throughout NLDS and reference areas became similar over time (with the exception of areas mantled with coarse sand or pebbles). The disposal site is subject to relatively strong tidal currents, but the landmasses surrounding NLDS shelter the seafloor from wave disturbance Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 107 (Waddell et al. 2001). When tidal currents are sufficient to transport fine sand as bedload, some fine materials may be winnowed leaving a lag deposit of sands and shells too large for transport. Semi-diurnal tidal currents at the NLDS appear to be strong enough to rework unconsolidated surface sediments through this process until surface sediments have a lag deposit of sand or shells. However, fine surface sediments are also bound by biological activity and may be remarkably resistant to erosion while the organisms are alive. The result of the surface sediment winnowing process includes six characteristics in REMOTS® images: shell lag, winnowed surfaces, disturbed amphipod tube mats, physical boundary roughness, and sand-over-mud stratigraphy. There are three potential causes for surface disturbance of tube mats: 1) predator foraging; 2) microbial decomposition following the abandonment of the tubes; and 3) disturbance from either trawling or a temporary increase in near-bottom turbulence or current velocity. When tubes are abandoned they are much more susceptible to physical transport by currents. Surface sediment reworking at NLDS appears to be limited to winnowing of fines accumulated during the summer in areas where shell lag armors the surface. The shell lag may form in the fall and winter during periodic storms, then again be covered with tube mats that bind finer sediments in the spring and summer. This seasonal response is observed to be consistent between reference areas and disposal areas, and results in a cyclic fluctuation between seafloor surfaces covered with muddy tubes to surfaces with clean shell and fine sand. This seasonal cycle may open opportunities for settlement of recolonizing benthic organisms and explain their patchy distribution at reference areas. Any deposition of fresh dredged material will begin to be exposed to this cycle and will eventually acquire tubes or attached organisms depending on grain size. In general, there is evidence of fall-winter winnowing in many areas of NLDS and spring-summer deposition of finer materials. As shown by the long-term stability of mounds at the site (see above), this cycle does not appear to result in any significant net loss or gain of sediment. 4.2 Seawolf Disposal Mound The Seawolf Mound was developed during the 1995-1996 dredging season (September-May). Disposal of maintenance work (material dredged within an authorized depth) and new work (material dredged to a newly authorized depth) resulted in a total estimated disposal volume of 877,512 m of sediments. The first portion of the project included an approximate barge volume of 306,000 m of UDM originating primarily from the New London Naval Submarine Base and the Thames River navigational channel and 800 m of UDM from the Mystic River. These materials were placed at the “Navy” buoy prior to capping operations (Figure 1-3). Following the placement of UDM, an estimated barge volume of 556,000 m of CDM dredged from the Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 108 Thames River channel, yielding a 1.82:1.0 CDM to UDM ratio, was placed over the Seawolf Mound area. These materials consisted of new work material (largely glacial clay) and maintenance material from the outer channel (largely fine sand). In addition, a total of 15,490 m of CDM from Mystic River and Venetian Harbor were deposited at the NDA 95 buoy, which also contributed to the Seawolf Mound. The resulting Seawolf Mound is a flat area east of the NL-RELIC Mound with a small oval apex. 4.2.1 Topographic Changes of the Seawolf Mound The topographic profile of the Seawolf Mound at the completion of the project showed a large, flat plateau (600 m diameter) with a small central apex with minimum depths of 16 m (Figure 3-5). Postcapping surveys showed that consolidation of the deposit followed the typical pattern for dredged material disposal mounds, with rapid consolidation in areas of the thickest material (e.g., Poindexter-Rollings 1990; Silva et al. 1994). Consolidation continued in the period between the first postcap survey (February 1996) and the follow-up September 1997 survey (Figure 3-9). A small area of CDM on the western side of the mound may have remolded, resulting in a slight increase in mound height adjacent to an area of apparent consolidation. Consolidation analysis also revealed isolated areas of apparent consolidation and accumulation. These small isolated fluctuations are a product of slight variations in survey conditions (survey artifacts) and do not represent changes in seafloor conditions (see Section 2.1.3). Sediment core and REMOTS® sediment profile data were evaluated to verify that CDM covered the entire UDM deposit and provide more detail than possible with bathymetric techniques (Section 4.2.4). REMOTS® images at Stations 150W and 300W (the areas with apparent remolding) indicated the presence of glacial gray clay and brown sand typical of the Seawolf CDM. The gray clay (Gardiners clay) is the product of improvement dredging that removed glacial lake clays deposited beneath the estuarine deposits in the Thames River. It is a stiff olive-gray to blue-gray clay that is very distinctive in cores and REMOTS® images. Results from the July 1998 survey indicated that topographic changes after September 1997 were greatly reduced, consistent with the equilibrium phase of dredged material consolidation (Figure 3-12). The pattern of consolidation measured at other open- water disposal mounds in Long Island Sound predicts that the Seawolf Mound will remain in its current configuration with minor resuspension of the surface sediments (Section 4.2.3). In the event of a large storm event in the Sound, follow-up confirmatory bathymetric data should be collected. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 109 4.2.2 Benthic Community Recolonization 4.2.2.1 Evaluation of Recovery One of the principle objectives in the tiered monitoring approach to dredged material disposal used in the DAMOS program is to determine the benthic recolonization status at intervals following the completion of disposal mounds or capping projects (Germano et al. 1994). For the Seawolf Mound, an infaunal assessment was conducted with grab samples in 1997 to evaluate the benthic community and to compare with sediment profile results. Grab samples were collected at six stations to examine the benthic infaunal species diversity and relative abundance over the surface of the Seawolf Mound. Sediment profile images were collected at these stations and over a wider grid in 1997 and 1998 to evaluate the response of benthic succession to the presence of fresh dredged material and confirm the location of cap material. The grab sampling stations were selected to represent distinct areas of the mound. A comparison of the bathymetric contours of the mound and sample locations (Figure 2-5) indicated that the stations could be grouped as follows: mound apex (CTR, 75E); mound plateau (150N, 150W, 300WSW); mound apron (300SE). While the initial intention was to sample mound slope deposits (adjacent to the apex), these were very spatially limited at the Seawolf Mound. Most of the mound formed a broad, flat plateau that gently thinned into apron deposits. Within the plateau, the stations can be ordered (from apex to plateau edge 150N, 150W, 300WSW). The apron areas are likely to have experienced the least physical disturbance from dredged material disposal whereas the apex should reflect the most frequent disturbance due to elevation and exposure to bottom currents (or may be an area most recently disturbed by disposal). Predicted results, based on ecological theory, include the following: moderate diversity at apron stations (reflecting minimal disturbance) with lowered diversity at the mound apex (reflecting greater disturbance), and higher OSI and successional stages at apron stations compared to the apex. Stations located on the mound plateau area should be intermediate between the values with no distinct gradient. The one potential exception would be a transitional increase in diversity within the plateau due to stimulation’of the benthic community from input of organic-rich dredged sediments. This increase in diversity may be difficult to separate from other temporal and spatial variations. 4.2.2.2 Comparison of Species Composition, Abundance, Successional Stage Six stations were sampled by a single 0.04 m grab sample for the purpose of evaluating benthic community composition, abundance, diversity, and the faunal successional status as inferred from REMOTS® image data from the same stations (Stations Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 110 CTR, 75E, 150N, 150W, 300WSW, and 300SE). Organisms retained on a 500-micrometer sieve were identified and enumerated (Appendix C). Based on knowledge of their life histories and feeding habitats, particularly the polychaetes (Fauchald and Jumars, 1979), a significant number of the collected infauna were assigned to a successional stage as defined in the REMOTS® successional paradigm (Table 4-1). The following comparisons between the grab sample and REMOTS® results therefore are based mainly on the taxa and their associated successional stage classifications listed in Table 4-1 and in Tables 2 through 4 of Appendix C. In the following comparisons, the generic and species names and abundances come from traditional benthic grab analyses. The successional designation(s) come from REMOTS® image interpretation based on between one and three replicate images per station. Not all replicates provided useful data. The numerically dominant species at Station CTR (mound apex) was the protobranch bivalve Nucula annulata followed by the tube-dwelling amphipod crustacean Ampelisca vadorum. Nucula spp. are known to appear on other disposal sites in Long Island Sound (an infrequently used sandy Guilford, CT site [Rhoads pers. comm.]) and in the vicinity of the former New York Mud Dump on relict dredged material (Valente 1998, Chang et al. 1992). The same bivalve is an important component of the Nephtys incisa / Yoldia limatula assemblage (sensu Sanders 1960) in both Long Island Sound and Buzzards Bay. The appearance of N. annulata at Station CTR is unusual because of its co-occurrence with a well-known Stage II species, A. vadorum. Nucula annulata is considered a late Stage II species due to its relatively conservative reproduction, relatively slow growth rate, and long life span (several years). All of the Nucula were small, i.e., within the range of 0.75 to 1.5 mm. None of these protobranchs showed annular growth bands suggesting that they were a single age-class (cohort) that settled as larvae during the spring to early summer of 1997. Alternatively, these small juvenile bivalves may have been passively transported to the station from the ambient bottom by means of turbulence and resuspension. Small N. annulata have been recovered from sediment traps located decimeters above the bottom in Buzzards Bay (Rhoads pers. comm.). Based on the dominance of Nucula annulata and Ampelisca vadorum, as well as the presence of the Stage Il amphipod Leptocheirus pingus and the Stage II/III polychaete Spiochaetopterus costarum among the dominants (Appendix C, Table 2), the species found in the grabs would identify Station CTR as being a late Stage II or early Stage II assemblage. However, REMOTS® images did not show any evidence of macrofaunal organisms and so the successional status was not assigned. The presence of the highly plastic, relic gray Gardiner’s clay had the apparent effect of retarding infaunal succession relative to dredged material of more recent age. The apparent absence of macrofauna from the profile camera images is explained by the low density of macrofauna recovered from the grab samples (50 individuals per 0.04 m’). At this density of organisms, a random vertical cut of the bottom by the camera presents a low probability of imaging an organism. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 11] Table 4-1 Infaunal successional stage classifications for selected taxa collected across the Seawolf Mound (descriptions for polychaete families are based on Fauchald and Jumars, 1979) DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATIO POLYCHAETES: Ampharetidae Capitellidae Chaetopteridae Cirratulidae Cossuridae Dorvilleidae Eunicidae Flabelligeridae Glyceridae Lumbrineridae Maldanidae Nephtyidea Oweniidae Paraonidae Pectinaridae Phyllodocidae Polynoidae Sabellidae Sabellariidae Sigalionidae Spionidae Syllidae Terrebellidae Trichobranchidae (CRUSTACEA: Ampelisca abdita/vadorum Leptocheirus pinguis Corophiidae IBIVALVE MOLLUSCS: Carditidae Nuculidae Tellinidae Pitar morrhuanus tube-dwelling, surface deposit feeders mostly tubicolous, motile opportunisitc deposit feeders deep tube-dwelling, suspension/surface deposit feeders surface deposit feeders surface deposit feeders free-living facultative carnivores free-living/tubicolous carnivores or omnivores surface deposit feeders free-living carnivores or detritivores surface/sub-surface deposit feeders head-down, sub-surface deposit feeders motile carnivores or omnivores surface deposit feeders form vertical, spiraling burrows, deposit feeders sub-surface deposit feeders motile predatory carnivores motile carnivores tubicolous suspension- or surface- deposit-feeders tubicolous, epifaunal suspension feeders carnivores tubicolous, surface deposit-feeders or suspension feeders mostly free-living, carnivores or surface deposit-feeders surface deposit feeders tubicolous, surface deposit-feeders tubicolous, surface filter feeders surface filter feeders nest or tube builder, probably filter feeders attached filter feeder shallow burrower shallow burrowers, feed through siphon larger-bodied burrowers The small body size of the numerical dominant (N. annulata) also precluded detection of these bivalves in the images. At Station 75E (mound apex), faunal dominants were Nucula annulata (Stage I), Prionospio steenstrupi (Stage I), and the capitellid Mediomastus ambiseta (Stage I). Stage II also was represented by Ampelisca vadorum and Ampelisca abdita, while Stage III included one maldanid polychaete and four individuals of the polychaete Spiochaetopterus costarum. Two REMOTS® replicates provided information; one was designated a J-II status and the second a II-III. Although there is a general agreement with the taxonomic data, the Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 112 REMOTS® results suggest that there was high spatial patchiness at this station. The population of N. annulata showed a diverse range of size (0.75 to 3.75 mm) suggesting that more than one age class (cohort) may have been present. The larger specimens showed growth annuli in the shells indicating that they were >1 year old. At least two cohorts appeared to be present in the larger specimens. At Station 150N (mound plateau nearest apex), Nucula annulata (Stage I) represented over one half of the individuals sampled. Small specimens (0.75 mm) appeared to be the 1997 cohort, while individuals approaching 3.75 mm were probably over one year old based on the presence of growth annuli within the shell. Another bivalve, Tellina agilis, represented by four juvenile individuals is known to be a Stage II species. Their small size suggested that they comprised a 1997 cohort. Mediomastus ambiseta and Prionospio steenstrupi are Stage I polychaetes that were moderately abundant, and there were also a few individuals collected representing Stage II polychaete taxa (e.g., Nephtys incisa and Levinsenta gracilis). Two sediment profile images provided useful successional information. Both replicates indicated a Stage II successional designation, mainly reflecting the presence of Nucula annulata. This inference is supported by the ground-truth sampling. The presence of low densities of both Stage I and Stage II polychaetes was apparently missed in the sediment profile images. Faunal dominants at Station 150W (mound plateau) included two Stage I polychaetes (P. steenstrupi and M. ambiseta) and the Stage II bivalve N. annulata. Juvenile Tellina agilis (Stage II) were also present (n=1), along with two Stage III polychaetes (Maldanidae sp. and Nephtys incisa). The overall designation of this station as being in a Stage I-II sere was based on one sediment profile replicate showing Stage I; a second replicate, Stage II; and a third replicate, Stage I-III. This inference is supported by the benthic grab sample data. A low density of Stage III polychaetes apparently was present along with the surface- dwelling Stage I and II taxa. A range of sizes (0.75 to 4.0 mm) was present in the N. annulata population. The largest specimens appeared to have at least two shell growth annuli, suggesting that several age classes may have been present. Several species were present at Station 300WSW (mound plateau) that represented a mixture of successional stages. Stage I taxa included the polychaetes P. steenstrupi and M. ambiseta. Stage II taxa were represented by N. annulata and A. vadorum. Stage III taxa also were present (maldanid polychaetes). Sediment profile images showed the following successional development: I-II, I-III, and I-Il]. This station therefore was assigned a mixed successional status, suggesting that it was in an advanced state of recolonization. Individuals ranging from 0.75 to 3.0 mm were present in the NV. annulata population. The size distribution was skewed toward small specimens suggesting a successful 1997 recruitment. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 113 The dominant organism at Station 300SE (mound apron), Monticellina baptisteae, is a Stage I cirratulid polychaete. A relatively low density of M. ambiseta (Stage I) also was present, along with Stage Il amphipods (A. vadorum) and a small range in shell length sizes of Stage II N. annulata (0.75 to 2.0 mm). Two REMOTS® replicates provided useful information; both showed this station to be a Stage II assemblage. This conclusion is supported by the ground-truth samples. The presence of six relatively large specimens of the bivalves Pitar morrhuana, Astarte undata, and Anadara transversa, along with Stage III Lumbrinerid polychaete Scoletema hebes, further suggested that this station had not experienced a great deal of disturbance in the recent past. The relatively large body size of the bivalves (biomass) indicates that they have occupied this station for more than one year; from a functional perspective they are considered Stage III organisms. However, the REMOTS® successional designation failed to acknowledge the presence of these larger- bodied Stage III organisms. Overall, comparison of the grab sample faunal data with successional stage interpretation from REMOTS® images shows that the Seawolf Disposal Mound was predominantly in a Stage II assemblage based on the numerical dominance of Nucula annulata and tubicolous amphipods. Stage I taxa were also present (spionid and capitellid polychaetes), but in lower abundance than is typically found in the earliest pioneering assemblage. Undisturbed Stage II species (e.g., large bivalves) were encountered at one station (300SE) on the thin apron of the Seawolf Mound. Small numbers of Stage II polychaetes were found at all of the stations, but because of their low densities, they were largely undetected in the sediment profile images. The importance of N. annulata in intermediate stage colonization at this site is a relatively new observation. While N. annulata are commonly found as members of Stage III deposit-feeding communities in soft mud, this is only the third time that this species has been noted as playing an important role in colonization of sandy to muddy dredged material. Sediment-profile imagery is unlikely to allow identification of very small N. annulata, but REMOTS® data from the N.Y. Mud Dump Site did allow identification of abundant populations of large mature specimens of Nucula spp. (Valente 1998). 4.2.2.3 Spatial Trends in Faunal Diversity and Abundance As previously indicated, the benthic sampling stations were located in three distinct topographic areas of the capped mound: mound apex (CTR, 75E); mound plateau (150W, 150N, 300WSW); and mound apron (300SE) (Figure 2-5). The Seawolf Mound lacked a large area with steep mound slopes and could be best characterized as a broad flat mound with a small apex. The apron areas consisted of thin deposits of dredged material (usually less than 10 cm) that typically cause minimal disturbance to the benthic community. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 - 1998 114 A theoretical relationship between disturbance (and/or organic enrichment) and Species numbers, Abundance, and Biomass (SAB) is shown in Figure 4-1 as modified from Pearson and Rosenberg (1978). These relationships can form some basis for comparison of mound successional dynamics compared to systems evaluated on their response to organic loading. It should be noted that some systems show variations in their SAB response, and the concept is best-developed in relatively enclosed estuarine systems (Maurer et al. 1993). The distribution of species abundance (richness, in units of number of species per 0.04 m’) and numbers of individuals (number of individuals per 0.04 m ) show that the thin apron deposits had the highest faunal densities and number of species (Figure 4-2). The mound apex had the lowest species richness and abundance, and the mound plateau stations were intermediate with respect to these parameters (Figure 4-2). The shape of these curves suggests that the overall disposal mound was close to the Pearson and Rosenberg transition (or ecotonal) part of the disturbance gradient (Figure 4-1). Because biomass was not quantified in the traditional benthic sample work-up, this variable cannot be mapped. However, qualitative inspection of the faunal collection indicates that biomass was greatest at Station 300SE because of the presence of three genera of relatively large bivalves. In Figure 4-1, note that biomass peaks in the Transition area (TR), and a subordinate biomass peak exists under the Peak of Opportunists (PO). Although the species abundance and numbers of individuals increased away from the center of the mound, calculations of diversity did not show such a clear trend. Diversity indices are weighted to consider the impact of dominance by one or more species. The most widely used diversity index is the Shannon-Wiener information statistic H’ which is often calculated with the statistic for Evenness, J’. The trends of these two statistics against station type showed a complex relationship (Figure 4-3) until the effect of dominant species was evaluated. Relatively low abundance; few species and high evenness (i.e., a small number of species with similar abundance) characterized the CTR station. The resultant diversity was low but in the same range as many other stations on the mound plateau and apron. Stations 75E and 150N both contained several dominant species that depressed the evenness and diversity. Plotting the abundance to species ratio (Maurer et al. 1993) and examining the effects of removing the top three dominant species (Figure 4-4), one can see this relationship more clearly. The increasing abundance of individuals away from the center stayed ahead of the increase in species, but peaked at Stations 75E and 150N, due to the influence of the top three numerical dominant species (Figure 4-4). When the top three numerical dominants were removed, the relative abundance to species decreased with distance from the center. The relatively small sample size and influence of a few species on diversity indices limits the conclusions that can be made about mound disturbance and community structure from these data alone. However, it is clear that there were only marginal differences in diversity and evenness apart from the station dominated by Nucula annulata (150N). Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 115 INCREASING DISTANCE FROM ORGANIC LOADING SOURCE INCREASING RPD DEPTH IN THE SEDIMENT COLUMN HIGH TRANSITION LOW » ORGANIC LOADING RAT | MIXTURE OF STAGE I ON Ill REMOTS® AZOIC | STAGE! | ot aGEI AND II OR STAGE III Parameters OsI OSI -4to +8 +6 to +11 Figure 4-1. SAB curves along a gradient of organic enrichments. S = number of species; A= abundance; B = biomass. The relationships between the SAB curves and REMOTS® successional stage and OSI also are depicted. (Modified from Pearson and Rosenberg 1978.) Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 116 60 ] 1200 300SE | 300SE | —O=No. of Species { 50 1000 —® No. of Individuals f .) 1 | 800 600 300WSW No. of Species per 0.04 m2 -) oO 1 No. of Individuals per 0.04 m2 Ded Oo n 400 Center 10 200 __Mound Apex__ Mound Plateau Apron Figure 4-2. Distribution of species abundance and number of individuals over the Seawolf Mound. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 117 Diversity Indices 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Evenness J’ 0.4 —O— H’ Shannon-Wiener —®— J’ Evenness Shannon-Wiener H' 0.3 0.2 0.1 __Mound Apex__ Mound Plateau Apron Figure 4-3. Diversity indices (Shannon-Wiener H’ and Evenness J’) distributed over the Seawolf Mound. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 118 Abundance:Species Ratio 25.00 20.00 15.00 A:S Ratio 10.00 Percent of total abundance 5.00 150W Center —O—A:S Ratio —@—A:S without dominants —®— Dominants as percentage of total 0.00 __Mound Apex__ Mound Plateau Apron Figure 4-4. Abundance species ratios (with and without dominants) and dominants as a percentage of total abundance distributed over the Seawolf Mound. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 119 A more effective method for evaluating diversity, especially for comparison between different sample sizes, is the rarefaction curve approach (Sanders 1968). Rarefaction curves plot the expected species for different population sample sizes. While these curves cannot extrapolate beyond existing abundance data, they can interpolate species numbers for smaller sample sizes and facilitate comparison of samples. These curves can also be used to rank the relative ecological impact of dredged material deposition (Figure 3-22). If disturbance is scaled to diversity, calculated by the rarefaction method, we would rank the stations from high to low disturbance as follows: Center > 75E >150N >150W > 300WSW >300SE. Similarly, the REMOTS® Organism-Sediment Index (OSI) can also be used to rank stations. Unfortunately, the REMOTS® data from the stations sampled with the grabs was limited by a variety of confounding factors. Many of the stations had indeterminate OSI values, or the value was based on one replicate. Successional stage could not be determined adequately at the center station (CTR) due to the presence of plastic glacial clay. The OSI evaluation, however, does provide some insight into the relationship of disturbance to benthic community structure across the mound. The lower OSI values (particularly <+6) indicate greater impacts. Based on the OSI, the stations are ranked in the order of highest to lowest impact: (No data on Station Center or 150 N) 150W > 300WSW > 300SE > 75E. The major difference in these three rankings is the relative position of Station 75E. Based on the Shannon-Wiener H’ statistic, and rarefaction curves, Station 75E was comparable in disturbance to the CTR station. The OSI plot indicates that, while showing an impact, Station 75E had a relatively high OSI (5.5). This result is attributed to one of the station replicates showing the presence of Stage III feeding voids at depth. Other than this discrepancy, the overall station ranking was comparable between the rarefaction curves and the OSI. Spatial trends in faunal composition (numbers of species, individual abundances, and biomass) are related to organic enrichment gradients (in both space and time). These qualitative relationships are shown in Figure 4-1. Similarly, organism-sediment relationships, as measured by the REMOTS® OSI, also tend to change across zones of organic/physical impacts (Figure 4-1). Based on faunal trends in declining species richness (S), declining abundance (A) (Figure 4-2), OSI values between +4 and +5.5, and relatively high H’ values, the Seawolf Mound at the time of the 1997 survey appeared to fit into the ecotonal transition in the SAB/OSI diagram (Figure 4-1). Station abundance ranged from a minimum of 1250 individuals per square meter at Station CTR to a peak of ca. 28,000 per square meter at Station 300SE (Figure 4-2). These abundances are far less (by one to two orders-of-magnitude) than is typically observed at the Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 120 peak of opportunists (PO, in Figure 4-1). This is another reason for fitting Seawolf Mound data into the ecotonal part of the disturbance gradient. Biomass data were not available from the traditional grab sampling data taken to document S and A. However, Station 300SE had a significantly higher biomass than the other stations related to the presence of several large bivalve specimens. This observation suggests that Station 300SE was farther to the right of the ecotonal point than other Seawolf stations and therefore had experienced less intensive and/or less frequent impact than other stations. The results are consistent with the predictions based on the topographic location of the stations and sediment type. The CTR station experienced the greatest disturbance due to massive physical disturbance, and/or ecological impacts of the presence of a layer of gray plastic glacial clay from new work dredging that has low food value and is resistant to penetration by infaunal organisms. The broad area of the mound plateau was variable in levels of disturbance and successional response, but generally represents an expected pattern of recovery 1-2 years after a mound is capped. The station located on the apron (300SE) showed the lowest level of disturbance to the extent that large, long-lived bivalves were still in place and the successional stage was transitional (Stage I). 4.2.2.4 Evaluation of Recolonization in 1998 Because the 1998 survey was conducted nearly two-and-a-half years after completion of disposal, the recolonization paradigm predicts that the successional stage in 1998 will be dominated by Stage III organisms (Germano et al. 1994). The monitoring results confirmed this prediction, but there was some evidence of a continuing effect of the gray clay. The results of the 1998 survey indicated that the successional status of the Seawolf Mound was advanced, showing healthy Stage I, Stage II to II, or Stage II on Il communities inhabiting the sediments (Table 3-1). The large chaetopterus tubes on the sediment surface also provided evidence of stable, recolonized dredged material. Overall, the average OSI values were less than those observed in 1997, primarily due to shallower mean RPDs measured in 1998. At the reference areas, the mean RPDs were slightly greater in 1998 at the NLON REF and WEST REF reference areas, and lower at NE REF than observed in 1997. At the Seawolf Mound, the lowest mean RPDs in 1998 were observed at two stations on the southwestern side of the central mound area (Figure 3-18). Although in general, the lower RPDs tended to be over the central area, the RPDs were variable spatially. The calculated average RPD suggested that the depth of the oxidized layer had become shallower since the 1997 survey. However, this apparent reduction was due primarily to five stations sampled in 1997 that had RPDs of >4 cm (Figure 4-5). In both 1997 and 1998, the modal RPD was 1-2 cm, which was slightly less than the modal reference RPD (2-3 cm). This result indicates that the majority of measured RPDs were similar from one year to the next. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 12] 20 — a Number of Stations —_ ro) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 RPD Category (cm) @Seawolf, 97 OSeawolf, 98 Reference, 97 OReference, 98 N= 24 27 1 13 Figure 4-5. Frequency distribution of mean apparent RPDs at the NLDS reference areas and the Seawolf Mound in 1997 and 1998. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 122 The presence of deeper RPDs at several stations in 1997 was probably due to spatial variability, although also may have been a function of remnant oxidation of new, fine- grained dredged material. As the dredged material (and especially the gray clay) continues to be recolonized, the modal RPD should become similar to or greater than that measured at the reference areas. In 1998, the presence of gray clay was widespread on the apex and plateau areas of the mound (Figure 3-20). While most photos showed evidence that the gray clay was breaking down and becoming bioturbated (Figure 4-6), some replicates on the apex (150N replicates B and C) had limited colonization or development of RPDs. In 1997, a much higher number of replicates appeared to be affected by fresh gray clay with restricted recolonization due to the apparent low food value of ancient clays and the resistance to penetration by burrowing organisms. The 1998 photographs also showed increased evidence of scour lag and physical reworking of the surface sediments (Section 4.2.3). Sulfidic sediments within the gray clay were also more common in 1998, as the surface sediments began to reach equilibrium in the new environment (Figure 4-7). The combination of initial biological reworking, physical scour and development of sulfidic profiles appear to be early stages in the incorporation of non-ambient ancient clays into the sediment fabric of the near-surface sediments at NLDS. It is not surprising that these processes have left a patchy response with areas of Stage III succession interspersed with patches of shallow RPDs. As individual clumps and blocks of clay are broken down, the areas between them will collect ambient sediments and support rapid recolonization. The integrated picture of benthic assemblages collected in 1997 and REMOTS® data from 1997 and 1998 suggests that biological recolonization is progressing on the surface of the Seawolf Mound, but is still moving toward equilibrium with the surrounding ambient sediments. There is no biological evidence of toxic conditions in the surface sediments of the Seawolf Mound as a range of sensitive Stage II and III species are continuing to colonize. 4.2.3 Potential Resuspension from the Seawolf Mound In a parallel study, oceanographic conditions at NLDS were evaluated in 1997 and 1998 with specific reference to the Seawolf Mound (Waddell et al. 2001). The results of this study were consistent with numerical modeling results for Long Island Sound (Signell et al. 1998) as well as the physiographic description of bottom sediments (Knebel et al. 1999). Semi-diurnal (twice-daily) tidal currents dominate the physical oceanographic environment at NLDS. These currents appear sufficiently strong to winnow unconsolidated fine sediments, however the site is well protected from most storm-generated wave disturbances (Signell et al. 1998, Waddell et al. 2001). The result is that the surface sediments at NLDS (and the Seawolf Mound) should reflect the response of deposited dredged material (whether it be clay, silt or sand) to twice daily tidal current stress. The prediction (and pattern of Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 8661 — S661 punoyy fomvas ‘aig josodsig uopuoT man ay} 1D asiniD SuuonUOp "8661 Ainge (g 0) poreduros uoNneIS BLO L661 Ioquiaidas (Vv ‘SIN 38 UOHLZIUOTOOAI JUOUTIpes JO oUaPIA, «°9-f BAMBI UL 8é66L “a alo Z66h “V PlopAH ECT 124 Stranded Stage Il Tubes. DM Layering Banded Clay Disturbed Stage Il Tube Mats Decaying Tube Mat Stage I to Il Astarte \ Sulfidic Sediments Figure 4-7. Comparison of September 1997 and July 1998 Seawolf REMOTS® stations Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 125 observation in previous studies) was that the surface sediments of the Seawolf Mound would eventually be winnowed of some of the silt-clay fraction resulting in a surficial residuum of fine sand mixed with shell and coarse sand (Johnson and Baldwin 1986). In many areas the sand may be transported in bedload over silty sediments without erosion of the cohesive silts, resulting in a “‘sand-over-mud stratigraphy” detectable in REMOTS® images. It is expected that the sand and shell “lag” deposits (large sediment particles that “lag” behind as the finer materials are washed away) would be resistant to further erosion of the scale experienced on a regular basis. This process is called “textural armoring.” These sediment transport features have been widely observed in studies of ancient and modern coastal sediment transport patterns (Johnson and Baldwin 1986). The techniques used to investigate sediment transport history in sedimentary geology are analogous to interpretation of REMOTS® sediment profile images. The surface sediments of the Seawolf Mound were evaluated relative to these predictions. Characteristics of surface sediment winnowing identified in REMOTS® images include shell lag, disturbed amphipod tube mats, physical boundary roughness, and sand over mud stratigraphy. Shell lag can be seen as exposed bivalve and gastropod shells (Figure 4-8a) or shells mixed with sand. Winnowed surfaces are observed when the surface shows evidence of recently lost material (mud bands on polychaete tubes, lack of bioturbated “fluff” layer, irregular surface topography; Figure 4-8b). Amphipod tube mats go through a cyclic process where tubes are abandoned and begin to decompose, in this state they are easily transported. The decomposition and loss of a few amphipod tubes will trigger instability in the mat and cause the mats to roll-up and be transported in pieces. Stages in this process can be seen in REMOTS® images including new mats, adult mats, decaying mats, and persistent fragments of mats with adjacent exposed sediment (Figure 4-9). Physical boundary roughness is evaluated by the difference between the highest and lowest elevation of the sediment surface in an image and subjectively assigned to biological (tubes, mounds, burrow pits) or physical (shell lag, dredged material clumps, mud clasts) causes. Three of the characteristics of winnowing were widely distributed at the Seawolf Mound (Figure 4-10). Only two of the REMOTS® stations showed no evidence of small- scale winnowing (CTR and 300W). Station CTR showed persistent clumps of gray clay and 300W showed no evidence of dredged material, but some decaying amphipod tubes (Figure 4-11). The presence of cohesive gray Gardiners glacial clay (from improvement dredging below the estuarine sediments) across the mound had an influence on the surface sediment distribution. The grain size at the inner stations was finer than at the reference areas, which was characterized as very fine sand. A mix of silt-clay and very fine sand characterized most of the sediments of the Seawolf Mound, and surface sand overlying fine-grained sediment (sand over mud stratigraphy) was noted for most images. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 8661 — S661 Punoyp fromvas ‘a11s ]DSodsiq uopuocT Many ayy 1D asin Sursojnuopy ‘TRAIOJUL YIdop Sty) JOAO SoUTS Jo SuIMOUUIM WOHeOTpUT (o}oRYoATOd) aqny snsazdojapyD UO pueg ep Wd ¢ ‘Bd a0U ‘PUNO JTOMBIS OU} Iv DORJINS poMoUUT A, (q ‘Puno 76 IN OU} Wo pouteigo s}tsodap sey [TOYS Jo o[duexo uy (VY “SCTIN Je GOURGIN)SIP JUOUMIPaS Jo DOUDPIAM «= -°-p GANS = | V 9CT 127 - Stage tlie Feeding Void Figure 4-9. Cycle of Ampeliscid tube mat development, decay, and disturbance. A) Juvenile tube mat. B) Adult tube mat on shell lag over dredged material. C) Decaying tube mat on ambient sediment. D) Disturbed tube mat with sand- over-mud layering, Stage III feeding void. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 128 Winnowing Evidence Present over the Seawolf Disposal Mound 41° 16.700' N 41° 16.600" N 41° 16.500" N 41° 16.400" N 41° 16.300" N 72° 05.000" W 72° 04.800' W 72° 04.600° W [_] Shell Lag @ Winnowing © Disturbed Amphipod A No Evidence Depth in meters Mats NAD 83 I a | Om 200 m Figure 4-10. Three characteristics of small-scale winnowing over the Seawolf Disposal Mound documented during the September 1997 survey. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 8661 — S661 punoy fromvas ‘alig jpsodsiq uopuocTy many ays Iv asiniD Suisojuopy ‘NOOE UONRIS JTOMeIS J S}LUL IGN} PoqIMsIp WIM Be [TOYS (q “PuNoJ] J[OMvas Jo JoVUIO ye ALD SIOUTpIeH Avs [eIoe]s Jo sdumnjD (V “T[-p ean31y cae ) 130 The direct observations of the surface sediments of the Seawolf Mound in the REMOTS® images were consistent with the predictions from modeling, direct physical oceanographic measurements and past observations (Waddell et al. 2001). There was evidence of winnowing of no more than 3 cm of fine-grained cap material and no evidence of storm-induced winnowing (characterized by dense layers of pebbles and shells with no bioturbated layer). Armored shell lag surfaces were mixed with decaying tube mats, indicating sufficient stability to induce settlement and growth of dense amphipod tube mats with eventual senescence (Figure 4-11b). The available sand fractions show some evidence of transport over silt layers without winnowed interfaces (this process can be difficult to distinguish from sand layers directly deposited by disposal barges onto previously deposited silt layers). This visual evidence strongly supports the conclusion that depth difference results are due to consolidation not erosion of sediments from the surface of the Seawolf Mound. In 1998, surface sand overlying fine-grained sediment (sand-over-mud stratigraphy) was noted for most REMOTS® photographs collected from the Seawolf Mound. The depth of the sand layer was usually less than 5 cm. Both the core samples and REMOTS® photographs indicated fine-grained sediments over the apex and plateau of the mound. Very fine sand was observed on the apron of the mound similar to observations of sediments at the reference areas. Many replicate photographs also showed evidence of shell lag. Although there was no obvious spatial pattern of boundary roughness values, several stations were identified as winnowed (Figure 4-12). If at least one replicate contained evidence of winnowing, shell lag, or disturbed amphipod mats the station was identified as winnowed. All of the surface types were common across the mound. The presence of shell lag tends to limit the process of further erosion through armoring of the surface sediment. Similar to the Seawolf Mound, the reference area sediments were affected by tidal processes. Sand-over- mud stratigraphy and shell fragments at the surface were common, as well as disturbed tube mats. These results, combined with bathymetric results, demonstrate that while minor surface transport of sediments is characteristic of the area surrounding NLDS, the cohesive sediments that comprise the bulk of the material in the Seawolf Mound have remained in place throughout the period of this study. This finding is consistent with the observations of stable disposal mounds at NLDS over a period of at least twenty years (SAIC 2001). 4.2.4 Sediment Chemistry of the Seawolf Mound To provide a basis for comparison with cores collected from the Seawolf Mound, the results of chemical testing of sediments in the Thames River prior to dredging were reviewed. Data from pre-dredged sediments indicated an overlap in chemical concentrations between the material classified as UDM and CDM (Maguire Group 1997). In general, the Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 131 1998 REMOTS?® Sediment-Profile Winnowing Evidence Present over the Seawolf Mound 41° 16.700" N 41° 16.600° N 41° 16.500" N 41° 16.400’ N a S oll 00 HOR? 41° 16.300" N @ 72° 05.000° W 72° 04.800° W 72° 04.600° W [__] Shel! Lag NLDS © Disturbed Amphipod Mat Mound height in meters @ Winnowed/Scour Lag/Surface Scou NAD 83 A No Evidence Om 200 m Figure 4-12. Spatial distribution of observed winnowing evidence over the Seawolf Mound during the 1998 survey. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 132 UDM was classified as unsuitable based on biological testing results, but some of the chemical analyses, notably those conducted in 1992, did indicate that the sediments were elevated in contaminants, especially in PAHs, relative to reference data. Samples collected in the material from the dredging areas ranged from pure silt-clay in the channel (1994 samples) to dominantly sand (>50%) in the outer channel reaches (Maguire Group 1997). The sand content in the cores suggested that the upper 50 cm of the Seawolf Mound was representative of CDM from the outer Thames River (sand averages 20% [inner, outer zones] to 31% [middle zone]). The visible presence of clay in the top layers of the cores (and REMOTS® photographs) was representative of the last CDM placed at the Seawolf Mound, which was predominantly material resulting from improvement dredging (gray Gardiners clay). In addition to the core descriptions and grain size results, the overall lack of elevated contaminant concentrations typical of the surface sediments of the most contaminated pier areas suggested that at least the upper 50 cm of the disposal mound consisted of CDM. Specifically, the PAH concentrations were low overall, with little variability in the samples collected either spatially across the mound (inner, middle, and outer zones), or with depth in the long cores. These results confirmed the placement of CDM across the mound, as well as indicating that the thickness of CDM exceeded 50 cm in the inner, middle, and outer zones. The chemistry data were evaluated in context of the different zones of the deposit in parallel to the apex, plateau, and apron areas discussed above. Figure 4-13 depicts the core locations from 1997 and 1998 with respect to the UDM deposit and final capped mound footprint. With the placement of capping material and passage of time, the UDM deposit consolidated since the December 1995 precap survey. Therefore, even though the figure suggests that the peaks of the capped mound and the UDM deposit have a similar height, the CDM layer actually compressed the UDM (Figure 3- 6), which further consolidated between the 1995-96 CDM placement activity and the 1997 and 1998 surveys. As mentioned previously, the small area of UDM on the eastern edge of the mound that did not appear to be sufficiently covered by capping material in the bathymetric depth difference plots, did appear to be covered adequately by CDM in REMOTS® images from Station 300E over this location. Figure 4-13 shows that the UDM deposit was located primarily within the inner zone, with the apron of the deposit extending into the middle zone beneath the CDM layer. 4.2.4.1 Outer Zone 1997 In 1997, five cores were collected in the outer zone, four short cores (2A, 2B, 3A, 3B), and one long core (4A). All of the short cores, collected near the boundary of the limit of detectable dredged material (Figure 4-13), indicated that ambient material was collected Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 1997 and 1998 Sediment Core Locations Seawolf Mound Footprint (1998 vs. 1996 Surveys) and UDM Deposit 41° 16.800° N 41° 16.700° N 41° 16.600" N- 41° 16.500° N 41° 16.400° N 41° 16.300° N 41° 16.200° N 72° 05.250°W 72° 05.000° W 04.750°W 72° 04.500" W NLDS Mound height in meters © 1997 Coring Location © 1998 Coring Location NAD 83 | Om 200 m 400 m Figure 4-13. 1997 and 1998 sediment core locations with respect to the UDM deposit and the capped Seawolf Mound footprint. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 134 below the CDM material, which was consistent with the bathymetric data (e.g., Core 2A; Appendix D). Overall, the grain size of cores 3A and 3B was slightly sandier than the other cores. The long core, Core 4A, was situated in the outer zone but in an area of recent dredged material accumulation (Figure 2-6). The core consisted uniformly of dark olive- gray silty clay that was similar in appearance and texture to the material collected in the upper portion of cores from many of the other stations. This suggests that the material in Core 4A was predominantly CDM. The three samples collected down-core were very similar in both physical and chemical characteristics (Tables 3-5 and 3-6). Both metals and PAH data were consistent with the samples collected from the cores representing CDM (Appendix E). 4.2.4.2 Middle Zone 1997 Five cores were collected in 1997 in the middle zone, four short cores (1A, 5A, 7A, and 8A), and one long core, 6A. At the base of Core 1A, located near the boundary of the mound, there was an olive-gray gravelly sand and shell hash, similar to the ambient sediments collected in Core 13A (Appendix D). This core also had relatively low metal concentrations. In general, the middle zone cores consisted of sandy fine-grained sediment (11-37% sand; 63-89% fine-sediment). The metals and PAH concentrations of the cores collected in the middle zone were consistent with the CDM values measured at the dredging area. The long core collected in the middle zone, Core 6A, again showed overall fine- grained sediments relative to other middle zone cores, as with long Core 4A in the outer zone. 4.2.4.3 Inner Zone 1997 Three short cores (9A, 11A, and 12A) and one long core (10A) were collected in the inner zone as part of the 1997 survey. Core 9A was located relatively close to middle zone Core 8A and was similar in lithology and chemical concentrations to the cores in the middle zone. The other two short cores collected in the inner zone showed overall higher fines content (67-88%) and less sand. The PAH values were consistent with CDM, and metals concentrations generally were within the range of those measured in the middle and outer zones. The concentrations of Zn were on the higher side of the range measured in the CDM material (101 mg/kg at Station 11A and 215 mg/kg at Station 12A), but evidence from the PAH data support the determination that these were cap sediments. The long core collected in the inner zone (Core 10A) was the longest of the 1997 survey, and recovered the widest variety of lithologies. The upper two meters was similar to CDM recovered in the other cores. Below this interval, patches of black oily sediment, Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 135 gravel, and silty clay were recovered, indicating potential recovery of UDM. No chemical or grain size samples were collected, however, in that part of the core, in accordance with the sampling design (Table 2-6, but see results for 23A below). The grain size and chemistry data of the three samples collected in Core 10A were consistent with the other inner zone cores, including the lowest sand percentages (5S—8%), and high total fines (92-95%). Because no chemistry data were available for the improvement material (gray clay), however the metals concentration in the areas of higher clay may be related to the clay content. Trace metal and PAH concentrations of the upper 50 cm (short cores) in 1997 and 1998 confirmed the presence of CDM over the Seawolf Mound. The trace metal concentrations stayed relatively constant from 1997 to 1998 and in most cases the 1998 samples were lower than values detected in the previous year, which was probably due to both spatial and analytical variability. Normalized to the fine-grained fraction (silt and clay), trace metal concentrations were similar or less than measured in the CDM prior to dredging (Figure 3-28). The exception was the average value of Zn, because of one sample with a relatively high value in one surface (0-50 cm) core (14B). This core was located in the southwestern region of the mound, where ambient material was detected below the layer of CDM. A similar small elevation in PAH concentrations, relative to the other short core samples (see below), supports a conclusion that this sediment was not Seawolf UDM, but probably reflects either an existing elevation in the ambient sediments at this location or dredged material associated with other projects. In addition, the zinc value in Core 14B was _well below the maximum values measured at the dredging site prior to dredging. 4.2.4.4 Core Results 1998 Both the long and short core samples from the Seawolf Mound in 1998 contained average PAH values that were less than either the UDM or the CDM PAH data collected prior to dredging. For example, the average LMW PAH phenanthrene concentration measured in the short cores was 25 g/kg, compared to 44 and 565 ug/kg measured in the UDM in 90/94 and 92, respectively. The maximum concentrations of PAHs were measured in the samples from the deepest sections of long Cores 17A and 23A and the 0.5—0.75 m sample from middle Core 19A (Table 3-7). These concentrations were similar to PAHs measured in CDM/UDM in 1990/94 and significantly less than that measured in 1992. Some of the differences in PAH concentrations were due to the variability of organic carbon (Figure 4-14). All of the short cores in all three zones in 1998 had TOC-normalized PAH levels that were consistently less than the concentrations at the reference area (Figure 4-14; Appendix D, Tables 1 and 2). PAH levels (LMW and HMW) generally increased with depth and were greater than the reference area values in downcore samples from the middle and outer zones. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 136 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 HMW PAHs Normalized by TOC 100000 50000 0 20000 450000 Radial Zone Inner 0-200 rm Middle 200-400 m Outer 400-600 m 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 HMW PAHs Normalized by TOC 150000 100000 50000 0 20000 WEST REF. 264 @ WESTREF *~0-0.5m @0.5-0.75 m 4.0.75-1.0 m @1.0-2.0m 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 LMW PAHs Normalized by TOC WEST REF 26A 19A ® A e 17A o@® 18A @WESTREF @0-0.5m @0.5-0.75 m A0.75-1.0m @1.0-2.0m 40000 60000 100000 120000 LMW PAHs Normalized by TOC 80000 Figure 4-14. Concentrations of HMW versus LMW PAHs normalized by TOC in Seawolf Mound and WEST REF sediment samples shown in relation to (A) sample depth and to (B) radial zone. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 137 The greatest total PAH concentration, 1060 g/kg, occurred in the Outer Zone in the 1-1.7 m sample of Core 17A, indicating an elevation in the ambient eastern Long Island Sound sediments (possibly related to historic dredged material disposal) occurring below a CDM layer of at least 1.0m. The Middle Zone long Core 19A, located on the edge of the UDM deposit, may have contained small amounts of UDM in the 0.5—1.0 m section as indicated by the slightly higher normalized PAH levels than present at the reference station (Figure 4-14). Although the long core from the Inner Zone (Core 23A) had visually apparent UDM, the normalized PAH concentrations were consistent with other measured values (Figure 4-14). In long Core 23A, the section below 110 cm was described as black, oily fine sand, and both samples below 75 cm had high TOC concentrations (>5.5%). The 1-2 m depth interval contained 20% gravel content, 37% sand, and only a 43% silt and clay fraction. Core 23A was the longest (3 m) and yet did not appear to contain ambient sediments. The PAH concentrations were rather low in the 0.5-0.75 m interval of Core 23A and increased with depth. The cumulative evidence of increasing PAH concentrations, high TOC, and an atypical grain size distribution suggested that long Core 23A did penetrate into UDM. To summarize the chemistry and physical characteristics of the cores taken from the Seawolf Mound, in all samples between the surface and 50 cm depth intervals in the cores, metal and PAH concentrations were comparable to CDM material and in two cases marginally higher than Reference area values for metals normalized to grain size (Cores 3A and 14B). The long cores did not sample any material with strongly elevated chemistry values, but changes in grain size, TOC, appearance and chemistry indicated two cores that may have sampled UDM (Cores 19A and 23A) and a third core (Core 17A) may have been influenced by historic contamination in the existing, pre-Seawolf sediments. In each of these cores, the elevated chemical concentrations were found at depths below 50 cm. The data from 1997 and 1998 were very consistent and indicate that the sediments on the surface of the Seawolf Mound were not elevated in contaminants relative to the original, pre-dredged testing of the channel sediments. Where higher concentrations were found at depth in the cores (all 50 cm or deeper), there was no evidence of elevation in the top core intervals relative to other samples. The weight of the chemical evidence combined with biological and REMOTS® sediment profile images indicates that the cap was effective in isolating the underlying UDM deposits, with no evidence of mixing or release of contaminants into the surface sediments. Furthermore, the chemistry data clearly showed a minimum of 50 cm of suitable material covering the mound at all sites cored. In the case of the long cores, the capping material was shown to be much thicker (1.6 to 2.0 m thick in 1997, 0.5-2.0 m thick in 1998). The results of the core analyses support a conclusion that the Seawolf Mound was capped with at least 50 cm of material, and this cap material was effective in consolidating and isolating the underlying UDM material. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 138 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The New London Disposal Site (NLDS) monitoring results from 1992-1998 provide a time-series of observations of individual mounds and the site as a whole, including reference areas. This time-series provides insights into physical and biological processes and any potential environmental impacts from the disposal of dredged material at the site. We include general conclusions for the site as a whole in this report for convenience; the results for some of these conclusions were presented and discussed in Volume I (SAIC 2001). The current report (Volume II) presented and discussed results from surveys conducted at the U.S. Navy Seawolf Mound from 1995-1998. This section provides conclusions both for the site and the Seawolf Mound (and recommendations for site management). 5.1 Overview of NLDS Monitoring e A dredged material management strategy has been successfully developed for NLDS that takes into account regional influences over the site as well as site-specific constraints on dredged material disposal. This strategy has incorporated the use of off- site reference areas to determine regional effects on the site. It also uses preexisting disposal mounds, and a planned placement of mounds to form a "ring of mounds," that will both contain the spread of dredged material on the seafloor and allow unacceptably contaminated dredged material (UDM) to be capped. e The stability of historic disposal mounds at the NLDS has remained the same over at least the last twenty years, indicating a stabilization of the mass of material at the disposal site, despite sorting and winnowing of surficial fine-grained material. There is strong evidence of stability of deposits placed at NLDS as much as twenty to thirty years ago (NL-RELIC, NL-I, -I, -Il and -TR). e All areas surveyed during this period showed evidence of healthy, stable benthic communities and rapid recolonization of dredged material following disposal activities. e Biological activity had a strong seasonal impact on surface sediments. Widespread settlement and growth of tube-building organisms during spring and summer promoted deposition of fine-grained sediment on the surface of NLDS. Senescence or migration of these organisms during the fall and winter caused decomposition of tubes and removal of fines and tubes leaving coarser sediment on the surface. e Physical and biological monitoring data from the NLDS were consistent with a model of seasonal winnowing of surficial fine-grained material. This process serves to armor the Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 139 disposal mounds with a surficial scour lag deposit providing a mechanism for long-term stabilization of the mounds. e Reference areas reflected conditions throughout eastern Long Island Sound including: seasonal responses to biological and physical processes and apparent impacts of low dissolved oxygen or organic enrichment. All reference areas supported stable, healthy benthic communities. 5.2 U.S. Navy Seawolf Mound e The U.S. Navy Seawolf Mound was found to be a flat, circular deposit with a diameter of approximately 600 m. Peak heights of a small central apex extended 1-2 m above a large flat plateau and a relatively narrow apron. The Seawolf Mound (minimum elevation 16 m) is a few meters lower than the NL-RELIC Mound (minimum elevation 13.5 m) that lies immediately to the east. e The Seawolf Mound was formed from five distinct disposal events resulting in a thick sediment cap (CDM) over a discrete mound of unsuitable dredged material (UDM). The CDM to UDM ratio was 1.82:1.0, providing a substantial volume of capping material composed of improvement dredging material from the Thames River channel (Gardiner’s Clay) and sandy sediments from the outer channel. 1997 The survey conducted in 1997 achieved the following five objectives: e Assess the benthic recolonization status of the Seawolf Mound relative to the three reference areas surrounding NLDS. Sediment profile images showed the widespread presence of improvement material (gray Gardiner’s clay) that was serving to cover and stabilize the mound surface. The presence of this non-marine, glacially-derived plastic clay may have slowed somewhat the normal rate of recolonization. The successional stage of the Seawolf Mound during the 1997 survey was predominantly Stage II, based on both REMOTS® and benthic taxonomic data showing the numerical dominance of Nucula annulata and tubicolous polychaetes. Although the OSI values were more variable than those at the reference areas (range +5.0 to +10.0), the average OSI value for the Seawolf Mound (+6.1) was similar to the reference area average (+6.7). The presence of non-marine, glacially-derived plastic clay at NLDS and other disposal sites monitored under the DAMOS program (e.g., Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site) requires minor adjustment of the normal recolonization paradigm because of the lack of organic matter in such clays. As ambient sediments accumulate and are worked into the clay, normal recolonization will proceed. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 140 e Collect cores along the cross-sections of the Seawolf Mound to assess the physical and chemical composition of the sediments to verify the presence of at least 50 cm of cap material. The thickness and lateral coverage of the capping material was confirmed with sediment cores and sediment profile image surveys. Cores revealed that the cap was at least 50 cm thick throughout the area sampled and may have reached 2-3 meters near the center of the mound. Core data indicated that the top 50-cm of material had no elevated levels of chemical contaminants that would indicate the presence of contaminated UDM. None of the analytical samples recovered from the cores collected in 1997 had contaminant levels consistent with UDM. One core did recover material below 2 m that appeared oily, and consistent with UDM. e Examine the benthic infaunal species diversity and relative abundance over the surface of the Seawolf Mound through analysis of six sediment grab samples. Benthic analysis of samples collected in September 1997 indicated that the Seawolf Mound was in the intermediate stages of recolonization, with abundances of organisms increasing with distance from the center of the mound. Species diversity, as calculated by the Shannon-Wiener index H’, ranged from 2.65 to 4.10. Evenness, as calculated by the Shannon-Wiener index J’, ranged from 0.48 to 0.82. The low diversity value was attributed to the dominant presence of the bivalve, Nucula annulata. The diversity at Station CTR was relatively high considering the low abundance of individuals. The high diversity relative to low species abundance is indicative of an early stage of succession (Pearson and Rosenberg 1978). The use of standard benthic parameters (species richness, abundance, OSI, diversity) provided a useful comparison with reference areas and seasonal patterns. REMOTS? results were consistent with benthic data, except for a difference at the Seawolf Mound center station that was due to slower than expected recolonization of the Gardiner’s clay. Community analysis is a suitable second tier evaluation to provide additional interpretation of REMOTS*® results e Perform a detailed master bathymetric survey of the region surrounding NLDS as defined by the 1982 FPEIS The master bathymetric survey demonstrated that the configuration of disposal mounds at the NLDS has remained stable over at least the last twenty years (see above and Volume I). The 1997 master bathymetric survey provides a detailed benchmark for future studies of dredged material disposal and consolidation processes. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 14] e Document and delineate the changes in bottom topography (accumulation and consolidation) in the areas of concentrated disposal since August 1995. The large volume of capping material at the Seawolf Mound produced consolidation of the underlying UDM through a process observed in other mounds (Poindexter-Rollings 1990; Silva et al. 1994). This combination of self-weight consolidation and overburden from the cap sediments typically proceeds rapidly for the first nine months to a year after capping is completed and then decreases to a very slow rate over subsequent years until equilibrium is reached. In the case of the Seawolf Mound, consolidation of the entire mound was as much as 2 m (about 50% by volume), equivalent to the initial thickness of the cap. These volumetric changes were confirmed by long cores recovered from the center of the mound. 1998 The follow-up monitoring in 1998 required by the Navy’s Seawolf Program Monitoring Plan achieved the following three main objectives: e Assess Further Consolidation of the Seawolf Mound Dredged Material The lack of significant topographic change between the 1997 and 1998 surveys indicated that the Seawolf Mound completed the rapid phase of consolidation, and was in the phase of limited, slow (secondary) consolidation. Tiered monitoring protocols, as well as historical evidence from open-water disposal mounds, predict that the mound will remain stable. Should a large storm occur in the eastern Sound, a follow-up, confirmatory bathymetric survey should be conducted. Almost 2.5 years after capping was concluded, the bathymetric configuration of the Seawolf Mound continued to depict a broad, flat topography with a small central apex, large plateau, and surrounding apron. e Verify the Presence of at Least 50 cm of Capping Dredged Material (CDM) Core data again indicated that the top 5O-cm of material had no elevated levels of chemical contaminants that would indicate the presence of contaminated UDM. The long core collected in the inner zone (Core 23A) indicated approximately 1.1 m of CDM overlying UDM, which was similar to the depth in the previous year near the same location on the apex (Core 10A, 1.8 m of CDM). The PAH levels in the deepest samples of core 23A, and the 0.5-0.75 m sample in 19A, also suggested the possible presence of recovered UDM, although PAH concentrations alone were not diagnostic of CDM/UDM materials. Two cores clearly recovered ambient material: Core 17A in the outer zone below 2.2 m, and short Core 21A. Core 21A was located near the outer edge of the cap and had physical properties consistent with the reference area. There was no consistent difference in sediment Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 142 physical characteristics or contaminant concentrations on the plateau away from the center apex of the mound, most likely due to the widely distributed CDM disposal locations. Total organic carbon concentrations of >5% were all located in the inner zone cores, but there was no similar pattern to the measured organic contaminants. e Evaluate Benthic Conditions and Recolonization Sediment profile images continued to show the widespread presence of improvement material (gray Gardiner’s clay) that was serving to cover and stabilize the mound surface. The presence of this non-marine, glacially-derived plastic clay continued to slow somewhat the normal rate of recolonization. The successional stage of the Seawolf Mound during the 1998 survey did show signs of advancement since 1997, with a combination of Stage II, Stage II, and Stage II on Il seres. Stage III feeding voids were visible in areas of gray clay, suggesting some biological breakdown near the sediment surface. Patchy sulfidic sediments were observed in sediment- profile photographs collected over the apex and plateau of the mound. Some sulfidic sediment was also seen on the apron of the mound and was similar to sediments seen in some of the replicates from the NEREF reference area. The sulfidic sediments may have acted to decrease sediment dissolved oxygen levels and hinder recolonization rates at some stations of the Seawolf Mound in 1998. The surface sediments of the Seawolf Mound showed evidence of current winnowing within the top 3 cm, manifested by the presence of disturbed amphipod mats, armoring by shell hash, and sand-over-mud topography, consistent with 1997 results, results from surveys over the past two decades, and predictions from physical oceanographic measurements conducted in a separate study (Waddell et al. 2001). 5.3 Recommendations e Continue to monitor the benthic recolonization on the surface of the mound to provide long-term response to glacial clays in the estuarine environment. e Future surveys at NLDS could optimally be scheduled after benthic recruitment has begun (early June) but before mid-August when tube mats appear to senesce. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 143 6.0 REFERENCES Blake, J. A.; Williams, I. P. 1997. New London Seawolf Disposal Mound Benthic Survey: September 1997. Submitted to Science Applications International Corporation, Newport, RI. Carey, D. A. 1998. Long Island Sound Dredged Material Management Approach. A study report prepared for State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Long Island Sound Programs, Hartford, CT. 189p, Separate Appendices. Chang, S.; Steimle, F. W.; Reid, R. N.; Fromm, S. A.; Zdanowicz, V. S.; Pikanowski, R. A. 1992. Association of benthic macrofauna with habitat types and quality in the New York Bight. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 89: 237-251. Fauchald, K.; Jumars, P. A. 1979. The diet of worms: a study of polychaete feeding guilds. Oceanography Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 17: 193-284. Fredette, T. J. 1994. Disposal site capping management: New Haven Harbor. Reprinted from Dedging’94, Proceedings of the Second International Conference, November 13-16, 1994. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. Germano, J. D.; Rhoads, D. C.; Lunz, J. D. 1994. An integrated, tiered approach to monitoring and management of dredged material disposal sites in the New England region. DAMOS Contribution No. 87 (SAIC Report No. 7575&234). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. Germano, J. D.; Parker, J.; Eller, C. F. 1995. Monitoring cruise at the New London Disposal Site, June-July 1990. DAMOS Contribution No. 93 (SAIC Report No.- 90/7599&C93). US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. Johnson, H. D.; Baldwin, C. T. 1986. Shallow Siliciclastic Seas. In: Reading, H. G., ed. Sedimentary Environments and Facies. 2" Edition. Oxford : Blackwell. Pp. 229-282 Knebel, H. J.; Signell, R. P.; Rendigs, R.R.; Poppe, L.J.; List J.H. 1999. Seafloor environments in Long Island Sound estuarine system. Marine Geology 155, 277-318. Maguire Group, Inc. 1995. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Seawolf class submarine homeporting on east coast of the United States. Submitted to Department of the Navy, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Norfolk, VA. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 144 Maurer, D.; Robertson, G.; Gerlinger. T. 1993. San Pedro Shelf California: Testing the Pearson- Rosenberg Model (PRM). Mar. Env. Res. 35: 303-321. Morton, R. W.; Parker, J. H.; Paquette, G. D. 1985. Investigation of reported dredged material deposits northeast of the New London Disposal Site, January 1985. SAIC Report No. SAIC-85/7500&67. Final report submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. Murray, P. M. 1995. DAMOS reference area data analysis. SAIC Report No. 357, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. Murray, P. M.; Selvitelli, P. 1996. DAMOS navigation and bathymetry standard operating procedures. SAIC Report No. 290. Draft report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. Naval Underwater Systems Center (NUSC). 1979. Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) annual data report-1978. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. New England River Basins Commission (NERBC). 1980. Interim plan for the disposal of dredged material from Long Island Sound. New England River Basins Commission. Boston, MA. Pp. 1-55. Parker, J. H.; Revelas, E. C. 1989. Monitoring surveys at the New London Disposal Site, August 1985-July 1986. DAMOS Contribution No. 60 (SAIC Report No. SAIC- 86/7540&C60). US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. Pearson, T.H.; Rosenberg, R. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanog. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 16: 229-311. Poindexter-Rollings, M. E. 1990. Methodology for analysis of subaqueous sediment mounds. Tech. Report D-90-2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Rhoads, D. C.; Germano, J. D. 1990. The use of REMOTS® imaging technology for disposal site selection and monitoring, In, Geotechnical Engineering of Ocean Waste Disposal (K. Demars and R. Chaney, eds.) ASTM Symposium Volume, January 1989, Orlando, Fla., pp. 50-64. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 SAIC. SAIC. SAIC. SAIC. SAIC. SAIC. 145 1990a. Monitoring cruise at the New London Disposal Site, July 1987. DAMOS Contribution No. 66 (SAIC Report No. SAIC-88/7511&C66). US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. 1990b. Capping survey at the New London Disposal Site, February 3, 1989. DAMOS Contribution No. 71 (SAIC Report No. SAIC-89/7554-C76). US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. 1990c. Monitoring cruise at the New London Disposal Site, August 1988. DAMOS Contribution No. 77 (SAIC Report No. SAIC-89/7557&C77). US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. 1995a. Sediment capping of subaqueous dredged material disposal mounds: an overview of the New England experience. DAMOS Contribution No. 95. (SAIC Report No. SAIC-90/7573&C84). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. 1995b. Monitoring cruise at the New London Disposal Site, June 1991. DAMOS Contribution No. 96 (SAIC Report No. SAIC-92/7622&C101). US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. 2001. Monitoring at the New London Disposal Site 1992-1998. Volume I. DAMOS Contribution No. 128 (SAIC Report No. 515). US Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA. Sanders, H.L., 1960. Benthic studies in Buzzards Bay, II; The structure of the soft bottom community: Limnol. Oceanogr. 3:138-153. Sanders, H. L. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. American Naturalist, 102: 243-282. Signell, R. P.; Knebel, H. J.; List, J. H.; Farris, A. S. 1998. Physical processes affecting the sedimentary environments of Long Island Sound. In: Spaulding , M.; Blumberg, A. F. (Eds.); Proceedings, 5" International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 400-412. Silva, A.J., H.G. Brandes, C.J. Uchytil, T.J. Fredette, and D.A. Carey. 1994. Geotechnical analysis of capped dredged material mounds. In: McNair, E.C. Jr. (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Placement, Vol. I. Lake Buena Vista, FL., Nov 13-16, 1994. Amer. Soc. Civ. Eng., New York, pp. 411-419. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 146 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. 1982. Final programmatic environmental impact statement for the disposal of dredged material in the Long Island Sound region. Waltham, MA. USEPA. 1997. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods SW- 846 Third Edition, Update 3. Valente, R. M. 1998. August 1998 Baseline REMOTS® survey of HARS Remediation Cells 1, 2, and 3. SAIC Report No. 451. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. Contract No. DACW51-97-D-0014. Waddell, E. V.; Hamilton, P.; Carey, D. A.; Morris, J. T.; Kincaid, C.; Daleo, W. 2001. Observations of physical oceanographic conditions at the New London Disposal Site, 1997-1998. DAMOS Contribution No. 130. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA. Wentworth, C. K. (1922). A scale of grade and class terms of clastic sediments. J. Geo. 30:377-390. Monitoring Cruise at the New London Disposal Site, Seawolf Mound 1995 — 1998 Appendix A Disposal Logs i - all oa ‘ ‘ic ‘ a ‘ PE ay i ; y in Ati nih i ari ri abun LiNca As gma SN Nites 9 At CI iI teen eal em eo parrot ada ~ aan [hee RY Pk OL IA IPR Rel pasate See Fl teen Rie nny" a act or \ rout a ha : Day i! “3 PAL LS Dah iRneals: Dene 5: eae ca Tania Wi ote, Wieveical Vad 5 rod yo iste. Eisen <4 Meee eat iM } hil OS ee pubes) take VA TOE neha | LTS Dee SAL Pee isnt MSL Peer Tea ais 20 Mie vem '¥ onkract No, DAC WED? 2G 6, A, xibasqy A, bats Bie WS y bos i y ‘acne uy ede a Gh heat le cB {. Biche Pa we, Gann) a ae 4 « rene , thy heey piney Ion ge ta Ldneetven er! ai \ be ita F Serf ose 02 ere v el BEe9l Ly ooe SC 6e6 Py el eSe'9l by Oo€ 02 Le6'b el v6E'9L ly 00€ S e647 ol 8E'91 ly OO€ Sk LE6Ps cL 8E 91 ly o0€ SC SE6'y el 99691 IP ose SC SE6'P eZ 99E'91 ly ose 001 Le6v cL SSE9L Ly oo€ Ol Leo ol p6E 91 Ip ose Sb Le6'b el v6E'9L Ip os¢ OL le6P cL se ol lp ose 0S Se6'b cL 99E°9L Ip OO€ 02 Le6'p (qa ge'9l LY yid AONsds NINSNOT zeecep 4 Aong G6 VON ou) Je payisodap jevayew ple, yor, Siamelg JO SLUN|OA 00zS epA Aong S6 VGN eu) Je peysodap jeueyew ped }YyORA SIaMaIg JO BLIN|OA 8ee'9l BE 9L BEE 9L 8E°91 99691 8E 91 8E 91 99€°91 99e°91 69€°91 ese ol ese 91 ese 9l 996 91 99€°91 90261 8E 91 99E°91 yid AONsus NIWSNOT Ong S6 VGN eu} te payisodep jeuajyew pied jyORA SIaMalg JO BLIN|O/A spA Aong S6 WGN eu) ye payisodep jeueyew pied JYORA SIBMAIg JO BUIN|OA sse9oL 8ee'ol see Ol See 91 yid_ AONsus _NIWSNOT 96-G04-c2 96-Ge4-1L2 96-994-02 96-494-61 96-424-S1 96-994-F1 96-G24-E1 96-494-6 96-994-8 96-494-2 96-994-9 96-494-¢ 96-4e3-1 96-993-10 96-uer-Le 96-UeP-O€ 96-Uel-6c 96-uUeL-9¢ 96-UeL-Ec 96-URL-22 96-uer-6 1 96-ueP-9} 96-uer-S} 96-uet-F} 96-uel-ct 96-uef-Lt 96-uef-O1 96-uer-6 96-uep-9 96-ueL-p $3-98Q-0E S6-998q-8¢ S6-990-20 $6-99q-€ S6-AON-O€ S6-AON-22e S6-AON-S¢e Alvadsid VWsuVvdSsid SG1N SC1N SIN SC1N SIN SGIN SGN SGIN SGIN SG1N SGN SG1N SGIN DSSG9NO1 NIWLV? S3GLvV1 ALlvddSid WauvdSsid 530G9NO1 NIWLV1? DS3adlv1 aslvddsid VWsuVvdSId 10 OILSAW ‘Y3AIY OLLSAW 19 OLLSAW ‘H3AIY OLLSAW 10 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OLLSAW 10 OILSAW ‘HSAIY OILSAW 10 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OILSAN 10 OLLSAW ‘H3AIY OILSAW 19 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OILSAW 10 SILSAW ‘H3AIY OILSAW 10 OILSAW ‘H3AIY DILSAW 10 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OLLSAW 10 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OLLSAN LO OILSAW ‘Y3AIY OLLSAW 10 OILSAW 'Y3AIY OLLSAW 193fOud 190 OLLSAW ‘H3AIY OLLSAW 19 OLLSAW ‘H3AIY OLLSAW, 10 OLLSAW ‘HAI OLLSAN 10 OILSAW ‘Y3AIY OLLSAW 10 OLLSAW ‘HSAIY OLLSAIN 10 OILSAW ‘HAY OLLSAN 10 OILSAW ‘Y3AIY OLLSAW 10 OILSAW ‘Y3AIY OLLSAW 10 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OILSAW 19 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OLLSAW 190 OILSAW ‘Y3AIY OILSAW 19 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OLLSAW 10 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OLLSAW 10 OLLSAW 'YH3AIY OILSAW 10 OILSAW 'Y3AIY OLLSAW 10 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OILSAW 10 OILSAW 'H3AIY OLLSAW 10 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OLLSAW L9o35fOud 10 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OILSAW 19 OILSAW ‘Y3AIY DILSAW 19 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OLLSAW LO OILSAW ‘Y3AIY OLLSAW i193roud OLLSAW LY GHVA LHOVA S.\WSMAYa OILSAW LV GYVA LHOVA S.\HAM3YHE OILSAW LV GYVA LHOVA S.\WSM3ua8 OILSAW LV GHYVA LHOVA S.\WSM3u8 OILLSAW LY GHVA LHOVA S.WSM3Ya OILSAW LV GHVA LHOVA S.YSM3ua OLLSAW LV GHVA LHOVA S.WSaM3u8 OILSAW LV GHYVA LHOVA S.WSM3ua OILLSAW LV GHVA LHOVA S.YSM4u8 OILSAW LV GYVA LHOVA S.\WSaM3eHa8 OILSAW LY GHVA LHOVA S.WSM3uYa SILSAW LY GHVA LHOVA S.WSM3YH8 OILSAW LY GYVA LHOVA S.\YSM3u98 SALLINGAd OILSAW LV GHVA LHOVA S.YSMsu8 OILSAW LV GHYVA LHOVA S.WSaMsua OILSAW LV GYVA LHOVA S.HAaMsAuS OILSAW LV GHVA LHOVA S.\WSM3Ya8 OILSAW LY GHVA LHOVA S.\WSM3ua OLLSAW LV GYVA LHOWA S.HSM3Y8 OILSAW LV GHVA LHOVA S.WSM3Y48 OILSAW LV GHVA LHOVA S.WSM4ua SILSAW LV GHVA LHOVA S.WS3M4ua OILSAW LY GHVA LHOVA S.YSM3ua OILSAW LY GHVA LHOVA S.WSM3ua8 OILSAW LV GHYVA LHOVA S.WSaM3ua SILSAW LV GHVA LHOVA S.W3M34u8 OILSAW LV GHVA LHOVA S.\HaM3YHa8 OILSAW LV GYVA LHOVA S.H3M3xa8 OILSAW LV GYVA LHOVA S.WSM3Y48 SILSAW LV QHYVA LHOVA S.WSM3ua OILSAW LV GYVA LHOVA S.\WSM3u4a8 Sa LLWYAd OILSAW LV GYVA LHOVA S.\YSM3Ha ODILSAW LV GHVA LHOVA S.Y3M3u8 ODILSAW LY GYVA LHOVA S.WSM3ua OILSAW LV GHVA LHOVA S.YSM3ua SS LLIWNYAd SAGSNOT NINLV] S301lV1 el Aong S6 VON 94) Je payisodap jeuayew pied jYyORA SIamag JO AWNIOA [e101 ePA Aong S6 VGN 8u) Je payisodap jeuayew pied JYORA SJemalg JO BUNIOA [e}O] Ong G6 VGN 24) Je payisodap jevayew pied joe A Slamolg JO OUN|O/\ ePA_Aong S6 VON 9u) 18 pelisodap jeusyew pie, jyOeA Siemaig JO EUINjoA, SE6'b Se6'p €v6'b 6E6'7 £r6'b SE6'p le6'p 6E6'P 6E6'¢ ere py 6E6'7 Ev6 ere vy Le6'b SE6'b el el eZ el el el eZ cL eZ el eZ eZ eZ eZ ol 99€°91 99E°91 Bee 9l eSe9l SEE 91 99€°91 8e'91 eSe9ol ese ol 8Ee'91 ese ol BEE OL 8Ee'9l v6E9L 99E°91 ly Lp Lp Ip Lp ly lp ly lp Ip lp lp Ip Lp ly Q6-EW-LL 96-AEW-Z 96-JEW-9 96-42N-9 96-EW-S 96EW-P Q64EW-P 96-JEW-L 96-94-62 96-494-82 96-994-82 96-94-22 96-q94-92 96-994-b2 96-994-€2 SGIN SCN SGN SG1N SGN SQ1N SGN SC1N SGN SG1N SG1N SG1N SGN SG1N SG1N 19 OILSAW 'H3AIY OILSAW 19 OILSAW ‘Y3AIY OLLSAW 19 OLLSAW ‘Y3AIY OILSAW 19 SILSAW ‘Y3AIY OLLSAW 19 OILSAW ‘Y3AIY OLLSAW 19 OILSAW 'H3AIY OILSAW 19 OILSAW 'Y3AIY OLLSAW 19 OILSAW ‘Y3AIY OILLSAW 19 OILSAW 'Y3AIY OLLSAW 19 SILSAW 'H3AIY OILSAW 19 SILSAW ‘H3AIY OILSAW 19 SILSAW 'H3AIY OILSAW 19 OILSAW ‘H3AIY OLLSAW 19 OILSAW ‘HSAIY OILSAW 10 SILSAW ‘Y3AIY OILSAW OILSAW LY GHVA LHOWA S.YaM3Ya SILSAW LY GYVA LHOVA S.YS3M3Ya SILSAW LV GHYVA LHOVA S.Y3M3YHa OILSAW LY GHVA LHOVA S.YAM3YE OILSAW LV GYVA LHOVA S.\WS3M3ua SILSAW LY GHVA LHOVA S.\WAM3SYa SJILSAW LY GHVA LHOVA S.W3M3ua SILSAW LV GHYVA LHOVA S.YSM3Y4a OSILSAW LV GHYVA LHOVA S.YSM3YHE OILSAW LV GHVA LHOVWA S.YSM3Ha SILSAW LV GHVA LHOVA S.W3M3Ya SILSAW LY GYVA LHOVA S.YAM3Ya SILSAW LY GYVA LHOVA S.\WS3M3Ya8 SILSAW LV GHYVA LHOVA S.WSM3YS OILSAW LV GYVA LHOVA S.YS3M3Y4a S6-VON S6-VON S6-VON S6-VON S6-VON S6-VON S6-VON S6-VON S6-VON S6-VON S6-VON S6-VON S6-VON S6-VON S6-VON L6°E1e'S 0s6'9 ew Aong S6 WON 2u) Je payisodap jeuayew s0qie} URNaUa/ JO BUN|OA |e}OL ePA Aong S6 WON 2} Je paysodap jeuayew Joquepyy UeENaUAaA JO BWIN|OA |E}OL 96-924-10 wW AON S6 VON 28) Je payisodeap jeUayewW JOqIe}] UBNBUS/ jO BUN|OA epA Aong S6 VON eu) Je payisodap jeuayew soqe}Y UBNaUaA JO BUIN|OA S6-980-€2 $6-99q-22 S6-99Q-61 S6-98Q-81 S6-99q-81 S6-99Q-21 S$6-99Q-Z1 S$6-99Q-91 S6-99Q-91 S$6-99Q-SL S6-99Q-rL $6-99Q-v1 S6-99Q-E1 S6-99Q-E1 $6-99Q-80 S$6-989-80 S6-999-20 AONsus NINDSNOT S3SG9SNO1 NIWLV? S30dLlv1 AlvddSid) vauvdSid S6-99q-20 Ong S6 VON eu} Je payisodep jeveyew JoqJey] UENaUaA JO OWIN|OA ePA Ang $6 WGN ey) Je Peysodep jejeyew Joe} UBN}EUaA JO OLUN|OA yId S$6-99Q-20 $6-98q-90 S$6-929-90 S$6-99Q-SO S$6-99-SO S6-990-40 AONnsys NINDNOT S3GSNO7 NIWLY] S30Lv1 ALlvddsid vwauvdSId Baly 199[Old JJOMEAS ayy 40AO0 AaAins d4jawWAUeg ded}sog HOSHYVH NVILANSA YOSHYVH NVILANSA HOSHVH NVILSNSA YOSHVH NVILANSA YOSHVH NVILSANSA YOSHYVH NVILANSA HOSHVH NVILANSA HOSHYVH NVILSNSA YOSHYVH NVILSANSA HOSHYVH NVILSNSA YOSHVH NVILANSA YOSHYVH NVILSANSA YOSHYVH NVILSNSA YOSHYVH NVILANSA YOSHYVH NVILANSA YOSHVH NVILANSA YOSYVH NVILANSA 193r0ud YOSHVH NVILANSA YOSHVH NVILANSA HOSYVH NVILANSA HOSUYVH NVILANSA YOSHVH NVILANSA YOSHYVH NVILANSA 193f0ud JOSSV LNIOd SNOT NOLOYHD SOSSV LNIOd SNO1 NOLOYD SOSSV LNIOd SNO1 NOLOYS 90SSV LNIOd SNO1 NOLOYD 9O0SSV LNIOd SNO1 NOLOYD OO0SSV LNIOd SNO1 NOLOYD SOSSV LNIOd SNO1 NOLOYS 9O0SSvV LNIOd SNO1NOLOYD 9O0SSvV LNIOd SNOT NOLOYS SOSSV LNIOd SNOT NOLOYD SOSSvV LNIOd NNO1 NOLOYD 9OSSV LNIOd SNO1NOLOYD 9O0SSV LNIOd DNO1 NOLOYD 9OSSV LNIOd SNO1 NOLOYD 9OSSV LNIOd SNO1NOLOYD OOSSV LNIOd SNO1 NOLOYD SOSSV LNIOd SNO1NOLOYS 33LLINYAd 9OSSV LNIOd NNO1NOLOYD 9OSSV LNIOd SNO1NOLOYD OOSSV LNIOd SNOT NOLOYD SOSSV LNIOd SNOT NOLOYD SOSSV LNIOd SNO1NOLOYSD SOSSV LNIOd SNO1NOLOYD S3LLIWYSd cu Aong Anen ay) ye payisodap jeuajyew yodeas onsAy jo awNjoA je}OL s—PA Aong Anen au) ye payisodap jeuayew podeas onsAyy jo awNjOA JeIOL ong AAeN au} ye payisodap jeuayew yodeas onsAy jo awNnjoA sPA Aong Aren ay) ye payisodap jeuayew podeas onsAy jo awnjon t= He) 4691 2Z6r91 26¢°91 Z6y'91 AONdys NINDNOT S3SGDNO7 NINLV1 DS3dLv1 S6-99q-20 S6-AON-90 S6-AON-2O S6-AON-10 S6-190- LE dlvddsid wauvdSid Badly YDa[Ojd JjOME|S UY} JB9AO AaAINS d)4aWAYeg desaid YSAIY OILSAW YSAIY OILLSAW Y3AIY OILSAW YAAIY OILSAW 1L93fr0ud WNASNW LYOdVAS OILSAW AAVN'S'N WNASNW LYOdVAS OILSAW AAVN'S'N WNASNW LYOdVAS OILSAW AAVN'S'N WNASSNW LYOdVAS OILSAW AAVN'S'N SS LLIWYSd 99°EpS'be ooL‘'ze TOAAD MS zzzzz2z2z2z2z222z2uz2uz32F5332 yYid AONays NINSNOT DS30DNO71 NINLV? S30lv1 sALvddsid sw Aong Ane oy) 38 peysodep jeveyew Z| 181g AABN Sf) JO OWN/OA [e}0L spA Aong Abn 6u) 38 pey!sodep jeueyew Z| Je1q AABN Sf] JO EUN|OA 1210) 888'y 888'r peer 9L8'b 9L8'b 928'y 88 sey v88'y OLB OLB v88'y 9L8'¢ 9L8'F ves'y y98'y cLey v8s'y sey 888'p 288°p veer y88'y ces y yes 198° pee'y cay ces cee'y 918'b cep 4 cay cee y cee y ceey ces y e8'y ces y el ol eZ eZ eZ ol el cL cl cL cL cL cL ol cL cl el el el eZ el eZ cL el eZ ol ol cL eZ eZ eZ cL cL el eZ eZ eZ el ol el 9Sp'9l 9Sp'9OL dyoL 8Sp'9Ol 8SP'9l 8Sp'°9L dv'9l 9Sp9L Zyol e8Sr9l 8Sr'9l Lyol 8Sp'9l 8SP'9L Ly9l 19p'9l ely ot dy ol Zyol 9Sp'9L LLE9L Lv 9l Ly ol v6b 91 eer Ot 88 91 €8p Ol Z6p'91 v6 OL v6p'9L LLS'OL LZ6y'91 2691 L6y'91 v6r 91 v6r 91 v6y 91 v6r 91 €8¢'9l v6r'9l LY bY bp Ly Ly IY IP Lp Lp Lp Ly ly lp ly ly ly ly ly lp LY LP Ly Lp Lp Lp Ly Ly lp Lp Ip Ip ly ty by by LY Ip IY ty LY S6-990-20 S6-AON-0€ S6-AON-62 S6-AON-82 S6-AON-82 S6-AON-2e S6-AON-22e S6-AON-92 S6-AON-9¢ S6-AON-Se S6-AON-S2 S6-AON-¢2 S6-AON-ce S6-AON-22e S6-AON-1¢e S6-AON-02 S6-AON-0¢ S6-AON-61 S6-AON-61 S6-AON-8t S6-AON-8t S6-AON-Z1 S6-AON-91 S6-AON-94 S6-AON-EL S6-AON-FE S6-AON-OL S6-AON-OL S6-AON-60 S6-AON-60 S6-AON-60 S6-AON-80 S6-AON-80 S6-AON-20 S6-AON-90 S6-AON-90 S6-190-0€ $6-190-2e S$6-190-92 S6-90-S2 S6-190-¢¢2 SGIN SGIN SG1N SG1N SGIN SGIN SG1N SGN SGIN SIN SON SIN SGIN SQ1N SGIN SG1N SGIN SGI1N SG1N SGI1N SGIN SG1N SG1N SGIN SGIN SIN SG1N SG1N SGIN SIN SGIN SGIN SGIN SG1N SGIN SO1N SGIN SIN SGIN SGIN vauvdsid 10 ‘NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 10 ‘NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 10 ‘NOLOUWD 'H3AIN SAWVHL 10 ‘NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 10 ‘NOLOUD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 10 ‘NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSNVHL 190 ‘NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSANVHL 19 ‘NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 10 'NOLOYD ‘Y3AIW SANVHL 10 'NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 190 ‘NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSNVWHL 190 ‘NOLOWD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOLOWD ‘Y3AIY SSANVHL 10 ‘NOLOHD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 10 ‘NOLOYD ‘Y3AId SANVHL 19 ‘NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 10 ‘NOLOUD 'Y3AId SANVHL LO ‘NOLOYD ‘Y3AIN SANVHL 19 ‘NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSANVHL 19 ‘NOLOHD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 10 'NOLOYD ‘Y3AIH SAWVHL 10 ‘NOLOYD ‘Y3AIN SSWVHL 19 ‘NOLOYD 'H3AIY SANVHL 10 ‘NOLOYD ‘H3AIN SSANVHL 19 ‘NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 10 ‘NO.LOUD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOLOHD 'Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOLOYD 'H3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘'NOLOUYD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 190 'NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOLOHD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 10 ‘NOLOYDS ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 190 ‘NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 10 ‘NOLOWD ‘Y3AIH SANVHL 10 ‘NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 10 ‘NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOLOHYD 'H3AIY SSANVHL 10 ‘NOLOUD ‘Y3AIW SAWVHL 10 'NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SSAWVHL 193f0ud Zt Yald - AAVN/1d30 Zt Wald - AAVN/1d4G Zt YAld - AAWN/Ld4G Zt Wald - AAVN/1d3G Zt Wald - AAVN/1d30 Zt Yald - AAVN/1d3G Zt YAld - AAVN/1d3G Zt Wald - AAWN/1d30 Zt Wald - AAVN/1d30 Zt Yald - AAVN/1d3G Zt YaAld - AAVN/1d30 Zt YAld - AAVN/1d3G Zt Wald - AAVN/1Ld3G Zt YAld - AAVN/Ld30 Zt YAld - AAWN/Ld3d Zt Wald - AAVN/1d3G Zt Wald - AAVN/1d50 Zt Wald - AAVN/1d350 Zt Wald - AAVN/1d3G Zt YaAld - AAVN/1d3G Zt Wald - AAVN/1d30 Zt YaAld - AAVN/1d30 Zt HAld - AAVN/1d30 Zt Wald - AAVN/1d3aG Zt YAld - AAVN/1d30 Zt Wald - AAVN/1d30 Zt Yald - AAWN/1d30 Zt Wald - AAVN/1d3G Zt Wald - AAVN/1d30 Zt YAld - AAVN/Ld30 Zt YAld - AAVN/Ld3d Zt YAld - AAVN/Ld3d Zt Wald - AAVN/1d3G Zt Yald - AAVN/1d30 Zt Yald - AAVN/Ld3G Zt Wald - AAVN/1dAG Zt Yald - AAVN/1d3G Zt Yald - AAVN/1d3G Zt YAld - AAVN/1d3G Zt YAld - AAVN/1d30 S3ILLINYAd AAVN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAVN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAVN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAVN AAWN Rasy jOafold JJomeaS au 4aA0 Aanins ojawAyjeg desaig sn sn sn ‘sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn ‘sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn oot osst oset osst 0061 osst osst os8t oost oost Oozt oss Oo6t Oost 00st OsZt osst OOZt 0091 ossl oort 00st osst osst o00Zt OOLt oset osgt 0091 OSZ1 OsZt OOZt 00st oo8t OOZt Oost OoZt OsZt OSZI OOLt oort osst osst OS6t SZ8t OS6I Os6l Oo6t 0061 os6l Os6l TOAAD Sze'y M Ob S2e'p N Ob 228'b 0 See y 0 Leap N 0S Leap N Ov Leap M 02 Leap N 02 8c8 Py 0 Lear Ss 0€ 9c8 Py Ss SZ See y N OF Leavy N 0€ bc8y Ss 0c Le8'p iS) SC L£e8'b qa Ob ce s OL 928 M 02 Le8'y =] 02 ce N .0€ vS8'b | OL Icey 0 eee y iS) iS peep Ss iS vee Ss S See v N So leap Ss SE leap N 0S Leer 0 ree b 0 S8'P 0 8i8Pr 0 cay 0 Leer 0 Leer 4 02 cc8 py | 02 See y 0 pce8 by 0 Secs py 0 9¢8'y M OL Lee 0 vee M iS cay N OL Lee'v a 06 cay N og Leavy =] SZ See y M .08 Le8'y M 00t cay M 0S veep M SL pea bp uid AONeys NIWSNOT S3GDSNO1 NIWLY] D301lW1 aAlvddSsid wauvdSid (qa el el ol el eL ol cL ol ol el el el el el el ed el el el el el el ol eZ aL cL aL el eZ cL eZ cL el eZ el el cL el el cL el el el el ol el el ol aL el tos'9oL tos'9t tos'ot sol sol vos'9ot vos ol 20s 9b tOS'9} sol 86 91 96 91 €0s°9t S9L 96h 91 S691 sol 6p 91 €0S'91 tos'9t bOS'9L 6r9l €0s' 9t cos 9t tos ot bos ot €6p 91 8r 91 80S 91 GOL 8r 91 sos 9l vos 91 €0s 91 €0S 91 cos 9t cos ot bOS'9L bOS'9l tos'9oL tos ot S9l sgl Sol Ser 9l S891 8P Ol €0S 91 cos 9b tOS 91 S8r 91 WY by IP 4 by bp by ly ly by by by IP Ip IP IY by ly ly Ip Ip 4 IP IP le IP 4 Ip by lp ly by by by Ip IP ly Ip by IP 4 by IP IP IP bY bY by Ie ly by S6-PO-LE S6-O- LE S6-O- LE S6-90-1E S6-8O-lE S6-90-0€ S6-0-06 S6-8O-0E S6-YO-0€ S6-0-0£ S6-YO-0€ S6-PO-0€ S6-S0-62 S6-PO-62 S6-YO-62 S6-WO-62 S6-PO-82 S6-PO-82 S6-NO-22 S6-8O-22 S$6-9O0-L2 S6-9O-22 S6-(O-92 S6-0-92 S6-PO-92 S6-P0-92 S6-PO0-92 S6-PO-92 S6-P0-S2 S6-PO-S2 S6-PO-S2 S6-PO-be S6-PO-be S6-O-b2 S6-PO-b2e S6-PO0-E2 S6-PO-E2 S6-PO-€2 S6-PO-€2 S6-8O-E2 S6-PO-E2 S6-PO-E2 S6-PO-22 S6-PO-c2 S6-PO-22 S6-WO-22 S6-PO-22 S6-PO-12 S6-PO-12 S6-90-12 S6-PO-12 SGN SCN SGN SGN SQN SG1N SG1N SGN SG1N SGN SG1N SQN SQN SQN SJIN SGN SGN SQN SCN SGN SG1N SCN SG1N SGN SQN SQN SIN SGN SQN SG1N SG1N SGN SGN SG1N SGN SGN SCN SGN SQN SQN SCN SCN SGN Sd 1N SG1N SGN SQ1N SQN SGN SGN SQN 19 ‘NOGNOT MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3SAIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7T MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NO.LOWD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 'NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD 'Y3AIY SSWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NO.LOHD ‘H3AIH SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 2 NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AAIY SSANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7T MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M3N ® NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘'NOGNO7 MAN ? NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOHD ‘YSAIH SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 MSN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7T M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIYd SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIYd SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ? NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SANWHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 10 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NO.LOUD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOWD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ® NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOWD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 M3N 8 NOLOYD 'H3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSNVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7T M3N ? NOLOYD ‘H3AId SSANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNOT MAN ? NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNOT MAN ? NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ® NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSNVHL 419 ‘NOGNO71 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SSANVHL 19 ‘NOGNOT MAN 8 NOLOWD 'Y3AId SANVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD 'H3AIYd SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7T MAN 8 NOLOHYD 'H3AIW SAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ® NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7T MAN ® NOLOYSD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M3N ? NOLOYD 'Y3AIY SSWVHL 19 'NOGNO1 MSN 8 NOLOYD 'Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNOT MAN 8 NO.LOHD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 M&3N 8 NOLOYD 'H3AId SSAWVHL L93rOud ANOMVWAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3aG ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3ad ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G AIOMVAS - AAVN/1dS0 ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1Ld3d ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d ATOMVAS - AAVN/1Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3aG ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3ad ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1dag0 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1dad ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3ad ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3aG AIOMVWAS - AAVN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d AIOMVAS - AAWN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G0 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1Ld30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAWN/1d3G AIOMVAS - AAWN/Ld3G0 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3aG ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3aG ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d0 ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3aG ATIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAWN/1d3G ATIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G S33 LLIWYAd ost2 0022 oo8t Os6l oor OS61 OOLt 0002 oost oset 0061 osst 0061 os8t 009+ 00st OOZt OS9L osé6l 0091 OOZI OsZt oort osgt OSZI o0ct oSpt 0061 Oost OSZI 0002¢ oole osst O06+ 0061 OOZt OS61 0061 OS6L 0061 osst osgt OsZt osot 0061 oset osst OSZI 00st OS6t 00st OOZt OSZL osst MS = ca ON eacare ON) Ob 1S6'P 98'P c€8'y ses'y 48'v prey €s8'y cre 9S8'P 962 7 LSl'¢ SO8'b 928'b ves viBy 68'7 918 c€8 4 Li8'y €8'y Sigpy cley vise 8r8'y 208'¢ so8'y S8'y ves PY 618 Pb SI8y cle Py 8 ervey 6c8 608 'P cep cep 6€8' ves'y evap soB'y ces y 8I8y ese y Bley cee ¢ 828'y Le8'p sos'y c08'F c08 L08'y €c8y bee'y eZ cL cL el el el ol el el el ol ol ek el ol el el el el el el ol ol ol ol cL ol el ol eZ el el el ol eZ cL ol ol el el cL cL el ol el cL ol cL cL cL cL cL eZ el Sov ol Sep ot bLSOL 60S'°91 sgl 6y' 91 sos'9} 96791 v6y Ol 6Ly°91 69°91 yor 9l Sol Sy Ol 6ry OL Loy ol 6SP'91 8Sp 91 9S 91 Spy Ol 20s'91 90S'91 S9oL 9Lp 91 L9p'9L G9oL c8r 9 6Lb 91 Sov ol soso} €6r 91 c6p 91 ely ol v9v St vos 9 S6y91 Llp ot Sv Ol bLy 9b 99p 91 v6r'9l 891 ZLy 9b S6r 91 ver ol ely 9b €0S 9} 20s 9 66r 91 l6r'9t Ly ol €9p'9l €0S'9t bos9l by by by ly Ie ly by ly 4 by by by IY IY ty by IY IP IP ly ly by bp by by ly by IY by ly ly IP IP by 4 by IY by Ip Ip ly by 4 Ie ly ty by by by by by by by Ly S6-AON-E} S6-AON-E} S6-AON- bE S6-AON-1E S6-AON- LE S6-AON- 11 S6-AON-O1 S6-AON-OF S6-AON-OF S6-AON-OL S6-AON-OL S6-AON-OL S6-AON-60 S6-AON-60 S6-AON-60 S6-AON-60 S6-AON-80 S6-AON-80 S6-AON-80 S6-AON-80 S6-AON-20 S6-AON-2ZO S6-AON-2O S6-AON-ZO S6-AON-2O S6-AON-90 S6-AON-90 S6-AON-90 S6-AON-90 S6-AON-SO S6-AON-SO S6-AON-SO S6-AON-SO S6-AON-SO S6-AON-+0 S6-AON-¥0 S6-AON-+0 S6-AON-¢0 S6-AON-b0 S6-AON-#0 S6-AON-€0 S6-AON-€0 S6-AON-€0 S6-AON-cO S6-AON-20 S6-AON-20 S6-AON-10 S6-AON-10 S6-AON-10 S6-AON-10 S6-AON-10 S6-AON- 10 S6-PO- LE S6-PO- LE SQ1N SQN SCN Sd1N SGN SQ1N SQN SGN SGN SGN SGN SGN SG1N SGN SQN SGN SG1N SQ1N SG1N SGN SCN SGN SGN SG1N SC1N SC1N SGN SGN SG1N SG1N SG1N SC1N SG1N SGN SG1N SG1N SGN SGN SGN SGN SG1N SC1N SG1N SGN SQN SGN SGN SGN SGIN SGN STIN SGN SG1N SG1N 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ? NOLOHWD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOUD 'Y3AIy SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOHDS ‘Y3AIY SSNWHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SSNWHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ? NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SAWWHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 MAN ? NOLOHD ‘Y3AId SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SANWHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M83N 8 NOLOHD ‘H3AIY SANWHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M4N ? NOLOUD ‘Y3AIX SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 2 NOLOUD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN ? NOLOYD ‘Y3SAIY SANVHL 190 ‘NOGNO7 MSN 8 NOLOWD ‘HaAIY SSNVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 M3N 8 NOLOHD ‘H3AId SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 M3N 2 NOLOHWD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOHD ‘Y3AIy SANVHL 190 ‘NOGNO71 MAN ? NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSWVWHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 2 NOLOYD ‘H3AId SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOHD ‘H3AIY SSNWHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M&3N 8 NOLOUD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO1 M&N 8 NOLOYD 'H3AIY SAWWHL 19 'NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOHD 'H3AIY SAWWHL 410 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD 'H3AIY SAWWHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AId SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M4N 2 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M&3N 2 NOLOUD ‘H3AIY SSAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M4N 3 NOLOUD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 190 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 2 NOLOHD ‘H3AIY SSNWHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MSN 2 NOLOHDS ‘Y3AIy SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 3 NOLOYDS ‘Y3AIY SANWHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M&3N 2? NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M&3N 2 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SSNVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AId SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOUD ‘H3AIY SSWWHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 M83N 8 NOLOHD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 2 NOLOYD ‘H3AId SAWVHL 190 ‘NOGNO1 M§3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3SAIY SSWWHL 190 ‘NOGNO7 MSN 3 NOLOHD ‘H3AId SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AId SAWVHL 190 ‘NOGNO7 MSN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIW SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M&3N 2 NO.LOHD 'H3AIN SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M&4N ? NOLOHD 'H3AIY SSWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 M4N 3 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SSAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO1 M4N 8 NOLOUD ‘Y3AIX SSANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOYD 'H3AIY SSNVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 3? NOLOUD ‘Y3AIy SSAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M&3N 2 NOLOUD ‘Y3AIy SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 3 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSNVWHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN ? NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSWWHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M&3N ? NOLOYD 'H3/AIN SSAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M83N 3 NOLOHD ‘Y3AIX SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M&3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AId SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL AIOMVAS - AAWN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAWN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVWAS - AAVN/1d3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ANIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 SIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 STOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ANOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d0 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 ATOMVWAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 ATOMVAS - AAWN/1d3G ATOMVAS - AAWN/1d3d ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ldad AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1daG AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAWN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1Ldad AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1daG AAWN AAWN AAVN AAWN AAWN AAWN ANWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAVN AAWN ANWN AAWN AAWN AAVN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAVN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAVWN AAVN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAVN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAVN AAVN AAWN AAWN sn sn ‘sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn ost 0061 00st SZZt os6t SZ6t Sest O06t 006+ SLL Ossi SeZt 0061 008! OS6t osst Os61 osst 0061 osoe ee 4 OsZt 0012 0061 OS61 OSZL 00¢2 000¢ 0002 0012 ole 0002 ool oole 00¢c2 00c2 OS6L oOl2 0so2 0soe osoe 0002 O02 ooL2 osoe 0012 0002 0012 o0le OS6L 00¢2 0012 0012 002 deep S98'P S28'b 48l' esp 962'¥ el8¢ €a'y L98'b LSB S98 L498 98h 468+ sse'y 668'F 628° le8'p LO6'¥ €98'p S68 sey SO6'¥ cl8b cS8' lps 'p Ses £68 SL8'¢ cre 898° 68°F £68 vO6 P 884 v8s'y ler 6S8'P veer c88 P 6S8'p p8e'y 6S8'p 198'F 906° 6S8'P 8l8 Pr 198'P c€3 vO8' vos y 9L' 6242p ervey el eZ ol el ol eZ el eZ eZ el el el eZ eZ el ol ol ol eZ eZ eL el el el ol eZ eZ eZ el ol el el el el el el el el el el el el el el el cL ol cL el el el eZ el el Sis ol StS'9L €0S'91 sSpol bES'OL L691 SLP'9l 89r 91 esp 9 Spr ol 66 91 66 91 S8r'9l cor Ob Spot 6r'9t bZp OL yor ol 99% 91 L9P'9l 6y 91 c8r St 29p 91 S9v OL eSp ol Spr ol sgl S6r9l 6r 91 SLp ol pry ot 6r9L ply ol Sp Ol 9bP 91 Pr Ol 8cr 91 1SOL 6Lp 91 8p 91 6yr Ol . cry ol Ler ot 8r9l 6991 9791 6rr OL Spr ol ver ot ees 9 ees 9 bSOL 98r'91 8r OL by Ie Ie by 4 by IY by by by ty ty by ly Ip tp ly Ie ly by Ip by by ty ly by Ip by by bP Ib IY ty Ip Ip IP Ie bP bP bP Ip ly Ie ly ly ly Ip bp Ip 4 by by Ip by S6-AON-E2 S6-AON-E2 S6-AON-E% S6-AON-E2 S6-AON-ce S6-AON-22 S6-AON-22 S6-AON-22 S6-AON-2e S6-AON-22 S6-AON-12 S6-AON-12 GS6-AON-12 S6-AON- 12 S6-AON- 12 S6-AON-02 S6-AON-02 S6-AON-02 S6-AON-02 S6-AON-02 S6-AON-61 S6-AON-61 S6-AON-61 S6-AON-61 S6-AON-61 S6-AON-61 S6-AON-81 S6-AON-81 S6-AON-81 S6-AON-81 S6-AON-81 S6-AON-Z} S6-AON-Z1 S6-AON-Z1 S6-AON-Z1 S6-AON-Z1 S6-AON-Z1 S6-AON-91 S6-AON-9} S6-AON-91 S6-AON-91 S6-AON-91 S6-AON-9} S6-AON-S} S6-AON-#L S6-AON-F1 S6-AON-+ 1} S6-AON-FL S6-AON-F 1 S6-AON-E} S6-AON-E} S6-AON-E} S6-AON-E} S6-AON-E1 SN SQN SIN SQN SQN SQN SGN SGN SQN SGN SN SGN SQN SQN SGN SQN SG1N SG1N SG 1N SG1N SGN SGN SGN SGN SGN SGN SCN SQN SGN SGN SGN SQN SIN SGN SGN SGN SG1N SGN SG1N SQN SQN SG1N SG1N SGN SGN SN SG1N SGN SGN SG1N SG1N SGN SGN SGN 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ? NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 410 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOWD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ? NOLOUD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO1 M4N ? NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 49 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOUD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 3 NOLOWD ‘YAAIN SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ? NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 'NOGNO7 M4N 8 NOLOUD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 19 'NOGNO7T MAN 8 NOLOYDS ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 410 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ® NOLOUD ‘Y3AId SAWVHL 4190 ‘NOGNO1 MAN ? NOLOUD ‘Y3AId SAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOUD ‘Y3AIH SANVHL 19 'NOGNOT MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 'NOGNO7T MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ? NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 10 'NOGNO1 MAN ? NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7T MSN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AAIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ? NOLOHD ‘YSAIY SSAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ? NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ? NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘'NOGNO7T MAN ? NOLOHD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7T MAN ? NOLOHDS ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNOT MAN ® NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOUD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNOT MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIYd SANVHL 419 'NOGNO7T MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 'NOGNOT MAN 8 NOLOHD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 'NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYDS ‘Y3AIY SSNVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOWD ‘Y3AIY SSAWVWHL 419 ‘NOGNO1 MAN ? NOLOWD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOHYD ‘Y3AIH SAWWHL 19 ‘NOGNOT MAN ? NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7T MAN 8 NOLOHD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 'NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD 'Y3AIY SSAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MSN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 10 'NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3SAIY SAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD 'Y3SAIY SSANVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ? NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOUD ‘Y3AIH SAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 M83N 8 NOLOHD ‘Y3AIH SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN ? NOLOHD 'Y3AIY SAWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 'NOGNO1 MAN ? NOLOHD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 4190 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 3 NOLOYD ‘H3AIN SSWVHL 190 ‘NOGNOT MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 410 ‘NOGNO7 M3N ? NOLOHD ‘Y3AIH SANWHL 419 ‘NOGNO1 M4N ? NOLOYD ‘Y3AIH SAWVHL 19 'NOGNO7T M3N 8 NOLOYDS ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNOT MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 190 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIX SSWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD 'Y3AIY SAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN ? NOLOYD 'H3AIY SAWVHL AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 STOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d AIOMVAS - AAVN/1Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1Ld3G0 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ANIOMVWAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d ATIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAVNW/1d3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1Ld3G ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d ANIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3aG ANIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G AIOMVAS - AAVN/1Ld30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d ANIOMVAS - AAVN/1Ld3d0 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d ATIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3aa ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d ATIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3ad AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3a ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3aG AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d0 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1Ld30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3ad AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN ~AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAVN AAWN AAVN AAVWN AAWN AAVN AAVN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAWN AAVN sn sn ‘sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn ‘sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn sn ‘sn sn sn sn ‘sn sn sn sn sn sn sn 99°89'082 001‘Z9€ 99'¥89082 sw Aong Arey aly ye peysodap WGN sOMeaS AABN Sf JO EUIN|OA JE}OL sPA Aong Anen oy) ye paysodep WGN jlomees AreN SA JO GWN|OA [BIOL su Aong EN 84) Je paysodap WON HOMESS MeN S/N jo awWNjoA sPA Aong Anen oy) ye paysodep wan somees AneN Sf jo ewnjoA Oct 001 06 08 Ort 09 08 Sch Sch OLE OS} Olt OSt OSI 001 001 Sel Oct Olt OSI 004 ObL Olt 001 00} 02t 06 S9 Ob Olt 091 OS 001 SZ OO .06 OS bi8'y cre y 898'P v68'P cS8 py lee 8Sl Pp 828 c98'y vee by SE8'b c6L b LL ell SLB'P 98°F 808 P S6L 4 col vel b dly Le'v SLB 4 88. 4 808 'P 08 'b 8e8'P LIB’ €8ly¥ eel ¥ Bll b ol p 962 SI8y 828° l62'¢ 9EL b el el cL el cL el cL el ol cL el cL ol el eZ el el el eZ cL el el cL eZ el ol el ol ol ol ol el eZ el cL eZ eL yeS Ol 20s'91 vist LG OL Ses ot p8y 91 99¢ 91 bos 91 dtc ob vos'9l 6r 91 6Sr 91 6Lp 91 LLp'9t evor vip Ol ery ot SEp ot c6y 91 88h 91 Spy ol 90S'91 dy ol Syl vy ol 60S'91 66°91 46r91 S8r'91 OF OL Sly OL LES OL 80S'91 66¢'91 66r°91 6y9L ery ol by IY ly le by by IY Ip by Ly ly Ip IP IY IP Ip Ip by by Ip by ly IP ly ly by Ip lp by ly 4 by bP IY IP bp by S6-99q-20 $6-98q-20 S6-98q-40 S6-98q-90 S6-98Q-90 S6-98q-SO S6-98q-SO S6-98Q-SO S6-98Q-+0 S6-98Q-€0 S6-98Q-E0 S6-980-€0 S6-98Q-€0 S6-98Q-20 S6-98qQ-20 S$6-98Q-20 S6-98Q-20 S6-AON-62 S6-AON-82 S6-AON-22 S6-AON-22 S6-AON-22 S6-AON-92 S6-AON-92 S6-AON-92 S6-AON-92 S6-AON-S2 S6-AON-SZ S6-AON-SZ S6-AON-S2 S6-AON-S2 S6-AON-S2 S6-AON-b2 S6-AON-¢2 S6-AON-¢2 S6-AON-#2 S6-AON-b2 S6-AON-b2 SQN SCIN SGIN SQN SGN SGN SGN SQN SGN SQN SG1N SGN SQN SG1N SQN SG1N SQN SG1N SGN SG1N SG1N SGN SGN SGN SGN SGN SGN SGN SGN SCN SGN SG1N SQ1N SG1N SGN SGN SGN were wre ee = Bally 199[O1d JJOMES OY) 19A0 AaAiNsS oJaWAYeg dedaig 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOWD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 49 ‘NOGNOT MSN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIH SSWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7MA&N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1M&3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AId SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 3 NOLOHYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 49 ‘NOGNO1 M4N 3 NOLOHYD ‘W3AId SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOHYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 190 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD 'H3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD 'H3AIy SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 MSN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 190 ‘NOGNO17 MAN 3 NOLOUD ‘H3AIY SSAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 MA3N 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M4N 3 NOLOYD ‘d3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M43N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD 'H3AIY SSWVHL 19 'NOGNO71 MSN 3 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANWHL 419 ‘NOGNO1 MSN ® NOLOHD ‘Y3AIH SSWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO71 MAN 8 NOLOHD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO1 MAN ? NOLOWD ‘HANI SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIH SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 M&4N 3 NOLOYD ‘H3/AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 3 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 3 NOLOHD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 3 NOLOHD ‘H3AIW SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AId SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 3 NOLOYD ‘H3AId SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD 'H3AIN SSNVHL 19 ‘NOGNO71 MAN 8 NOLOHD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NO.LOYD ‘H3AIY SSANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MSN 2? NOLOYD ‘H3AIy SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3SAIY SSWVHL ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d350 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ANIOMVWAS - AAVN/1d3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1dad AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d0 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G0 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1Ld30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVWAS - AAWN/1d30 AIOMVWAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d0 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d5G AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3ad ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ldad AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d STOMVAS - AAVN/1d3ad0 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1dad ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAWN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3G ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d AAVN AAVN © AAWN © AAWN * AAWN” AAVN © AAVN © AAWN AMWN © AAVN © AAWN- AAWN © ANWN’ ANVN © AAVN © AAWN- AAWN” AAWN © AAVN AAVN AAWN- AAVN © AAWN’ AAV” AAVN AAWN © AAVN © AAVN © AAVN © AAWN * AAWN © AAVN * ANWN © AAVN © AAVN © AAWN © AAWN © osdt os6l oos! Seb SLL ooze Oste szet 0022 ooze oste oost ooLe oso2e osoe ose 002 osi2 0002 o0¢2 0002 ost2 ose ooLe oste ooLe ost2 oso2 0002 oso02 0002 ost2 00c2 ooLe 0012 oso2 ooLe SZZt 0002 o0l2e 00le Sesh oszt OOZI os9l OsZt OOZL oost Sest Sc6h oset Szel osst oset OO6t TOAAD N sce 0 808 F MNN St e284 MNM 06+ soB'r M 002 SLO'y MSS OS beer ) 4lLy¢ tt) 4LLb¢ di8'y €08'p 808+ 8l Pb t98'P S98'P c98'P coe b so8'r vrs y Sey 9Lb 8LP¢ 88'F Le'p cee y 8c8'y Olly Srey 88. Pp yee LLL 28'b Leap 6L ves py v6L by yee 898 P 8e8b L184 8Ll'b Ley SOL n o 0 nu ooonoooo0oo0oceco0c0cocococeccoccececccocCceCcCcCCco MNN O61 Srey MNM Ove co9BH M 002 484 MS 0S bpe'y ass 002 68.7 s 002 828'F N 001 rey SNN OSt 981 ¢ MN 09 e987 N 08 SI8y 3N3 08t LLL 9 asa 002 LL MNN 0Zb 208 MSM 09 ves YId_ AONSYs NIWSNOT S3S09NO7 NINLW? S30Lv1 3LvddSid _VWauvdsid eZ eZ eZ eZ eZ eZ aL eZ eZ el el eZ eZ eZ aL el eZ eZ aL eZ eZ el aL eZ eZ el eZ eZ aL eZ eZ aL eZ el eZ eZ aL el el ZL el el cL eZ eZ eZ aL aL eZ eZ cL el el eZ aL 9cg'Ol des'oL L6y'91 ver ol 69r'9L 9r'ol Spal ery ol ErsS ol esol Sis'oL Zls'oL tS'oL g0s'9t g0s'9l SSP ol ves'oL 82S'9L 92591 ees Ot g90s'91 L9p Ol Lop 91 LiG OL 9ZP'9l 9P9L OPP OL byS'OL esol PyIS OL LIS OL €2p 9b Ser ol es OL SOL 6Ly 91 Ley or 6yS°9L SOL SZp9L 9Sp9L g0s'9} 96r 91 6p 91 99r'91 ber ol Zep OL 8iG9L ZiGOL 9LSOL €0s 91 68r OL L49r'9L esol 68r 91 ly ly ly ly by by bb ly 4 by ly by by by by ly ly Ie by ly by be be by Ie ly ly Ie ty ty Ie ly ly ly ty ly ly ly ly IP ly ly iS 4 by lp te Ly ly 4 lp IY bey by ly Lp $6-90Q-21 s6-0eq-21 $6-008Q-21 G6-90Q-21 $6-98Q-21 $6-98Q-21 $6-90Q-21 $6-90Q-21 S6-98Q-91 $6-90Q-91 S6-98Q-91 $6-90Q-91 $6-98Q-91 G$6-98Q-91 $6-98Q-91 $6-98Q-9} S6-98Q-SI $6-98Q-SI G6-00Q-S} $6-00Q-SI $6-98Q-SI S6-98q-SL S$6-90Q-S} $6-98Q-FL S6-98Q-F1 S6-98Q-rI $6-98Q-rI $6-98Q-E1 $6-98Q-EL G$6-98Q-E1 S6-98Q-E1 $6-98Q-E1 S6-98Q-E1 S6-98Q-cl $6-98Q-21 G6-98Q-cl $6-29Q-c1 S6-98Q-L G$6-98Q-11 S6-08Q-11 S6-98Q-Lt $6-98Q-0l $6-999-01 $6-98Q-01 $6-980-01 $6-980-01 $6-989-01 $6-98Q-60 $6-990-60 $6-98Q-60 $6-989-60 $6-98Q-60 $6-98Q-60 $6-98Q-80 S$6-989-80 SIN SIN SGIN SQN SIN SIN SIN SIN SIN SQ1N SIN SQN SGIN SIN SQ1N SGIN SGN SGN SIN SIN SQ1N SIN SQ1N SIN SIN SGN SIN SGN SGN SQN SON SON SIN SIN SIN SQN SIN SO1N SCN SCN SCIN SIN SQ1N SIN SGN SIN SIN SIN SIN SIN SQN SGN SIN SQIN SIN 19 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 3 NOLOUDS ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M&3N 8 NOLOYDS ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOUD ‘H3AIN SANVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 3 NOLOUD 'Y3AIH SSAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 3 NOLOYD 'W3AIX SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOYS 'Y3AIY SAWVHL 49 ‘NOGNO1 MAN ? NOLOWD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD 'H3AIN SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOHD ‘W3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIN SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 3 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 3 NOLOYD ‘H3AIX SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD 'Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 'NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD 'Y3AIN SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 3 NOLOYDS ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘W3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘W3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOWD ‘H3AIN SANVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOYS ‘W3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘W3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘W3AIX SANVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIN SSNVHL 10 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIy SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD 'H3AId SANVHL 10 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIN SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘W3AIN SANVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 2 NOLOWD ‘H3AId SAWVHL 19 'NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOWD ‘Y3AIM SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘d3AId SANVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOWD ‘H3AIN SAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 3 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIN SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M&3N 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SANVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOYD 'Y3AIY SAWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD 'Y3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M83N 8 NOLOYD 'Y3AIY SAWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOWD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO1 MAN ® NOLOUD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOUD 'Y3AIY SSWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SSNVHL 19 ‘NOGNO7 M83N 8 NOLOWD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 10 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOWD ‘Y3AIY SSNVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 M3N 8 NOLOYDS ‘Y3AIY SAWWHL 419 ‘NOGNO71 M3N 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYDS 'Y3AIX SSWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIN SAWVHL 19 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIY SANVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 M3N 8 NOLOHD 'H3AIN SSAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOWD 'Y3AIN SAWVHL 49 ‘NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOWD 'H3AIY SAWVHL 419 'NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOWD 'Y3AIy SAWVHL 419 ‘NOGNO7 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘H3AIN SAWVHL 19 'NOGNO1 MAN 8 NOLOYD ‘Y3AIY SSWVHL 193f0O'd ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d ATIOMVWAS - AAVN/Ld3d ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 JIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1daG AIOMVAS - AAWN/1d3d AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G SIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAWN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAWN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 ATOMVAS - AAWN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/Ld30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAWN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAWN/Ld3d0 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVWAS - AAWN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVWAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAWN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAWN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAWN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d ATIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3G ATIOMVWAS - AAVN/1d30 JIOMVWAS - AAWN/Ld30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d0 ATOMVWAS - AAWN/1Ld3d AIOMVAS - AAVN/Ld3d ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 AIOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ATOMVAS - AAVN/1d30 ASTIOMVAS - AAVN/1d3d0 SS LLIWYAd oso2 0002 o0¢2 0002 o0e2 OSsé6l ore osst oost 00¢2 oost Os6t Oost o0¢e oost ooct 0002 0002¢ oso2 oset OOEl 0022 Os6l 0002 Os6ét oso2 0002 0002 0002 oso2 Os6t 0002 os6t ost2 oso2 OSZL 0002 Scet OS61 OOEt Oost Se9L OOEt NS6L 0061 S281 Sc6L SLL 0002 os8t OOLt SZ8L Scel oset scel OSZt SZ8L Sc6h Stl Sob in ~~ Oorco000c000cCC00 88 Se 0S2 042 OSZ 0SZ OS2 0S2 OSZ 0S2 09 0S2 0SZ 0Se See, .0S2 001 0S2 0SZ See Ove eZ eZ eZ ol eZ eZ eZ eZ eZ eZ aL eZ el el el eZ eZ eZ el eZ eZ eZ eZ eZ eZ eZ eZ el el eZ el eZ aL eZ eZ eZ eZ eZ eZ el eZ el eZ eZ eZ eZ el eZ eZ cL eZ eZ eZ eZ eZ eZ cL el zor'ot 8rS'oL des'9t 62S'91 erseL vSp ol €0e'9t OL QZ OL Spool ev ol eyo 8p OL 28E91 82S'91 40s'91 tos'oL 88p'91 OL BIS OL 80S'91 sol sol 9Ep OL Loy or ely ol 8rr OL 62 9l 6ep 91 ver or t2poL Ors OL vrs OL geS'9L ees or escoL Els or g0s'9} cor ol bes'oL g0s'91 v6p'9l €Sp OL vrp ol ees ol 9cS'9L beS'OL SiS OL dtg'oL vLSOL 9p'9L beso 8iS'oL sos'9t 28r 91 €9p'91 0 240 NL62'9L MZ80'SO 240 _N9SP'9L MO2Z'¥0 220 M812 %0 220 M81LZ'¢0 220 MO99'%0 220 N@Sb'9t M6S9'%0 240 N6¢b'9L MS99'F0 240 NES 9L Mtt2'%0 220 N9ZS'9L INO WLS} MOLZ 0 220 N@Zs'oL OL WLS] MOLL 0 220 Nzes'oL MtS8'¥0 220 N6LO9L M2S8'0 240 NBLO'OL Mz98'b0 220 _NOZ9'9L SEs ooo UoNeNeUed Bowed SISe|OPNW sofew _(1ud) ezjs ujerD leuojssa29nNsS} SGNLISNOT AGNLILVT LSATVNV AWIL eeq | ‘dey uoneis junow Uldep ye Sesnjoey) :WOG'g plore DuIpee) ‘Gd Jeno Jeaws Jedim :Aejo Jb jo :ued ‘Mi i i ii i ok } , Ref } oy Draft Report New London Seawolf Disposal Mound Benthic Survey September 1997 submitted to Science Applications International Corporation Admiral’s Gate 221 Third Street Newport, Rhode Island 02840 prepared by James A. Blake Isabelle P. Williams ENSR Consulting and Engineering 89 Water Street Woods Hole, MA 02543 23 December 1997 Proyert Te, | . cane? a nob wa” ‘a bagol! tasonald? Yowaee. ue ie ngs wore Sine VOOR weinagse Table of Contents DE OMA rant OC Ue tra es ee SE eA EES Dee A ASA ee tes ee ven ouaec eee e stnnenes PINE FUE DY RRL SG ZA). IAI YG Sere ee pe ie eres iL cre aes tL ree eee netic Peo Pe ie rer ey a Oe MoM an Le REL ie 33.(0) TRESTINIS bee ccc SapeBer cetacean Gaara Se ner clea ar SES CPR a esa aa ALD) TRGIEITS ICES Soa sadenee acoscrosecescse ccc bcos eeocCHOBc ENGEL C CEE AS EH Seer DaRSCR SORE aS Ene eBe RCL Cr eC ane Raia yseinar ee An List of Figures Figure 1. Rarefaction curves for six samples taken in September at the New London SeawolfDisposaliMound tes) Si ee ee A ee ah ee List of Tables Table 1. List of species identified from the New London Seawolf Disposal Mound samples........... Table 2. Ten most abundant taxa at Seawolf Disposal Mound - Center and 75E, September LO Teas Nee ca cent RE TE ere sO a oa OU acseuil NN MAS utmae Sedarataa vate antes tac uae Table 3. Ten most abundant taxa at Seawolf Disposal Mound - 150N and 150W, Septernberd MOQ: as ie ears ak TIE, A teed dots nant 2 Sareea te kd So PURER AD OS toes Table 4. Ten most abundant taxa at Seawolf Disposal Mound - 300SE and 300WSW, SEP Ler ere HGH ieee SEN VARA CATES ILE AOA AE EBs NIE AD i DE EMEC EDS a Table 5. Benthic community parameters, New London Seawolf Disposal Mound, September tO 9.17 Wie re tie ene Ie 22 Ue eu eee Sanu ttae ae eeaecevauneeto ned cat uate tenure Appendix Appendix A. Benthic infaunal data . : Wa walled i NW Mee ANNI e aI RM wh) Mi AFA ere Lee hm ioe ik 9 Ki 8 43 nigrewen ed E pen ¥ ‘ ‘ . aye adel fre) a ary ~y ‘ ; yi Wel RO Lon seven ap eaind 4 vee nian ower thw lve see OANA Ee Daee Poee i sewer even n ceeded ait et es tons eearenel t ‘ mec Rha Meh erd aR ht A oe Ppa h ay baile allen ee 7 fle dee 7b pba y\pcad b dGuy"| Pah = ip ied es OP) eg igs c 1 ie Vy =a | r j ‘ ‘iia qa Dee aa a ale Bik) we hkh. bn add caateenen he CORTE WHA, BS Te ASG Tie Fee pends see bap epee eke ety ieee fe Les we tube 4 + vhO Rey hn bo owe ee wo reno) haere ROR eR Tighe mater ibkoteack walt 4g aes aucelt tind honabie wig ; ra bas aeditas ‘bitin ee sete iat evens Ya aa taba fF ie iie « Eee ery se Vibe G Aaah imey hol AL hal 0h Weesee in, vile eee f ay ee HinLh a tr AE bye wider. “ ‘baw, trwogenst ATEN ODE nie i Nt) 2008 ty Gane aw Hs AMY Vlad tle ayeyanndone un BOL cath hig 2, hid us sna (iver d hah is BOLLS eee a he eri en pore wii ee wit ee pare ned eye Ree eed th erry rN , re BA. Daan palleny oe N ay. ae 1.0 Introduction As part of the current DAMOS monitoring program designed to assess benthic community structure of disposal mounds in Long Island Sound, infaunal studies were planned that would permit comparison of results obtained from analysis of grab samples with the corresponding REMOTS® data analyzed by SAIC. Infaunal analyses were planned for six stations to be established on the Seawolf dredged material disposal mound at the New London Disposal Site. The grab samples were to be collected on the same day that the REMOTS® sediment-profile images were acquired. 2.0 Methods At each of six stations, CENTER, 75E, 150N, 150W, 300SE, and 300WSW (named in reference to their distance in meters and direction away from the center of the disposal mound), one grab sample for benthic infauna was obtained with a 0.04-m? Ted Young grab. Upon retrieval, the benthic infaunal samples were visually inspected for depth of the apparent RPD layer, sediment color and texture, and penetration depth of the grab which gave an approximate sample volume. The samples were then washed into a bucket, sieved through 500-y1m mesh screen, transferred into 1-] wide-mouth plastic containers, and fixed in 10% buffered formalin. After 48 h of fixation, the samples were resieved with fresh water, transferred to 70% alcohol for preservation, and shipped to Cove Corporation for sorting and species identification. Most identifications of small Crepidula and Ampelisca individuals were made by the author. For ease and accuracy of sorting the samples were stained with Rose Bengal. Each taxon and its abundance for each sample was recorded electronically into a database. All raw data were compiled in a QuattroPro spreadsheet in order of NODC codes (Appendix A). Total faunal abundances and number of species were calculated for each station, the ten most abundant species were determined for each station, and a species list was generated (Table 1). Juvenile and indeterminable organisms were included in calculations of density, but were excluded from diversity analyses unless no other species belonging to those taxa were present in the sample. Diversity was calculated as Shannon-Wiener index H’ and the associated evenness J’ and by the rarefaction method (Sanders, 1968). The Shannon-Wiener index was calculated using the base log,; for the rarefaction, the number of individuals was set at defined points between 25 and 800. 3.0 Results A total of 100 (70 good species, 16 species identified to unique genera or major group suitable for diversity analysis, 5 species used selectively for diversity analyses, and 9 taxa unsuitable for use in diversity analyses, e.g. Odostomia spp.) taxa were identified from the samples (Table 1). Of species consistently used for all analyses nearly half were polychaetes (39 species); the remainder included amphipods (11 species), bivalves (12 species), gastropods (9 species), decapods (6 species), isopods (2 species), a mysid (1 species), and small numbers of nemerteans, oligochaetes, phoronids, echinoderms, hemichordates, and chordates that were treated as one taxon each. The total number of individuals sorted out of the 6 samples was 2,600. The station with the lowest faunal abundance was the CENTER station, with only 50 individuals belonging to 17 taxa. Moving 75 m away from the center, station 75E had 200 individuals belonging to 26 taxa. Nearly twice as many species were found at stations 150 m (50 taxa at 150N and 46 taxa at 150W) away from the center as at 75 m away from the center, although there was a two-fold difference in abundance at these two stations. Station 150N had more than twice as many animals, mostly Nucula annulata (301 individuals), as station 1SOW. A few more species were seen in the samples taken 300 m away from the mound center, 66 and 54 taxa, 1 respectively, from stations 300SE and 300WSW;; faunal abundances were also greater (1118 animals from 300SE and 518 animals from 300WSW). The number of taxa, including unidentified and juvenile specimens, ranged from 17 at station CENTER to 66 at station 300SE. Densities ranged from a low of 1.25 x 10° individuals/m? at the CENTER station to 2.795 x 10* individuals/m? at station 300SE. The ten most abundant species at each station are listed in Tables 2-4. The most ubiquitous dominant species were the bivalve Nucula annulata and the polychaete Prionospio steenstrupi which were among the top six dominants at all six stations. The polychaete Mediomastus ambiseta was among the ten most abundant species at all stations, ranking within the top three species at five stations. The amphipod Ampelisca vadorum and the gastropod Crepidula plana were among the top ten dominants at five stations. The polychaete Tharyx acutus was represented among the top ten dominants at four stations. Overall, polychaetes with 12 species, belonging to nine different families, constituted the largest taxonomic group to be found among the top ten dominants at the six New London stations. The second largest groups were bivalves (4 species), with Nucula annulata extremely abundant and amphipods (4 species) mostly belonging to the genus Ampelisca. Two gastropod taxa, /lyanassa trivittata and Crepidula plana, one decapod, Pagurus spp., and oligochaeta spp. complete the list of dominant species; //vanassa was among the dominants at two stations, while Pagurus spp. and oligochaeta spp. were among the dominants at one station. Diversities (H’) ranged from a low of 2.65 at station 150N to a high of 4.10 at station 150W (Table 5). The low value at station 150N may not be too surprising, since the sample was dominated by Nucula annulata. These stage II deposit-feeding bivalves stir up the surficial layers of the sediment thus decreasing the availability of suitable benthic habitat for colonization (Don Rhoads, pers. comm.). The diversity at the CENTER station was relatively high, considering the very low abundance of individuals (50) present in the sample. This is a situation where diversity is high when the number of species is low and the community is in an early stage of succession (Pearson and Rosenberg, 1978). Evenness (J’) ranged from a low of 0.48 at station 150N to a high of 0.82 at the CENTER station (Table 5). Density measures (Figure 1) show increasing numbers of species and individuals as stations are located further from the center of the site. Other community parameters tend to show three pairs of stations. The CENTER station and 75E combine low numbers of species and individuals with similar low diversity (3.27 and 3.16) and high to moderate evenness (0.82 and 0.68); rarefaction curves for these stations are well below those of the 150m and 300m stations. Stations 15ON and 300SE combine high numbers of species and individuals with very low to moderate diversity (2.65 and 3.66) values and low evenness values (0.48 and 0.63); rarefaction curves for these stations lie between the central and western stations. The more westerly stations, 150W and 300WSW, combine moderate to high numbers of species and individuals with the highest diversity values (4.10 and 3.91) and similar moderately high evenness (0.76 and 0.70); rarefaction curves for these stations lie slightly above those for 150N and 300SE. 4.0 References Pearson, T.H. and R. Rosenberg, 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanogr. mar. Biol. Ann. Rev., 16:229-311. Sanders, H.L. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. Am. Nat., 102:243-282. Table 1. List of species identified from the New London Seawolf Disposal Mound samples NEMERTEA Nemertea spp. ANNELIDA Polychaeta Ampharetidae Ampharete finmarchica (Sars, 1865) Asabellides oculata (Webster, 1879) Ampharetidae spp. Capitellidae Capitella capitata complex (Fabricius, 1780) Mediomastus ambiseta (Hartman, 1947) Notomastus luridus Verrill, 1873 Chaetopteridae Chaetopterus variopedatus (Renier, 1804) Spiochaetopterus costarum (Claparéde, 1870) Cirratulidae Monticellina baptisteae Blake, 1991 Tharyx acutus Webster & Benedict, 1887 Tharyx sp. A Tharyx spp. Cossuridae Cossura longocirrata Webster & Benedict, 1887 Dorvilleidae Dorvilleidae sp. A Eunicidae Marphysa sp. Eunicidae spp. Flabelligeridae Flabelligeridae sp. Pherusa affinis (Leidy, 1855) Glyceridae Glycera americana Leidy, 1855 Glycera spp. Lumbrineridae Scoletoma hebes (Vernill, 1880) Ninoe nigripes Verrill, 1873 Lumbrineridae spp. Maldanidae Macroclymene zonalis (Verrill, 1874) Maldanidae spp. Nephtyidae Nephtys incisa Malmgren 1865 Oweniidae Owenia fusiformis Delle Chiaje, 1844 Paraonidae Aricidea catherinae Laubier, 1967 Levinsenia gracilis (Tauber, 1879) Pectinariidae Pectinaria gouldii (Verrill, 1873) Pholoidae Pholoe minuta (Fabricius, 1780) Phyllodocidae Phyllodoce maculata (Linnaeus, 1767) Polynoidae Harmothoe extenuata (Grube, 1840) Sabellidae Euchone elegans Verrill, 1873 Sabellariidae Sabellaria vulgaris Verrill, 1873 Sigalionidae Sthenelais boa (Johnston, 1873) Idoteidae Edotia triloba (Say, 1818) Spionidae Dipolydora socialis (Schmarda, 1861) Prionospio steenstrupi Malmgren, 1867 Spiophanes bombyx Claparéde, 1870 Syllidae Autolytinae spp. Brania clavata (Claparéde, 1863) Exogone dispar (Webster, 1879) Exogone hebes (Webster & Benedict, 1884) Terebellidae Pista sp. Polycirrus cf. haematodes (Claparéde, 1864) Polycirrus spp. Terebellidae spp. Trichobranchidae Terebellides stroemi Sars, 1835 Oligochaeta Oligochaeta spp. CRUSTACEA Amphipoda Ampeliscidae Ampelisca abdita Mills, 1964 Ampelisca vadorum Mills, 1963 Aoridae Leptocheirus pinguis (Stimpson, 1853) Unciola irrorata Say, 1818 Corophiidae Corophium spp. Monocorophium sextonae (Crawford, 1937) Caprellidae Luconacia incerta Mayer, 1903 Isaeidae Photis dentata Shoemaker, 1945 Ischyroceridae Erichthonius brasiliensis (Dana, 1853) Jassa marmorata Holmes, 1903 Phoxocephalidae Eobrolgus spinosus (Holmes, 1905) Phoxocephalus holbolli (Kreyer, 1842) Decapoda Cancridae Cancer irroratus Say, 1817 Crangonidae Crangon septemspinosa Say, 1818 Majidae Libinia spp. Paguridae Pagurus longicarpus Say, 1817 Pagurus spp. Pinnotheridae Pinnixa chaetopterana Stimpson, 1859 Thalassinidea Thalassinidea spp. Isopoda Anthuriidae Ptilanthura tenuis Harger, 1879 Heteromysis formosa S.1. Smith, 1873 Mysidacea MOLLUSCA Bivalvia Arcidae Anadara transversa (Say, 1822) Astartidae Astarte undata Gould, 1841 Astarte spp. Cardiidae Cerastoderma pinnulatum (Conrad, 1831) Carditidae Cyclocardia borealis (Conrad, 1831) Lyonstidae Lyonsia spp. Mytilidae Musculus sp. Nuculidae Nucula annulata Hampson, 1971 Pandoridae Pandora gouldiana Dall, 1886 Petricolidae Petricola pholadiformis (Lamarck, 1818) Pholadidae Barnea sp. Tellinidae Tellina agilis Stimpson, 1857 Veneridae Pitar morrhuanus Linsley, 1848 Gastropoda Prosobranchia Calyptraeidae Crepidula fornicata (Linnaeus, 1758) Crepidula plana Say, 1822 Crepidula spp. Columbellidae Anachis sp. Astyris lunata (Say, 1826) Nassariidae Tlyanassa trivittata (Sars, 1822) Pyramidellidae Boonea seminuda (C.B. Adams, 1837) Odostomia engonia Bush, 1885 Odostomia spp. Turbonilla interrupta (Totten, 1835) Vitrinellidae Vitrinellidae spp. PHORONIDA Phoronis sp. ECHINODERMATA Ophiuroidea spp. HEMICHORDATA Enteropneusta spp. CHORDATA Ascidiacea spp. Table 2. Ten most abundant taxa at Seawolf Disposal Mound - Center and 75E, September 1997 Seawolf Disposal Mound - Center Rank Species Percent of Density Total Fauna (Ind. 0.04 m”’) Nucula annulata (Stage II bivalve) Ampelisca vadorum (Stage II amphipod) Ampharete finmarchica (Stage I polychaete) Crepidula plana (gastropod) Leptocheirus pinguis (Stage II amphipod) Prionospio steenstrupi (Stage I polychaete) Spiochaetopterus costarum (Stage II/III polychaete) Mediomastus ambiseta (Stage I polychaete) Petricola pholadiformis (bivalve) Barnea sp. (bivalve) Total - 10 Taxa Remaining Fauna - 7 Taxa Total Fauna - 17 Taxa Seawolf Disposal Mound - 75E Rank Species Percent of Density Total Fauna (Ind. 0.04 m’) Nucula annulata (Stage II bivalve) Prionospio steenstrupi (Stage I polychaete) Mediomastus ambiseta (Stage | polychaete) Crepidula plana (gastropod) Ampelisca vadorum (Stage II amphipod) Tharyx acutus (Stage I polychaete) Monticellina baptisteae (Stage | polychaete) Spiochaetopterus costarum (Stage II/III polychaete) Ampharetidae spp.* (Stage I polychaete) Anadara transversa (bivalve) Ampelisca abdita (Stag e II amphipod) Remaining Fauna - 15 Taxa Total Fauna - 26 Taxa * Taxon excluded from diversity analysis. Incompletely identified taxa were used in diversity analyses only when species belonging to those taxa were absent from the sample. Table 3. Ten most abundant taxa at Seawolf Disposal Mound - 150N and 150W, September 1997 Rank Species Percent of Density Total Fauna (Ind. 0.04 m’) Nucula annulata (Stage II bivalve) Mediomastus ambiseta (Stage I polychaete) Prionospio steenstrupi (Stage | polychaete) Anadara transversa (bivalve) Ampharetidae spp.* (Stage I polychaete) Nephtys incisa (Stage II/III polychaete) Crepidula plana (gastropod) Levinsenia gracilis (Stage III polychaete) Ilyanassa trivittata (gastropod) Pagurus spp. (hermit crab) Total - 10 Taxa Remaining Fauna - 40 Taxa Total Fauna - 50 Taxa Seawolf Disposal Mound - 150W Rank Species Percent of Density Total Fauna (Ind. 0.12m”) Prionospio steenstrupi (Stage I polychaete) Nucula annulata (Stage II bivalve) Mediomastus ambiseta (Stage I polychaete) Tharyx acutus (Stage I polychaete) Crepidula plana (gastropod) Ampelisca vadorum (Stage I] amphipod) Erichthonius brasiliensis (amphipod) Dipolydora socialis (Stage | polychaete) Nephtys incisa (Stage II/III polychaete) Ilyanassa trivittata (gastropod) Ampelisca abdita (Stage I] amphipod) Total - 11 Taxa Remaining Fauna - 35 Taxa Total Fauna - 46 Taxa * Taxon excluded from diversity analysis. Incompletely identified taxa were used in diversity analyses only when species belonging to those taxa were absent from the sample. Table 4. Ten most abundant taxa at Seawolf Disposal Mound - 300SE and 300WSW, September 1997 Rank Species Percent of Density Total Fauna (Ind. 0.04 m’”) Monticellina baptisteae (Stage I polychaete) Mediomastus ambiseta (Stage I polychaete) Ampelisca vadorum (Stage II amphipod) Oligochaeta spp. (Stage I oligochaete) Prionospio steenstrupi (Stage | polychaete) Nucula annulata (Stage II bivalve) Tharyx acutus (Stage I polychaete) Leptocheirus pinguis (Stage II amphipod) Scoletoma hebes (Stage III polychaete) Anadara transversa (bivalve) Total - 10 Taxa Remaining Fauna - 56 Taxa Total Fauna - 66 Taxa : Seawolf Disposal Mound - 300WSW Rank Species Percent of Density Total Fauna (Ind. 0.12m7) Prionospio steenstrupi (Stage | polychaete) Mediomastus ambiseta (Stage | polychaete) Nucula annulata (Stage II bivalve) Ampelisca vadorum (Stage I] amphipod) Tharyx acutus (Stage | polychaete) Monticellina baptisteae (Stage I polychaete) Dipolydora socialis (Stage | polychaete) Ampharetidae spp.* (Stage I polychaete) Polycirrus cf. haematodes (Stage I polychaete) Crepidula plana (gastropod) Total - 10 Taxa Remaining Fauna - 44 Taxa Total Fauna - 54 Taxa * Taxon excluded from diversity analysis. Incompletely identified taxa were used in diversity analyses only when species belonging to those taxa were absent from the sample. Jajatueied siyj) oinseatu 0} []eLUs 00} ajduues - 6P MSMOOE LS ASOOE tp MOST v Ly NOSI Ol 9 Sz ASL El L 6r 91 Fatale) “pul "pul “pul “pul “pul ‘pul oordds = gozdds = gotdds = gsdds_ gzdds_ gqydds_)~—(,mp9'0) ~—(, 14 0°0) saiseds SSOUUIAW Xapuy AjISIIAIG] (uo oeJaIeY S.j19qQ].AN) APISAVAIG sjenprlAripuy jo u0neIS Agua A4-uouUeYS jJoxaquinyy Jaquiny L661 A9quiajdag ‘punoyy [esodsig Jjomvag uopuoyT Many ‘stdj}oWIVAKY AWUNUIWIOD IVUIG *s aIquI, MSMOOE — JASO00E aa QZIS ejdwes poljosey L OOODOMODOAHIMDIMOWNHIADO! O 0 saineds jo Jaquinu popyedxy Ol YaLNAO yp | 0c O€ OV OS MSMOOE Appendix A Benthic Infaunal Data New London Seawolf Disposal Mound, September 1997, 0.5 mm, All Species NODC Code Center 75E 150N 150W 300SE 300WSW Total Taxon Nemertea spp. 4300000000 Ce ESC TT ER ESS TE A TES) Rsenciaisiboalle wane ee Py soorososoo 4 ii al Esai Ra a niki) i iin ie Toi i Pr Ee Mexogoneldisparm mismo miei Weare se700 W100i] Ree aT te [eran ian i a Fe a PS el a a re ee) MBrariatclavatas Mnf sana ia (Ne00%230002 00h a1 | aa OT 2a a a Wattontinactsop: malik m1 US eqortosoo ool ii: U2] er RA (AG AE ee Ta A a IBRTe istics MeN sb Oba RG. rae Ps JE | es Ec a (Giese On Ee Ferrer a Ee A ee a ee (aici cater i nn iain i a ee ir a Ta Meunicidaelspp ile) ie MeO |Ne0a3ca000 W! [ACT e fh 0 amma Ta | (iran So PT ea oe ER IS Ha FT (lintnaSiiiveitsP AS sen Oe Er a a a (Saimin Tran er ae eee anes (ves eier 25 aT A WU eae a a MbomileidassovAn li eS eooreoooe |i ik CET RNs Ee Eesti ee a (AvEher (Genie Onn lia in So ee aa eer ae (crafts ES NO (oT ET (a (iadivianse Sl i Er i re an en Ee eed | Prionospiosteenstrupi_—s———C«d| «5001430506 | 2 | 49 | 34 | 55 | 59 | 130 | 329 | ( Stiaiemesininin el Cn ier a Ee a aaa ea chrae top tenslvariopecietivs Wasus suet] 5007174601000] ORs Tie| as (NT oiaee [aa ey rT | Spiochaetopteruscostarum | 5001490302, (| 2 | 4 | 3 [| 2 | 4 | 23 Gia i a Fee ae a | a Gia i i i (ee a ie a oe ee ee 8 TE a ae a ce | Monticellinabaptisteae | soorsorton_ “| =] 5 | 3 | 3 351 [a7 79 (Gein TD Iie i a ee Weiavelligendas sop V0 ie Ril eoo140000 Ni] eT A mii im | Tia eae ai Menemsaaminis@. 0b ei 2 Neco s40304 Be Ie Anan ee IRC eet talon ees Me 050100101 0 | A SRA | A A Ls [Meter Sith ain in Ea i a a ae | Mediomastus ambiseta | sooteo0401_| 2 | 24 | 43 | 22 [| 173 [70 | 334 | (MERE nie, a ee ee a (incident Dn RP i i i a a a Wowenittustiomia cu 1. eooresoiog AIR IC Wi aera | ei fe aa WSabelianawilgansiu. UNC Rll eooteso202 10) 1M Ne a | MN AR Ti re ia Mescinanagouldimu Umma sooteecsoo Allie 0. cs) | an (RT rohan) Sp a UNE | 1 | Uap | NL ee Arrest fire ts NO [cht a Og | | eon Asabellides oculatallua WunuiulNislsooxenoeo 2. M1000 em [ia [ne iterebelidaelspp NUM Beaoneeooo0. TL U0 Ni em TSP [ca (ESE EN RRS ET (CO A 25 HN Mipolyettrusison 00 wl Malabar liscdrescdooul| 0 7S a aes WR Ce cama leita Ibert rea toc = i NU [11 10150 | DR) EO A RD || lrerebellidesistroerni l/c ol MANN SIUlMsnoeco toa SR [LIE | mmemie RA SIE ee WE tchone\eleqansia: Ua uni IN| Weodiz00205 Maina. ae OAs as IMC cence te Vapi UNE) 040000. 0 Hun [| DN [ANS | [oom lide sue__ateszagapg {fp ff Crepidula spp. 5103640200 11 New London Seawolf Disposal Mound, September 1997, 0.5 mm, All Species Taxon NODC Code Center 75E 150N 150W 300SE 300WSW Total Crepidula fornicata 5103640204 Crepidula plana 5103640207 5105030300 | rT Ra ee Eee Ee I [een Sc nn a a aS {Beoneaseminuda 8 28 | sfosoto1a60 |e 0 | ee aya eg || [Gdestoria engonias 2 F |s1080107360 |e | ies ||| [uronilia irmterrunp te esc | 518010 2090 || Ra | 2 iiuicufavannulata ol sms | 1255020202050] ig | seh Miso ril| aol | Nisei Re aaa Sm WAraciaral transverse 0 See Wn 550010204 0N |B Ue ON | Rs | (iusculusispp 5 8 |igso70t0400. | || ease in| 2 iShterin in Eri i RiP Lea STs | Wastane spose F151 6010058 [Tk |e ae [RT JAstaneundata 515490013) |) tees 2 |G |e Cerastoderma pinnulatum 5515220601! | || eerie | | ee cine rn eo en a Se ae ipiteranrvorrfaceaaen 00 Os) 0 | 05 ert a | OR | | | | Pe tricolal phioladiformis Ws 0 me 0155154600200) ons Ua | Aen | Bameasp. = ty S| 5518010400 | 2 | eel |) a Pandora gouldiana Wie = W095 20020007000 | a] aaa | ityonsia'sop. es) ma 1 [ses20050200.0 [aa STi) 4/2] ata ei | a i Heteromysis formosa Scat in a a a | Pilanthura tenuis | ereooro30n 0 |||] sea | en Garth Cir ne i Sa Wampelisea abdita 0) ON We i [Me teo0-108 | eee) Ss | | | | Ampeliscavadoum «| @te020109 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 98 | 43 | 166 | Weptocheius pinguis os) 1 eteaneo702 1[ 5 a) ise Na | 2 |S Keen nn Ir i i a aT |iNionocorophiumisextonae us 5164610217. 0 | oN | rich tionius brasiliensisl) © NS) 616045030000 | Oe] 0 85] Seinen i | a (WUnciotaimoratas [ee 9950703 0 [|| |G |G (photisdentata a 1) © | ereaze0207 [0 [8 | Ageia aie | 2 Ec nn Inn in i STs iPhoxocephaluslholbollil een | || iet69420702. 0) a0 55/0] iain Be |g | lEoboigus spinosus Ee [Ne ree ee Fe] ee 0 || ean a | ihe IC i iS aes = = litcrangonSepptemspinosal i all | erti7@20710.3 00 | |g | SUSAR AN | a ELE nn Inc i STAs eagurus spp. ee |e 18306 0200 Me] aes | | ie gurus fongicanpus) | oi 0 [ie tecgcr@o300| SR| | | [ Uibiniaspp sts) | 6167010900 Ve te P| eeneliooe Fea | Cancerimoraus ys) | @ne80g0108 TE) 7 | T| etree ee | ee ieinnixalchaetopteranalln iN) |Meece0d05 Ml | 01] aaa | | iii i nn EAC nl iT i aS | nimi i in TP iTS ase lNtenterapneusta Sopin Ws mnt nN |N620 100000 | || Ua | ON Te a WAsciciaceatepon mn met |More) |e NO ea A | sa | aaa oe 1 Appendix D Sediment Core Descriptions wy eles eadiea h ’ F maitre : \ Lat me a nk) vim MS TOW a ¢ i Os, var 1A betray ¥ ere eS 4 * oe tt ialnepeme epee me , I Ne J DY ; i b i anhiilal Lah Whi shapers alate su) YT, " h <- r ‘ A ony —y - : Ki Lay 0! bes * eR Se U9 % e ti etab ah iomm mel eahewmmidny Weds t ; Et nary then } t Abmniiciegteriad eae a o erage trainee ran ig Sela eo ea ane a Ja Mi hd M \ arr are ese ent arLiowmn cetinee Hs 1 ee eee f rf Armory Wim ni esha 4 x t ; , friioniniceanyde rena nl mgt orice acetyl ee soebereentan neg nyt. pen my ees nates ehh Cioeeis i pre Ah stir I cs ae nih vaagtts a seg pr kasi a od ten abit apr lr a ani Jp deahdibeseree De rr oF " ES aa) } be : sete bl AnLe e ee | sak a nar i Pi. =, y My le pier ate r 7 Pe % = ee oe ‘ ‘ H ; Shekeewary DAs aacaih 5 Tie hand iN ee a : asset A ney sy nel rh i 0 ie i Wage ea jem, > fp liegited, nS : i ip D1 1997 Core Descriptions the 2 emOkicy i { tl il i if j ea) ; fi { OR i Reh i ie ill ay iMaD) i a i 1 i rey) ry 1997 Seawolf Short Cores Core 1A Dark olive- gray liquid silt Olive-gray, silty clay w/ dark olive pockets Olive-gray, sandy to silty clay wi black clay Olive-gray w/ black fine silty to gravelly sand wi shell hash and 3 cm rock 1.5m 1997 Seawolf Short Cores Core 2A Om <«———. wood fragment Dark olive-gray, silty clay wiblack streaks <———— small shell fragments 0.5m 1997 Seawolf Short Cores Core 2B Om Olive-gray, silty clay wi It black band and shells Olive-gray, mottled with black streaks 05m Dark and light bands of olive-gray silty clay 1997 Seawolf Short Cores Core 3A Om Dark olive-gray silty clay Dark olive-gray silty clay marbled with black clay 0.5m Shell fragments 1997 Seawolf Short Cores Core 3B Dark olive-gray silty clay Olive-gray, silty clay marbled w/ It. black 0.5m sparse shell hash Blackish band Olive-gray, ‘Aor silty clay Shell fragments 1997 Seawolf Long Cores Core 4A Om Dark olive-gray silty clay 0.5m 1.0m Shell fragment 1.5m Blackish band Blackish olive- gray silty sand w/ higher water content Brownish olive- gray silty sand with brown clay and 28 fe higher water content Om = Shell fragments and shell hash 2.5m 1997 Seawolf Short Cores Core 5A Dark olive-gray, silty clay marbled with black clay sparse shell hash 0.5m shell fragments 1.0m Biackish olive- gray silty, clayey sand <— shell hash Dark brown silty clay 1.5m 1997 Seawolf Long Cores Core 6A Om Olive-gray silty clay 0.5m Shell fragments 1.0m Olive-gray silty clay marbled with It. black 1.5m Acorn seed pod Shell ce it Wood chip Blackish olive-gray silty clay 2.5 M1 cul rock shells 1997 Seawolf Short Cores Core 7A Olive-gray silty clay wi black mottling Olive-gray silty clay marbled with It. black 0.5m <¢—— wood remains m <___Gravelly sand mes with rocks 1.0m Black band Dark and light bands of olive-gray silty clay sparse shell fragments 1.5m 1997 Seawolf Short Cores Core 8A Om Olive-gray silty clay w/ marbled black regions 0.5m shell fragments 1.0m Dark olive-gray silty clay <— wood remains shell fragments 1.5m 1997 Seawolf Short Cores Core 9A Olive-gray silty clay with It. black streaks Sparse shell hash 4 Olive-gray sandy clay 3 Blackish olive-gray fine sands " withclay Brownish/blackish olive-gray clay with fine organic matter Olive-gray silty clay wood remains Blackish band shell fragments 1997 Seawolf Long Cores Core 10A Om ] Olive-gray clay Blackish olive-gray silty clay Dark olive-gray silty clay marbled with It. black 0.5m Sparse shell hash large rock w/ shells Se Blackish band @ Olive-gray silty clay with 7 black mottling 1.0m Dark olive-gray silty clay 1.5m : 5 Blackish and brownish = patches of gravelly sand in 2.0m = a olive-gray silty clay F’ Black, oily, gravelly sand with patches of olive-gray silty 4 clay 2.5m em rocks 1997 Seawolf Short Cores Core 11A Olive-gray silty clay with black mottling Sparse shell hash Olive-gray silty clay 0.5m shell fragments 1.0m 1997 Seawolf Short Cores Core 12A e vee | Olive-gray silty clay ee fa marbled with black Shell Pein Faye olive-gray silty sparse shell hash 1.0m Shell hash Dark brownish olive-gray silty clay with organic matter =} Olive-gray silty clay 1.5m 1997 Seawolf Short Cores Core 13A Om Blackish olive-gray streak of silty, clayey sand Olive-gray silty, clayey sand Steel blue-gray streak of silty, clayey sand shell hash Steel blue-gray streak 0.5m of silty, clayey sand Blackish olive-gray band 1.0m worm shell hash 1.5m D2 1998 Core Descriptions PUA ene ai! Vaya 2 qctotarioe sth gaa) BRT 1998 Seawolf Short Cores Core 14A Oka” Gray, olive clay Sparse shell fragments Light Black Band 0.5m Black mottled with gray clayey silt Large shell fragments 1.0m : Black and gray clayey silt with fine grained sand 1.5m 2.0m = 1998 Seawolf Short Cores Core 14B Om Olive/dark gray clay Worms, crabs, snail 0.5m 1.0m Black clayey silt Shell fragments Piece of plastic 145) On 1998 Seawolf Short Cores Core 15A Om Olive gray clay Olive gray clay with 0.5m black mottling 1.0m Olive gray clay Olive gray clay with black mottling 169 i) = Shell fragments 1998 Seawolf Short Cores Core 16A 0 A Mottled, black, green and light brown clay Shell fragments Gray clay 0.5m 1.0m Shell fragments 1.5m 1998 Seawolf Long Cores Core 17A Om = 0.5m 1.0m 1.5m 2.0m Olive-gray silty clay with black and brown mottling Shell Sparse shell hash Blackish olive-gray silty clay Olive-gray clay Dark olive-gray clay Black sandy, clayey, silt Dark olive-gray clayey, silt Shell and wood fragments Dark olive-gray fine to medium sand and gravel Rocks Dark olive-gray silty fine sand Shell hash Dark olive-gray fine sand 1998 Seawolf Short Cores Core 18A Om Gray-olive clay 0.5m Large Shell (original position) Gray-olive clay with slight black mottling 1.0m 1998 Seawolf Long Cores Core 19A Om Olive gray clay i Sparse shell fragments throughout core 0.5m 3 Brown organic matter 1.0m 1.5m 2.0m 25m Olive gray clay with black =| banding i Blackish olive-gray silty, clayey sand with rocks Sparse wood and shell fragments Brownish olive gray sandy silt foe) Dark olive-gray silty, clayey sand 3.0 m- with black mottling 1998 Seawoif Short Cores Core 20A Om Olive-gray clay Gray band of clay Olive-gray clay/silty clay with black 0.5m banding Sparse shell fragments Olive-gray silty clay with black banding 1.0m Wood remains Black to olive-gray silty clay 1.5m Root 1998 Seawolf Short Cores Core 20B Om Gray clay with black mottling Sparse shell fragments 0.5m Wood remains (i is iy Qe 4 ES 1998 Seawolf Short Cores Core 21A Om Gray-olive clay Black silty clay Black to gray fine sand with shell fragments Gray-olive silty clay 0.6m Shell (original position) 1.0m Gray-olive clay with black mottling and wood remains 1998 Seawolf Short Cores Core 22A Om Gray-olive clay with black and brown streaks Sparse shell fragments 0.6m Black clayey silt 1998 Seawolf Long Cores Core 23A Om 0.5m 1.0m 1.5m 2.0m Olive-gray silty clay with brown and black mottling Shell Large rock #1 Sparse shell hash Olive-gray to black clay with medium sand Black sand and gravel Black to olive-gray sand and gravel Wood remains Black, brown, and olive- ==) gray sand, gravel and == Clay combination Large intact mussel shell Olive-gray sandy silty clay with black streaks Rock Shell hash Black sand Brown silty clay Wood remains 1998 Seawolf Short Cores Core 24A Om Gray clay mottled with brown and black clay nodules Minor shell hash 0.5m Large shell fragments 1.0m 1998 Seawolf Short Cores Core 25A Om Olive-gray clay with some black and brown bands Sparse shell fragments 0.5m 1.0m os) (nal Wood remains Black fine sand 1998 Seawolf Short Cores 0.5m 1.0m Olive-gray-brown silty fine sand with fibrous tube mat Mottled black and green clay Many worms Much plant fiber Many shell fragments Gray clayey fine sand Many shell fragments Clam shell Gray clayey fine sand and clay mottle Cockle shell ! i ‘a i gree veya Wack 6 an 4 ore wil: anvete | j ( bei sldh sod 3 vee: t ral didn ie ‘Sci fie thir sunlit Wi - asenneiy i ni | WON Betty AoE) en ay sill sii vena: mre: pie ent “eve iy yore . “4 race Hite si ‘ ‘ Mah lov Gris all \ ‘i yal vi ; iat ns DiSacheyy Wi qe as ; +. \ See eas Wroiwal paitintion’, Appendix E Pre-dredging Sediment Chemistry Results Maguire 1995 . f f r 7 ' Ue ey ewe ye iy by rare Tia Ta) ass = x ‘a co } ‘ i i i 4 x wy L8L _ Sabesaae p66) pue O66} Jo ueay WNWixey| WwNnWwIulW p ealy Oc> vl O¢> O0c> 0¢> O66} 6h p eoly Wadd 0d> 0e> O0¢e> Oc> O¢c> O661 8h p eoly Wadd Oe> O¢> O¢> Oc> 0c> 0661 ZI y ealy Wadd O¢c> 98 Oe> O¢> Oc> O66 SI py Bay Wadd Oc> Oc> Oc> Oc> Oc> 0661 SI p ealy Wadd 02> O0¢> Ze O0¢> O¢> 0661 vi py ealy Wadd O¢> vv Oc> O¢> O¢c> O66 el yp Bay Wdd O0e> O0e> Oe> Oc> Oc> 0661 Ol py Bay Wd9d O¢e> 601 eel L9Ov LbL¢e 0661 Z c Bay Wadd 0661 9 c aly Wdd O66} S c Bay Jea, ajdwes eay uoibay Buibpeaig peajeubiseg (S661 aunBey) eyeq sHVd Bulbpeaip-2!4 WD ‘3 xipueddy winwixeyy 0S 0S 0S 0S OS c661 WINLWUIUIIA| wan S9S L66 SOZL 862 osol c66h ube} wan Yj €< UBSY| wan Y €-0 uUeS\ Wwnwixe|| WwNWIUIWy € ealy ZSt OL€ 281 8rS €9P O661 LL € ealy wan Oc> 28 O¢> ZL 0c> O661 6 € ealy wan Oe> Oc> Oc> Oc> Oc> O66} 8 € bay wan Zth 801 Lve Ecc Loe O66} v } Boly wan O¢> Oc> 90l Oc> Oc> O66} € | Boly wan O661 Cc | eoly wan O66} L | Bol Ae9A ajdwies eoly uoID3sYy Buibpaiq pajeubiseg (664 aunBew) eveg SHVd SuiGpap-aig WAN ‘3 xIpueddy cl (¢'Zp) saul4% 0} WON (O6)URaW 69 v6 ‘0661 uesl\ 89 v66l ueayy 28 0661 winWixe| ev 0661 WINWIUIY| soul4 % UZ ajqwes ealy uolbay Buibpaiq pajeubiseg (S66L auinBeyy) eyeq sjeyeyy 90e1) Bulbpaip-a1q WD ‘J xIipueddy winwixey\| WwNWIUul|\y yy e< ueayy 4 €-0 ueSW (G‘Zp) SEUI4% 0} WON (06)Ueay wNnwiIxeyy wnwiulyy v6 ‘0661 ues ueal saul4 % UZ ajdwes ealy uoibay Buibpsig pajeubiseg (see aunBeyy) eveq sjeyayy e0e11 BuiBpaip-a14 WAN ‘J xipueddy INDEX absorption, 34, 35 aerobic, 20 anoxia, 19 atomic absorption spectrophotometry, 35 azoic, 72 barge, x, 3, 4, 6, 8, 42, 108 disposal, 130 benthos, x, 1, 8,9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, DSN iO G2) 2535 1 Ole 103-5106: OP NOOO MM 2 MSS S120) 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 147 ampeliscids, 20, 73, 110, 111 amphipod, 20, 72, 73, 103, 106, 107, 110, 112, 125, 130, 143 bivalve, 20, 72, 73, 110, 111, 112, 113, NO), WAXO, WAS) decapod, 72, 73 deposit feeder, 19, 20, 73, 103 macro-, 19, 20, 111, 144, 146 mussels, 106 Nephtys sp., 110 Nucula sp., 72, 73, 110, 111, 112, 113, 116, 141 Pitar sp., 112 polychaete 195725 73-225 Tellina sp., 111 Yoldia sp., 110 biomass, 112, 113, 119 bioturbation, 20, 106 feeding void, 104, 110, 119, 120, 143 foraging, 20, 107 boundary roughness, 16, 19, 61, 103, 104, 107, 125, 130 buoy, 3, 6, 8, 42, 46, 52, 96, 105 disposal, 3, 4, 28 taut-wire moored, 4 capping, 3, 4, 6, 32, 46, 108, 109, 132, 139, 142, 144, 146 circulation, 106 colonization, 73, 113 conductivity, 13 consolidation, 9, 10, 42, 46, 52, 108, 142 containment, 3, 4 contaminant, 8, 10, 27, 76, 81, 96, 132, 141, 142 New England River Basin Commission (NERBC), 3, 8, 145 CTD meter, 13 currents, 4, 19, 106, 107, 109, 123 speed, 107 decomposition, 107, 125, 139 density, 13, 16, 27, 61, 66, 73, 111, 112 deposition, 1, 42, 57, 106, 107, 116, 139 dispersive site Cornfield Shoals (CSDS), 3 disposal site Buzzards Bay (BBDS) (formerly Cleveland Ledge), 110, 147 Central Long Island Sound (CLIS), 3 Cornfield Shoals (CSDS), 3 Massachusetts Bay (MBDS), 140 New London (NLDS), x, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Se DONE 20S 3h SONS 85947405 4le 42, 76, 101, 105, 106, 107, 108, 121, 123, 139, 140, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147 dissolved oxygen (DO), 20, 61, 66, 72, 103, 104, 140 erosion, 19, 20, 103, 107, 125, 130 feeding void, 104, 110, 119, 120, 143 fluff layer, 125 gas chromatography (GC), 34 Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS), 33, 34 menn BV42, NO, 3, B55 S15 Dg C25 HOS 105 135 Oily Oils GBs SAE Slo. MOS NOT, WS. 132, 1333}, 13S), LX6 habitat, x, 16, 20, 73, 101, 103, 144 hydroids, 72, 103, 106 hypoxia, 20 methane, 20, 21, 103, 104 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 13, 15 New England River Basin Commission (NERBC), 3, 8, 145 organics polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), 8, 32, 33) 34537, 39) 48519 0s01 Ol 1325 133, 135, 136, 142 total organic carbon, 35, 78, 93, 143 oxidation, 35, 37, 120 recolonization, 8, 9, 10, 15, 57, 62, 72, 109, 112, 139, 140, 141, 143 recruitment, 112 reference area, 8, 9, 10, 28, 57, 61, 62, 66, 72, 76, 77, 90, 91, 94, 96, 101, 103, 104, LOS BOG O72 OMI IES 25.13 O13 6: 139, 140, 141, 143, 145 reference station, 106, 136 REMOTS@ sx. 9 MOSM 12 Ss lola 205 216 25), 46; i, O24 Om Oley 103 eNOS: HOP M108. MOS ie 2S Se NG a9: 125, 130, 132, 138, 140, 146, 147 boundary roughness, 16, 19, 61, 103, OAS MO 2559130) Organism-Sediment Index (OSI), 16, 20, 28, 61, 72, 103, 104, 109, 116, 119, 120, 141 redox potential discontinuity (RPD), 16, 25, 61, 106 sediment-profile camera, 17, 101 REMOTS®8®, 20 Organism-Sediment Index (OSI), 20 resuspension, 109, 110 RPD I®, redox potential discontinuity (RPD), 19 REMOTS®, redox potential discontinuity (RPD), 16, 19, 20, 21, 25, 36, 40, 41, 61, 66, 72, 103, 104, hOGwI205 121 REMOTS®®, redox potential discontinuity (RPD), 20 sediment chemistry, 27, 76 GEN, Is, Jo, 0, C2, 12, V7, 135,90; 2, OE TOS IS TM AAO), W223). WAS), 132, IS88185. ISOM OS ta rel43 cobble, 18 gravel, 1185 35,)7 15 90; 91593. 13aplse resuspension, 109, 110 sand: 118535,,575025 77s 785.90) 9193" 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 110, 113, 1230125) 130 MB 233s > 86 silt, 18, 35, 62, 76, 77, 78, 90; 913.93; 104, 123, 130, 135, 136 transport, 20, 125 sediment sampling cores 8. 9) 1028332433135. Ore 46, 76, 77, 78, 81, 85, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96,1015 108513051325 133, ease: 141, 142 grabs} 95 115 25; 72, 1095 WO; eels 116, 119 vibracores, 28 species abundance, 73, 113, 115, 116, 141 diversity, 8, 9, 73, 109, 141 dominance, 16, 57, 62, 73, 104, 110, 111, 112, 116, 141 richness, 113, 119, 141 spectrophotometry atomic absorption, 35 statistical testing, 27, 76, 94, 116, 119 stratigraphy, 57, 62, 104, 107, 125, 130 succession, 73, 109, 111, 112, 141, 146 pioneer stage, 19, 112 seres, 62, 109, 110, 111, 112, 143 successional stage, 16, 19, 20, 61, 62, 104, OS AA. NGS WAKO, AO 1438) survey baseline, 8, 9, 46, 52, 147 bathymetry, x, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 42, 46,527 91 935 10509 MB 283s 142, 145 REMOTS®, 20, 147 temperature, 13 tide, 15, 107, 123, 130 topography, 4, 8, 9, 10, 42, 46, 105, 108, mercury (Hg), 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 81, 94 113, 119, 125, 142, 143 nickel (Ni), 32, 33, 38, 78, 81, 94, 96 trace metals, 8, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, vanadium (V), 144, 147 41, 78, 81, 85, 94, 96, 133, 135 zinc (Zn), 33, 78, 94, 135 arsenic (As), 32, 33, 34, 38, 78, 81, 94 trawling, 19, 107 cadmium (Cd), 32, 33, 34, 38, 41, 78, turbulence, 107, 110 81, 94 waste, 33, 146, 147 chromium (Cr), 8, 32, 33, 34, 38, 81, 94 waves, 4, 19, 107, 123 copper (Cu), 8, 32, 33, 38, 78, 81, 94 winnowing, 66, 72, 107, 125, 130, 139, lead (Pb), 32, 33, 38, 81, 94 140, 143 2) ROGER Al ei | rf an 4 G2 f e y ey oF a Wa be ie, it ra tic ] r + ; i baie ‘ Wy ee ye i h re 1 7 Lyi 1 ol ' AH bide PAU) a a 4 ne \ iti