1 / 16

Linda C. Schaffner AIWA Conference November 18, 2010

State of the Science: Effects of Dredged Material Disposal on Bottom Communities of Lower Chesapeake Bay. Linda C. Schaffner AIWA Conference November 18, 2010. Introduction.

ornice
Download Presentation

Linda C. Schaffner AIWA Conference November 18, 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. State of the Science: Effects of Dredged Material Disposal on Bottom Communities of Lower Chesapeake Bay Linda C. Schaffner AIWA Conference November 18, 2010

  2. Introduction • Coastal disposal of dredged material is an environmental concern worldwide and increasingly the focus of conservation and legislative pressures. • Both removal and disposal have direct and indirect effects on bottom communities – e.g. smothering, changes in hydrology. • The US Army Corps of Engineers continues to seek ways to minimize impacts of open water disposal operations.

  3. Synthesis over last 10-15 years has lead to the development of a management framework and highlighted areas in need of further research…

  4. Dredging as an ecological disturbance: • Disturbance – results in mortality of individuals • Both natural and anthropogenic disturbances are common in shallow coastal areas. • Ecologists have long studied how communities react and rebound in the face of disturbances in order to learn about succession and community resilience. • Responses to disturbance vary depending on disturbance type and other factors, e.g. is the habitat structured (oyster reef) or unstructured (soft-bottom)?

  5. Rates of recovery from dredged material disposal have been shown to vary by habitat type. Modified from Newell et al. 1998

  6. Thin-Layer Placement of Dredged Material • Early work, primarily in the laboratory, showed that some bottom-dwelling animals migrate upward through a sediment overburden. • Thin-layer placement is the intentional spreading of hydraulically pumped dredged material over broad areas to achieve overburdens less than 12 inches thick. • The objective of thin-layer placement is to minimize impacts on bottom-dwelling fauna and to speed community recovery, particularly in estuarine environments.

  7. Study Region – Lower Chesapeake Bay • Wolf Trap Disposal Area is a designated open water disposal site for uncontaminated sediments dredged from shipping channels in lower Chesapeake Bay • The Corps of Engineers designed a disposal plan for this study which allowed for assessment of effects of varying thicknesses of dredged material overburden on benthic community structure and recovery rates.

  8. C • The Wolf Trap (alternate) disposal area is a situated within a natural bathymetric depression. • Samples were collected following two disposal events at different locations called “cells.” 5.55 km B 1.8 km 10-12 m > 2 km Control stations

  9. > 2 km 10 - 12 m < 1 km H M L N R Experimental Design dredged sediment Cells were mapped using a sediment profiling camera in order to determine the thickness of deposited sediment. DM overburden (thickness) criteria: low = < 5 cm; mid = 5-15 cm; high = >15 cm (often much more than that); N = near, edge of disposal cell; R = reference (control) stations not affected by dredging operations

  10. 100 50 0 Disposal History(cumulative percent cubic meters) Cell B Monitoring began Fall 1987 Monitoring began Spring 1989 May Jul Sep Nov 100 50 0 Cell C Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr

  11. Natural bottom (anemone is 3” across) “High” dredged material overburden (image is 6” wide) Natural bottom (image is 6” wide)

  12. Community analyses showed no or minimal effect (low, mid) or rapid recovery (high)

  13. Summary of results: • Communities got back to “normal” fairly quickly. • There were minimal effects of low and medium levels of overburden (< 15 cm). • It took 1.5 years or less for the high overburden sites to converge with reference sites.  • In this region of Chesapeake Bay, thin-layer disposal of clean material had minimal impacts on benthic communities in the long run. • Results for recovery rates at “high” overburden sites are consistent with previous studies based on habitat type (unstructured, silts and sands.

  14. Rates of recovery from dredged material disposal by overburden in this study (Schaffner 2010).

  15. One surprising finding • Multi-year trends in species richness and variable recruitment of key species occurred regionally during the study, at both the reference sites and within the disposal cells. • These trends may have been associated with climate variations, or other factors not measured during the study. • As a result, conditions for evaluating any measure of community recovery shifted through time. • Sampling reference sites was important for assessing recovery.

  16. Thank you! Any questions?

More Related