grM^nmtmal Prowetton     A                Final
 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
                      for
          TAMPA HARBOR, FLORIDA
    OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
              SITE DESIGNATION
                         SHAUOW-WATW
                         AUTKNATIVt SITS J  EXISTING
                    _           C\  SITK
                       SHAUOW-WATBJ   !\ A
                    ©  AITWNATIVS SITS 3  V \ / \ MUUCT
                              ^\ \ \ 1 \3 "*T
                      SHAILOW-WATW   «  - \*	=•
                               ^*® >, ECMONT AjgS
                         SHAUOW-WATSR .	—^ «•»  / ^
                        AUERNATJVSSITSt   /
                                              wotr
                 §4*Qgr       J3*7^      IJtHT      .U"3iFW

-------

-------
     tin
                                                  M


                                                  1
   3
      m
      *
    si!
              S*» • A V 3
             , g. f S S I

             » * S 2 B :
S Hi
! sis
                         B S
                              iiiii
                              S55SS
                              g 13 SI
                                »»-
                   lifill
                 T f|I* f
                     1"
   — — - 0
     g n
      ui
           JU «•
           g =
   r *» r « n n
    ffl» S * •* A
    a « » a a

   i till I
   s a s • - a
   3-335!;
       a s
    ?n e n n n
    n ™ t% n n

    i ill
           ,4 S S * S *
                             s> „ „ e e
                             ^ rsss
         ?5«S===3     S =«   J5SSSS
         I - Ha Sal     1*5   SSISE
         5   33    f     ?.|2   llll*
         ^   s«k    3       *    »^aac
             !!
                                 a a 5 S s
                                 II55
                          = i  1
                          M  I
                                        Iillii
                                        11551?
      n n A
      3 3 3
5 t S
 «*  M M |A
                                                  in

                                                  I
                                                            n
                                                            e

i
* 535555
   tigs!
    0000
    a 2.3.S.
            5 S £5 = •
            &.&.(•«•!• =
            n £ 5 3 5 =
ill!
                      i
                      i
                                If *.
                             IIIII
                             i|il§
                             lisa!
                             ** « M M 3
                             55   i
                                         f 3 s • i 1
               a.
               a ££335"!
               5? s ff •»••*• 5 —

               ' HHIff
               ^ 5 3    s »
               D « 5    9s
                                                     I
                                                  g
  B B p |U p O
  u> a> o a b »
    >sl  M
          5 - g
          S> u
                 N C9
                 — « f s 5
               3s
               * ~
                          r I* P
                           ••& S
                            a 9
                             fllll
                             5 S 3 I 8
                               fa s ff s"
                               5 a i S
                             ?5 S  a
                                         |
                   e o — w p a
                   ••--•g
                                       illUIl
                                       5 » 2 9  * S
                           S

                           s-
    3
    V
    i»

    ?
  ' 3 ? =5?
   3- 3 «• i
                                                O B

-------

-------
                 FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
                   for
        TAMPA HARBOR, FLORIDA
  OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
           SITE DESIGNATION

                 SEPTEMBER 1983
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         Criteria and Standards Division
           Washington, D.C. 20460

-------

-------
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    FINAL

   ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
                    FOR
          TAMPA HARBOR, FLORIDA
    OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
             SITE DESIGNATION
Prepared by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585)
           Washington, D.C. 20460

-------

-------
                                  SUMMARY SHEET

                         ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                                       FOR
                              TAMPA HARBOR, FLORIDA
                OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
( ) Draft
(X) Final
( ) Supplement to Draft
                         ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION
1.  Type of action.   ,v

    (X)  Administrative/Regulatory action
    ( )  Legislative action

2.  Description of the action.

    The action  is  the designation  of  a Tampa  Harbor Dredged  Material  Disposal
    Site, to be managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region
    IV.    The   site   designated  is  square-shaped,  centered   at   27°3r27"N,
    83°04'54"W, covers  4  nmi2,  and  is 18  nmi  southwest of  the mouth  of  Tampa
    Bay, Florida.  The site will receive designation  for  a  period of three  years
    for the disposal  of dredged material  resulting from  dredging  from  the  Tampa
    Bay area.   The purpose of  the action  is  to provide an  environmentally  and
    economically acceptable ocean  location  for  the  disposal  of dredged  material,

-------
    which  complies  with the  environmental  impact criteria  of  the Ocean Dumping
    Regulations (40 CFR Parts Z20-229).
3.  Environmental effects of the action.

    Adverse environmental effects  of the action include:   (1)  smothering of the
    benthos within  the  designated site  and  (2)  habitat alteration  of the site.
    Adverse impacts within  the  site  are unavoidable, but the disposal operations
    will be regulated  to prevent unacceptable  environmental  degradation outside
    site boundaries.

4.  Alternatives including the action.

    The alternatives including the action are:   (1)  no action,  which would leave
    no designated ocean site for the  disposal  of dredged material  from the .Tampa
    Harbor project, or  (2)  use  of  another ocean disposal site  selected  from the
    alternatives examined.

5.  Federal, State, and local  agencies, and other sources from whom comments have
    been received:

    Federal  Agencies

    Department of Commerce
       National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    Department of Defense
       Army  Corps of Engineers
    Department of Health and Human  Services
    Department of the Interior
    National Science Foundation

    State  and  Local  Agencies
    State  of Florida, Office of  the Governor
    State  of Florida, Department of State
    Manatee County  Board of  Commissioners

-------
     Florida Department of Natural Resources
     Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
     Florida Cooperative Extension Service
     Tampa Port Authority
     Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission
     Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
     Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

     _Pr_1 vate Organi zat i ons

     Florida Skin Divers Association
-     Mote Marine Laboratory

     Other Sources

     A very Gould
     Mrs.  R. Bailey
     Captain Larry Borden     .

6.   The  final  statement has  been officially filed with the Director, Office of
     Environmental Review,  EPA.

7.   The  Draft  Environmental  Impact Statement was made available to the Council on
     Environmental Quality  and  the public in November, 1982.

8.   Comments  on  the  final EIS  are due within  30 days  from- the  date of  EPA's
     publication  of  Notice  of  Availability in  the  Federal  Register  which  is
     expected to be	.
                           i
     Comments should be addressed to:                         '

           Criteria and Standards Division  (WH-585)
           401 M Street,  SW
           Environmental  Protection Agency
           Washington,  D.C.   20460                             •
                                    vii

-------
Copies of the Final EIS may be obtained from:

      Environmental Protection Agency
      Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585)
      401 M Street, SW
      Washington, D.C.  20460
      (202) 245-3036

The Final EIS may be reviewed at the following locations;

      Environmental Protection Agency
      Region IV     '
      345 CourtUnd Street, NE
      Atlanta, Georgia  30308
      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
      Jacksonville District
      P.O. Box 4970
      400 West Bay Street
      Jacksonville, FL  32232
Tampa-Hillsborough County Public
  Library
Special Collections Department
900 North Ashley Street
Tampa, FL  33602
                                viii

-------
                                     SUMMARY

    This Environmental  Impact  Statement  (EIS)  provides  the  information necessary
for the  permanent  designation  of a  Tampa  Harbor Dredged Material  Disposal  Site
(ODMDS).   The purpose of the  action is  to provide the most  environmentally  and
economically acceptable ocean  location for the disposal  of  material  dredged from
the Tampa Bay area.

     Based on the  need  to  continue  dredging projects in the Tampa  Bay area,  the
Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) designated  two  Tampa  Harbor ODMDS's  for
interim use  in 1977  (40 CFR  Part  228).   These disposal sites were  identified as
Site  A,  approximately  13  nautical  miles  from  Egmont  Key,   and  Site   B,
approximately 9 miles from Egmont Key.   In  December 1980, the initial  designation
was extended to February  1983.   In May  1982, action  was  brought   in  Federal
District Court by  Manatee  County to  halt disposal  of dredged material at  Site A
(Manatee  County ^  Gorsuch,  82-248-T-GC(M.D.  Fla.  1982)).    By  order  dated
December 21, 1982,  the Court found for the  plaintiffs, and halted all  disposal of
dredged material at  Site A as  of  24 December 1982.   Unless this action  is'taken
by EPA, an EPA-designated ODMDS will not  be available for the disposal  of dredged
material  from the Tampa Bay area.
                           PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

    A disposal site in the ocean  is  needed to receive material dredged from the
Tampa Bay area.  At present, portions  of  the Channel  System are being deepened.
Operation and  maintenance dredging  will   be  necessary  to  maintain  the Channel
depths.    Without  the   deepening  and  operation  and  maintenance  dredging,
economically important ship traffic would  be reduced from  the ports of Tampa, Old
Tampa, and Hillsborough Bays.

-------
                   ALTERNATIVES  INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

   Alternatives  to the proposed  action  include  no  action or  designation  of  an
alternative ocean  site  other  than the proposed site.  Non-ocean disposal methods
were considered by the  U.S. Army  Corps  of Engineers (Cf. Letter from Harrison  D.
Ford, District Counsel  for the Corps1 Jacksonville District, on July 14,  1983,  to
Joseph  Freedman,  Office  of  General  Counsel,  EPA) to  be  less  desirable than
disposal  in  the  ocean, because of  the  quantity of sediments  to  be dredged, the
limited receiving capacity of land  disposal sites, and economic and environmental
concerns.     The   Corps  must  also  consider  alternatives  before  authorizing
individual  disposal projects.   Thus, this  EIS  does not  consider in great  detail
non-ocean alternatives  for disposal of dredged material.

    By taking no action,  no ocean disposal  site would  be designated.  Therefore,
the  Corps would be  required to: . (1)  use  an acceptable  alternative  disposal
method; (2) independently justify use of an ocean disposal site; or (3) modify  or
cancel the existing Tampa Harbor  Project.

   Three  general  ocean environments  off  Tampa  Bay, Florida,  were  considered  in
which to locate a site  for disposal in the  ocean.   These are:   (1) shallow-water
(depths less than 30m,  located  from the  shore to approximately 25 nmi  offshore),
(2) mid-Shelf (depths from 30 to  200m, approximately 25  to 75  nmi offshore), and
(3) deepwater Slope (depths greater than 200m, approximately 105 nmi offshore).

   The Mid-Shelf and Deepwater  Sites  are  not  considered  acceptable locations for
an ODMDS because of the considerably increased additional expense associated with
the extreme transport distances.

   •Sites  A  and  B  and  the  Shallow-Water Alternative  Sites were  evaluated  for
suitability  for   disposal  of   material   dredged  from   the   Tampa   Bay  area.
Evaluations of the physical,  chemical, and  biological  processes within  this near

-------
p
                                           CB

                                           Q

                                           O.
                                          a



                                          I




                                          I

                                          M
                                          P*




                                          1
                                          
-------
shore region were based on historical data and on extensive recent surveys of the
area.

   The  alternative  sites  considered  are  shown  in  Table  S-i.    The  boundary
coordinates are:

(1) The previously designated sites (Sites A and B) (interim designation):

Inner:  27°38'08"N, 83°55'06"W      Outer:  27°37'28"N,   83°00109"W
Site B  27°38'08"N, 82°54'00"W      Site A  27°37'34"N,   82°59'19"W
        27°37'08"N, 82°54'00"W              27°36'43"N>   82°59'13"W
        27°37'08"N, 82°55'06"W              27°36'37"N,   83°00'03"W
(2) Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4:        27°32'27-"N,   83°03'46"W
                                            27°30I27"N,   83°G3'46"W
                                            27°30'2711N,   83°06I02"W
                                            27°32'27"N,  • 83°06'02"W

   Sites  A and .B  have .areas  of  1  nmi2  and  0.68 nmi^  respectively,  and  are
about 13  and  9 nmi,  respectively, from  the  mouth of  Tampa  Bay.   Depths  at  the
sites range from  10m to 17m.  These  sites received a total of 2,531,500 yd3 of
dredged material  between  1969  and  1980.   Of this  total,  1,901,800 yd3  were
disposed  at Site  B between  1969  and 1973.   Between  1973 and mid-1980,  neither
site was  used  for  dredged  material disposal.   Between. June 1980,  and  the end of
December  1982, 4,939,600.yd3 was dumped at Site A.

   Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4 is 5  nmi southwest  of  Site A  in  water depths
of approximately 22m.   It  is 4  nmi2 in   area, and  has not been  previously  used
for dredged material  disposal.

   The  previously  designated  sites  and  Shallow-Water  Alternative  Sites .were
evaluated utilizing the results of the following  surveys:   IEC, Appendix  A;  EPA,
Appendices B and C; Corps, Appendix D; Mote Marine, Appendix E; EPA,  Appendix F.
Because of the density of attached marine organisms evidenced in  several surveys,
Alternative Sites 1,  2, and 3 were eliminated from detailed consideration.
                                       xii

-------
   Sites  A and B and Shallow-Water  Alternative Site 4  are  compared by  applying
the  11 specific  site-selection  criteria  listed  at  40 CFR Part 228.6 of the Ocean
Dumping Regulations.  Cf.  Table S-l.  The  following are most important  criteria
in the comparison, and are indicated by  an  asterisk  (*)  in Table S-l.
                                                               9
LOCATION  IN RELATION TO BEACHES AND OTHER AMENITY AREAS

   The  central   west   Florida  Shelf   is   utilized  for  recreational  diving,
recreational  and commercial  fishing.   These activities  are  commonly associated
with hard  bottom outcrops, which  provide habitats for many  species of flora and
fauna unassociated with sandy-bottom areas.                            •    .

   The previously designated  sites  are relatively  small and  are  located  in  a
general area  of  hard  bottoms.   Shallow-Water  Alternative  Site  4 is  five  nmi
farther from shore than Site A.   Shallow-Water  Alternative Site 4 will provide a
sandy-bottom environment with  few hard bottom areas  and  is of sufficient size to
permit the disposal of dredged material without unacceptable adverse effects.
DISPERSAL, HORIZONTAL TRANSPORT, AND VERTICAL MIXING CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE AREA, INCLUDING PREVAILING CURRENT DIRECTION AND VELOCITY. IF ANY *          "

   Seasonal  climatic  conditions  are  the  primary  influences  on dispersal  'and
vertical mixing  conditions.   Ocean  water  currents produce  an  alternating north
and south transport of  sediments,  depending on the season.   Current velocities,
which vary with depth, are dependent on  the  wind-induced stress  and Loop Current
influence, but  are generally  less  than 1  kn.    Tropical  storms  and  hurricanes
produce strong bottom currents  (3  to 4  kn),  which can  profoundly  affect dumped
material.    Vertical  mixing  is  also   dependent  on  temperature  and  salinity
stratification.

-------
                                            TABLE  S-l
                         SUMMARY OF THE  11  SPECIFIC CRITERIA  AS  APPLIED
                      TO SITES A AND B AND  SHALLOW-WATER ALTERNATIVE  SITE
Criteria as Listed
at 40 CFR §228.6
Sites A and B
Shallow-Water Alternative
Site 4
1. Geographical position,
depth of water, bottom
topography and distance
from coast
2. Location in relation to
breeding, spawning, nursery,
feeding, or passage of
living resources in adult
or juvenile phases

*3. Location in relation to
beaches and other amenity
areas
4. Types and quantities of
wastes proposed to be disposed
of, and proposed methods of
release, including methods of
packing the wastes, if any
5. Feasibility of surveillance
and monitoring
*6. Dispersal, horizontal
transport, and vertical mixing
characteristics of the area,"
including prevailing current
direction and velocity, if any
 See  Figure  S-l;  10m to  17m;
 rolling  sand/shell  bottom
 area  with hard-bottom out-
 crops; 9 nmi  (Site  B) and  13
 nmi  (Site A)  to  closest  point
 of  land

 Known breeding and  spawning
 grounds  in  general  region;
 feeding  grounds  for transient
 oceanic  fish  and other wide-
 ranging  pelagic  species

 Site  B'witnin 9  nmi  of
 nearest  developed beaches;
 Site A within 13 nmi of
 nearest  developed beaches;
 recreational  commercial
 fishing  on  hard-bottom areas
 near  the sites;  artificial'
 reefs constructed within
 3 nmi of Site 8.

 4.3 million yd**  of  dredged  •
 material from the Tampa
 Harbor Deepening Project;
 Future operation and mainten-
 ance dredging estimated at
 1.1 million yd^  per year;
 none of the material will be
 packaged; sediments are fine
 sands and silts  transported
 by hopper dredge, barge or
 scow

 CE and U.S. Coast Guard will
 survey disposal   operations;
 monitoring easy  due to
 shallow water

 Dispersion and horizontal
 transport will occur primari-
 ly to the north  and south,
 resulting from wind-induced
 seasonal  currents, vertical
mixing inhibited only during
 late-summer stratification;
 Tampa Bay may periodically
 influence site water
characteristics   ana currents;
 sediments disposed at these
 sites may be transported into
the entrance channel
 See  Figure  S-l;  20-23m;
 rolling  sand/shell bottom;
 very  limited  hard-bottom  out-
 crops; no major  topographical
 relief;  18  nmi to Egmont  Key
Same as Sites A and B
18 nmi to nearest developed
beaches; little or no
recreational diving, sport or
commercial fishing; no known
hard-bottom outcrops
Same as Sites A and B
Same as Sites A and B
Characteristics similar to
Sites A and 8; less influence
from Tampa Bay water
discharge; sediments less
likely to be transported back
into entrance channel
   criterion especially relevant to site selection
                                             xiv

-------
 TAaiE S-l (Continued)
 Criteria as Listed
  at 40 CFR §228.6
        Sites  A and B
    Shallow-Water Alternative
      Site 4
 "7. Existence and effects of
 current and previous discharges
 and dumping in the area
, (including cumulative effects)
 *8. Interference with ship-
 ping,  fishing, recreation,
 mineral  extraction,
 desalination,-fish and shellfish
 culture, area  of special
 scientific importance, and other
 legitimate uses of the ocean
 9.  The existing water quality
 and ecology of the" sites as
 determined  by  available data,
 or  by  baseline surveys
 10.  Potentiality  for  the
 development  or  recruitment  of
.nuisance  species  in the
"disposal  sites
 11.  Existence at  or  in  close
 proximity  to the  site of  any
 significant natural  or
 cultural  features  of
 Historical  importance
  Site  B  was  used  from
  1969-73 (1.9 million yd3);
  Site  A  since  1980  (4.4
  million yd3).  Between  1973
  and mid-1980 no  disposal
  activity occurred;
  indication  is  that  Site 8
  has recovered; a low mound
  exists  at Site A.
 Possible conflict  of
 interests with  recreation-
 al diving and fishing,  arid
 commercial  fishing activi-
 ties

 No interference with  ship-
 ping, mineral extraction,
 desalination, fish or
 shellfish culture, or areas.
 of special  scientific
 importance

Clean oceanic water low  in
nutrients, suspended solids,
and anthropogenic
contaminants; Tampa Bay  water
discharge may occasionally
affect water quality;
plankton and nekton
communities  consist of sub-
tropical and tropical
species; benthic community
primarily consists of
polychaete worms and
Crustacea

Hard-bottom  outcrops known
to occur in  close proximity
to the outside of the outer
site

Nuisance species have not
been developed or recruited;
animals present prior to 1980
disposal activity similar to
those presently found out-
side the site

No known features exist at or
near Sites A and B.
  No disposal has ever
  occurred at this site
  No interference expected
  with  recreational  OP
  commercial  interests
  No  interference  with  shipping,
  mineral  extraction, desalina-
  tion,  fish  and shellfish
  culture,  or areas  of  special
  scientific  importance
  Uater  quality  similar  to  the
  Sites  A and 8;  however, the
  increased  distance  from Tampa
  Bay  will result in  reduced
  influence  from  Say  water
  discharge
                                                                   No  significant  hard-bottom
                                                                   outcrops  are  known  to  occur
                                                                   at  this  site
 Disposal operations would have
 effects similar to those at
 Sites A and 8..
• Same as Sites A and B.
                                             xv

-------
    Dispersal  of dumped sediments  (particularly  the volume  projected from   the
Tampa Harbor Project) may adversely affect  hard-bottom  outcrops,in  and near  Sites
A  and  B.   Relocation of the  disposal  site to  an  area  containing no  significant
hard bottom outcrops will present less conflict with amenity  areas  and commercial
fishing.  Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4  will provide a  large  sandy-bottom area
for disposal of  dredged material.

EXISTENCE AND EFFECTS OF CURRENT AND PREVIOUS DISCHARGES
AND DUMPING IN THE AREA (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS)

   Disposal of dredged material has occurred only  at Sites A  and  B.  Between  1969
and 1973 all disposal occurred at Site B.   Disposal activity  was  resumed'in  1980,
utilizing Site A only.   During a  five-year period  (1969  to  1973) approximately
1.9 million  yd3  of  dredged material  were disposed  at Site  B.   Corps  records
indicate  that  4,939,600 yd3 of  dredged  material were  disposed  of  at  Site A
between June 1980, and the end of December  1982.'

    In 1973, the Corps  established  the Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP),
a  five-year,  $30-million  research effort.   The  objectives  of  the  program were
(1) to understand why  and  under what  conditions  dredged  material disposal  might
result  in adverse environmental  impacts,  and  (2)  to  develop  procedures   and
disposal options  to minimize 'adverse impacts (Corps, 1977).   Studies supported by
the  DMRP  have   reported   that  no   significant   long-term   effects   occur  at'
sandy-bottom habitats in high-energy environments.  These studies have shown that
the most  significant  effects  are burial and changes  in physical characteristics
of  site  sediment,  resulting  in  changes  of  benthic biological  characteristics
which may persist for 7 to  12 months,  although  recolonization may occur within 3
months.  Thus, the  relocation  of  Sites A and B to  an area  with  an uninterrupted
sandy bottom will minimize potential environmental  impacts.

   Alternative Site 4 will  provide 4  nmi^  of  sand bottom.   Planned  disposal of
the  dredged  material  over the  entire  area  of   Site  4  will   minimize  adverse
environmental effects within the  site.  Dispersion of  material  outside the site
                                      xvi

-------
 boundaries  is  expected to occur,  if  at all,  only  in extremely minimal  amounts.
 Such  dispersion  is  not   expected  to  have  unacceptable  adverse  environmental
 effects.      .                                                 ;
 INTERFERENCE WITH  SHIPPING,  FISHING, RECREATION, MINERAL  EXTRACTION,
 DESALINATION, FISH AND SHELLFISH  CULTURE, AREAS OF  SPECIAL  SCIENTIFIC
 IMPORTANCE, AND OTHER LEGITIMATE  USES  OF THE  OCEAN

   Disposal  activities  at Sites  A and B  may have  conflicted with  recreational
 diving  and  fishing and  commercial fishing.   The  relocation of the disposal  site
 will minimize or eliminate any  conflicts.

                              AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

   The  Continental Shelf  west  of  Tampa Bay is a plateau  of Pleistocene  limestone
with  a  young   drowned  karst   topography.     The  Continental   Shelf   extends
 approximately 100  nmi  across the Gulf from  the mouth  of Tampa  Bay.   The  Shelf
 gradient  averages  0.5.  m/km, _and   is   characterized  by   a  gently,  rolling
 bottom,  irregularly  covered  by  a  thin   veneer   of   unconsolidated  sediments,
 punctuated  by  localized  sinkholes,  fissures, and  rock  outcrops.   The outcrops
 provide, substrates for  both  living and Pleistocene coral,  algae, and associated
calcareous organisms.  Most  of the living corals are found  shoreward of  the 10m
 isobath,  although  some exist  to 60m.   Within. 20  nmi  of  shore,  sediments are
 predominantly quartz, with increasing  quantities  of carbonaceous  shell  fragments,
towards the mid-Shelf.

   The  central west  Florida  region has  a  .subtropical   climate  with  two distinct
 seasons:    summer  and  winter.    Summers  are  dominated by   the Bermuda-Azores
 high-pressure system, producing persistent southeasterly  tradewinds.  Winters are
affected  by  cold  fronts  moving  from  the  northwest, and extratropical  cyclones
moving  from the southwest.
                                         xvii

-------
   Water circulation  in the  eastern  Gulf of Mexico is dominated by the Gulf Loop
Current  and detached  cyclonic  eddies.   The degree  of penetration  of  the Loop
Current  into the Gulf varies seasonally  and fluctuates from year  to year.  The
main  body  of the  current  usually reaches  its  northenmost  limit  during  summer.
During  winter,  the current  is  generally  confined to  the  southern  Gulf.   Wind
directions,  frequencies,  and magnitudes also affect  local  ocean currents, which
in turn,  influence the distribution  of sediments and  nutrients.   Ocean  current
velocities  generally  range up to .0.7  kn,  but may'increase  to 3 to  4 kn  during
severe tropical  storms or  hurricanes.'

   As  with  other  Gulf  of  Mexico  coastal  areas,  abundances of  diatoms  and
dinoflagellates  are greatest  inshore,  and decrease with increasing distance from
shore.   Generally, diatom abundance exceeds  that of  dinoflagellates;  however,
periodic  outbreaks of large numbers  of  dinoflagellates result  in  "red tide"
conditions.  Red tides occur primarily  during late summer and autumn.

   Zooplankton  comprise  a wide  variety of  larval  and  adult  forms  representing
many  phyla.  Zooplankton  volume  and  abundance of fish  eggs  and larvae have been
observed to  peak in spring and summer.

   Approximately  400  species of  fish  inhabit  the  central  west  Florida   Shelf.
Nekton*  communities are  classified  primarily by type  of  substratum:     nekton
associated  with  soft  substrates  are  predominantly of  temperate  origin,  whereas
those associated with hard bottom outcrops  are  generally  derived  from Caribbean
and'West  Indian populations.   The  three  species reported  as  most  abundant  in
nearshore waters are the leopard  searobin, sand perch, and tomtate.

   A  variety of  infaunal and epifaunal  species  inhabit the previously designated
and  Shallow-Water  Alternative  Sites.   Sandy  substrates are  dominated  by  sea
lancelets, crustaceans, polychaete worms, molluscs, and echinoderms.  Hard bottom
outcrops are inhabited by  "soft -and  hard  corals,  echinoderms,  sponges, molluscs,
and teleosts.
                                          xviii

-------
   Marine grasses and algae may be associated with either sandy substrata or  rock
outcrops; however the larger diversity of benthic plants occurs on  rock outcrops.
   Recreational  diving  and  fishing  are  popular  activities   in   central  west
Florida,  and the  offshore area  in which  Sites  A  and  B  are  located contains
several   desirable   locations.      In  1978,   the   combined  value  of  offshore
recreational and  commercial  fish landings totaled  over  $9  million; pink shrimp,
red  and  black  grouper,  and  red  snapper  were the major  species  of economic
importance.

   Other  commercial  activities  include oil and  gas  exploration, production,-and
shipping.   However,  disposal  of dredged  material  does  not  interfere, with these
activities, and in the  case  of  commercial shipping, a  direct benefit is gained.
Similarly,  economic  benefits  are  gained  for  many  commercial .and  industrial
enterprises in the Tampa  Bay  region,  and  thus indirectly, the general population
of Florida.

                           ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

   Previous disposal  of dredged material  at Sites  A and B has not been monitored
to  determine specific  environmental   effects.   However,  before  1980  disposal
volumes  were relatively  small,  totaling approximately 2  million yd-*  between
1969  and  1973,  and  all  material was  disposed  at  Site B.   Studies  of  dredged
material  disposal  operations .conducted  at other  locations  in  continental  U.S.
waters have determined that no significant long-term adverse effects result from
dumping dredged  sediments on sandy substrate  habitats.   Short-term  effects  of
disposal  are temporary,  including  localized increases  in water  column turbidity
and temporary reductions  in the  abundance of  bottom-dwelling animals.   Mounds of
dredged  material  may  persist  for  several  months  or  longer.    The  physical
characteristics of  dredged  sediments may be dissimilar  to existing  sediment
characteristics, resulting in changes  to the  benthic  biological characteristics
of the affected site.   In  comparison,  hard oottom  areas support  marine organisms
which are not adapted to burial  or  high  levels of  siltation.   Therefore,  dredged
material  disposal  in   areas  with  hard   bottom  outcrops  may  result  in  more
significant  environmental  consequences than  at areas  without  such  outcrops  or
with minimal outcroppings.
                                       xix

-------
    Based  on  analysis  of  liquid-phase elutriate  samples, certain  constituents
 present in  trace amounts  may be released into the water  during  disposal.   These
 materials   include   nutrients   (ammonia,   nitrite  and  nitrate   compounds,  and
 phosphorus  compounds),  heavy  metals,  and  organic   compounds.    However,  the
 estimated volume released  and  calculated  dilution  of  the materials indicate that
 these  constituents  would  be reduced to  background  levels and  would  not  be  an
 environmental  concern  within the  permitted  four-hour  period of initial  dilution.

    This  designation   is   expected  to  have  minimal   impact   on  threatened  or
 endangered  species  occurring in the region.  Turtle  species  inhabiting  the area
 (including  the  hawksbill  turtle,  leatherback  turtle,   green  sea  turtle,  and
 loggerhead  turtle)  are wide-ranging  oceanic species,  and the  size of any  of the
 Shallow-Water  Alternative  Sites is a  small  fraction  of  their potential  feeding
 range.  Other  species  that may feed in the area are cetaceans  and brown  pelicans.
 The general area of the  sites  under consideration do  not  contain  unique feeding
 or  breeding grounds for any  of these species, and  site use is  not  anticipated  to
 affect their survival.

    The  possibility  of  long-term  adverse  biological  effects   resulting  from
 contaminants in  the dredged material  is  extremely low.   Dredged material  must
 meet certain bioassay and bioaccumulation criteria (outlined at 40 CFR 227.27)  to
 ensure that the  material  is  suitable for  ocean  disposal.   In  addition, all
 Shallow-Water  Alternative  Sites are in  open water,  which ensures  a  supply  of
 fresh  oxygenated  seawater  over  the  affected  area.    Long-term  release  of
 contaminants into the water should be below detection  levels.

    Disposal  operations at  Shallow-Water  Alternative  Site  4 would not interfere
 with any long-term  use of resources.  The  only  resources  lost by disposal  are:
 (1)  sand   for  landfill,   (2)  energy  expended  for   the  transport  of  dredged
materials,  and (3) money  spent  on  disposal.   The losses are offset  by the benefit
to  commerce  from  dredging  the  channel  system,  and  subsequent  disposal   of
dredged material  at an environmentally  suitable ocean disposal  site.   Adverse
environmental   effects  of  the proposed action include:    (1)   smothering of the
                                      xx

-------
benthos  within  the designated  site  and  (2)  possible habitat  alteration  of the
site.    Adverse  impacts   within  the  site  are  unavoidable,   but  the  disposal
operations  will  be monitored  to prevent  unacceptable  environmental  degradation
outside  the boundaries.

   To  ensure  that  any  adverse  environmental  effects  will   be  identified,  a
monitoring  program  will  be  established  to  supplement  historical  data.   The
primary  purpose of this monitoring  program will  be to determine whether disposal
at the selected site significantly  affects areas outside  the site, and to detect
long-term effects occurring in  or around  the site.  Monitoring plans may  include
the survey  of appropriate bottom-dwelling animals, periodic bathymetric studies,
and  tests  for  bioaccumul.ation,  if  there  is   reason  to  believe that   dredged
material  constituents  could be  bioaccumulated.  ,  If necessary,  other  physical,
chemical, or biological parameters will be measured.  Monitoring of Shallow-Water
Alternative Site  4 will  occur at regular  intervals over  the  three-year  term of
the site's designation, and will be measured against a control  site approximately
five nautical miles  southeast  of Shallow-Water  Alternative  Site  4.   The  control
site has  similar  topological  conditions  to  Site 4; i.e.,  it  is  sandy-bottomed,
flat, and in approximately the same depths of water.

                                   CONCLUSIONS

   Of the sites examined,  Shallow-Water Site 4 is most environmentally acceptable
for disposal of  the  large volumes of  dredged  material  from the  Tampa  Bay area.
Based on the outcome of recent surveys of  four  Shallow-Water  Alternative Sites,
EPA has  determined that Shallow-Water  Alternative  Site  4  is the alternative with
the fewest hard-bottom areas which may be affected by dredged material  disposal,
and  that its  designation  will  not   have  significant adverse  effects   on  the
environment.   Shallow-Water  Alternative  Site   4  is  therefore  recommended  for
designation as the Tampa Harbor ODMDS for a period of three years.
                                         xx i

-------
                          ORGANIZATION OF THE EIS

 p The  EIS is organized  into six  Chapters  and  five  Appendices.    Four  Chapters
 omprise the main body of the EIS:

   o     Chapter  1 specifies  the  purpose and  need  for the action,  (i.e.,  desig-
        nation of a Tampa  Harbor  ODMDS).  Background  information  on  the  disposal
        of  dredged  material  is  presented,   together   with  the  legal  framework
        guiding  EPA   in   the  selection  and  designation  of  disposal   sites.
        Responsibilities  of the  Corps  in  disposal of dredged material  in  the
        ocean, and the history of dredged material  disposal at Sites  A and  B,  are
        summarized.

   o     "Chapter  2  discusses alternative  locations for  the  disposal  of  dredged
        material   in  the ocean  and  the  no-action  alternative.   Alternatives  are
        evaluated using  the  11 site-selection criteria  listed  at 40  CFR  228.6.
        Guidelines for a monitoring plan are  also presented.

   o     Chapter  3  describes the affected environment of Sites A and B and  the
        Shallow-Water Alternative Sites.

   o     Chapter  4 describes  the  potential  environmental consequences  of  dredged
        material   disposal   at  Sites A and  B  and  the Shallow-Water  Alternative
        Sites.

   Chapters 5  and 6,  and Appendices A to  F,  provide  supplementary  information.
Chapter 5 lists the authors of the EIS.  Chapter 6 contains the glossary,  list  of
abbreviations, and references cited in the text.  Mathematical  conversion  factors
are provided on the inside  front cover.  Appendices  A  to  F  present summaries and
analyses of data collected during the  IEC,  Corps, Mote  Marine,  and  EPA surveys.
                                       xxn

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS



Chapter                                                                      Page

     SUMMARY		ix

          PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION	ix

          ALTERNATIVES  INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION  .	  .. .  .   x

          AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..........	   xvii

          ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES	i  .  .  .	xix

          CONCLUSIONS	xxl

          ORGANIZATION  OF THE EIS	  .  .   xxil

1    PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION	1-1

          GENERAL	 .	   1-1

          LEGISLATION AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND	•.  ... 1-2

          PERMIT ENFORCEMENT	'	   1-7

          INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 	  ...   1-8

          CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONAL PURPOSE AND NEED  .-	   1-8

          CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOCAL NEED	......   1-9

2  .  ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION . 	   2-1

          NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE	   2-3

          SITE SELECTION	"...   2-6

          SITES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL	2-9

          DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF THE NEARSHORE ALTERNATIVE SITES   . .  .   2-15
               Geographical Position, Depth of Water,
                Bottom Topography, and Distance From Coast  	   2-15
               Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning,
                Nursery, Feeding, or Passage Areas of
                Living Resources in Adult and Juvenile Phases	   2-17
               Location in Relation to Beaches and
                Other Amenity Areas	2-18
               Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed to be
                Disposed of, and Proposed Methods of Release   .
                Including Methods of Packing the Waste, if  Any	2-19

                                      xxiii

-------
CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter                                                                     Page

               Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring  	  2-20
               Dispersal, Horizontal Transport, and Vertical
                Mixing Characteristics of the Area, Including
                Prevailing Current Direction and Velocity, if Any  ....  2-20
               Existence and Effects of Current and Previous
         .       Discharges and Dumping in the Area
                (Including Cumulative Effects) . . 	  2-22
               Interference With Shipping, Fishing,
                Recreation, Mineral Extraction, Desalination,
                Fish and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special
                Scientific Importance, and Other Legitimate
                Uses of the Ocean  .......... 	  2-24
               The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the
                Site as Determined by Available Data or By
                Trend Assessment or Baseline Surveys	2-25
               Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment
                of Nuisance Species in the Disposal Site	'. . . .  2-26
               Existence At or In Close Proximity to the Site
                of Any Significant Natural or Cultural
                Features of Historical Importance  	 . .  2-27

          CONCLUSIONS  ...... i	  2-27

          RECOMMENDED USE OF THE SITE	  2-28
               Types of Dredged Material  . .	2-28
               Dredged Material Loading  . . 	  2-28
               Disposal Methods  	  2-29
               Monitoring the Disposal Site	  2-29
               Guidelines for the Monitoring Plan  	  2-30

3    AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS . .	  3-1

          ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS  	  3-1
               Climate	3-1
               Physical Oceanography 	  3-4
               Geology	3-15
               Chemical Characteristics  	  3-29
               Biology	  3-33

          PRESENT AND POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE SITE . .  3-50
               Fisheries	3-50
               Marine Recreation 	  3-53
               Shipping  .	3-54
               Oil and Gas Exploration and Development	3-55
                                      xxiv

-------
CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter                                                                     Page

4    ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES  	   4-1

          DREDGED MATERIAL TRANSPORT 	 ... 	   4-1

          EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY  	   4-2

          EFFECTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM	 .-	' . .   4-3
               Water and Sediment Quality	4-4
               Biological Effects  	   4-13

          EFFECTS ON'RECREATION, ECONOMICS, AND AESTHETICS	   4-21
               Recreation		   4-21
               Economics	   4-22
               Aesthetics  . .	4-22

          POTENTIAL UNAVOIDABLE. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
           AND MITIGATING-MEASURES	 .   4-22

          RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND
           LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY  .  . -	 .	4-23

          IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ..... -  4-24

5,    COORDINATION	   5-1

6    GLOSSARY, ABBREVIATIONS, REFERENCES 	  .   6-1

          GLOSSARY . .	6-1

          ABBREVIATIONS	"	6-12

          REFERENCES . . .	6-14
                                       XXV

-------
CONTENTS (continued)

                                   ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure                                                                       Page

S-l  Tampa Harbor ODMDS and Alternative Disposal Sites  ..........   xi
1-1  Tampa Harbor ODMDS and Alternative Disposal Sites  ..........   1-3
3-1  Mean Precipitation by Month for a 30-Year Period   ...  .......   3-3
3-2  Percentage Probability of Occurrences of Landfall  of
      Tropical Cyclones. In 1 Year   .............  .......   3-5
3-3  Typical Loop Current In September with Detached Cyclonic Eddies  .  .  .   3-6
3-4  Degree of Intrusion of the Loop Current Over an Annual Cycle   ....   3-7
3-5  Vertical Sections of Longshore Current Velocity Components
      Along 26°N Latitude from Moored Current Meters ...........   3-9
3-6  Tidal Currents Near Tampa Bay  . . . . ; ...............   3-10
3-7  Temperature Profile Along 27°30'N for January and  August 1973  ....   3-12
3-8  Salinity Profiles Along 27°30'N for January and August 1973 ......   3-14
3-9  Bottom Character of West Florida Shelf  ...... .........   3-17
3-10 Grain Size Distribution of West Florida Shelf . .  . . ........   3-18
3-11 Locations of Bottom Descriptions, Hard-Bottom Areas,
      and Artificial Reefs on the West Florida Shelf ...........   3-20
3-12 Percent Light Transmission Profile at 27*55' for
      January and February 1975  .....................   3-29
3-13 Percent Light Transmission Profile at 27°55' for September 1975  .  .  .   3-30
3-14 Shallow-Shelf Benthic Communities Offshore of Tampa Bay  . . .....   3-43
3-15 Deep-Shelf Benthic Communities Offshore of Tampa Bay  ........   3-43
3-16 Slope Benthic Communities Offshore of Tampa Bay ...........   3-44
3-17 Faunal Zones and Associated Sediment Types Along the
      West Florida Shelf ............. ............   3-45
3-18 Fishery Areas in Tampa Bay and Adjacent Waters  ...........   3-51
3-19 Central West Florida Outer Continental Shelf Oil Lease
      Tract Areas and Tampa Harbor Safety Fairway  ............   3-56
4-1  Major Food Pathways of Marine Organisms ...............   4-15

                                     TABLES

Number
S-l  Summary of the 11 Specific Criteria as Applied to Sites A and B
      and Shallow-Water Alternative Site ............. ....  xiv
1-1  Responsibilities of Federal Departments and Agencies
      for Regulating Ocean Disposal Under MPRSA  .............  1-6
3-1  Days with Visibility Less Than or Equal to 0.25 mi for
      a 29-Year Period .................... . .....  3-3
3-2  Bottom Descriptions of Water Adjacent to Tampa Bay  .........  3-24
3-3  Artificial Reefs and Hard-Bottom Area Descriptions  .........  3-27
3-4  Average Values of Nutrients Found in Gulf of Mexico Waters  .....  3-32
3-5  Sediment Heavy Metal Concentrations in Mid-Shelf Areas
      West of Pinellas County  . ....... . .......... ...  3-33
3-6  Dominant Shelf Species Reported from Vicinity of Tampa Bay  .....  3-35

                                      xxvi

-------
CONTENTS  (continued)

Number                                                                       Page

3-7  Zooplankton Collected During MAFLA Studies   	 .....   3-37
3-8  Nekton Taxa Collected in Depth Ranges Occupied by Sites  A and 8
      and Shallow-Water Alternative Sites  	 .  	   3-38
3-9  Species of Marine Mammals in Gulf of Mexico	3-41
3-10 Important Fishes of the Offshore Fishery of  Coastal Counties  ....   3-52
3-11 Recreational Activities of the Florida Marine Environment	   3-53
4-1  Comparative Transportation Costs	4-2
4-2  Results of Sediment Analysis	,	4-5
4-3  Results of Chemical Analysis of the Liquid-Phase Elutriate Tests
      of Sediments from Old Tampa Bay and St. Petersburg Harbor  .....'   4-6
4-4  Settling Velocities for Sand and Rock Particles 	 .....   4-7
4-5  Short-Term Effects of Dredged Material Disposal at
      Nearshore Alternative Sites	4-9
4-6  Chemical Analyses from Bioaccumulation Tests  . 	   4-14
4-7  Summary of Short-Term Effects of Dredged Material Disposal  '
      Sites on Nearshore Disposal	   4-20
                                     xxvii

-------

-------
                                    Chapter  1
                         PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
                           V,

               The  Ports of  Tampa,  Old  Tampa,  and Hillsborough
               Bays are  among  the  nation's leading ports In terms
               of shipping traffic and cargo tonnage.  Ship access
               to the harbors  depends on the continued dredging of
               navigation channels and berthing areas.  The action
               taken  in  this  EIS  1s  the  final  designation  of a
               Tampa  Harbor  Ocean  Dredged Material  Disposal  Site
               located in the  nearshore  region west of Tampa Bay.

                                     GENERAL

   The  action addressed  in this  Environmental  Impact  Statement  (EIS)  is. the
designation  for  a  period of three years  of an  Ocean Dredged  Material Disposal
Site (ODMDS) in the Tampa Bay  area.   The  purpose  of the action  is to provide the
most environmentally  and economically  acceptable  location for the ocean disposal
of materials dredged from Tampa Bay.  This EIS presents the information needed to
evaluate the suitability of ocean  disposal  areas  for  final  designation  and is
based  on  a  series  of disposal  site  environmental  studies.    The  environmental
studies  and  final  designation  process,  are  conducted  in  accordance  with the
requirements  of  the  Marine  Protection,  Research, and  Sanctuaries  Act  of 1972
(MPRSA)  (86  Stat.   1052),   as  amended   (33  U.S.C.A.  1401  et  seq.)  and  the
Environmental Protection Agency's  (EPA)  Ocean Dumping Regulations  and Criteria
(40 CFR 220-229).

   Based on  an evaluation of all  reasonable  alternatives, the action recommended
in this EIS is to designate Shallow Water  Alternative Site  4  as the Tampa Harbor
ODMDS for a period of three years.  The boundary  coordinates  of the site  (Figure
1-1)   are:     27°32'27"N,   83°03'46"W;   27°30'27"N,   83°03'46"W;   27°30'27"N,
83°06'02"W;  27032'27"N,  83°06'02"W.   The site is  approximately  18  nmi  offshore,
has an average depth of 22m, and an area of  4 nmi2.

   The designation of an ocean dredged material disposal  site by  EPA does not by
itself authorize the  disposal  of dredged material  at  that  site.   That disposal
must be authorized by the Corps of Engineers, subject to its public participation
procedures (Cf_.  33 CFR 209.145), and subject to possible disapproval  by EPA.
                                          1-1

-------
                       LEGISLATION  AND  REGULATORY  BACKGROUND

    In  1972,  Congress enacted  the Marine  Protection,  Research,  and  Sanctuaries  Act
 (MPRSA),  which regulates the transportation  for  the purpose  of dumping and  the
 ultimate  dumping  of materials into ocean waters.   In  general, the Act  prohibits
 ocean  dumping  except in  accordance with  permits  issued  by EPA, or in the case  of
 dredged  materials, the  Corps of  Engineers.   Permits   issued by the  Corps  are
 subject to EPA approval  under Sections I03(c) and  (d) of the Act.

    Pursuant  to Section  102(a)  of the  MPRSA, EPA  has  promulgated regulations
 establishing  criteria  for evaluating  ocean  dumping permit  applications (Cf.  40
 CFR Part  227).   Section  103(b)  of the  MPRSA requires   the  Corps  to apply  those
 criteria  in making  determinations  whether to  issue permits for the ocean disposal
 of  dredged material.

    Section  102(c)  authorizes  EPA  to  designate  recommended .  sites  for  dumping.
 This EIS  is  prepared  in connection with  such a  site   designation.    In issuing
 permits  for  the  ocean  disposal  of  dredged  material,  the  Corps  is  required by
 Section  103(b)  of the  Act  to  utilize  EPA-designated  sites,   to  the  extent
 feasible.

   The Corps  is  authorized,  pursuant  to Section  103(e)  of  the Act, in  lieu  of
 issuing permits for Federal projects,  to issue regulations requiring application
of the same criteria and procedures which apply to the  issuance  of permits.   The
Corps has issued such regulations  (Cf.  33 CFR 209.145).

   Thus,  authorization  for  ocean   disposal  of dredged material  is a  two-step
process.  First, a  recommended disposal  site  must be designated  by EPA.   Second,
the  Corps,  applying the  regulatory  criteria  promulgated  by  EPA, must  issue  a
permit, or follow equivalent administrative procedures.

-------
1-3

-------
   1.  Site Designation

       Pursuant  to  Section  102{c) of the  MPRSA,  EPA has promulgated  regulations
governing  the  designation of  ocean  disposal  sites  (£f.  40 CFR Part  228).   The
regulations  provide that designation will  be based  on  environmental  studies of
the site,  regions adjacent  to  the site, and  historical  knowledge  of disposal in
areas similar to the site (£f.  40 CFR  Part 228.4).   EPA also established general
and specific criteria  to be considered  in  the  site  designation process  (Cf_. 40
CFR Parts 228.5 and. 228.6).                                            _

   Due to the need  of  the Corps to proceed with dredging  in  the Tampa Bay area,
EPA designated two  sites  (Sites A and B) on an  interim basis, without completing
the studies  required for final  site designation.   The  interim designations of'
Sites A and  B expired  in February, 1983; no  dredged  material  is  currently being
ocean disposed in the Tampa Bay area.  The  required site designation studies have
now been completed.  (The primary  investigations were EPA surveys that took place
in May  1982, and February,  March, and  April 1983.   Other studies  included  IEC
investigations in October 1979, and January 1980; an EPA investigation in October
1981; and a  Corps investigation in April 1982).  On  the  basis  of  those studies,
and evaluation of the regulatory  factors (Cf. Chapter 2), this EIS recommends the
designation-of  a dredged material disposal  site  in  the Tampa Bay area  for  a
period of three years.

   In  the  event that   one  or  more  selected  areas  are  deemed  suitable  for
designation, it  is  EPA's position  that  the  site designation  process, including
the disposal site(s) evaluation study and  the  development of the  EIS,  fulfills
all statutory requirements  for the selection,  evaluation,  and  designation  of an
OOMDS.

   2.   Ocean Dumping Evaluation Procedures

   Section 103(a) of the MPRSA .allows  the ocean dumping  of dredged  maerial  only
after a determination that "the dumping will not unreasonably  degrade or endanger
                                       1-4

-------
 human  health,  welfare,  or  amenities,  or  the  marine environment,  or  economic
 potentialities,"    In  making  this  determination,  the  Corps  must   apply   the
 environmental  criteria  promulgated by  EPA  at 40  CFR  Part 227.   Those  criteria
 include:   (1) an evaluation  of  the chemical  and physical  impacts of the  proposed
 dumping  on  marine  life  (Subpart B);  (2)  a  determination  that  there is  a
 demonstrated need for ocean  disposal  (Subpart C);  (3)  an  evaluation of  the impact
 of  the  proposed dumping on  esthetic,  recreational,  and economic values  (Subpart
 D); and  (4) an evaluation of the  impact  of  the  proposed dumping'on other  uses of
 the ocean.  As noted earlier, an  EPA-designated disposal  site must be  used where
 feasible.

   Prior to  issuing  a  dredged  material  permit  or authorizing  a Federal  project
 involving  the  ocean  disposal .of  dredged material,  'the  Corps  must  notify EPA,
which may  disapprove the proposed disposal.   Under certain limited circumstances
 set forth  in -Section  103(d) of the MPRSA,  the -Corps  may -request a  waiver from
EPA, which is to be granted, unless EPA "finds that the  dumping of  the material
will  result   in  an  unacceptably  adverse  impact  on "municipal  water  supplies,
shellfish beds, wildlife,  fisheries (including spawning  and  breeding  areas),  or
recreational  areas...."
                                              1-5

-------
                                     TABLE 1-1
                      RESPONSIBILITIES OF FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS
              AND  AGENCIES  FOR REGULATING OCEAN DISPOSAL UNDER MPRSA
        Department/Agency
          Resp onslbin ty
U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency
U.S. Department of the Army
  Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Transportation
  Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Commerce
  National Oceanic and Atmospheric
  Administration
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of State
 Issuance  of waste  disposal  permits,   .
 other than for  dredged  material
 Establishment  of criteria  for
 regulating waste  disposal
 Enforcement actions
 Site designation and management
 Overall ocean  disposal program
 management
 Research  on alternative  ocean disposal
 techniques   •
 Issuance  of permits for  transportation
 of dredged material for disposal
 Approval  of projects involving disposal
 of dredged material
 Recommendation of  disposal  site
 locations
 Surveillance
 Enforcement support
 Issuance  of regulations  for disposal
 vessels
 Review of permit applications
 Long-term monitoring and research
 Comprehensive ocean dumping impact and
 short-term effect studies
Marine sanctuary designation
 Court actions
 International  agreements
                                      1-6

-------
 PERMIT ENFORCEMENT

    Under  MPRSA  the  Commandant  of  the  U.S.  Coast  Guard  (USC6)  is  assigned
 responsibility  by  the  Secretary  of Transportation  to conduct  surveillance  of
 disposal  operations  to  ensure compliance  with  the  permit  conditions  and  to
 discourage  unauthorized disposal.   Alleged  violations are referred  to EPA  for
 appropriate  enforcement.    Civil  penalties  include  a  maximum  fine  of  $50,000;
 criminal  penalties  involve a'maximum fine of  $50,000  and/or  a  one-year  jail  term.
 Where  administrative  enforcement action is not  appropriate, EPA may request  the
 Department of Justice to  initiate relief actions  in  court for violations of  the
 terms  of  MPRSA.  Surveillance  is  accomplished by means  of  spot checks of disposal
 vessels  for  valid  permits,  interception or  escorting  of dump  vessels,  use  of
 shipriders, and aircraft overflights during dumping.

    The Commandant of  the  Coast Guard has published guidelines for ocean dumping
 surveillance  and   enforcement   in   Commandant   Instruction  16470.2B,   dated   29
 September  1976.   An  enclosure  to  the  instruction  is   an  Interagency  Agreement
between   the   Corps  and  the  USCG  regarding   surveillance  and  enforcement
 responsibilities  over Federally  contracted  ocean  dumping  activities  associated
with  Federal  Navigation Projects.    Under  the  agreement, the Corps "recognizes
that  it  has  the primary  surveillance and enforcement  responsibility over  these
activities."    The  Corps  directs   and  conducts  the  surveillance  effort  over
contract dumpers engaged in ocean disposal activities,  except  in New York and  San
Francisco; the USCG retains  primary responsibility for  surveillance in  these  two
areas.  In all  other  .areas,  the USCG will  respond  to specific requests from  the
Corps   for   surveillance   missions.     The   USCG  retai.ns   responsibility   for
surveillance  of all  dredged  material   ocean  dumping  activities  that  are  not
associated with Federal Navigation Projects.

   The Act authorizes a maximum criminal fine of  $50,000 and jail  sentence  of  up
to one year for every unauthorized dump or violation  of permit requirements, or a
maximum civil fine of $50,000. '  Any  individual may seek an injunction against  an
unauthorized dumper with possible recovery of all costs of litigation.
                                       1-7

-------
 INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

    The  principal   international   agreement  governing  ocean   dumping  is  the
 Convention on the  Prevention  of Marine Pollution- by  Dumping  of Wastes and Other
 Matter (London Dumping Convention), which  became effective  in  August 1975, upon
 ratification  by 15  contracting countries  including the  United States  (26 UST
 2403:   TIAS 8165).   There  are now 47 contracting parties.   Designed to control
 dumping  of wastes  in  the  ocean, the Convention specifies that contracting nations
 will  regulate disposal in  the marine environment within  their jurisdiction and
 prohibit disposal  without  permits.   Certain hazardous materials  are prohibited
 (e.g.,.  radiological, .biological,  and  chemical  warfare  agents, and high-level
 radioactive  matter).    Certain   other  materials   (£.£..»   cadmium,  mercury,
 organohalogens .and their compounds,  oil  and persistent,  synthetic  or natural
 materials  which float  or remain  in  suspension)  are  also prohibited  except  if
 present  as trace contaminants, or  if  rapidly rendered harmless.  Other materials
.(e.g.,-  arsenic,  lead,  copper,  zinc,  cyanides,  fluorides,  organosili.con,  and
 pesticides)  are not  prohibited  from ocean  disposal,  but require  special  care.
 Permits  are required  for  ocean disposal of materials not specifically prohibited.
 The nature and  quantities of  all  ocean-dumped material,  and  the circumstances  of
 disposal,   must  be   periodically  reported  to  the  Intergovernmental  Maritime
 Consultative  Organization (IMCO)  which is  responsible for administration  of the
 Convention,

    EPA's ocean dumping  criteria are based on the provisions of the London Dumping
 Convention (LDC) and  include  all the  considerations  listed in Annexes I, II, and
 III of the LDC .  • Thus, when a-material  is found to  be acceptable  for  ocean
 dumping  under the EPA  ocean  dumping  criteria, it is  also acceptable  under  the
 LDC.

 CORPS  OF ENGINEERS NATIONAL PURPOSE AND NEED

    The need to use an  ocean  disposal  site must be  established by the  Corps  in
 issuing  a  permit  to  dispose at  that  site,  or  in the  Corps'  administrative
 procedures required for authorization of a Federal  project.
                                    1-8

-------
    Section 103  of  Title I requires  the Corps to  consider  in its  evaluation  of
 Federal  projects   and  Section  103  permit  applications the  effects  of  ocean
 disposal   of  dredged material  on  human  health,  welfare,  or  amenities,  or  the
 marine environment, ecological systems, and  economic  potentialities.   As  part of
 this  evaluation,   consideration   must   be  given  to  utilizing,  to  the  extent
 feasible, ocean disposal sites designated by  the EPA  pursuant  to Section  102(c).

  •  Since 1977 the  Corps has used  those  ocean  disposal  sites  designated by EPA on
 an interim basis.  'Use  of  th'ese  interim-designated sites for  ocean  disposal  has
 been an essential  element  in  the  Corps' compliance'with the  requirements of  the
'MPRSA and its ability  to  carry  out its statutory  responsibility for' maintaining
 the nation's-navigable waterways.  -To  continue  to. maintain U.S.  waterways,  the
 Corps considers it  essential  that environmentally acceptable ocean disposal  sites
 be 'identified,  evaluated,  and designated  for continued use pursuant  to  Section
 102(c).  These  sites will  be used after review  of each project  has  established
 that the  proposed  ocean  disposal  of dredged  material  is in compliance with  the
 criteria and requirements of EPA and Corps  regulations.

 CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOCAL NEED                                          '

    Collectively, the Ports of Tampa,  Old  Tampa,  and  Hillsborough  Bays  are  among
 the  leading  ports  in  the  United  States,  ranking  seventh  in  total tonnage  and
 third in export tonnage.  In 1979, approximately  49.8 million short tons of cargo
•passed through "Tampa Bay; the oceanborne foreign trade  amounted  to $1.87  billion
 (Tampa Bay-Port Authority, 1979).  Total'foreign  and domestic imports amounted to
 22,411,557 short  tons, and  exports totaled 27,418,884 short  tons.   The  Port
 Authority of Tampa  Bay estimates  that about  36,000  persons  are  directly  or
 indirectly employed  in  port industries throughout  the  Tampa  Bay region.   (Cf.
 Letter from Thomas d. O'Connor, Director of  Port Services,  Tampa Port  Authority,
 on  August 16,  1983,  to  Jonathan E.  Amson,  Office  of Water  Regulations . and
 Standards, EPA).

    The economic viability of these ports depends on  the continued use  of Federal
 and non-Federal navigation channels and berthing  areas.  The shipping channels in
 Tampa  Bay are shallow, and  without  deepening, would prevent  passage  of modern
                                          1-9

-------
deep-draft  vessels.    Thus,  dredging  is  required  to  provide  and  maintain
sufficient operating depths  for  vessel  traffic.   At present, navigation channels
for  ocean-going  vessels are being  increased from  34-  to 43-ft  depths, whereas
recreational  boat  channels  generally  have depths  from 6  to 15  ft.    The main
channel improvements are scheduled for completion in early 1986.

  Approximately  8  to 10 million  yd3 of  sediments  being dredged  in  improvement
of the  Tampa  Bay main  channel  and  in  maintenance  of St. Petersburg  Harbor and
Port Tampa  channel  are now  scheduled  for disposal  in  the  ocean,  including 3.6
million yd3  remaining  from  the  Tampa  Harbor Project.   Sediments to  be dredged
in improvement of other portions  of  the Tampa  Bay channels .may also be scheduled
for  disposal  at  an  ocean  site, but  disposal  plans  have  not  been  formulated yet.
Estimates of  future  channel  maintenance dredging volumes are  expected  to be 1.1
million yd3 annually.   Sites A  and B  (Figure  1-1) are centered  at  27°37'38"N,
82°54'37"W, and  27°37'03"N,  82°59'42"W,  respectively.   These sites  received  a
total of  2,531,500 yd3  of dredged  materials  between  1969  and  1980.    Of this
total,  1,901,800 yd3 were disposed at Site B between  1969 and 1973, and  in the
summer  of  1980, 630,000  yd3  were  disposed at  Site  A.    Between  1973  and
mid-1980, neither  site was  used for dredged  material   disposal.   Between June
1980, and the end  of December 1982, 4,939,600 yd3 was  dumped at Site A.   This
included 263,650yd3 taken from  St. Petersburg  Harbor   (completed in.May  1981),
and 662,900 yd3 taken from .Port Tampa Channel (completed in March 1982).

  Prior to the use  of  Sites  A and  B,  two other  sites  were  utilized.    One site
(centered at 27°35139"N, 82044'36"W) was 0.5 nmi  east of Egmont Key  at  the mouth
of Tampa Bay.   Another  site (centered at 27°33'45"N, 82°50'42"W) was  4.5 nmi west
of  Egmont  Key.   These  sites received  a combined total  of  6,152,000  yd3  of
dredged materials between 1951 and 1967.
                                       1-10

-------
                                 Chapter 2

                   ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

             The action addressed  In  this  EIS 1s the designation of an
             environmentally and  economically acceptable ODMDS  In  the
             Gulf  of Mexico,  offshore  of Tampa  Bay,  Florida.   The
             designated site  will be  used for  the  ocean  disposal  of
             material from the Tampa  Bay area*   In addition to the two
             previously designated Sites A  and B,  four Shallow-Water
             Alternatives (1,2,3,  and  4),  a  Mid-Shelf Alternative,  and
             a  Deepwater Alternative  are  discussed.    However,  the
             Mid-Shelf,  Deepwater,  and  three  of  the  Shallow-Hater
             Alternatives are  eliminated  from detailed  evaluation  on
             the basis  of environmental sensitivity  and/or economics.
             The  11  criteria  of- 40  CFR  §228.6 are  the bases  for
             comparing  the   environmental   impacts   associated  with
             disposal at  the  two  previously  designated  Sites  and  one
             Shallow-Water  Alternative  Site  considered  in  greater
             detail   in   this   EIS.     The   potentially  significant
             environmental  impacts  resulting  from  disposal  of  the
             dredged  material  are   the   smothering   of  benthos  and  '
             temporarily Increased water turbidity.                   .    .

   This  chapter  presents  the  alternatives,  including  No Action, considered  in

designating  a  Tampa  Bay, .Florida ODMDS  for  a  period of  three  year's.    The

feasibility of non-ocean disposal  methods is also briefly discussed.   In addition

to the  two  previously designated  Sites, six  Alternative Sites  (Figure  1-1)  are

discussed to determine which  is  most suitable  as  an  ocean  disposal  si'te  for

material dredged from the Tampa Bay area.  These sites include four Shallow-Water

Alternatives, a Mid-Shelf Alternative, and a Deepwater Alternative.   Alternatives

were initially screened on  the basis  of environmental  and  economic  suitability.

Hence,  areas  within three miles  immediately  north  and  west  of the  previously

designated Sites were eliminated because of the presence of hard bottom areas  and

artificial reefs, which are known  fishing and  diving  areas.   In  addition,  at  the

suggestion of the State of Florida, three  sites,  identified'as  State  Sites  X,  Y,

and Z,  were examined.  The Corps also  examined a site  identified  as  Site  2A.

These sites are discussed later in this chapter of the FEIS.


   Waters less than 10m deep were  eliminated  because  of potential  shoaling.   The

Mid-Shelf and Deepwater Sites  were located to  avoid  potentially environmentally
                                        2-1

-------
sensitive  areas,  such  as  mid-Shelf  hard  bottoms   and   areas   of   commercial
finfishing; however,  because of the  environmental  sensitivity of deeper water
low-energy environments and  the  economics  of long-distance transport, these two
sites are eliminated from a  detailed  comparison using  the  11 criteria of 40 CFR
§228.6.

   Analyses of data obtained from numerous oceanographic surveys (see  Appendices
to A to F) performed  off  Tampa Bay led to a  decision  to eliminate three of the
Shallow-Water Alternative  Sites from a detailed  comparison  using  the  criteria of
40 CFR §228.6.   A brief summary of each survey and the-reasons  for each site's
elimination are presented  in this chapter.

   Those sites  which  were  initially  considered  as  potentially suitable ocean
disposal  sites are presented below:

     o  Previously designated interim Sites (Inner B and Outer'A)  - Water depth
        less  than 20m,  9 and 13 nmi  from shore,  respectively                 "   '

     o  Shallow-Water  Alternative Site 1 -  Water depth  of 20m, 16 nmi  from shore
        (this   alternative  discussed,  but  riot   analyzed  according   to   the  11
        regulatory criteria)

     o  Shallow-Water  Alternative Site 2 - Water depth less than 20m, 13 nmi from
        shore  (this alternative is  discussed, but not  analyzed according to the
        11  regulatory  criteria)

     o.  Shallow-Water  Alternative  3  - Water  depth  less than 30m, 23 nmi  from
        shore  (this alternative is  discussed, but not  analyzed according to the
        11  regulatory  criteria)

     o  Shallow-Water  Alternative Site 4 - Water depth less than 24m, 18 nmi from
        shore
                                         2-2

-------
     o  Mid-Shelf  Alternative  Site  - Water depth greater than  70m,  70 nmi from
        shore  (this alternative  is  discussed,  but  not analyzed according to the
        11 regulatory criteria)
                                                                             . ' '• -4 .
     o  Deepwater Alternative Site - Water depth greater 200m, 105 nmi from shore
        {this  alternative  is  discussed,  but not  analyzed  according  to  the  11
        regulatory criteria.

   These  sites represent three  of  the  four major marine  environments  (Shallow
Shelf, Deep Shelf, and Slope) off Tampa Bay  {Collard and D'Asaro, 1973). . Sites A
and  8  and the Shallow-Water Alternative  Sites  are  in  a  generally high-energy
environment  influenced  by  wave  action  and storms.    The  Mid-Shelf Site  and
Deepwater Alternative Site  are  in a  relatively low-energy  environment influenced
by the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current and intrusions of deep Gulf waters.

   Disposal at  Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4,  Mid-Shelf, or  Deepwater Sites
would require  increased  disposal, monitoring,  and  surveillance  costs because  all
sites are further from shore than the  Sites  A  and  B or Shallow-Water Alternative
Site 2.  However, using Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4 would add only 10 nmi  to
the present round-trip distance, to Site  A; the Mid-Shelf Site.and Deepwater Site
would  result  in  increased  round-trip  distances  of- 114  nmi  and  182  nmi,
respectively.
                              NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

   The   no-action   alternative  would   be   to   refrain   from   designating   an
EPA-approved ocean site for the  disposal  of dredged material  from  the  Tampa  Bay
area.    By taking  no  action,  no  ocean   disposal  "site  would  be  designated.
Therefore,  the  Corps  would be required to:  (1)  use  an  acceptable  alternative
disposal  method;  (2)  independently  justify use  of  an  ocean  disposal   site;  or
(3) modify or cancel  the existing Tampa Harbor Project.
                                          2-3

-------
   The Corps' Jacksonville  District  (CE,  1974)  examined the issue of  land-based
disposal and concluded the following:

               Alternative  disposal  of the  dredged material  along
          the  shoreline of Tampa  Bay was  considered.    Assuming
          that the  areas would  be  filled  10  feet above  existing
          elevation,  6.1  square  miles of  disposal area  would  be
          needed.   This would  mean  filling 4,000 to  5,000  feet
          Into the  bay  along  40,000  feet  of  shoreline.    Dikes
          would have  to be built  just upland  of  the shoreline  at
          the expense  of the local  sponsor.    Material  from the
          deepening  of the  harbor  would be  pumped  to form dikes  on
          the bayside of  the  areas  and maintenance material  would
          be  pumped   Inside   the   areas.      Problems   would   be
          encountered  with the natural  Inflow of drainage water
          along the shoreline.   Environmentally valuable  shoreline
          areas would  be destroyed under this plan.

             Upland    disposal    areas    for   maintenance   and
          construction dredged spoil  have been  sought  since  1972.
          Undeveloped  areas  adjacent  to  the  bay  were  Identified
          from U.S.  Geological  Survey Quadrangle Sheets  and  later
          field  investigated by the  Corps of Engineers  and/or the
          Tampa  Port Authority.   The  only potential spoil  disposal
          areas were located on McDill  Air  Force Base and  the east
          side of Hillsborough Bay between  Del and  Creek  and Alafia
          River.   Easements  could not  be  obtained  for either  area,
          and consequently,  maintenance  has   not  been  performed
          since  1972,  although funds have been  available.    Present
          Indications   are  that   private   lands   would   not  be
          available   for  disposal  purposes  without   costly  and
          lengthy  condemnation proceedings   by  the local  sponsor.
          The cost  of land purchase,  diking,  and longer  pumping
          distances  are all  factors  which have  been  considered in
          deriving  the present  plan.   However, the  single factor
          which dictates against the  use  of upland disposal areas
          1s  the unavailability of  suitable upland acreage.
                                     2-4

-------
   Regarding diked disposal  islands,  rock  and other hard materials would have to
settle out  to  the  bottom of the barge and be  dropped  outside the diked disposal
area.   The finer  materials  could then be  pumped into the  diked disposal  area.
Mechanical  equipment  would  then have to be  used to pick up  the  rock  dropped by
the  barge, and  dispose of  this hard  material   inside  the  dikes.    The  double
handling of this material would,  in and of itself,  render the operation expensive
and cause environmental concerns.  In addition,  there is no  area  known where this
alternative  has  been -tried successfully  (Cf.  Letter  from H.D.  Ford,  District
Counsel for Corps' Jacksonville District, to  Joseph  Freedman,  Office- of General
Counsel, EPA, cited previously).

   In addition, the capacity of  the .existing diked disposal islands in Tampa Bay
is not sufficient to receive the  volume of dredged material  from  the construction
phase  of  the  Tampa.  Harbor Project.    Further,  construction  to increase  the
capacity of the  existing diked disposal islands or to create  new islands  would
not be economically  feasible.  . The.use of  diked disposal   islands  may also have
unacceptable  environmental   impacts  by   (1)  reducing  the   circulation  patterns
within  Tampa   Bay,  (2)-increasing- turbidity  with  a concomitant reduction  in
primary  productivity,  and  (3)-the  possibility  of erosion  of  dike walls  after
deposition of construction phase dredged material.

   Based on these  factors,  the  No-Action  Alternative is not  considered  to  be an
acceptable  alternative  to  the proposed action.    However,  the subject  of  land-
based disposal or  any  other feasible alternative  mentioned  in  the Ocean Dumping
Regulations and Criteria  (40 CFR 227.15)  is  not being permanently set  aside in
favor of  ocean disposal.   The need for ocean dumping must  be  demonstrated each
time  a  permit  application   for  ocean  disposal   is made  or a  Federal  project
considered.  At that  time,  the availability  of  other- feasible  alternatives must
be assessed.  Further, disposal areas must be obtained by the local sponsor under
the  provisions of the  authorization  for  the  Tampa Harbor  Project.    Upland
disposal areas are not available within any reasonable price constraints, and the
method of disposing of the  materials  containing  rock and other hard  material  in
Tampa  Bay  appears  to  have environmental  consequences  which would  likely  be
unacceptable.    In addition,, the cost  of  performing such- work   would  probably
render this alternative unacceptable.        . •
                                        2-5

-------
  •In  sum, the material  being  dredged in the Tampa Harbor Project  is  not  suitable
for disposal  in the diked disposal  areas.   In addition,  upland- areas have  been
explored  and have  been found to  be not  available within  any  reasonable price
range.

                                   DISPOSAL  IN THE  OCEAN

   Selection of an  appropriate ocean  disposal site(s)  requires identification  and
evaluation of suitable  areas  for.receiving the dredged  sediments.   Identification
of  these  areas   relies  on  available  information  obtained   from   previous
site-specific and  synoptic oceanographic studies.   Specific alternative  sites may
be  identified  within  these   areas,  based on  historic data and  information and
recommendations, from State  and  Federal  resource  agencies  and  .the  district and
division  offices of the Corps.

                                 SITE SELECTION

   A  sustained  effort  has  been mounted over  the past  few.years  to  locate an
environmentally and economically acceptable  ocean  disposal  site  for the Tampa Bay
area.    This  effort  involved the collection  and  analysis  of   both  historical
records and  field  survey data.   A discussion  and summary of the  results of  this
effort are presented below.   The  results of these  studies  led to the elimination
of. a number of alternative sites from further detailed consideration.

SITE SELECTION SEQUENCE

   The two previously  designated  sites  (A  and 8)  were  designated on  an interim
basis  in  January  1977  (42 F£ 2462,  40  CFR  228.12).  The  interim  designation was
for a three-year  period.  In   December  1980,  the interim designation  was  extended
to February 1983.

   The EPA entered  into a contract with  Interstate  Electronics  Corporation (IEC)
in  1977 for, the  evaluation  of interim-designated  sites   and  the  preparation of
EIS's.   The Corps  joined this  effort  in  1978. by  providing financial  support,
reviews, and consultation.   The  Tampa Bay interim-designated  sites  were  included
in the contract  effort  along with a  number  of other  interim-designated  ODMDS's.
                                       2-6

-------
    IEC  initiated its  studies of  the Gulf  of Mexico  near Tampa  Bay  in   1979.
Initial screening of historical data  and information indicated that three general
areas  should  be considered  for  the  location  of  a permanently-designated ODMDS:
Shallow-Water,  Mid-Shelf,  and Oeepwater.   The  previously designated  sites are
located  in  the  Shallow-Water Area.    It  was  determined during  the  initial
screening  that  areas  within  three  miles immediately  north  and west  of the
previously  designated  sites should be  eliminated from  consideration  because of
the  presence  of hard bottom areas and artificial  reefs.   Waters  less  than 10m
deep also were eliminated because  of  potential shoaling.

   In order to obtain more information on  the  previously designated site's and the
Shallow-Water area, field surveys  were  planned.  IEC implemented surveys on  Sites
A  and B  and  the  immediately  surrounding areas  in  September-October  1979 and
January 1980 (Appendix A).   IEC concluded  that those  sites might not  be the most
environmentally  acceptable   locations  for   dredged   material   disposal.     IEC
recommended that further studies be conducted  on potential alternative sites.

   In  April 1981,  Mote  Marine Laboratory (MML)  of  Sarasota,  Florida, at the
request of  the Manatee County  Board  of County  Commissioners,  began -a  study to
evaluate  the  effects  of offshore disposal  of  sediments  dredged from  Bayboro
Harbor, St. Petersburg, FL (See Appendix E).   The study  was conducted  at Site A.
The  study concluded  that  partially buried hard bottom  habitats were  present at
the boundaries of the  disposal  site.   Living  hard bottom communities, including
hard corals,  soft  corals,  and sponges were   observed beyond  the  limit of the
disposal site (Rice et_£l_.,  1981).

   One of the  recommendations of  the MML  report -was  that,  based on  the  study,
dredged material  disposal  at  Site A be  discontinued -and  efforts be  directed
toward locating an alternative- site(s).

   Subsequently,  using  the  Ocean  Survey  Vessel  ANTELOPE,  EPA  performed  a
reconnaissance survey  of  the Tampa Bay  area   in  October 1981.   Using  side  scan
sonar  and  fathometer  tracings   provided by  IEC,   EPA  divers   observed  and
photographed the  bottoms  of Alternative  Shallow-Water  Sites  1,  2,  and 3  (Cf.
                                       2-7

-------
Figure  1-1).  Evaluation of the divers' observations and  photographs  (Appendix C}
indicated  that  Alternative Site  1 contained  hard bottom  outcrops  and numerous
animal  and plant communities.  For this reason, Alternative Site  1 was  eliminated
from  further detailed  evaluation.   Alternative  Site  2 was  determined  to be
marginally acceptable, due to  a  finger  of hard bottom communities extending  into
the  site  from  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  site.   The  western  and southern
portions of the site consisted of  sandy bottoms.   Alternative Site 3 appeared to
be sandy-bottomed over its entire area.

   Based on the results  of the reconnaissance  survey,  more in-depth surveys  were
planned.   In April  1982,  the  Corps planned and implemented a  survey of the  area
southwest of Alternative Site 2, known as  Site  2A."  In May 1982, EPA planned and
implemented surveys  of  the  two previously designated  Sites,  Alternative Site 3,
and an  area southwest of Site 2A identified as Alternative Site 4.

   The  Corps  initiated  its study  in April  1982,  and  issued  its report  in  May
1982.   The report (Appendix D) found that Alternative Site 2A was environmentally
unacceptable due to  the  presence of extensive  areas  of exposed  rock.   Based on
this finding by the Corps and  on EPA's  finding during  its reconnaissance survey,
Sites 2 and 2A were eliminated from further detailed consideration.

   The  in-depth survey implemented by EPA  in May  1982  (Cf_.  Appendix C), included
videotaping of  the bottom  of Site  A, a  transect  of the  ocean floor  between
Site A and Shallow-Water Alternative Site 3, and a transect of the ocean floor in
a  southwest  direction  from  Alternative  Site  2A.   During  the  course  of  the
videotaping, an extensive sandy-bottomed area southwest of Alternative Site 2 was
discovered.  This area,  designated  Alternative Site 4, was surveyed in addition
to Alternative Site 3, and the two previously designated Sites.
                                       2-8

-------
   Examination  of  the  videotape  of  Alternative  Site  3  revealed  much  more
hard-bottom  areas  than had been  revealed by  the  results of  the reconnaissance
survey of October 1981.  These  new  results  led to  the elimination of Alternative
Site 3 from further detailed consideration.

   Due in part to the public comments received in  response to the Draft Tampa Bay
Bay  EIS,  EPA  planned  and  implemented  another  survey in  February, March,  and
April, 1983.   This  survey examined in  intense detail Alternative Site 4,  and a
Control Site approximately  five miles  southeast of  Alternative Site 4;  Sites A
and  8 were  examined  in  lesser  detail.    The survey  consisted   of  extensive
videotaping of the bottom of Alternative Site  4  and  the Control  Site,.as  well  as
side scan sonar  mapping  of both sites.   Three other sites, identified as  State
Sites X, Y, and Z, at approximate distances  of 27, 28,.and  30  nroi,  respectively,
west  of  Egmont  Key,  were  also  examined  in  briefer   detail,  with  videotape
recordings.

SITES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL .
                                                                        .'.** i. *
   This section  presents  a  brief synopsis of  those  sites considered to be  best
suited to receive permanent  designation  to receive  dredged  material  from  the
Tampa Bay area.  These sites  include  Site A, Site  B, and Alternative Site 4..  A
discussion  of  both  the mid-Shelf  and  Deepwater   Alternative  Sites  is   also
presented.

Previously Designated Sites

   The nearshore region {which includes all Shallow-Water  Alternative Sites)  is a
sandy-bottom area  characterized  by  localized  rock  outcrops,  which  are  often
                                        2-9

-------
 affected  by strong- currents capable  of resuspending  and transporting  natural
 sediments and dredged, material  (Holllday, 1978).   Flora  and fauna  are typical  of
 the nearshore shallow-Shelf  region (Collard and D'Asara, 1973; Lyons and Collard,
 1974).  Dawes and Breedveld  (1960) Identified 157 species of benthic marine algae
 on the west Florida Continental Shelf.   In the vicinity of Sites A  and  B  and  the
 Shallow-Water Alternative Sites, a number of perennial  and annual  subtropical  and
 tropical  species occur.   The  dominant  animal  species  inhabiting  sandy-bottom
 regimes are small  infauna that burrow  into the sand  and  feed on  suspended  and
 deposited particulate matter (Cf.  Appendix A).

   Near the previously  designated.sites, limestone  (hard  bottom)   rock  outcrops
 are fairly  common.   Hard bottoms  can serve as  habitats  for numerous species  of
 algae, invertebrates, and fish.   In addition, several  artificial reefs  have been
 constructed  north  of the  sites.    Both hard  bottoms  and  artificial  reefs  can
 provide recreational fishing and  scuba  diving to residents and vistors of Tampa
 Bay.  In addition,  hard  bottom  areas  can be used for commercial fishing  of some
 fish species.

   Disposal  of quantities of dredged material  may  result in an  adverse  impact  to
 hard bottoms due to burial or siltation.  However, this  possibility  is  dependent
on the  amount  of material  disposed of  and on  the  ultimate  direction  of mass
     *  .  *                        "          *
transport  of dumped material.   The  limited  knowledge of water  current  phenomena
in this  region  suggests that  dumped sediments  will  move  predominantly  in a
northerly  or southerly direction,  depending on the season. Hard bottom areas  are
more numerous and have greater vertical  relief to the north and west than to the
south and east of Site A.  The  nearest  artificial  reef is  five nmi northeast  of
the Site A.  In  1981, the Manatee County,  Florida  Board of County  Commissioners
funded a study to examine Site A  and its surrounding  environment  (Rice et^ aK,
1981).   This examination of  Site  A  and  surrounding areas indicated the presence
of  a  limestone  ledge,  and associated  fauna  located  approximately  1.0  nmi
northwest  of the site.
                                      2-10

-------
   A distance of several miles between a disposal site and a potentially affected
area will provide for extensive dilution of a turbidity plume and dispersion of
deposited materials transported away from the site by currents.  Thus, artificial
reefs five nautical miles away are quite unlikely to be adversely affected by
disposal operations, but hard bottom areas  within  one  mile of Site A may be
adversely affected.

Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4

   Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4, located 18 nmi west of Egmont Key, is in
waters 20-23 meters deep and  has  an  area of 4.0 nmi2.   No dredged material has
been dumped at this site.  Two site-specific surveys were conducted in May 1982
and February, March, and April 1983, by EPA to determine water, sediment, and
infaunal characteristics of the 'site  (Cf_.  Appendices C and F),   A detailed
evaluation of this site using the  li  specific  criteria of the Ocean Dumping
                   .                                       *     *
Regulations is presented later in this chapter.

Mid-Shelf Alternative Site

   The Mid-Shelf Alternative Site (Figure 1-1) is 70 nmi west of Tampa Bay at the
70m depth contour.  No dumping has occurred and no environmental studies have
been conducted at this site, although the Florida Department of Natural Resources
(FDNR) did maintain a study site approximately 15 nmi to the northwest during
their Hourglass Cruise studies (Joyce and Williams, 1969).

   Adverse  effects  from the  disposal  of  dredged  material  are  most  likely  to
affect  bottom-dwelling  (or  benthic)  organisms  (Wright,  1978;  Brannon,  1978).
According to Oliver et_ aj_.  (1977), shallow-water, high-energy benthic communities
recover more quickly from disturbances, such as the disposal of dredged material,
than  communities  in  deeper  water.   Animals  of  a shallow-water  area must  be
adapted  to  periodic  burial  under  sediments,  and  thus  are  less  likely  to  be
affected  by  burial  under   dredged   material  than  animals   of  lower-energy
environments,  such  as  in  mid-Shelf waters.   Thus,  disposal  at  the  Mid-Shelf
                                     2-11

-------
Alternative Site would be  more  likely to have a  long-term, adverse effect, on the
benthos than disposal at a Shallow-Water Alternative Site.

   Transporting dredged  material  57  nmi  beyond Site  A would  create  an immense
economic  disadvantage.   It  is  estimated that  the  increased  distance  would add
approximately  SO.lS/yd^/tni  to disposal operations, or  $17,100 per hopper vessel
load.
   Based  on  these  environmental   and  economic  considerations,  the   Mid-Shelf
Alternative Site  is not considered  to be  a reasonable  alternative  for dredged
material, disposal, and it  is  eliminated from further consideration.

Deepwater Alternative Site

     The  Deepwater Alternative  Site  (Figure  1-1)  was  selected  to  examine the
feasibility  of a* site  beyond  the  Continental  Shelf  in  deep  water, on  the
Continental Slope.   No  known commercial  or recreational fishing activities occur
that distance  from shore.  The site  is removed from all "shipping fairways and oil
lease sales.

   .On the.Continental  Slope, the Loop Current  becomes the predominant  influence
of  water circulation,  and  the  environment is  oceanic  in  nature.   Biological
productivity diminishes substantially  when  compared to  the Continental Shelf, and
bottom  characteristics  are distinctly different from  those  of the Shallow-Water
Alternative Sites,

   During  periods  of Loop  Current  intrusions,  dredged material  released at the
Deepwater  Site may be  subject  to substantial  lateral  transport before  reaching
the  bottom because  of  the  high-velocity  (2 kn). current.   The  turbidity  plume
(consisting  of fine-grained  sediments in  suspension)  may be transported  great
distances with the Loop Current.  Thus,  disposed  sediments  may be substantially
                                        2-12

-------
dispersed  and  diluted  prior  to  reaching  the  bottom  (Hubertz,  1967).     The
dispersion  may  have  an  important  beneficial  influence  in  mitigating adverse
impacts on benthic fauna.

   Pequegnat  e£ al_.,  (1978)  examined  the  potential  environmental  effects  of
deep-water disposal at  several  locations in  the Gulf  of  Mexico.   In the eastern
Gulf, they identified  a  large region south of  Alabama and the Florida  panhandle
that is a viable deepwater  disposal  site.   However, no areas were identified  for
the western Florida Continental Slope.

   Pequegnat e£ al_.,  (1978) argued that a  deepwater  site  could  be  suitable  for
the disposal  of dredged material,  and noted that  huge volumes of  water in  the
deep  oceans   would dilute  and   assimilate  large  volumes  of dumped   sediment.
Biological effects from  disposal  would be  minimal  because  of  lower  organism
densities in the deep oceans  as compared to  the Continental Shelf.  According  to
Pequegnat  e£ aK,  (1978),  '...the deep  ocean,  particularly  beyond  the   1000m
Isobath, will  never  contribute over one percent  of the total  world fish catch;
and that will be entirely of pelagic origin."

   Although the Deepwater Alternative Site supports  a  lower density  of  organisms,
these organisms  would  be far  more sensitive to  adverse  effects  from  disposal.
The Continental  Shelf  environment is much  more variable  than  the environment  of
deep-sea  organisms  (Grassle,  1967;  Pequegnat  e£ al.,  1978).     For example,
deep-sea  organisms  are  not   subjected to  temperature   stresses   and sediment
movements that  occur in  a high-energy,  shallow-water  environment.   According  to
Slobodkin and Saunders  (1969), a  perturbation (such  as dredged material  disposal)
which would have a small effect on  groups  of  organisms in stressful  environments
(e.g.,  a   shallow-water  environment)   "may  be  catastrophic  when  applied"   to
groups  of organisms, in  a  relatively  constant   environment, such as oceanic
deepwater areas.

   Shallow-water, high-energy communities recover more quickly from  disturbances,
such as the disposal of  dredged material,  than communities  in deepwater (Oliver
                                         2-13

-------
et al.  197.7).    According  to Hirsch  et_ £]_._  (1978)  "habitat disruptions-, due to
disposal  are minimized  at  disposal  sites  which  have a  naturally  unstable or
shifting  substrate due  to  wave  or  current  action."    Shallow-water  disposal
sites, therefore,  would  be  likely to  have  less long-term  habitat  disruption as
the  result  of  the  disposal  of  dredged  material.    Hirsch e£ al.  (1978) added,
"when  disposed  sediments  are   dissimilar  to  bottom  sediments at  the  sites,
recolonization of the dredged material  will  probably be slow and carried out by
organisms whose  life  habits are  adapted  to the  new  sediment."    Continental
Shelf sediments are largely sand, with some silt, but sediments  off the Shelf are
usually clay (Greenman and LeBlanc, 1956).   Thus,  dredged material  sediments are
likely to .differ  from  deepwater  disposal  site  sediments, and  this difference
increases the likelihood of adverse effects of disposal on  deepwater benthos.

   The average transportation  cost of dredged  material  from Tampa Bay  would be
approximately $0.15/yd3/mile beyond Site A.   The distance  from  Tampa Bay to the
Deepwater Site is  approximately  105 nmi.  Thus,  the cost  is estimated  to be an
additional  $13/yd3  to  transport dredged material  to  a  site on  the  Continental
Slope.    Increased  transportation  costs would  total  $26,000  per  hopper dredge
load, assuming a hopper  dredge capacity  of  2,000 yd3.  The adverse economics of
transporting dredged, materials more than ICO  nmi  to  the west Florida Continental.
Slope precludes the .Deepwater Alternative Site as a viable  alternative, and it is
eliminated from further consideration.

                                     SUMMARY

     The  alternatives  that  will  be  considered in  detail  for  the  disposal  of
dredged material  from the Tampa  Bay area  are Sites A and  B and  Alternative Site
4.  A more detailed evaluation and comparison of these alternatives using the 11
specific criteria of Part 228.6 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations follows.
                                       2-14

-------
                             DETAILED CONSIDERATION
                       OF THE NEARSHORE ALTERNATIVE SITES

   This EIS  addresses  the. designation of  a  Tampa  Bay ODMDS for  the  disposal  of
material 'dredged  from the  Tampa Bay  area.   The  selection is  based on  the  11
specific  criteria  of  Part  228.6  of  the  Ocean   Dumping  Regulations  (Federal
Register,  11  January  1977).   EPA established the  11 criteria" to constitute "an
environmental assessment of the  impact of  the use  of the site  for disposal;" and
used them to make critical comparisons between Sites A and B and the other viable
alternative sites.

   In the  following sections,  the  11 specific  criteria are  discussed for two
Previously Designated  Sites  (Inner Site  B and  Outer  Site  A)  and Shallow-Water
Alternative Site 4.  Discussion  of  the sites relies  on  information  presented  in
Chapter  3,  which  deals  with  the  affected environments, and   on  information
presented in Chapter 4, which deals with environmental consequences.

(1) GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION, DEPTH OF WATER, BOTTOM TOPOGRAPHY,
    AND DISTANCE FROM COAST    (40 CFR §228.6[a][l])   '

PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED SITES   '                        '

   Sites A and 8 have received limited periodic  use  since 1969.   These sites are
13 and 9 nmi  from Egmont  Key, respectively (Figure 1-1).   Site  B has  an area of 1
 nmi2,  an  average  water  depth  of  10m,  and  corner coordinates  of  27°38'08"N,
 82°55'06"W;   27°38'08"N,   82°54'00"W;    27°37'08"N,   82°54'00"W;    27°37'08,MN,
 82°55'06"W.    Site  A has an  area of  0.68  nmi2, an average water depth  of 17m,
 and  corner  coordinates  of  27°37'28"N,   83°00'09"W;   27°37'34"N,   82°59'19"W;
 27°36'43"N,  82°59'13"W;  27°36'37"N, 83°00'03"W.

    Hard bottoms  occur in  numerous  scattered  locations on  the  western  Florida
 Shelf  in  the  vicinity  of these  two  sites.     These  hard  bottoms  result  in
 biologically significant and productive habitats,  as do several  artificial  reefs
                                        2-15

-------
constructed  north of  Sites A  and  B.   The area  occupied by  Sites- A  and  B  is
predominantly  sandy  bottom;  however,  data  have been collected showing evidence of
hard  bottoms  at  the  boundaries of Site  A, and divers  have  observed other  hard
bottoms within  0.5 nmi west  of  Site A (Mote Marine, 1981).

SHALLOW-WATER ALTERNATIVE  SITE  4

   The geographic position  of Shallow-Water Alternative  Site  4  is shown  in Figure
1-1.   The site occupies 4  nmi2,  is  18 nmi  from Egmont Key,  and has an  average
water depth of  22m.  Corner  coordinates  are:   27°32'27"N,  83°03'46'W; 27°30'27"N,
83°03'46"W; 27°30'27"N, 83006'02"W; 27°32'27"N,  83°06'02"W.

   Shallow-Water  Alternative Site  4  has  never been  used for dredged  material
disposal  and is devoid of  major topographic features.   A  videotape  taken  of  this
area  in  May 1982 by EPA  revealed  no rock or  hard-bottom  outcroppings  and  low
vertical  relief.    That  EPA  survey  determined  that  the  site is  predominantly
characterized by  the  presence  of fine sands,  coarse silts,  and sand waves of  up
to 6" in  height interspersed with shell hash.  Another EPA survey of this  area  in
February, March,  and April  1983  fully corroborated  the  earlier  studies.   Vast
areas of  flat,  uninterrupted sandy bottoms  were  seen on  the videotape recordings,
broken only  by occasional  patches of  small  sand waves  with  moderate amounts  of
shell hash between sand ripples.  A  small  area of  scattered hard  and  soft corals
were  seen in  the  northwest  quadrant  of  the site,   but the density of the growth
was far more sparse  than  in any area  examined previously  in  the Tampa  Bay area.
The area  was examined  in extraordinary detail  with the videotape  camera:  over  35
nmi of videotape  was  obtained within  and immediately surrounding  the  site, which
is only two nmi on a side.
                                        2-16

-------
(2) LOCATION IN RELATION TO BREEDING, SPAWNING, NURSERY, FEEDING, OR
    PASSAGE AREAS OF LIVING RESOURCES IN ADULT OR JUVENILE PHASES
    (40 CFR §228.6[a][2])

ALL SITES            •                                         .

    Tampa Bay is a nursery area for many commercially and recreationally important
 species (e.g., pink shrimp and  several  species of telosts).   Some species which
 mature in the bay eventually  move offshore to inhabit  the  coastal waters, where
 they  remain  as  adults.   Each year adults  migrate into the bay  to  spawn,  then
 return to  offshore habitats.   Others  species migrate from  the  bay  into  open
 waters only to spawn,  then return to the bay.

    Some species, such  as  king mackerel, Spanish mackerel,  bluefish,  and 'several
 clupeids, migrate  north and  south in  offshore  waters  in  response  to seasonal
 stimuli.    These  species spawn  in  offshore waters  leaving  eggs,  larvae,  arid
 juveniles to develop in open waters as planktbntc" organisms.

 PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED SITES                                       '      '

    Sites  A  and  B  have  predominantly  sandy  bottoms  with  characteristically
 associated flora and  fauna,  although survey  data  indicate that hard bottom may
 occur within and near the sites.  Rock outcrops have been rioted north and west of
 the sites.   Several artificial  reefs have  been  constructed north  of the sites,
 and one artificial  reef is within three nmi of Site B.

    Hard bottoms and artificial  reefs may support  species that cannot 'survive on
 sandy substrates.   Bottom currents may periodically  transport disposed material
 toward these areas.    Therefore,  it  is  possible that  hard  bottom  areas  and
 artificial  reefs   periodically  will  be  adversely  affected  by  redistributed
 material disposed at Sites A  and B.
                                     2-17

-------
 SHALLOW-WATER ALTERNATIVE SITE 4

   Use  of Shallow-Water  Alternative Site-4 is  not  anticipated  to  affect any
biologically unique  habitats  or  interfere with  spawning or migration activities.
The site  was selected on  the basis of its  remoteness  from any known hard bottom
areas.   EPA  surveys  in May  1982  and February,  March,  and April  1983 determined
that  this site  contains  far fewer  hard  bottom  areas  than  any  of the   other
Shallow-Water Alternative Sites examined, and the hard  bottom  areas noted are far
less  dense than  any  comparable   area  seen at  other  Shallow-Water  Alternative
Sites.

(3)  LOCATION IN RELATION TO BEACHES AND OTHER AMENITY  AREAS
     (40 CFR §228.6[a][3]}

PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED SITES

   Sites  A and B are 13  and 9 nmi, respectively,  west  of Egmont Key,  and the
beaches of Long and Mullet Keys.

   Amenity areas in  the vicinity  of Sites A and B include  Tampa Bay,  as  well  as
Long,  Egmont,  Passage, and  Mullet Keys.   Recreational' fishing  and  diving may
occur anywhere in this region.  However,  because  of  the proximity  of these  sites
to the  Bay,  hard bottom,  and  artificial  reefs, more recreational  activity  is
likely to occur  in  this  region  than at  a  more distant  alternative.   In   fact,
a  number  of popular fishing  locations  are  identified  in this  region  by the
Florida Department  of Natural  Resources.    In  addition,  local  divers  reputedly.
consider areas immediately north and west of Sites A and B excellent for diving.
SHALLOW-WATER ALTERNATIVE SITE 4

   The nearest amenity  areas  to Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4  are  Tampa Bay,
the beaches  of  Anna  Maria Island, and  offshore  fishing and  scuba  diving areas.
The site is  located  18  nmi  west of Egmont Key.   Recreational  fishing  and diving
may occur anywhere in the nearshore waters.
                                        2-18

-------
 However, most of these activities  are limited to high-relief  hard  bottom areas,
 artificial reefs, and  sunken  vessels, all  of which are  removed from  the  site.
 Some scuba diving  and  fishing activities  may occur in  the  vicinity of  Site  4,
 although  these  activities  are probably  less  frequent  than  similar  use in  the
 vicinity of Sites A and' B.

   A recent  study by the Corps  corroborates  the  minimal use  of  Shallow-Water
 Alternative Site 4 by  recreational  -fishermen  and divers.   On  twelve  successive
 weekends  as  well  as occasionally  during  the  week  between  mid-March  and  early
 June 1983, the area  of  Site 4 was overflown by aircraft,  which noted  any vessels
 that were seen within the area.  On  only one occasion  was a  vessel seen  in,Site
 4; on June 1, 1983,  a single dive boat was seen  anchored within the area of the
 site.   On no  weekend days  during the surveillance  period were  any vessels  seen
 within  the boundaries of Site 4.  Determination  of  the boundaries of Site 4 was
 aided by  the  presence  of an  anchored float  at the  center of  Site 4,  which was
 emplaced there at the beginning of the surveillance period.  Although  party  boat
 or commercial  fishing or  recreational  diving may  occur  in the general  vicinity"of
 Shallow-Water Alternative  Site  4,   no   interference   with  these  activities  is
 anticipated in any way.'
 (4)   TYPES  AND  QUANTITIES  OF  HASTES  PROPOSED TO BE DISPOSED OF,  AND PROPOSED
  -    METHODS  OF RELEASE,  INCLUDING METHODS OF PACKING THE  WASTE, IF ANY
      (40  CFR  §228.6[a][4])

 ALL  SITES      ,                                 '•'..,
                              i
 Approximately 8 to  10  million yd3  of sediments  dredged  or to be dredged  from
 the- Tampa  Bay area   and St.   Petersburg  Harbor  during  the  ongoing   harbor
 improvement project have been disposed  or scheduled  for  disposal  in 'the  ocean,
 including 3.6 million yd3 remaining from the Tampa  Harbor Project.  Sites  A  and
 B  received  a  total  of 2,531,500 yd3 of  dredged materials  between  1969 and  1980.
 Of this  total, 1,901,800 yd3  were  disposed at Site  B between  1969 and 1973;  in
 the  summer of  1980, 630,000  yd3 were  disposed  at Site  A.    Between  1973  and
 mid-1980, neither  site  was  used for  dredged  material  disposal.   Between June
.1980,  and  .the  end of  December  1982,   4,939,600  yd3  was  dumped  at  Site   A.
 Approximately 3.6 million  yd3 of dredged  material  from  the deepening project  is
 projected to  be dumped  at  Alternative  Site 4 along with an estimated  1.1 million
 yd3  of operation and maintenance  dredged  material  per year.
                                       2-19

-------
    In  five samples of material  dredged  from  St.  Petersburg  Harbor,  representing  a
worst  case  of contaminated dredged material  for disposal, an  average of 79% by
weight (ranging from 99% to 47%)  of the material  was  sand  or coarser-grained
material  (Pittsburg  Testing Laboratory,  unpublished).    The  sediments have  been
subjected  to  required   testing and  are  environmentally  acceptable  for  ocean
disposal,  in  accordance with 40 CFR  §227.13(c)  (Jones,  Edmunds, and  Associates,
1979).

  •  Hopper dredges  have  been used for  the maintenance dredging  of  the Tampa Bay
area,  although barges and  scows may be  used,  as  necessary.  The  dredged material,
which  is'not 'packaged,  is released  when the  bottom  doors  on the  hoppers are
opened while  the vessel  is  underway.

(5)  FEASIBILITY OF SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING  (40 CFR §228.6[a][5])

    Surveillance is relatively easy  because Sites A and B and Alternative Site  4
are within-18 nmi of the Florida  shoreline.   Either U.S.  Coast Guard  aircraft or
day-use' boats can  be  used for  surveillance.    Another possible -method  (more
approp'riate for the Mid-Shelf or Deepwater Sites) is the  use of  shipriders.

   Monitoring (discussed in detail  later in  this  chapter)  is feasible  at all
alternative sites, although the existence of hard  bottoms would  require  a  more
complex monitoring plan  than a  site with  virtually entirely sandy bottoms.

(6)  DISPERSAL, HORIZONTAL TRANSPORT. AND VERTICAL MIXING CHARACTERISTICS  OF
     THE AREA, INCLUDING PREVAILING CURRENT DIRECTION AND VELOCITY, IF ANY
     (40 CFR  §228.6[a][63)

ALL DISPOSAL  SITES

  In   shallow water  nearly  all  the  dredged  material   falls  to   the  bottom
immediately after dumping  (Pequegnat et^ a_l_.,  1978).   Only a small  portion of the
finer  fraction -is lost from the-main  settling surge,  and  this portion settles as
individual particles over a substantially longer period of  time.

    Sites A and B and Alternative  Site 4 are all within 18  nmi  of  Egmont  Key; in
this   region,   ocean   currents   are   influenced   by  prevailing   winds  and  tidal
currents.   The combination of these  influences  results  in  variable   current
                                      2-20

-------
 directions and velocities.   Bottom currents are less responsive to the influence
 of wind than are surface currents,  but within 25 to 30 nmi of shore, in this area,
 bottom currents  often  tend  to  parallel   surface  current directions,  although
 .substantial  vertical  shears  {near 180°) may occur (Mote Marine Laboratory, 1980).
 Results of recent studies off Clear-water indicate that during reversals in tides,
 bottom currents are less influenced by wind, and often  are of greater magnitude
 than surface currents (ibiji.).

   Normally,  net  bottom  currents  flow at  speeds  up to  0.7  kn  to the north  or
 south.   The  currents, which  are influenced  by winds, tidal flow, and wave action,
 are.potentially capable  of transporting and dispersing dredged material over wide
 areas.   During  extraordinary meterological  events,  such as tropical  storms  and
 hurricanes,  current speeds might  reach 3 to 4 kn.                       ;

   Analyses of  the  data  obtained by  the  May  1982  EPA  survey (see  Appendix  C)
 indicated  the presence of a  mound at Site A where approximately  4.9  million  yd3
,were dumped  since 1980.   Analysis of the data  collected  by the February, March,
 and April  1983  EPA   survey  (see  Appendix F)  indicated that .mound  had  been
 substantially reduced in the intervening 10-12  months,  probably by action of  the
 winter  storms of 1982-1983,  and  by the dragging operations of  the Corps  several
 months  earlier.  In October  1982, the Corps discovered that the mound at  Site  A
 was exceeding the  minimal required Coast  Guard navigational  clearances,  so  the
 top of  Site  A was dragged with a  heavy metal beam to reduce its height. • Although
 temporary  mounds have been  observed  at  other  Gulf disposal  sites   (Estes  and
 Scrudato,  1977), evidence indicates  that  mounds  do not  persist in  the  dynamic
 environment  of the  shallow Gulf  waters.   This evidence is supported  by the data
 collected  at  Site  A.   No mound  is  present  at Site B  where an  average  annual
 volume  of 204,000  yd3 was dumped in the  five  calendar years from 1960  through
 1973.

   A consideration  in selecting   a  location for an  OOMDS is  the potential  for
 disposed sediments  to be transported by water currents into the shipping  channel,
 which lies approximately 1.25 nmi south of  Sites A. and  B.   Such deposition would
 create  additional  maintenance, work.   Currents generally  flow southward  during
                                       2-21

-------
winter  and  northward during  summer.   Hence,  sediments  dumped at  Sites  A and 8
prior to, or during, winter may  be redeposited in the shipping channel by bottom
currents.  Since Alternative  Site  4  is  located southwest of the beginning of  the
shipping  channel,  potential   problems with  the deposition  of  the sediments into
the shipping channel are virtually nonexistent.

  Following normal winter storms  (and possibly at other times) the waters of  the
West Florida Shelf in the Tampa area are characterized by heavy layers of natural
siltation.   This was  clearly seen  and  videotaped  in  the EPA  February, March,
and April 1983  surveys.   In   depths of 40  to 80 feet, often the  bottom  20 to 30
feet of the  water column  consisted of  visually  impenetrable water  filled with
fine-grained  natural  siltation.    This . material   is   likely to  be  naturally
weathered karst from the underlying  limestone layers of the  shelf, and  was seen
throughout the entire area, from Site A to Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4.

(7)  EXISTENCE AND EFFECTS OF CURRENT AND PREVIOUS DISCHARGES  AND DUMPING
     IN THE AREA (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS) (40 CFR §228.6[a][7])

ALL SITES

  The   dredged  material   contains  no   prohibited  materials and  only  trace
concentrations  of  restricted  contaminants   {Tables  4-2   and 4-3).    Material
proposed  for  future disposal  will  contain  a  large   percentage  of  particles
smaller  than  sand,  and  therefore  will  require  further  testing.    Tests  on
appropriately sensitive marine  animals  have shown  that metals  and hydrocarbons
present in the  material  dredged from St.  Petersburg  harbor are  nontoxic  and  do
not  appear  to  increase  the  potential  for  bioaccumulation of toxic  substances
(Jones, Edmunds  and Assoc.,  1979).   Naturally  laid-down  material  dredged  from
main channel  areas  presumably   will  have  minimal   contamination,  thus  further
reducing the potential  for bioaccumulation.

   Because the dredged material  is  environmentally  acceptable  in  accordance with
the Ocean Disposal Regulations,  the  most likely  adverse impact  of  disposal  will
be the  burial  of  some  bottom-dwelling (benthic)  organisms  (Wright, 1978; Hirsch
et^ajL, 1978).  This effect is mitigated by the high-energy environment,  which is
                                        2-22

-------
 periodically subject to severe  storms.   Thus,  the benthic communities at Sites A
 and B  and  Shallow-Water  Alternative Sites are  adapted  to periodic stresses, and
 are more  likely to" recover rapidly  from  burial  than  a community in  a stable,
 low-energy environment (Oliver  et_£l_., 1977).

    Although  dredged, material   disposal  may  cause  some  localized   decrease  .in
 benthic  fauna,  fairly  rapid  recolonization   has  "been  observed  at  similarly
 affected areas within three  months after  disposal operations  ceased.    At the
 Galveston, Texas OOMDS, organisms which colonized the affected areas were members
 of the surrounding  unaffected  areas, and no nuisance species  were noted {Henry,
 1976).  A recent benthic  investigation at  Sites A and  B'(Taylor, 1982) concluded
 that "after a  recovery period of about nine years, bottom conditions at Dump Site
 B appear to  be about as  good,  or  perhaps .even better  than one  would  expect to
 find in almost  any  natural,  unaltered level  bottom area  along  the shallow shelf
 off Tampa Bay".

    Similarly, changes in  water  quality following  disposal  at  this site have been
 of  short  duration   (less  than four hours),  and have  been  confined  within
 relatively small areas.  No major differences in teleost and shellfish species or
 numbers have been  found  between  stations  within  a  similar  affected site  and
 control stations;  the effects  of  disposal  on  phytoplankton, " zooplankton,  and
 epibenthic and pelagic fishes were concluded to be minimal (Corps, 1979b).

PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED SITES

    Only the  previously  designated Sites  have  received  dredged  materials.   Hard
 bottom areas occur near Sites A and B and these may be  adversely affected by silt
 and sand as a result of normal  hydrodynamic  processes.   There  is no  exact method
 to determine how or where dumped sediments will  disperse once  released; however,'
 adverse effects could  result  in   the  vicinity  of the  disposal  site  due  to
 suspended  particulate  matter   and   dispersion  of  sediment  following  disposal
 operations.
                                          2-23

-------
SHALLOW-WATER ALTERNATIVE SITE 4

   No disposal operations have occurred at Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4.

(8)  INTERFERENCE WITH SHIPPING, FISHING, RECREATION, MINERAL EXTRACTION,
     DESALINATION, FISH AND SHELLFISH CULTURE, AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC
     IMPORTANCE. AND OTHER LEGITIMATE USES OF THE OCEAN (40 CFR §228.6[a][8])

PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED SITES

   Use of  Sites  A and B would  not  interfere with shipping, mineral  extraction,
desalination,  fish  and  shellfish  culture,  or  areas  of  special   scientific
importance.  However, recreational  and commercial fishing activities are known to
occur in nearby areas.

   Site  B  lies outside  the  safety fairway;  Site A extends  partially into  the
safety fairway.  Hopper dredges must  operate  within  shipping lanes  when dredging
and traveling to the disposal  site.   Any danger can be mitigated by:   (1)  use of
the  U.S.  Coast  Guard's  area  Vessel  Traffic  System,  (2)  extra  caution   and
awareness by the  captains  of  hopper dredges,  (3) use  of  onboard radar, and  (4)
announcements of dredging schedules to captains, pilots, and ship personnel.

   No resource development occurs  in the vicinity of Sites A and B.   The  nearest
Bureau of Land Management oil  and  gas  leasing is 55  nmi to  the  southwest.

   Hard  bottoms  and  artificial- reefs  occur  in the  vicinity  of Sites  A and  B.
These areas  provide  recreational  fishing  and diving  for local  residents   and
vacationers.    Interference with  recreational  activities   may  result  from   two
potential sources  following  disposal  operations:   (1) the  turbidity plume:may
produce  short-term effects on  water quality, and (2)  deposited material  may  be
transported toward sensitive  hard  bottom areas over  the long term.   However,  both
                                       2-24

-------
  of  these  possibilities  are  dependent  on volume of material disposed,  as  well  as
  on  current  direction  and  magnitude, which  are seasonally  variable and subject  to
  prevailing  wind and tidal influence.

  SHALLOW-WATER ALTERNATIVE SITE 4

     As  discussed  for  Sites A and  B  above,  disposal at  Shallow-Water Alternative
  Site 4 would not  interfere  with  shipping,  mineral- extraction, desalination, fish
  and shellfish culture, or areas of special  scientific importance.  Because of its
  distance from the coast,  this site  is  removed from areas  of heavier recreational
  use,  and has  little  significant  commercial  fishery  use.   The  recent  Corps
  aircraft  overflight   study  .(cited  in  the discussion  in  40 CFR  §228.6[a][3],
  above), corroborates this minimal use.           ...

  (9)  THE EXISTING HATER QUALITY AND ECOLOGY OF THE SITE, AS DETERMINED BY
      AVAILABLE DATA OR BY TREND ASSESSMENT OR BASELINE SURVEYS
      (40 CFR.§228.6[a][9]}       • •         .                         .  .

  ALL ALTERNATIVE SITES                        -            .

     Several  studies detail the  existing water quality (Saloman and  Taylor,  1972;
  Saloman, 1973a, 1973b, and 1974;  Saloman and. Collins,  1974;  Collins  and Finucane,.
  1974)  and ecology  (Springer and  Woodburn,  1960;  Saloman  et a_1_., 1968; Smith  et
  al., 1975;  Dawes  et  ^1_., 1967;  Dawes and Breedveld,  1969; Saunders and  Glenn,
  1969;  Steidinger and  Williams, 1970;  Cobb  et  al_.,  1973;  Cairns, 1977; Topp and
  Hoff,  1972; Serafy,   1979;  Huff  and  Cobb, 1979)  of  the  region containing the
  alternative sites.  The EPA also has  conducted several  surveys of Sites A  and  B
  as well as of the Shallow-Water Alternative Site.  Water  quality  in  this  area  is
  influenced  by  Tampa  Bay  as  well  as  coastal  processes.  In  addition, the  Loop
Current seasonally  influences Shelf  water  circulation, patterns,  which in  turn,
modify nearshore water quality.

    All  nearshore sites can be expected  to  share the same  sandy-bottom assemblage
of marine organisms; the Nearshore (or  Shallow-Shelf) assemblage (Collard and
                                       2-25

-------
D'Asaro,  1973;  Lyons and Collard,  1974)  is  in  a  high-energy  nearshore  environment
(Holliday,  1978).   At  Sites A and  B  relative abundance  of species varies both
within  sampling  stations,  as  well  as   between   stations.     In  areas  where
hard  bottom outcrops  occur, typical  faunal  assemblages  can  be expected, which
also  will vary  in relative abundance of  species.

   Studies  of  disposal operations  at  Galveston, Texas  have shown no  detectable
changes in  the  ecology  of  that  region.  Henningsen  (1977) stated that,  "dredging
and  dredged material   disposal  did  not appear  detrimental  to  nekton",  which
included  teleost  and   shrimp  species.   The  benthic • community,  which  is  the
assemblage  most  likely- to- be   affected  by  dredged  material  disposal,  was
temporarily  reduced in numbers after  dumping, but  was  repopulated within three
months by animals   from the  surrounding  unaffected  area  (Henry, 1976).  Similar
effects  are  anticipated  as  a  result   of dredged material   disposal  at  the
alternative sites west of Tampa Bay.

(10)  POTENTIALITY  FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OR RECRUITMENT OF NUISANCE SPECIES IN
      THE DISPOSAL  SITE (40 CFR §228.6[a][10])

ALL SITES

   Sediments dredged from  the  Tampa Harbor area  may be  enriched  with nutritive
substances  such  as   nitrogen  or  phosphorus.     In  the  marine  environment,
nitrogenous    compounds    (e.g.,    NH3+1,   N02*2,     NC^'3)    are    usually
the   limiting  nutrients  of primary  productivity,  whereas  phosphate  (PO^}
is  occasionally found  in  excessive quantities.   However,  this  relationship  is
variable and subject to localized  influences.   In  Tampa  Bay, nitrogen  is thought
to be the limiting  factor (Graham et^ aj_., 1954; and Odum e£ aj_., 1974).

   Nutrients have been measured in  liquid-phase  elutriate samples  from sediments
taken  from  the  Tampa  Harbor  Channel  -and  St.  Petersburg  Harbor   (Table  4-3).
Comparison of nutrient  values in dredged material to nutrient values in Tampa  Bay
waters indicates that  localized short-term  increases may  occur, but  no increase
                                          2-26

-------
 In  ambient  value is expected beyond the  Initial  mixing period.  Hence,  disposal
 operations  are  not expected to  promote  red tide blooms  or development  of  other
 nuisance  species.

 (11) EXISTENCE AT  OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO  THE SITE OF  ANY  SIGNIFICANT  NATURAL  OR
     CULTURAL FEATURES OF HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE  (40 CFR §228.6[a][ll])

ALL SITES                  *                         .
                                                          ;
   The  Florida  State  Division of Archives  has  no .record', of natural or  cultural
 features  of.historical importance at or near  any  of the sites.  .

                                   CONCLUSIONS      •       ;

   The  eleven  specific  site selection criteria  demonstrate the preferability  of
"designating a Shallow-Water Alternative Site  4 rather than  one  or both  of Sites  A
and B on the following bases:

   0    A limestone shelf is believed to occur  0.5 nmi northwest  of Site A, and
        small outcrops  are suspected  to  occur within  the  site.   An  artificial
        reef has been constructed within 3  nmi of Site  B.

   -°     Hard bottoms can  provide  habitat.for species  of fish  and  invertebrates
        that would  have difficulty surviving  on sandy bottoms.  Hard bottoms also
        can provide habitat for  scuba  diving  and  fishing.   Hard bottoms are  known
      .  to occur in. far greater  density and number in the vicinity of Sites  A and
        B than in the vicinity of Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4.

   0    A sandy bottom will  experience less significant adverse effects  from the
        dumping of  dredged.sediments,  since species  which normally inhabit  sandy
        bottoms are better adapted to burial  and habitat modifications.
                                           2-27

-------
  0    Bathymetric, videotape, and side scan  surveys  performed-at Shallow-Water
       Alternative Site 4 indicated that disposal of  dredged material at that
       site would affect the  fewest hard bottoms, since this area is  virtually
       entirely sandy bottomed.

  0    Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4 is the preferred site  based on
       evaluation of historical and survey data, and  using the U specific
       criteria of the Ocean  Dumping Regulations (40  CFR §228.6).

RECOMMENDED USE OF THE SITE

   All future uses of  a  site for dredged material  disposal  must comply with the
EPA  Ocean  Dumping Regulations,  a requirement  which brings  prospective dumping
into compliance with the MPRSA and the  London Dumping Convention.   The Corps and
EPA  determine  compliance with  the Ocean  Dumping  Regulations  on  a  case-by-case
basis when applications for disposal permits  and Federal project test results are
evaluated.  General guidelines  for  determining acceptability of dredged material
proposed for release at a site are outlined below.

TYPES OF DREDGED MATERIAL

   A11 dredged material scheduled for disposal must comply with the Ocean Dumping
Regulations elutriate, bioassay,  and  bioaccumulation test  procedures.   Disposal
of  this  material  should  not  cause  unacceptable  adverse  effects  outside  the
designated  dump  site,  nor  should this  material  cause  long-term,  adverse  or
chronic effects at a site.

DREDGED MATERIAL LOADINGS

   The remaining  volume  of dredged material  from the  present deepening project
that will  require ocean disposal  is  approximately  3.6  million yd^.   Following
                                      2-28

-------
 the completion of  the Tampa Harbor  improvement  project in  1985,  operation and
 maintenance dredging may produce an average annual volume of 1.1  million yd-3 of
 dredged  sediments,  although   this   figure  , may   be  modified  following  future
 sedimentation studies.   Historically,  maintenance dredging  has not  always  been
 conducted on an annual  basis,  but  rather on  an as-needed basis every one to five
 years.

 DISPOSAL METHODS                           .                '

    Present Corps  disposal methods  at  the  previously designated Tampa Harbor ODMDS
 are acceptable for  continued use.   Material is dredged  by  hydraulic, clamshell,
 or hopper dredges,  and is transported to the site by hopper  dredges, barges, or
 scows.   The material is released through the bottom of  the vessel  over a period
 of three minutes  or less  while  the vessel is underway.

 MONITORING THE DISPOSAL SITE

    Section 228.9  of the Ocean  Dumping Regulations establishes that the impact of
 dumping in a disposal site and surrounding marine environment  will  be evaluated
 periodically for  certain types of effects.   The information  used  to make  the
 disposal  impact evaluation may  include data from monitoring surveys.  EPA as  well
 as State and local   governmental representatives  and scientists will  establish  a
 monitoring program  to supplement the  historical  site data (40 CFR §228.9).   The
.monitoring  plan  will   be  developed  by   determining   appropriate   monitoring
 parameters,  frequency of  sampling, and  the  area!  extent of the survey.'  Factors
 considered in  making the determination include frequency and  volumes of disposal,
 physical  and chemical  nature of the  dredged  material,  dynamics of the  site,  and
 life histories of any monitored species.

    The  primary purposes  of  the  monitoring  program are to determine  whether
 disposal  at the  site is significantly affecting  areas  outside the site, and to
 detect  long-term  adverse  effects.   Consequently,  monitoring efforts must  survey
                                       2-29

-------
 the site  and surrounding  areas,  including  control  sites and  areas  which  are
 likely to be affected  (as indicated by  environmental  factors, such as prevailing
 sediment  transport).     The   results  of  adequate  surveys  will  provide  early
 indications of potential significant adverse effects outside the site.

 GUIDELINES FOR THE MONITORING PLAN

    The  following  sections outline  the recommended monitoring  requirements  for
 disposal of  dredged material  at the  Tampa  Harbor ODMDS,  pursuant to  Section
 228.10 of EPA's Ocean  Dumping Regulations.   The monitoring  requirements  for  the
 Tampa  Disposal Site will be  determined by  EPA Headquarters staff, with input from
 local  and State officials, as well as EPA and Corps Regional  office  staffs.  The
 monitoring plan will be  subject  to potential revision when  sampling results  and
 data analysis become  available.   Changes in  the  plan  may  be  made after this
 review.

    The  requirements  for the monitoring  plan  at  the  selected  site  may   be
 determined by applying the six considerations outlined below.

(1)  MOVEMENT OF MATERIALS INTO ESTUARIES  OR MARINE SANCTUARIES, OR ONTO
     OCEANFRQNT BEACHES OR SHORELINES

    Survey data collected at  Sites A and  8  in  1979,  1980,  and  1982   indicate that
 sediments are  predominately   sand  with  some  gravel  and  a  small  percentage  of
 fines,  with no indication of  gross contamination.  The 1980 survey showed  changes
 from the 1979 survey in several parameters.   No  disposal  activities  had occurred
 during the interim  period, suggesting  that sediments  in  this region are  highly
 dynamic  and that dumped sediments can be  transported  away from these sites.   In
 the area of  Alternative Site  4, water currents generally move  north  or  south
 due to  seasonal climatic conditions and  Loop Current influence.   As  a  result,
 dumped sediments will  not be  transported toward  estuaries, oceanfront beaches,  or
 shorelines.
                                        2-30

-------
    A monitoring plan should be designed to detect the movement  of  materials from
 the site,  utilizing sampling stations both within and outside the site.   Sampling
 stations may be  distributed along transects  oriented  at right  angles,  parallel
 and perpendicular to the  coast,  and  of sufficient  length  to cross  the  selected
 site and extend a minimum of 0.5  nmi  beyond  the site boundaries.  To the  extent
 possible,  transects also should be oriented toward outlying hard bottom  outcrops.
 At   least  one  control  station  should be established  in  the   vicinity  of  the
 designated site, outside  of  areas influenced by sediment transport. " Monitoring
 may be  accomplished by  grain, size  analysis,  and  analysis of  trace  metals  if
 present  in dredged sediments above ambient levels.   Appropriate  trace metals  for
 monitoring would include mercury and  cadmium..--                        •-
 (2)  MOVEMENT OF  MATERIALS  TOWARD PRODUCTIVE.FISHERY OR SHELLFISHERY AREAS

   Outside Tampa Bay  the most  productive fishery and shrimping areas occur in  the
.vicinity   of  hard bottom  areas  within  15. nmi  of.-shore.    Monitoring  efforts
 designed  to  track  the movement of  deposited material  can  also  determine  the
 extent  to which  hard  bottoms  are likely to be  affected.

 (3)  ABSENCE FROM THE  DISPOSAL  SITE  OF POLLUTION-SENSITIVE BIOTA
     CHARACTERISTIC OF THE  GENERAL AREA
 •vt
   The  benthic  infaunal   communities  that  inhabit  the  selected   Shallow-Water
 Alternative Site may undergo changes  in. composition  as  a   result  of  dredged
 material  disposal.    However,  because  pollution-sensitive species  such as hard
 and  soft  corals  occur only to an extremely  limited extent in  the-selected  site,
 monitoring of these species need not  be made.   In  the event  that  substantial hard
 bottom  outcrops   are  detected  within  0.5 nmi  beyond the boundaries  of Site  4,
 monitoring of these hard bottom  areas should be  initiated.      ,       -  •
                                          2-31

-------
(4) PROGRESSIVE, NONSEASONAL CHANGES IN MATER: QUALITY OR SEDIMENT COMPOSITION
    AT THE DISPOSAL SITE ATTRIBUTABLE TO DREDGED MATERIAL

   Measurable changes In water quality due to dredged material disposal are quite
unlikely to occur, or be detectable, because of:

   0    Limited release to the water column of contaminants  (they are bound to
        the sediments), as well as large dilution factors;

   0    Transient nature of ocean water masses;

   0    High natural variability in water column chemical parameters and biota.

For these reasons, monitoring  the water column for  long-term chronic changes is
quite unlikely to produce useful results, and is therefore not proposed.

   Disposal  is likely to change  sediment  characteristics within  the site.  Grain
size  analyses "should   be  made  at  stations  nearest   the   site  for  additional
indications  of movement of dredged material from the site over the sandy bottom.

   Chemical   compounds   present  in  dredged  material   (Table  4-3)  which   are  of
environmental concern include total  organic  carbon,  ammonia, oil  and grease, and
trace metals  (mercury  and cadmium).   Initially,  sediment sampling  should occur
twice a  year, during winter  and  summer  seasonal  conditions,  to  determine  the
direction and extent of dispersion of dumped sediments.

(5) PROGRESSIVE. NONSEASONAL CHANGES IN COMPOSITION OF NUMBERS OF DEMERSAL.
    OR BENTHIC BIOTA AT OR NEAR THE DISPOSAL SITE'ATTRIBUTABLE TO DREDGED
    MATERIAL

   Benthic  infauna  are  more  sensitive  to dredged  material   disposal  because of
their sedentary  habit.   Numerically dominant  organisms associated  with  varying
                                         2-32

-------
 environmental  conditions  are the most  appropriate  species  to study.  Monitoring
 results may  Indicate  any  biotic changes that extend beyond the boundaries .of. the
 site.   However,  macrofauna  populations of sandy-bottom substrates in this  region
 are  very diverse  and dynamic.   Therefore,  monitoring  the  effects  of dredged
material disposal on  infauna may produce  indefinite and ambiguous  results,  except
 in severely  affected  locations.

 (6)  ACCUMULATION OF MATERIAL CONSTITUENTS (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATIONS,
     HUMAN PATHOGENS) IN MARINE BIOTA AT  OR NEAR THE SITE

  Determining  the  level  of  possible   contaminants   (e.g.,  trace  metals  or
chlorinated  hydrocarbons) in  benthic  infauna  is  difficult, due to  the  small
size  of  the  animals,   limitations  of  present  culture  techniques,  and  the
possibility  of contamination  from  sediments  ingested  by .the  organism.   Large
organisms which can be dissected, and discrete tissues examined, typically  do not
inhabit a  specific  sandy-bottom location, but  forage  in large  areas  or migrate
seasonally.    At  sandy-bottom  habitats,  such  as  those  found  at Shallow-Water
Alternative  Site 4,  no   species  has  been' identified  as  having  any  value  for
assessment of  potential  bioaccumulation  of  possible  contaminants.   Other  Corps
districts are  currently  testing the  value  of  a  larger  epifaunal • organism,  the
raussel (Myti1 us edulis),.as an indicator  of bioaccumulation.  This species  can be
placed  in  test cages at  the site.    If  the  mussel  turns  out  to be  a feasible
indicator, their incorporation into the monitoring plan may be considered.

   The  possible  contamination  of  human  food  species  is  of greatest  concern,
although the levels of contaminants in teleosts are not an indication of where or
when the  fish  was  exposed to the contaminant  source.   If  contaminant  levels in.
a particular-species was determined to be of concern, individuals of that species
could be caged inside 'and  outside  the site to  determine  the  site's contribution
(if any) to the observed levels.
                                        2-33

-------

-------
                                     Chapter 3

                              AFFECTED  ENVIRONMENT
               This  chapter  describes  the  environmental  charac-
          teristics  of  the shallow water  environment  of the Gulf
          of Mexico  west of Tampa Bay.   Topics discussed include
          physical,  chemical,  and  biological  characteristics   of
          the  affected  oceanographic  environment,  as  well   as
          commercial  and  recreational   activities.   Significant
          differences  in observations made  at the various  sites
          considered are presented  and discussed.   Sites  A  and B
          are  located  in an  area containing  limestone  rock out-
          crops  that provide a  habitat  for  sensitive  species  of
          marine   flora   and  fauna.     Suggested  Shallow-Water
          Alternative  Site 4  is 1n  an   area of  primarily  sandy
          bottom with a  minimum of  rock  outcrops in Its vicinity.
          Species  inhabiting  sandy  bottoms  are  adapted to  the
          dynamics   of  a   relatively   unstable   and   shifting
          heterogeneous  habitat.
     This  chapter  describes  the  environmental  characteristics  that  may  be
affected   by   dredged   material   disposal   west   of   Tampa   Bay,   Florida.
Characteristics  discussed  are those  susceptible to  significant  adverse impacts
and are generally categorized as geological, chemical, or  biological.  Additional
information, such as  physical  oceanography and meteorology, is presented because
these  natural   physical  processes  also influence  the  fate  and  effect of the
disposed  dredged material.   Commercial and  recreational  resources  that  may be
affected  by  dredged  material   disposal   are  discussed  in  detail.    Specific
information  relating  to  each  of  the viable  alternative  disposal   sites  is
presented.  Data  and  methods  from all  the  various surveys made of all  sites are
presented in Appendices A-F.

                          ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS

Climate

     Climatic parameters  of interest at an ODMDS  are air temperature,  rainfall,
wind  statistics, storm  occurrences,  and  fog.   Air temperature  interacts with
surface waters, and  particularly  during  warm  periods,  influences  the  vertical
stability of  the water.   Rainfall  increases  coastal  freshwater  runoff, thereby
                                       3-1

-------
locally  decreasing  surface  salinity  and  intensifying  the  vertical   stratifi-
cation of the water.  Coastal runoff also can contribute suspended- sediments  and
various chemical pollutants.   Winds  and storms  can  generate waves and  currents
which resuspend and transport  deposited dredged material.    A high incidence of
fog during particular seasons  may  affect navigational  safety and limit  disposal
operations.

   The Tampa  Bay region  has  a subtropical  climate  with  two distinct  seasons:
summer and winter.   The  seasonal  changes occur  in April-May and  October-November.
Summers  characteristically  are  warm   and   humid  with   persistent   southeast
tradewinds.   Winters  generally are mild,  with  cold  fronts  moving  from  the
northwest; occasionally tropical cyclones  move  in from  the southwest, or  slow,
warm fronts move in from the south  (Fernandez-Partagas, 1975).

   Mean air  temperatures  range from  15.8°C  in  the  coldest  month  (January) to
27.9°C in the warmest month  (August);  the  annual mean  air  temperature is 22.3°C
(USOOC, 1978).  Precipitation is highest during  the  summer thundershower season,
occurring  from  June through September  (Figure   3-1).   Mean  annual  rainfall is
about 125 cm (Ibid.).

   Heavy fogs  generally occur during  the  night  and early morning in  the  late
autumn, winter, and early spring; they dissipate soon after sunrise.  Thick  fogs
rarely occur  during daytime,  and visibility of  less than   0.25 mi  occurs  on an
average of 24 days  a year (Table 3-1).

   Wind directions, frequencies,  and  speeds affect local  ocean currents, which in
turn, may affect the distribution of sediments  and nutrients.  Prevailing winds
are southeasterly and  easterly (Ichiye et a\_., 1973).  Afternoon wind velocities
average 7.2 kn in summer, and 8.9 kn during  winter (USDOC, 1978).   From January
through  August,  winds  characteristically blow  offshore   in  the  mornings  and
onshore in the afternoons.

   Tropical  storms  and  hurricanes  produce  high  winds  and  seas  that   can
redistribute  significant  amounts  of  bottom  sediments   in  relatively  shallow
waters.  Florida experiences an average of  1.7 tropical storms per year.
                                    3-2

-------
             15-
             10-
           IM
           U
              5-
                ]AN  FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUC SEP OCT NOV DEC
         Figure 3-1.  Mean Precipitation by- Month for a 30-Year .Period
                 Source:  Adapted from USDOC,. 1978 (data from
                     National Weather Service, Tampa Bay)
                                   TABLE 3-1
                        DAYS WITH VISIBILITY LESS THAN
                   OR EQUAL TO 0.25 MI FOR A 29-YEAR PERIOD
Month
Days
Jan
6
Feb
3
Mar
3
Apr
2
May
1
Jun
0
Jul
0
Aug
0
Sep
0
Oct
1
Nov
3
Dec
5
Source:  USDOC, 1978
                                   3-3

-------
Individual  years, however,  can'  range  from no  storms to  five  (Ichiye  e£ al.,
1973).    Figure  3-2  gives  the  percentage  of  probability  of  occurrence   for
different types of tropical  storms  1n the vicinity of  Tampa  Bay.

PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY

   Physical  oceanographic parameters  determine .the  nature and  extent  of   the
mixing zone,  thereby influencing  sediment  transport  and the chemical environment
at an ODMDS.  Strong temperature  or salinity gradients inhibit mixing of  surface
and  bottom waters,  whereas  waves  aid  mixing,  resuspend bottom  sediments,   and
affect  the  turbidity  of the  water.    Currents,  especially  bottom  currents,
determine  the direction  and extent of  sediment transport  within and  from   the
ODMDS.  Tidal currents may also contribute to the transport of dumped material.

WATER MASSES

   Circulation  in  the eastern  Gulf of  Mexico is  dominated  by  a  permanent Gulf
Loop Current  with detached  cyclonic  eddies (Figure 3-3).   Temperature/salinity
diagrams  of  the  core  of the  Loop  Current  characterize   it  as  a mixture  of
subtropical underwater and Antarctic intermediate water (Molinari e£.al_.,  1975a).
The  subtropical  underwater  has  a  maximum  salinity  of  about  36.75 parts .per
thousand (ppt) at 22°C; this water  1s  normally used  as a tracer of Loop  Current
movements.

CURRENTS

   The Loop Current  is a continuation of the Yucatan Current, originating  outside
the Gulf of Mexico  in the western  Cayman  Sea.   The current flows  north  through
the  Yucatan Channel   and  penetrates  into  the Gulf  in a clockwise  loop  before
exiting eastward through  the Straits of Florida.  The main  body  of  the  current
reaches its  northernmost  limit of  about  27°30'N in the  summer, after which  an
anti-cyclonic eddy usually separates from the main loop.  During winter the loop
is generally confined to the southeastern Gulf and passes through the Straits  of
Florida with  little  intrusion  into the main  body of  the  Gulf  (Hubertz, 1967;
Leipper, 1970).   The  degree of penetration of  the Loop Current into the Gulf
                                       3-4

-------
                                           TC: TROPICAL CYCLONES: MAXIMUM
                                              SUSTAINED WINDS 35 KNOTS
                                              OR GREATER

                                            K: HURRICANES; MAXIMUM SUSTAINED
                                              WINDS 64 KNOTS OR GREATER

                                           GH: GREAT HURRICANES; MAXIMUM
                                              SUSTAINED WINDS 109 KNOTS
                                              OR GREATER     '  .

                                          PERCENTAGE PROBABILITY FOR 1 YEAR IS
                                          DEFINED AS THE PROBABLE FREQUENCY OF
                                          LANDFALLS AT ONE SECTION OVER 100 YEARS.
                                                                          SO
                                                                 Kilometer*


                                                             0           25

                                                             I            I
                                                               Nautical Miles
29*
                                                                                 28*
84*
                         83*
                                                 82*
                                                                         81 *W
   Figure 3-2.  Percentage Probability of  Occurrences of Landfall
                      of Tropical Cyclones in 1 Year
                Source:  Adapted from  Ichiye et al^., 1973
                                     3-5

-------
                .   I-'.   I .  .   I
                          \i-7"V?
                           \T  \\   v   ^
                                                         *    —
        \     \-\\\\
                                   ^*»»
                                      X
                                                                30*
                                                                2,.
                                                                28-
                                              27*
                                                                2fi*
                                                                2S'
                                                                24"
                                                                23*
                                                                22*N
so-
      ar
            88*
87'    86"
83*
                                    84'
                                          83"
                                                82'
                                                     81*
 Figure 3-3.  Typical Loop Current in September with Detached Cyclonic Eddies

                     Source:  Ichiye et al., 1973
                                3-6

-------
          AUC73
                             YUCATAN
                            . PENINSULA^'   .
                                                                      - 22*N
OCT-NOV 72
    SEP 72
                                                                8Q-W
    Figure 3-4.  Degree of  Intrusion of the Loop Current Over an Annual Cycle
                        :            (1972-1973)
                       •4       Source:   Maul, 1977
fluctuates from year to year (Figure 3-4), and until recently was thought to  vary
seasonally.   However,  Molfnari  and Festa  (1978)  found the mean  position of  the
northern edge  of  the Loop Current to  be at 26°N, with  penetration occurring  in
any season.                                                 .

   The Loop Current  can  be  viewed simplistlcally as a river  of saline  Caribbean
water flowing  through the Gulf..  There  is  little  mixing of  Loop  Current water
with Shelf water.   Some  entrainment  of coastal water  occurs  at the periphery  of
the Current,  inducing  a  net southward transport  of  bordering Shelf water toward
the Straits of Florida (Tolbert and Salsman, 1964).

   Little,  systematic  knowledge  of circulation patterns  at  Sites A  and' B or  the
Shallow-Water  Alternative Sites  is  available.   Some broad  conclusions  can  be
drawn  from  the  data  on  general   circulation   over   the  West  Florida  Shelf.
Circulation over  the  Continental Shelf  is heavily  influenced by  meanders  and
eddies with spin-off from the Loop  Current.   Eddies  create  low  frequency (.5  to
                                        3-7

-------
20 day)  localized  fluctuating current patterns, in the 10-30 cm/s  velocity range
(Chew et jfL, 1959).   Mean  currents, averaged over periods of a month  or longer,
tend to  flow parallel  to bottom contours  at  velocities of approximately  10  cm/s
(Mooers  and  Price, 1975).   These  mean currents show  seasonal  variations  with  a
net southerly nearshore flow during  winter and  northerly flow during  the summer
(Figure  3-5).   Superimposed  on  the mean  flow  patterns are wind-induced  surface
currents, bottom currents,  nearshore tidal currents, and  upwellings.

   Drift card studies  of surface currents inshore  of  83°W over the West  Florida
Shelf were  conducted by He!a ^t ji1_. (1955).   Results  showed  a wind-induced  net
movement of  surface  water toward  the northwest in July, and toward the southwest
1n November, at speeds  of approximately 8  cm/s during  both  seasons.

   Mean  bottom  currents,  ranging  up to  5   cm/s,  have  been  reported  for  more
northerly Mississippi,  Alabama,  and Florida  sites (Figure 3-5; Mooers  and Price,
1975).   Relatively  strong  bottom  currents,  creating  a  bottom  turbidity  layer,
have been reported along the 30ra contour west of  Tampa Bay (Joyce and  Williams,
1969).  Bottom currents  measured at  a station 147m  deep about 80 nmi southwest of
Sites  A and  B  were  highly  variable,  with   a  velocity  ranging  up to 20 cm/s,
producing a  resultant  current vector of 2 cm/s  to the north-northwest  (Plaisted
_et _al_., 1975).

   Tidal currents  play an important  role  in  the  redistribution  of sediments in
the vicinity of Sites  A and B and  the  Shallow-Water  Alternative  Sites  (Figure
3-6).  A tongue  of quartz sand,  in  otherwise predominantly carbonate  sediments,
protrudes about  20  nmi  seaward from the  mouth of Tampa Bay.   This  tongue of
quartz sand  is believed  to  have  been formed  by strong  tidal currents, capable of
moving sand  further offshore  (Gould  and Steward, 1956).

   Upwelllng may contribute  to the  formation  of  bottom currents.   Lenses  of  cold
saline water have been  reported on  the   bottom  at more  northerly Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida  sites  (Manheim et al_., 1976),  suggesting  that  this  cold
saline water was   a  remnant  of Loop Current  water which had been  upwelled  and
stranded.   This  phenomenon  appears  to be seasonal,  occurring primarily  in  the
                                        3-8

-------
     ssw
                    84*30'
84-00-
                                                      83*30-
                                                                     .  83'W
   100
(A '
2  200
LU
J  300
&
UJ
Q
                               -10
                                       -5
                                      OCT-OEC 1973
                                                                         cm/s
                                                                         STATIONS
      woo*
                                     44-00'
                 83*30'
                                                                       83*00'
           •  CURRENT METERS
          (^ SOUTH
          (^ NORTH
           -   VELOCITY SOUTH
           •*•  VELOCITY NORTH
                                                             40
                                                    Kilometer*
       Figure  3-5.  Vertical Sections  of Longshore Current Velocity
         Components Along  26°N Latitude from Moored Current Meters
                       Source:   Mooers  and Price,  1975
                                      3-9

-------
                         ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION OF THE EBB AND FLOOD
                         AT THE LOCATIONS MARKED WITH CROSSES. THE
                         LENGTH OF THE ARROW INDICATES TIDAL EXCURSION
                         AND MAXIMUM SPEED (REFER TO SCALES).
                                                         FLOOD
                                                                        28*00'.
83-W
                                 «2*3
-------
 summer  when intrusions  of the  Loop  Current  into  the  Gulf  are  at  their  peak.
 Manheim  et  al_.  (1976)  reported the presence of a lens  of cold saline water  near
 the  bottom  (depth 30m), whereas  inshore  waters .were vertically well-mixed  three
 days  after  the  effects of  Hurricane Eloise.

 TEMPERATURE

   Usually  little difference  exists  between surface and  bottom  temperatures  in
 shallow  Shelf waters  (<30m).   During  summer, surface and bottom temperatures may
 reach 30°C, and  in winter,  they  may decline to 17°C.  These conditions  have  been
 observed  at Sites A  and B and  at. the more northerly  Mississippi., Alabama,'and
 Florida  sites   (Molinari  et  a]_.,  1975b).    When  a  .thermocline is   present,
 temperature differentials  between the surface  and  the bottom-may  be-.as  large  as
 5°C  (Molinari  et a\.,  1975b).   During  the summer,-the  density  stratification
 intensifies  in   the shoreward  direction, with  the   thermocline  moving  shoreward
 from  the deep  Gulf.   During  the winter,  it   becomes  more diffuse  and deepens
 (Figure  3-7),   The  seasonal aspect of•thermocline  development  on  the  Shelf  is  a
 result of the intrusion  of.colder Loop  Current  waters.

   Further  inshore,  a thermocline  is  usually  present  for short  periods during
 spring and  summer.  However, the  area occupied  by Sites  A and B and the  Shallow-
 Water Alternative Sites  is shallow enough  .to  allow mixing throughout the water
 column,  making   the  existence  of a  colder bottom layer  highly  variable,  and
 allowing the water  column  structure  to change  frequently  (Saloman et  jl_., 1964;
 Finucane  and  Dragovich,  1966;  Dragovich  et a±., .1966;  NODC,  1980;  Molinari  et
£!_.,  1975b).

   Survey data  collected during  1979 and 1980 by  IEC  indicate weak  thermocline
 stratification  during  summer  and winter.   In  the vicinity of Sites A and  B the
 water column  was well mixed,  with a maximum  temperature differential  of 0.9°C
 during summer and 0.5°C  during winter.   Data collected  during  the May 1982, EPA
 survey corroborated these  earlier results;  the maximum- temperature differential
 for readings at  all  stations at  Sites A and B  and  Shallow-Water Alternative  Site
 4 was 1.0'C.
                                       3-11

-------
    0





   25





   50
_  75
in
 100






 125


i_



 150





 175




 200
           >21*
21 •
                                                      JANUARY 1973 (27*30'N)
                                    96-0
                                      94-0 93-0  92-0
                                        A   A	. A
                                                                         STATION NO.
               85*
                          84'
                                                        83*
                                                                   82*W
    0







   25






 .  50





vf 75
ae  "
IM

UJ

S100
  150





  175




  200
                    - "* >»^«v i^***™
            	//
            --•-'/


                 /
                f


               I



             I
                                                   AUGUST 1973 (27*30'N)
99-0
                                96-0
                                    94-0   93-0  92-0
STATION NO.
     85*






  TEMPERATURE CC)



A OCEANOGRAPHIC STATIONS



• BOTTLE DEPTH
                                    84°.
                                                83°
                                                                           82"W
                                                     25
                                                                       50
                                             Nwiticaf Miles
                                                               Kilometers
 Figure  3-7.  Temperature Profiles Along 27°30'N for January and  August  1973

                          Source:   Molinari et al.,  1975b
                                         3-12

-------
   Salinity  variations  in  Shelf  water are  primarily  a function  of  shoreward
movement  of Loop  current  water associated  with the  northward summer  migration
of  the Loop  (Figure  3-8).    Dense  layers  of  cool   saline  Loop  Current  water
occasionally upwell onto the  Shelf.   These dense layers can penetrate to  Sites  A
and 8 and the Shallow-Water Alternative  Sites, producing  salinity  changes  greater
than one ppt between the surface and  bottom.  Salinity  values within  a one-degree
radius  from  Shallow-Water Alternative  Site  1 ranged  from  32.3 to  36.16  ppt  in
1967;  this  is  an unusually  large variation.    Fluctuations   within  one   season
normally are in the two ppt range  (NODC, 1980).

   The  Florida  southwestern  drainage  basin  from Tarpon  Springs  to  Key  West
accounts for less than one percent of the  total  river  discharges into the  Gulf  of
Mexico  (Schroeder, 1975).  Consequently, river runoff  does not  have  a significant
influence on the salinity of  Shelf water in the  area.

   Surveys  of  Sites   A, and  B  and  Alternative  Site  4 reveal  weak  salinity
stratification.  Salinities were generally lower during-summer  than winter due  to
freshwater  rain runoff,  which  is  characteristic for  the  central  west  Florida
Shelf.    Salinity increased  with  distance   from  shore.    The most  pronounced
differences  occurred   during  summer,  when maximum  surface  to bottom  salinity
values  differed by 3.28 ppt.   Winter .values  were   nearly  homogeneous.     Data
collected during the May  1982,  EPA survey  strikingly  demonstrate the increase  in
salinity with increased distance from shore.   Site B,  Site  A,  Alternative  Site  4
and Alternative  Site  3 are 9,  13,  18,  and 24 nmi respectively from Egmont  Key;
the maximum salinity  values  at  each  of  these four locations were 35.69,   36.27,
36.50, and 36.53 ppt,  respectively.

WAVES

   Jordan  (1973)  presents  a  summarization  of  U.S.   Naval   oceanographic  and
meteorologic data  reports  published  in  1963  and  1970.   The later  report  (U.S.
Naval  Weather   Service  Command, 1970)  presents  wave-height  data  from an  area
bounded by 25° N to 27°N, and 84°W to  the Florida coast.  The earlier report  (U.S.
Naval Oceanographic Office,  1963)  presents data- from  the area of  north of  25°N
and east  of 85°W.  The  areas covered  by  these  two reports  provide wave-height
data for the region occupied  by all   Shallow-Water Alternative  Sites  and Sites  A
and B.

   Data show  that the most  severe  wave conditions occur  during  winter   months
(excluding  hurricanes),   when  waves  approach   from   the  north  and  northwest.
                                        3-13

-------
    0

   25

   50
! 100
»
; 125
»
 150

 175

.200

   0

  25

  50
a  73
      <36.4
        36.4
        36.4
        36.2
                                                 JANUARY 1973 (27'30'N)
                        96-0
                        /V i
                        94-0   93-0  92-0
                          A	A	i A
                                                                         STATION NO.
               85'                  84'
                  27    28 29 30 31 32   33   34     35
                                              83"
                                                       82'W
  125

  150

  17Si

  200
99-0
  i.
 i
/98-0
                                       AUGUST 1973 (27'30'N)
                                  96-0
94-0  93-0  92-0
                                                            STATION NO.
               85*

            SALINITY (°/oo>
         A  OCEANOCRAPH1C STATIONS
         •  BOTTLE DEPTH  .
                         84'
                                   83°
                                                                            82'W
                                            25
                                                             50
                                               NaulicaJ Mile*
                                                      Kilometers
  Figure 3-8.   Salinity Profiles Along 27°30'N for January  and August 1973
                          Source:   Molinari et  al., L975b
                                        3-14

-------
 During winter,  waves greater than 4m  represented  only about one  percent  of all
 observations,  waves between 2m  and  4m were 20  to 30% of the  observations, and
 waves  less  than  2m  represented 70 to  80% of all  observations.   During summer, 80
 to 90%  of  all  observations were  reported less  than  1m,  10  to  20% of  wave
 observations  were  between  one  and  four  meters  in  height,  and  less than  one
 percent  of  the observed wave heights were  greater  than 4m.
                                                                ">•',->- - •
 GEOLOGY

   Geological  information  relevant  to  an ODMDS  includes. bathymetry,  sediment
 data,  and  dredged  material  characteristics.     Bathymetric  data  can  provide
 information on  bottom stability, shoaling,  and  persistence  of sediment- mounds.
 The  texture  of   bottom  sediments strongly influences  the  composition  of  the
 resident  benthic biota.    Differences  in  sediment   size  distribution  between
 natural  ODKDS sediments and dredged material may be used as an indicator  of the
 area of  bottom affected by  the dredged material.   Changes in sediment  grain  size
 resulting from dumping  can  produce  changes in both chemical characteristics and
 species composition of benthic biota.

   The West Florida Continental Shelf extends seaward  115 nmi from Tampa Bay  to a
 depth of 200m (Shepard, 1973).   The Continental  Slope  starts at 200m  and  extends
 to the edge of the  Florida  Escarpment,  at 1,600m to 2,400m (Jordan and Stewart,
 1959).                                                "

   There is an abrupt change in  the  nature of  the Continental  Shelf,  Slope,  and
 Escarpment at about 27°N  latitude.   North of approximately  27°N,  the  bedrock  is
 primarily clastic sedimentary  rocks  with  a  thick  covering of  sediments.    This
 northern Slope is broad,  and  slopes  evenly to  the escarpment at l,600nu    The
 northern  escarpment has  a  smooth,  steeply  sloping   face.    In  contrast,   the
 southern Shelf, Slope, and Escarpment  are mainly  composed of  limestone, with  some
marls  and  evaporites,  overlain  by   a  thin  layer  of  predominantly  carbonate
 sediments.  The  southern  escarpment  starts deeper (at 2,000 to  2,400m)  and  is
heavily gullied,  with a lesser gradient than the northern escarpment  (Jordan  and
Stewart, 1959; Pequegnat e£ a\_.,  1978).

   The Continental Shelf west .of.Tampa Bay is a  plateau of Pleistocene  limestone
with a young drowned karst topography  (Price, 1954).   The  Shelf gradient averages
                                       3-15

-------
Q.5ffl/km; it Is characterized by a gently rolling bottom,  irregularly covered by  a
thin  veneer  of  unconsolidated sediments, and  punctuated  by localized sinkholes,
fissures,  and rock  outcrops.    The rocky  outcrops  can  provide  substrates  for
coral, algae, and associated calcareous organisms.  Most  of the  living corals are
found  shoreward  of the  20m contour,  although  they  do exist  to  60m  (Gould  and
Stewart, 1956).

   Nearshore sediments off Tampa Bay are predominantly quartz.   The proportion of
carbonate sediments increases with  increasing distance offshore, and about 20 nmi
from the coast, at a depth of approximately 30m, sediments are mainly composed of
carbonate  shell  fragments  (Figure  3-9).   Grain  size distributions  are highly
varied; there  ist little  or no progressive  change in  grain  size with  depth or
distance from shore  (Figure 3-10).   Instead,  particle distributions  are related
to the composition of the  sediments  rather than  physical- processes.   With  'the
exception  of the  high  quartz zones,  within  20  nmi from  shore most of  the
unconsolidated sediments  appear  to  have originated from  weathering  of  submerged
coastal plain  sediments  or Pleistocene  reefs,-or the  trituration of calcareous
remains of benthic organisms (Gould and Stewart, 1956).

   Doyle and  Sparks (1980)  have  suggested  that  longshore coastal currents  may
cause alternating north and south transport of quartz  sands with no resulting net
drift.   Such a' system may  result  in  dumped  sediments  being   redispersed in   a
similar north and  south  pattern in  the vicinity of.  a Shallow-Water  Alternative
Site, with no resultant net movement from the site.

   Sediment samples  collected  at  Sites A and  8  and surrounding areas by IEC in
1979 and 1980 indicate a  variable substratum  and  dynamic  environment.    Sediments
included gravel, .sand,  silt,  and  clay, dominated  by  a 74.8  to 99.9% weight
fraction of  sand (median  phi  = +1.69)  with  no  obvious  spatial  trends.   Fines
content decreased with increasing distance  from  shore.   Corps'  records  show that
no dredged material disposal occurred at either Site A or Site B between December
1973 and June 1980.  Therefore, it  is  highly  likely that  differences  in sediment
composition resulted from natural  causes.
                                       3-16

-------
                                                         w

                                                          eg
                                                         •a
                                                          GO   •
                                                          «  u

                                                         9  &
                                                         ^  §
                                                          O  4)
                                                             4J
                                                          W CO
                                                          «
                                                         M -O
                                                          u  c
                                                          aj  a
                                                          14
                                                          05 -O
                                                         J.J *•

                                                         O 41
                                                         S3 U
                                                            b


                                                          • a
                                                         9k «Q


                                                         n




                                                         1
                                                         00
3-17

-------
3-18

-------
   Sediment  data  obtained  during  the  May  1982,  EPA  survey  was  analyzed  and
grouped  (I  - VII)  according  to the  percentage of various  components  found.   A
high degree  of  within-station heterogeneity was  evident from the analysis.   The
southeast corner of Alternative Site  4  yielded samples of  both  the very  sandy,
moderately  coarse habitats  {Groups  II  and  III)  and  the most  coarse  sediments
(Group VII).  The  southwest  corner  of the site had sediment  samples  varying from
high sand-, low silt {Group VIA) to high  sand, medium silt  {Group  VIC).   Sediments
from the center, northeast, and northwest corners  of Alternative  Site 4 contained
finer-textured samples and showed the  most internal homogeneity.

BOTTOH TOPOGRAPHY            .,'•'.'.                .    '

   On the Continental Shelf  there  are local variations  in bottom  relief,  ranging
from rocky  outcrops to  rolling  sandy hills, with a  general  relief of  1  to  2m
{Figure 3-11, Tables 3-2, and 3-3).-  Corals  are distributed  on the  inner part  of
the Shelf in small  patches,  with mounds  occasionally  rising'-a few feet  above the
limestone and sediment-substratum-(Gould  and Stewart,  1956).
                             *      »         -
   In the vicinity of Sites A and B,  at  about  82°55'W, an area of rocky outcrops
(hard bottom-areas)  1  to 2m  high  begins; artificial   reefs  are  present north  of
Sites A and  B.   Both.bottom types  can provide  habitat .for benthic  organisms  and
teleosts."  A recent survey  of  Site A and  its  surrounding  areas  by divers  from
Mote Marine  Laboratory  indicated the  presence of -a   limestone  ledge,  about  one
mile west of the site.

   EPA conducted a diver observation  survey in  October .1981. .  Observations  of
Shallow-Water  Alternative   Sites   1,   2,  and   3  revealed  that   Shallow-Water
Alternative  Sites  1 and  2  had  scattered rock  outcrops  with  low  (1m' or  less)
vertical  relief.   Interspersed  between  these  scattered  outcrops were   large
patches  of  flat  sand  and  shell   hash.    Shallow-Water  Alternative Site  1  was
observed to have a moderate amount of  hard bottom  area;  Shallow-Water Alternative
                                         3-19

-------
                                        en
                                       • I
                                      CO f>
                                      IV
                                      4J PI
                                      U
                                      O (S
                                      « o

                                      4,3
                                      u en
                                      U
                                      to 
i
flC
IM
K
at
<
1
^ <"•
^S

-------
Site 2  had  less.   Divers did observe a finger  of  hard  bottom extending from  the
eastern  boundary  of  Site  2  to  slightly  west  of  the  center  of  the   site.
Shallow-Water  Alternative  Site 3 was characterized  by  divers to be  featureless,
flat  terrain, with  a thin  layer of  silt over  a  sand  and  shell  hash veneer.
However, the  May 1982,  EPA  study of  Shallow-Water  Alternative  Site 3 revealed
that  the  previous  conclusions  by  divers  in  the  October  1981,   study  were
incorrect; Shallow-Water Alternative Site  3 was shown  to be  rich in  both species
diversity and quantification  of  organisms.   Videotape taken  across the entire
width  of Shallow-Water  Alternative  Site  3  revealed  considerable  patches   of
coralline growth  interspersed between  areas  of flat,  featureless  sandy bottom.
These patches of hard and  soft bottom habitat were irregularly  spaced  between  the
areas of sandy bottom.

  -During the EPA May 1982 survey, a videotape  camera was towed across  the entire
width  of Site  4  at  a  speed of  approximately  two knots,  generally  from  the
eastnortheast  to  the westsouthwest  boundary  of  the site.    During  the greater
portion of  the  run (a distance  of 2.4 nautical  miles),  the  bottom  of the site
consisted of a flat,  featureless,  sandy bottom.  Occasionally, sand waves two  to
three, feet.apart (from crest to crest)  were seen; in several instances, light  to
occasionally heavy amounts of .shell  cobble were seen in  the  troughs of the sand
waves.   Very  rarely were soft  coral  communities  noted  during  the videotape
transect of Site  4;  when they were  seen,  the  communities  were extremely sparse
and of  low  height.   No  hard coral  communities were noted  during  the videotape
transect.  Water clarity was good throughout the camera tow;  water depths at Site
4 ranged from 68 to 73 feet.

   During the  February,  March,  and April  1983 EPA  survey,  a  color television
camera with constant  videotape  recording  was  towed extensively over  Site  4 at a
tow speed  of  approximately  0.8  knots.   The  camera   was  towed at  approximate
one-quarter mile intervals in  a  northwest-southeast  direction (following Loran C
coordinate  lines),  and  then in  a  northeast-southwest  direction  (also following
Loran  lines),  also at approximate one-quarter mile intervals.  A total  of   22
                                       3-21

-------
transects  across  the  site  were made  in  this manner,  providing  extraordinary
details  concerning the  bottom topography  of Site 4.   In  addition,  a  complete
transect  around  Site 4 was  done  with the camera  at  a distance of  approximately
one-quarter mile beyond the periphery  of the site.   In total, over 35  nautical
miles  of transects within  and immediately  surrounding  Site 4 were recorded  on
videotape, providing  an extremely complete  and statistically  significant  record
of the bottom.

   The February, March,  and  April 1983  EPA survey  fully  corroborated and  provided
additional details on the May,  1982  EPA survey.  Vast  areas  of  flat  uninterrupted
sandy  bottoms  were  seen,, broken only  by occasional  areas  of  small  sand  waves
ranging  in height  from one to  six inches.  The larger (4"  to 6") sand waves  were
occasionally  interspersed with  moderate  amounts  of  fine  to  coarse shell  hash.
Generally, the larger sand waves appeared to  be coarser  in texture,  and were  more
likely to  have  interspersed shell  hash;  the  smaller  sand waves  appeared to  be
composed  of  finer sand,  and were  far  less  likely  to be associated  with  shell
hash.

   A small area  of scattered hard and soft  coralline communities was noted  in the
northwest  quadrant of Site  4;  the   area  generally ran  in  a northwest-southeast
direction, and  was seen  in  less than  half of  the  total  area  of the quadrant.
With the exception of  a very  small  area  of  coralline  communities seen at the
extreme northeast corner of the site, no  other areas  of  Site 4 were seen to  have
any but extremely minimal coralline  communities.   Over 83% of the area of  Site  4
is virtually totally devoid of coralline  growths;  of the remainder,  less  than 17%
is occupied by scattered coralline communities,  and only 0.8% of the area of  Site
4  can  be  characterized  as  being,  populated  by  dense  coralline  growths.    In
addition,  the  density  of  the  scattered  coralline  communities   seen   in  the
northwest  quadrant of  Site 4  was   far more  sparse   than  in  any  of  the other
Shallow-Water Alternative Sites that have been  examined.

   The clarity of  the water  during  the  time (late March - early April)  that the
videotape  recordings  at  Site  4  were  made  was  quite  good;  no problems  were
encountered during either  daytime or evening  recording.   The  towed camera  sled
                                       3-22

-------
was  equipped with  1350 watts  of high-intensity  tungsten  underwater  lights,  so
recording was possible  {and  was done)  24 hours a day at various times.   The water
depths  at Site  4  ranged from 70 to  83  feet.

   In  addition, a  Control  Site  approximately five  nautical  miles southeast  of
Site 4  was  examined in  an identical manner  as  Site 4 with the  videotape  camera.
This Control  Site  was  selected to serve  as a  comparator  during the  monitoring
program scheduled to  begin  once disposal of dredged material  has  been  initiated;
the  site  is at the-same  depth'contour  as  Site  4, and  revealed quite  similar
bottom  topography.   If  anything, the  Control  Site exhibited  slightly  more' dense
coralline  communities,   which  should   serve as  excellent' comparators  for'  the
disposal operations at  Site  4;   Over  eight  nautical  miles  of transects were  run
at the  Control  site,  which is one nautical mile square.

   During the end of  the  February,  March, and April 1983 EPA  survey, three sites
suggested by the  State  of Florida were  also examined with the  videotape  camera.
These sites are approximately 27, 28,  and  30 nautical miles  from Egmont Key.   (In
actuality, the  State  of Florida suggested  only  Loran coordinates for three points
at distance's of 27,  28,  and 30 nautical  miles from Egmont Key;  the  EPA survey
established  circular  sites" one nautical  mile  in  diameter,  with the  suggested
points  at the centers of the sites).   Examination  of State  Sites X, Y,  and Z (27",
28, and 30  nmi.  respectively  from  Egmont Key) with the color videotape  camera
revealed particularly interesting bottom topography.   State Site Z (30 nmi from
Epont  Key)'showed  denser hard  and  soft coralline communities  than'has  been seen
at any  site  examined  previously, including  the richly  diverse and dense  patches
of coralline growth at  Shallow-Water  Alternative  Site  3.   The growths at. State
Site Z  were also as tall or  possibly taller  than the  growths seen  at Site  3, even
though  State Site Z" is approximately six nautical miles  further  west than  Site  3.
Consequently, State Site Z was  eliminated  from  further  detailed  consideration.

   State Sites  X  and Y  showed  similar  bottom  topography;  both  sites  had  flat,
sandy bottoms with  minimal  relief and  sand  waves.   Site Y  was characterized  by
the presence  of  immense  quantities  of the invertebrate  Melitta quinquiesper-
forata, commonly known as sand  dollars'.  At  no  time  during the transects of State
                                       3-23

-------
                     TABLE 3-2
BOTTOM DESCRIPTIONS OF WATERS ADJACENT TO TAMPA BAY
Location
and
Source*
Al
a1
c{
ol

s1

r2

Gj
92
I2

J9


K3


u4


M5


Site A

Site &
H4

o4


F4


Q4


8*




Latitude
(8)
28*0 1'
27*52.5'
27*50'
27*50'

27*45.5'

27*39'

27*39'
27*35'
27*35'

27*35'


27*37'


27*40'


27*38'

27*37'

27*37'

27*24' to
27*35'
27*27'


27*21'


27*28'


27*42' to
27*53'



Longitude
83*35 '
83*34'
83*31'
83*25 '

83*25 '30"

• 82*52'

82*56*30"
82*56'
83*07'

82*50 '


83*07'


82*59'


82*51'
(appro*.)
83*00'

82*55'

83*15' to
83*23'
83*05'


82*56 '


83*07'


83*16' to
83*28'



Depth
(m)
36
36
33
30

32

9 to 11

12
12
26

7


20


13


U

16

14

27 to 38

22 to 28


21 to 23





16 to 30




Topographic Description
Soft silt

Moderate layer of soft silt over fairly
hard-compacted bottom with shell rubble
and rocky crevices
Similar to C and D, but with less shell
rubble and rocky crevices
Hard, flat sediments with occasional low,
rocky reef areas and patches of shell
Flat bottom evenly covered with coarse
sediments mixed with finer silt; many high
(1m) patches of limestone reef, very
irregular with cliffs, caves, and terraces
Quartz sand and crushed shell with fine silt
layer; limited hard substrate; strongly
influenced by estuarine nature of bay systems
Abundant limestone outcropping*, up to 1m
above bottom, composed of sheila and quartz
sand; outcrops support living stony corals
aocky bottom, -relief of several feet, rocks
scattered over sand and shell bottom with
heavy vegetation
Almost entirely sand /shell bottom; unstable
and shifting bottom
1 to 2a rocky areas ehac project through
sand/ shell substrate
Rolling sand/shell bottom with few reef Site
ledges; leas rocky outcrops than above
Sand and shell bottom; patches of exposed
rock reef with sponge and coral growth
Area of about 5 mi ; rock and coral patches
scattered on a sand and shell bottom; relief
of 4 to 5 ft on the rocky areas
Rocky area on sand and shell bottom; maximum
relief of 6 ft; rugged rock formations; heavy
invertebrate growth
Flat bottom; patches of flat rock with drop
of 3 feet; heavy growth on the edges of the
rocks
Southern portion has a rolling sand and
shell bottom with scattered rock and
sponges; northern portion has flat sand and
shell bottom with rocky areas of moderate,
relief; numerous ledges and crevices
                       3-24

-------
TABLE  3-2  (Continued)
Location
and
Source*
s4


I*

0*


7*.



W4 ' '




Latitude
(H)
27*47'


27*34*
.
27*17' eo
27*22'

27*41'



27*36'




Longitude
(W>
82*58' Co
83*04'

82*50'

82*53.'


82*55'



82*56'




Depth
' (a)
15 to 16


. 6 to 3

15


11
.


2 to 27




Topographic Description
Small artificial reef built on surrounding
cock and mud bottom; dropped in. 1959; oild
relief
Bard bottom of sand and shell; flat with
sparse grass growth
Bottom of sand and shell surrounding , a
patch of flat rock 6 mi long aad 1 mi wide;
many deep crevices and caves
Sand and flat rock oC low relief; additional
rock in the vicinity; wreck of an old barge
supplemented with auto bodies and other junk;
most dropa ware made about 1955
Large and varied area; channel depth averages
25 ft; one rocky .depression 90 ft in depth at
north end of Egmoat Key; bottom mostly sand •
and mud; offshore end of Channel most
productive
*         i'
 Sources:  .Doyle  et «1.
           Smith, 1980
                       ,  21974; Hoe  and Martin,  1965; 3Joyce and William*,  1969; Sloe,  1963;
                       (personal communication)
                                                   3-25

-------
Site Y were the sand dollars  not seen,  and  often  the  videotape revealed dozens of
the  organism  at  a  single time.    Site Y  had  an  average  density  of over  four
animals  per linear  meter.   This site is  apparently a rare and unique biological
area,  for  this  dense  phenomenon   has  not   been  seen   at   any  of  the  five
Shallow-Water Alternatives  Sites examined.  (1,  2,  2A, 3, or 4),  or at either  of
Sites A  or B.   Consequently,  State  Site Y was eliminated  from  further  detailed
consideration.

  State  Site  X  was also  characterized  by the  presence  of  quantities  of  sand
dollars, although they were not  as dense  at Site  X  as at Site  Y.   Site X  had  flat
uninterrupted  sandy bottoms  over the  entire  area examined,  and minimal algal
patches  were seen throughout the  videocamera  transects.   Although State  Site  X
may  be   environmentally  acceptable -for the'disposal  of dredged material,  more
site-specific  information  would  have to be  obtained on the  site  to propose  a
designation for this purpose.

   The water clarity during the  video camera examination of the three  State Sites
was excellent at all times; water depths  ranged from  96 to  105 feet.

SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER  AND TURBIDITY

   In the nearshore zone, concentrations  of suspended particulate matter  (SPM)  in
the water  column  are  greater during  winter than  summer (Manheim ejt al_.,  1972).
In the winter,  fine bottom sediments, disturbed by wind and wave  turbulence,  are
suspended  uniformly  throughout  the   water  column.    At  the   more  northerly
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida sites,  SPM values around  0.5 mg/liter have  been
measured (Figure  3-12).   The  particulate matter is  a fine,  mobile fraction  of
local bottom sediments.  Winter transmissivities  (T)  do not  exceed 55%.   During
summer,   the effects of water  stratification  and reduced turbulence is  apparent
with clear water (T = 85%) overlying near-bottom nepheloid  layers,  resulting  from
interaction  of   currents  with  the   bottom   (Figure  3-13).    The  suspended
particulates are limited to this narrow nepheloid band, where  SPM values  occur  in
the range of 0.1 to 0.2 mg/liter {Manheim et al., 1976).
                                     3-26

-------
                     TABLE 3-3
ARTIFICIAL REEFS AND HARD-BOTTOM AREA DESCRIPTIONS
Location
• 1
• 2
* 3
* 4
e 5
e" 6
* 7 '
• 8
• 9
e 10
e 11 .
* 12
» 13
e 14
• IS
e 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
» 20
e 21
* '22
e 23
e 24
e 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• 29
• 30
SI 1
• 2
• 3
SI 4
.• 5
Latitude
27*29*30"
27*23*51"
27*32*15-
27*29*57-
27*26*33"
27*26*33-
" 27*29*20'
27*41 'OS''.
27*42*03"
27*43 '01*
27*43*07-.
28*00*57-
27*47*06-
27*47*00"
Z7'51'54-
27*46*32"
27*40*56"
27*55*36"
"8*OS*03".
28*03*02-
27*46*18"
27*40*36"
27*44*30-
I7*47'U*
27*18*06"
' 27*18*06-
27*17*06-
27*36*00-
27*39*17"
27'52'30-
27*29*30*
27*27*00-
27*34*00'
27*34-00-
27*29*00*
longitude
82*44*05"
82*35*49*
32*52 '42*
82*47*00-
82*49*12"
82'44'48-
82*43*47-
82*45*08-
82*45*06*
82*45*09-
82*46'02*
82*53*42"
82*50*02- i
82*49*08"
83*01*48-
82*3'5*48"
82*38*01"
83*01'24"
82*55*51-
82*54*33"
82*54 '54-
82*52*51"
82*52*51"
82*35*37"
82*35*36"
82*35*36-
82"36'00"
82*46*00"
82*35 '28-
83*11*24-
83*19*00"
83*05*00-
82*50*00*
82*47*30*
83*21*00-
(•)
6.5
. 3.7 .
12.0
9.0
12.0
9.0
10.0
6.0
'6.0
6.0,
. 6.0
9,0
6.5
6.5
14.0'
5.0
3.0
15.0
8.0
8.0 .
• 10. o
ll.O
9
11
8 '
8
8
27
a
26
37
25
8
9
18
Distance
(at)
1.0
1.0
7.8
3.5
7.9
3.1
' 1.2
1.0
: i-o
0.3
1.6
3.8
' 0.8
1.3
10.6
1.3
t.3
10.4
5.3
4.5
6.3
7.6
6.1
1.0
Z.I
1.3
1.2
. 0.4
20.3
34.3
22.0
4.5
5.3
36.4
disposition
Barge, metal junk, concrete pipe, tires
Tires, broken concrete, sever tile
Tires, concrete pipe
Tires, concrete pipe
Tires, concrete pipe
Tires, concrete pipe
Autos ' ' - ' -
Junk, tires ' •' *
' -' Junk, tires .
, Junk, 'tires
Junk, tires
Concrete pilings, steel barges, clres culverts
Tire, metal Junk, concrete rubble
Tire, metal junk, concrete rubble
23 5- ft LSH,' concrete pillbox
Tire's, concrete rubble, clay pipes
Tires concrete rubble, clay pipes
LlO-ft barge
Tires, concrete culverts
Concrete culverts, tires, concrete pilings
Tires
Concrete culvert, clres, concrete pilings and
•labs
Tires, concrete culvert
Concrete rubble, 32-ft steel hull ship
Tires, fiberglass, concrete rubble
Tires, fiberglass,- concrete rubble
Tires, fiberglass, concrete rubble
Unbroken concrete pipe
Autos
* *
Sand and shell bottoa; rock, sponge,* and coral
growth
Sand and shell bottoa ulth rock and coral
patches ' ' ,
Sand and shell bottoa; sparse grass grovth
Send and shell bat ton tilth grassy areas
Rocky bottoa, sand and shell around rocks
                      3-27

-------
TABUS 3-3 (Continued)
Location
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• U
• 12
" 13
• 14
• 15
* 16
• 17
« 18
• 19 •
• 20
• 21
• 22
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
latitude
. (H)
28*11 "00"
27*46'00"
27*55*00"
27*59*30-
27*58*00-
26 '56 '00-
27*47*10-
27 -47 -00-
27*40 •00•
27•48'00"
27*57*00-
27*41 '00-
27*36-00-
28*05*00*
28*08*00"
28*03*00-
28*03 '00-
27*31 'DO"
27*28*00"
27*19*00-
27*19'30"
Longitude
(V)
83*02 '00"
84*09*00-
84*30*00-
83*02*00-
83*22*00-
82*57*00-
83*12'00"
83*01*00'
82*59*00'
83*40*00-
83*08*00"
82*55*00-
82*56'00-
83*27*00-
83*13*00"
83*04*00"
82*5 5 '00-
82*56*00"
83*07 '00"
82*49*00-
82*53*00"
'Depth
(B)
10
60
80
U
27
8
20
16
12
40
13
11
22
25
20
13
9
22
30.
16
15
Distant*
<»0
10.3
79.8
100.4
12.3
31.3
6.5
31.8
12.3
14.6
49.9
17.6
10.5
10.4
37.1
22.3
13.76
4.8
4.9
23.7
11.1
14.3
Composition
Flat and rough rack ledget and crevices'
Productive limestone ridg« with areas of sand
and shell
Sand and shell bottom with limestone relief
Sand and shell bottoo with scattered rock
Sand and shell bottom with rock, sponge, and
coral growth
Flat bottoa; scattered low rock ulth coral
growths
Sand and shell bottom with sponges, rocks,
ledges
Small artificial reef on rock and oud bottoa
Sand and shell bottoa with rocks and vegetation
Hud and sand bottom with rock patches
Sand bottom with exposed rock
Sand and flat rock; barge, autos, and junk •
Sand and oud bottoa ulth .rock* la depressions
Sand and shall bottoa with rock, sponge, coral
Sand and shell bottom with rocky area*
Rocky 'oo t too, shall, coral, and vegetation
Sand and shell with rocky areas; autos and junk
Sand and shell bottom; tugged rock with
invertebrate growth •
. Patches of flat rock with heavy growth on edges
Rock ledges with sand and shell bottom
Sand and shell bottom surrounding a patch of
rock
 Source: Florida Sea Grant 1979, Map A (Recreation Dae Reefs in Florida Artificial and Natural)

    Water   clarity   generally   increases  with  increasing  distance  from  shore.
 •Offshore  suspensates  typically have  a  high combustible organic  component,, which
 indicates  that-they are chiefly  of biogenic origin.   Nearshore suspensates have a
 high   carbonate   fraction,  reflecting   their  mineralo-gic  origin.     Regional
 differences  in the mineralogy of  bottom  sediments  is reflected  in  the nature of
 the  suspended material.   This  supports  the  theory that most  of  the suspended
 sediments  are  derived  from local  bottom sediments (Manheim e£.al_., 1972).

    Surveys of Sites A and B  and  Shallow-Water Alternative  4  show  predictable
 trends   of  decreasing   turbidity  with   distance  from   shore,,  and   greater
 concentrations of  SPM  during  winter.  However,  SPM  values  at Sites A  and  B were
 generally  higher  than  those measured  at  Mississippi, Alabama, and  Florida sites
 during  other summer and  winter  periods  (Manheim  e£ al. >  1976; Betzer et  a].,
 1979).  The  generally  higher  values at  Sites A and  B may be a result of shallower
 water depths.
                                        3-28

-------
   STATION 1103
  LOCATION(a4'50')
       0
1103-1102
1102-1101
     100
                 84*34'
                                   srw
                                                     83*30'
                                                                       83WW
          ;       Figure 3-12.   Percent Light Transmission Profile
                      at 27°55'  for  January and February 1975
    •         '       Source:  Manheim,  Steward,  and Carder, 1976
   Examination  of  the areas at  and  in the vicinity  of  Shallow-Water Alternative
Site  4  during the  earlier portions of the February, March,  and April- 1983 EPA
survey  fully  corroborated the  work' cited  above by  Manheim  elt  a 1 .   from the
Mississippi, Alabama,  and  Florida sites and other  surveys.   During late February
and early  March, the lower half of the  water  column at  and  in  the  vicinity of
Site 4 was particularly heavy  in suspended paniculate matter, so that visibility
below 40 feet  was  no more than  1 to 2 feet with the videotape  camera,  even with
the full array  of  underwater  lighting.               .    -   •

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS-

WATER COLUMN

Trace Metals

   Sources of  trace metals in  the  marine  environment  incl.ude  the  weathering of
rocks,  urban and  industrial  runoff,  outfalls, and  atmospheric fallout.    Since
                                         3-29

-------
 STATION  1103
LOCATION (84'50')
1103-1102
1101
     100
                                   84*00*
                                                     83-30-
                                                                      W00-W
                 Figure 3-13.   Percent Light Transmission' Profile
                           at  27"55' for September 1975
                    Source:  Manheim, Steward, and Carder,  1976
rivers, bays, and outfalls are major  contributors  of  trace metals, levels tend to
be higher in the coastal zone than  in the  open  ocean.   Site A,  however, is 13 nmi
offshore, and waters there are  typical of the eastern Gulf  of  Mexico,  which have
been  found  to  contain levels  of  trace  metals  similar  to  those  found  in  the
western Caribbean (El-Sayed et ^1^,  197Z).

   Levels of  selected  trace metals  measured at Sites  A and B  and Shallow-Water
Site 4 are  presented  in the Appendices.   With  the exception of  lead,  the levels
of trace metals are similar to open  ocean levels (Forstner  and  Whittman, 1979),
indicating  a  relatively clean marine environment.  Lead  concentrations probably
reflect  the  proximity  to   the   Tampa-St.   Petersburg  metropolitan  area,  and
associated  particulate lead  fallout and freshwater runoff.
                                        3-30

-------
 Nutrients

   Extrapolation  from  limited  data  indicates  that  nutrient  levels  (nitrate,
 phosphate, and silicate) at  Sites  A and B and Shallow-Water Site 4 are  uniformly
 low,  with little  seasonal  variation.    Work  of Graham  et  al.  (1954)  on  the
 seasonal  distribution  of  phosphate in the region indicates that phosphate  levels
 are  on the  low  end of  overall  ranges  for  the  Gulf  (Table.  3-4).    This .is  in
 agreement  with  the fact  that  eastern  Gulf water  originates  in   the western
 Caribbean, which is generally  low  in  nutrients  (Atwood et al.,  1976).

   As  a  result  of nearby  phosphate mining and  processing  activities, Tampa  Bay
 contains  high  levels  of  .inorganic   and  organic  phosphates  (Hobbie,  1974).
 However, there is no conclusive  evidence  indicating that Tampa  Bay has any effect
 on phosphate levels of nearshore Gulf waters.   In any case, surface water located
 13 nmi offshore  (i.e.,  at  Site A)  is oceanic and contains  low concentrations  of
 inorganic phosphate  (0.08 ug-at/liter).   Vertical  distribution of  phosphate  13
 nmi offshore was relatively uniform, year-round  (Graham et al.,  1954).

 Organic Carbon, Petroleum,and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

   Dissolved organic carbon  (DOC)  and  particulate organic  carbon  (POC)  have  not
been measured in waters near the Shallow-Water Alternative Sites, but are assumed
to fall  within the  range  of  organic  carbon occurring  elsewhere  in  Gulf  Shelf
waters (i.e., DOC:  0.58 to  2.35 mg C/liter [mean 1.08]; POC:  0.022  to  1.911 mg
C/liter.[mean 0.214]) (El-Sayed  et al.. 1972).

   The organic  carbon  in Shelf  waters  is composed  mainly of  biogenic  material
 (e.g.,  fulvic  and  humic  acids,  carbohydrates,  and  natural   lipids);  however,
anthropogenic contaminants,  such as  petroleum  or chlorinated  hydrocarbons, may
occur in trace amounts.   Nonvolatile chlorinated hydrocarbons  at Sites  A and B,
such as PCB,  DDT, and DDT metabolites, were all  below detection limits.
                                       3-31

-------
                                    TABLE  3-4
                           AVERAGE VALUES  OF NUTRIENTS
                         FOUND IN GULF OF  MEXICO WATERS
                                  (jig-at/liter)
Nutrient
Nitrate
Phosphate
Silicate
Range
0.01 to 2.20
0-01 to 2.26
0.01 to 35.5
Mean
0.23
0.22
3.86
Standard
Deviation
0.61
0.29
4.25
                 Source:  El Sayed et al., 1972
D1ssolved Oxygen

   Oxygen levels measured at  Sites  A and B in September  1979,  and January 1980,
ranged  from 3.60  to  6.12  ml/liter  (83  to  137%  saturation).    Oxygen   levels
measured at Alternative Site 4 panged from  7.4 to 7.9 ml/liter.  All surface and
most  bottom water  samples  were  above   saturation.   Comparable  historical data
values  reported  in the  region  of  Sites A  and  B  (Collins and  Finucane, 1974)
ranged  from 1.54 to  5.80 ml/liter.   Oxygen levels at Sites A and  B in  May, 1982
panged  from 7.0 to  8.3 ml/liter,  and  at  Alternative  Site 4  in   the  same time
period  ranged from 7.2 to  7.9 ml/liter.   All  these  values were above saturation
levels.

SEDIMENTS

Trace Metals

   Analysis  of sediments  at Sites A  and  B and  Alternative  Site 4  revealed
uniformly  low levels  of mercury,  cadmium,  and  lead  within  and  outside site
boundaries.   The  low  levels of  anthropogenic   pollutants  are  consistent with
expectations, considering the 13  nmi  distance from shore.  Mississippi, Alabama,
and Florida studies  also revealed  relatively low levels  of  metals in  sediments
(Table  3-5) (PPesley et^a]..,  1974).

   Results  of surveys  at Sites A  and  B  and the Shallow-Water Sites compared to  a
study by Presley et_a_I_. (1974), vapy due  to differences in analytical procedures.
Howevep,  all  surveys  indicate  no  extraordinary  inputs  of  metals to  the West
Florida Shelf sediments.
                                       3-32

-------
                                       TABLE 3-5
                          SEDIMENT HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS
                      IN MID-SHELF AREAS WEST OF PINELLAS COUNTY
Latitude
(SO
27*56.5*
28*00.5'
27*57.5'
28 "01 '
27*5:2.5»
27*50'
27*56'
27 '50'
27*45.5
Longitude
(W)
83*53'
83*45'
83*42.5'
83*35.5'
83*34'
83*31'
83*27.5'
83*25'
83*25.5'
Fe

0.19
0.18
0.18
0.12
0.14
0.24
0.12
0.15
0.15
Cd
(ppm)
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Cu
(ppm)
5
4
4 .
4
4
3
5
4
4
Cr
(ppm)
14
23 '
10
21-
21
20
23
19
9
Mi .
(ppra)
2
3
1
2
4
3
1
2
3
Pb
(ppm)
4
6
6
7
3
r
6
6
6
V
(ppm)
8
4
5
5
5
4
4
-
4
Ba
(ppta)
56
52
36
76
36
36
41
69
40
    Source:  Presley, 8», C. Llnadau, and J. Trefrey, 1974
Organic  Carbon-,  Petroleum, and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

  Total  organic  carbon  (TOC)  levels  in  sediments  of  Sites A  and  B  and -the
Shallow-Water  Sites  are patchy, with most  levels  below  the average TOC value  (2.5
mg/g)  for the  Florida Shelf  (Emery and  Uchupi,  1972).    Oil  and  grease  levels
(determined by weight) are also patchy and  generally  low.  Petroleum hydrocarbons
were  not measured at  Sites  A and 8.   However,  chlorinated  hydrocarbon  levels  at
all  sites  are either  below  detection limits  or  extremely  low,  and  petroleum
hydrocarbon levels  are expected  to  be  similar.   There  are no known  oil  seeps  in
the region.
BIOLOGY
  Biota  in  the water column  and  benthic environments - of the ODMDS  are described
in  this 'section.    Water  column  biota  include  phytoplankton,   zooplankton,  and
nekton;  benthic  biota  are composed of infaunal  and  epifaunal  organisms, including
demersal  fish.   The infauna  are  generally  sedentary  and cannot  readily emigrate
from an  area  of  disturbance.   Infauna,  therefore, can be important  indicators of
environmental 'conditions.  Dredged  material  disposal  will,  have only  short-term
effects  on  planktonic  communities  because  of  their  natural  patchiness  and. the
                                         3-33

-------
transient  nature of  the water  masses  they  inhab'it.   Nekton  generally are  not
adversely  affected  by dredged material  disposal  because  of their  high  mobility.

PLANKTON

   A  survey of  plankton  populations in the  vicinity of  Sites. A  and  B and  the
Shallow-Water Alternative Sites  showed  that  the  populations  were  similar to those
found  in other  parts  of the Gulf, indicating  the  Loop Current exerts a dominant
influence  on the planktonic  populations.  Marine plankton  can  be  divided into  two
main  groups:   phytoplankton (plant  plankton)  and  zooplankton  (animal plankton).

Phytoplankton

   Diatoms  and  dinoflagellates  are the  dominant phytoplankton groups that  occur
in  the vicinity of  Sites   A  and  B and  the  Shallow-Water  Alternative  Sites.
Abundances  in  the  Gulf of Mexico  are  greatest  inshore,  and  decrease with
increasing  distance  from   shore  (Hulbert  and   Corwin,  1972;  Steidinger  and
Williams,  1970;  Saunders and Glenn,  1969).    Saunders and  Glenn  (1969) reported
diatom  abundance of  inshore waters to  be   16  times  greater  than transitional
waters  and 128  times  greater  than  offshore waters.    A  list  of  the dominant
species of  diatoms  and  dinoflagellates  collected  in the  vicinity of Tampa   Bay  is
given  in Table 3-6.

   Generally, diatom  abundance exceeds  that  of dinoflagellates (Steidinger, Davis
and Williams, 1967).  Seasonal  peaks in abundance  of  diatoms  occur in  mid-winter
and  summer for  offshore  and  inshore  populations,  respectively   (Saunders  and
Glenn,  1969).    Dinoflagellate  abundance  usually  peaks  in  summer and   autumn
(Steidinger and Williams, 1970).

   In contrast to abundance, diatom  diversity is  lowest  inshore  and increases  to
a maximum  offshore  (Saunders and Glenn, 1969).  Dinoflagellate diversity  follows
a  trend   similar   to  diatoms;   however,   the   greatest   diversity   occurs    in
transitional waters  (Steidinger and Williams, 1970).
                                        3-34

-------
                                   TABLE 3-6                        ^
          DOMINANT  SHELF SPECIES REPORTED PROM VICINITY OF TAMPA BAY
                    Diatoms
             Rhizosolenia alata
             BL. setigera
             £. atolterfothii  .
             Skeletonema coataturn
             Leptocylindrus spp.
             Rhizosolenia fragilissima
             Hemidiscus hardmanianus
             Guinardia flaccida
             Bellerochea maIleus
             Cerataulina pelagica
  Dinoflagellates
Gonyaulax monilata
Gymnodinium breve
Gonyaulax polygramma
Katodinium glaucum
Oxyrrhis marina
Gyrodinium fissum
Torodiniure robustum
Katodinium rotundaturn
Gyrodinium sp.
Amphidinium erassum
             * Species are presented in order of decreasing dominance ..

             Sources:  Saunders  and  Glenn,  1969;  Steidinger  and
                       Williams, 1970
   Uncontrolled  blooms  of  dinoflagellates   such  as  Ptychodiscus  brevis  occur
periodically  and result  in  a condition  known  as "red  tide."   Red tides  occur
primarily  in  late summer or  autumn,  when the  following three conditions  exist:
(1)  an  increase in  population  size  (triggered  by  some environmental  change),
(2)  supportive  salinity, temperature,  nutrient, and  growth  factors,  and  (3)
maintenance  by  hydrological  and  meteorological  forces (Steidinger,  1975a 'and
1975b).

   The   impact  of  red  tides  on  marine  communities  can  'be  severe.   '  Heavy
mortalities of  marine life have  been  documented  and  attributed. to poisoning  by
dinoflage!late  toxins;  secondary  effects  include   oxygen   depletion,   hydrogen
sulfide  poisoning,  and  bacterial  and  fungal  infections  (Smith,  1975; Smith,
1976a; Gunter  et £l_., 1948;  Torpey  and Ingle,  1966;  Quick  and Henderson,  1975a
and 1975b).   However, red tide  outbreaks have  long been recorded off the  west
coast  of Florida;  none  have ever  been  associated  specifically  with  dredged
material  disposal.
                                      3-35

-------
Zopplankton

   Information  on the  zooplankton community  of the  western  Florida  Shelf  is
limited.  However, data from Mississippi, Alabama, and  Florida studies  {Mature  et
al., 1974) can  be used to characterize dominant  taxa  that  would be expected  to
occur in the  vicinity  of Sites A  and B  and  the  Shallow-Water  Alternative  Sites
(Table 3-7).   Results of these studies indicated  that  chaetognaths,  calanoid and
cyclopoid  copepods,  shrimp and  crab larvae,  pteropods,  larvaceans, tunicates,
ostracods,  other  crustaceans,  and  fish  eggs  were   typical   members   of the
community.  These organisms were  considered to be a  fairly typical  Gulf of Mexico
offshore assemblage (Maturo e_t ^1_., 1974).  Houde and Chitty (1976)  reported that
zooplankton volumes and  abundance  of  fish eggs and  larvae  were greatest in the
spring and summer.

NEKTON

   The nekton  community  off  Tampa Bay  (including  several  important species  of
shrimp) is influenced primarily by  sediment characteristics.  Smith  (1976b)  found
that,  in  general, fauna  associated with  soft substrates  are  predominantly  of
temperate origin, whereas hard bottom fauna  are derived from Caribbean and West
Indian populations.

   In the  vicinity of  Sites  A and B and  the Shallow-Water  Alternative Sites, 60
species of nekton have been collected (Table  3-8).   The 10 most abundant  species
were  leopard  searobin  (Prionotus   scitulus),   sand  perch  (Dipletrum  formosum),
tomtate   (Hemulon  aurolineatum),    pinfish    (Lagodon   rhomboides),  blackcheek
tonguefish (Symphurus  plaguisa),  jackknife  fish (Equetus  lanceolatus),  pigfish
(Orthopristis  chrysoptera),  fringed flounder  (Etropus crossotus),  spotted wiff
(Citharichthys macrops), and  pink  shrimp  (Penaeus  duorarum).   These species  are
characteristic of sandy  and  rocky  habitats, and are- found  from  the  intertidal
zone to water  depths  of 200 meters.

   The dominant  fish  taxa  occur  throughout  most  of the year in  the vicinity of
Sites  A  and   B  and  the  Shallow-Water  Alternative  Sites,  although  offshore
                                        3-36

-------
                                     TABLE 3-7
                    ZOOPLAUKTON COLLECTED BUSING MAFIA STUDIES
                 Globigerina sp.
                 Other protozoans
                 Siphonophores
                 Medusae
                 Polychaete larvae.
                 Gastropod veligers
                 Pteropods
                 Bivalve larvae
                 Cladocerans  •
                 Ostracods     .   .
                 CeoCropagea furcatus
                 Eucalanus sp.
                 Updinula vulgeris
                 Other calanoids
                 Harpacticoids:
                 Corycaeus sp.
                 Oithona sp. :
Oncaea sp.
Other cyclopoids
Copepod copepodites
Copepod nauplii
Lucifer faxoni
Other shrimp-like.forms
Crab larvae
Other crustaceans
Echinoderm larvae-
Chaetognaths •
Oikopleuridae
Fritillaridae
Other tunicates
Fish eggs
Fish larvae
Other zooplankton
                 Source:   Mature e£ a^.,  1974
migrations'linked with  spawning  cycles have been  reported  for- pinfish, pigfish,
and 'fringed flounder (Moe and Martin,  1965).   Most of these dominant species are
thought  to spawn  in  the  spring  and  summer,  with  the  exception  of  Lagodon
rhomboides, which  spawns  in  winter  and  spring,  and Prionotus  scitulus.  which
spawns in late summer and fall (Moe and Martin, 1965; Smith, 1976b).    •      •

   In  the vicinity of  Sites  A  and  8 and  the Shallow-Water  Alternative  Sites,
penaeid shrimp are an important  component  of  the  nekton  community.   The dominant
species   in  the  area   are  Sicyonia  brevirostris  {rock   shrimp),  Solenocera
atlantidis, Metapenaeopis  goodei,  and Penaeus  duorarum  (pink shrimp).   Each of
these  species  feed  and move toward  the  surface  at  night,  then  are  largely
inactive  during the day,  remaining  on the bottom  (Saloman,  1968;  Huff and Cobb,
1979}.    Studies  of   gut   contents   of  these  shrimp  indicate  that  they  are
generalized benthic  carnivores  with   crustaceans  and molluscs  dominating  their
diets  (Huff and Cobb,  1979).
                                            3-37

-------
                          TABLE 3-8
            NEKTON TAXA COLLECTED IN DEPTH RANGES
OCCUPIED BY SUES A and & AND SHALLOW-WATER ALTERNATIVE
                           SITES
Selaacitic Max
Gyvaora «icrura
Cranotnora* ocallatiia
Ophlchthaa loaatt
Hateaanla paaaacolaa
AacHoa hapaatua
Syaodua toeteaa
^yaedua iataraediua
Traealaocaphalu* Byoge '
Aflaa talla
Opjamia pardua
torlellthTa BOfOaUataiu
Aaraaaariua ocallatua
Vroahycle Elaridaaua
OphtdlOB ba.nl
OphldlOO |»{t
Ophtdton holbrookl
Oohldlaa welahl
Ceatroprlatia oc^nirua
eaatropctaela itrtaca
Dipleetrua blvlttatuB
Dtplactrua tonaaua
tut^anua ayaagria
Cwetwrttoane tula
Raeaaloe aunllaeana
archoerlacU chrraoocera
Ca lattua todoaua
Lagodaa rnaaboldaa
3«lrdlalla enrvaure
Cynoagloa agaoa^tva
Kquetua laaeeolacua
Cetiettia uabrosua
leioacoaua unthurua
Hantlclrrhtia aaarlcaitua
Htctoiiogan ujidolacm
Chaocodlpearua fabar
Searua eaanloptania
Aacroaeooua r~iraacuB
S.o«.rlotha HalnnviTi
Seorpaaaa braallianala
PrloBocua carollmia
Prlqitocua talBOaieolor
Prionotua crlbulua
Sothua luaatus
Bothua ocallatua
Cltharlchthra Baerop*
Cltharichtbra ipUootarua
C crania croaaocxa
Parallchthya albltucta
Syaclua papllloaiai
SyBphurua plileluaa
Alucarua tehoapH
MoaacanEhua elllatua
Monaeaathm Mapidua
Moaatiantnua *aclfer
Laetophrya ouadrleornia
Sphocroldaa naphalua
Sphogrptdaa apeatlert
Chiloaretarua . jchoapf t
Panaaua duoraruB-
CaBOoa -iBBB
Smooth vutcarfly ray
Ocallacad BOT.J
Shrlaa aal
Scalao aaidlw
ScrtpBd aochavy
Inshor* llaarddah
Sand dtvar
Soak* Clan
5aa cattlah
Uopard toadtlak
Atlaatle Bldahloaaa
Ocallacad (rogfl.h
Soutaara haka
Loatoaaa cuak^-aal
Ilotchad cu*k-a«l
lank ctiak-aal
Craacad cvak-aal
lank aaa baaa
Hack taa baaa
Grant aaad patch
Sand parch
tana aoaftpar
Sll»«r jaany
ToBCac*
Knobbail potty
OtnfUh
311*«r parch
Saad taa crout
Jackknifa (tah
Spot
Soucnara klftfflah
Atlantic craakar
Atlaatle inadaflah
'rtaeaaa parroctlah
Southarn itargaxar
Splaychaak scorplonflah
larbdah
Itorthara aaarabia
llackwliaj saarobla
leopard aaarobla
llttead aaarotln
Paaeock Flouadar
Eyad flouadar
Spoctad uhtff
Bay «hl«f
fclojad flouadar
Suit tloundar
Otiaky Cloundar
llackchaak cengiia (iih
Oran»a fllaftah
frlngad fllaflih
naaahaad tllafiah
Pygoy fllaliih
Scranlad cowtlah
Souchara puffar
Bandtall puttar
Stripod hirrtlah
Pink ihttap
10 N>at
Akuadaoc
Snaclaa
2
J
a
4
7
1
10
9
6
:
CoBaarclal
laioortaaca
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Moo and
Matt la,
1965
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EPA/lEC,
X
X
X
X
X
.X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Raurka
Shora co aora chaa SS«
Mlddla Shalt iff.
Shallow bay and ahon
.Shallow uacara
Shallow co aodaraca 4aptha
tnahora to *5a
40» ca lOOa
«OB co MB
lay out to 30*
Ottaoor** Bora thaa Mm
Shallow to aodarate daptha
Ottahora
Shara to Bare Chan 30a
Oftakora
20a ca SOB
lOa Co MB
BeaiUr 20*
ZOa co Bora chaa 90B
T
ZOB CO 70B
Nodiraca deacha
Shore to *OC»
Only In Gulf, higto-ialtnlcy uacar
ifadarata daptha
Shallow facer
tOa co 80a
laahora and oa/« Co 40a
Bava aad ahailow waters
Shallow natara
Oaap water
0
-------
    Although  there Is  some  variation,  shrimp  species  are most  abundant in  late
summer and autumn.   Pink  shrimp  are  unique  among  these  species  in  using  estuarine
areas  in Tampa Bay  as  nurseries.   Inshore migrations  of small postlarvae  occur
primarily from March through  June  and  offshore migrations of large shrimp  (85  to
140 mm)  occur  from April  through July  (Huff and Cobb,. 1979;  Eldred et  al.,  1963).

   Associated  with pink shrimp distributions  are the following teleosts, most  of
which are prevalent  on the  Continental Shelf:  silver jenny  (Euclnostomus  gula).
sand perch (Diplectrum formosum),  leopard searobin (Prionotus  scitulus), fringed
flounder (Etropus crossotus),  pigfish  (Orthopristis chrysopterus), dusky flounder
(Syaclum papillosum),  tomtate  (Haemulon  aurolineatum),   and Atlantic   bumper
(Chloroscombrus chrysurus)  (Chittenden and  McEachran, 1976).

   Eighteen  of the  species listed  (Table  3-8)  have  commercial value;  the  most
important  is  pink   shrimp  (Penaeus  duorarum),  and seven   species  of  flounder.
These species  account  for $5.4 million of the  total commercial  fisheries  catch  of
Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Manatee Counties  (NMFS, 1978).

   Several commercially and recreationally important species reportedly utilize
Tampa  Bay  as  a  nursery area  during juvenile life  stages   (Sykes  and  Finucane,
1966).   In this regard  the  Bay can be  an important habitat  in the development  of
a number of offshore  species.  More  than 90%  of  the species harvested require  an
estuarine environment  in  their life  histories (Sykes  1964,  1968; Gunther,  1967).
   The  black  mullet  (Mugil  cephalus)  has  been extensively  studied-due  to its
commercial importance,  ranking  first in  terms  of total  weight landed, and second
in economic value for all  commercial species  taken during 1978 in the tri-county
area (NMFS, 1979).   However,  this species is most  often  fished  in estuarine and
nearshore coastal waters, and does not frequent the areas occupied by Sites A and
B and  the Shallow-Water Alternative Sites.   Black mullet  spawn  in  open waters
between October and January.  Newly hatched larvae maintain an oceanic planktonic
existence  for several  weeks  before moving  into  estuarine  waters  as  juveniles
during the autumn.   For the  next  two  to three years they remain  in the estuary
while  developing  into  sexually mature  adults.   As  adults,  they  migrate  into
oceanic waters only during the annual spawning  period.
                                         3-39

-------
MARINE  MAMMALS

   The  Gulf  of Mexico  supports  both  a  seasonal   and  permanent  marine  mammal
population   of   cetaceans  (whales,  dolphins,   and  porpoises)  and   sirenians
(manatees)  (8LM, 1978).   Pinnipeds  (seals  and  sea  lions) are  present only  in
small  numbers;  their presence  is  the  result  of introduction  by  man  (D.  Odell,
personal  communication*).

   The  Gulf  serves  as  summer  mating!and  calving  grounds, and  winter  feeding
grounds  for  16  species  of whales and 8 species  of  dolphins and  porpoises  (Table
3-9).  , -Common   dolphins  and  whales include  the  bottlenose  dolphin  (Tursiops
truncatus),  spotted  dolphin  (Stenella  plagiodon),  short  finned   pilot   whale
(Globicephala macrorhyncus), and the  sperm whale  (Physeter  catodon).  Most  whales
occur well offshore, beyond the Continental Shelf, whereas  dolphins  and porpoises
occur both in shallow and deep waters (BLM, 1978).

   The  West  Indian  manatee (Trichechus manatus)  is  the only  species  of manatee
found in  the Gulf.   In  the Tampa  Bay  region, manatees  generally inhabit  inland
waterways, usually less than 3m deep, seldom venturing offshore.  Their principal
source  of nutrition is  aquatic vegetation  growing  in  shallow  coastal  and bay
waters.

BENTHOS

   The  benthic  community  offshore  of Tampa  Bay  was classified  into three  major
types by  Col lard and D'Asaro  (1973):   Shallow  Shelf  (Figure  3-14),  Deep   Shelf
(Figure  3-15),  and  Slope  (Figure  3-16).   This  classification  is based  on the
limited  literature  available  on   the   offshore communities.    The   types  are
identified by changes in  species composition,  which  reflect affinities to  either
the Carolinian or Caribbean fauna!  provinces.
* D. Odell, Professor, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, 1980
                                          3-40

-------
                                   TABLE 3-9
                SPECIES OF MARINE MAMMALS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
          Cetaceans
              Behavior
Minke whale
  (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)
   «

Bryde's whale
  (Balaenoptera edeni)
Sel whale
  (Balaenoptera borealis)
Fin whale
  (Balaenoptera physalus)
Blue whale
  (Balaenoptera musculus)
              *
Humpback whale
  (Megaptera novaeangliae)
                 *
Black right.whale
  (Eubalaena glacialis)

Rough-toothed dolphin
  (Steno bredanensis)

Bottlenose dolphin
  (Turslops truncatus)

Spinner dolphin
  .(Stenella longirostris)

Spotted dolphin
  (Stenella frontalis)

Atlantic spotted dolphin
  (Stenella plagiodon)

Striped dolphin
  (Stenella coejruleoalba)

Common dolphin
  (Delphinus delphis)

Risso's dolphin
  (Grampus griseus)
Possible winter resident; feed on-   .
euphausiids and small fish

Possibly year-round; feed on small schooling
fishes, some .euphausiids, and other .
crustaceans

Possible winter resident; winter calving
and mating; feed on copepods, euphausiids,
and various small fishes
                    ,               ,        Y
Possible winter resident; mating and
calving in winter; feed mostly on     ;
euphausiids

Uncommon; feed on euphausiids
Possible winter resident; feed on
euphausiids

Possible winter resident; winter mating and.
calving; feed on copepods

Rare; feed on fish and squid
Common; year-round; feed mostly on fish;
breed year-round

May be year-round; probably feed on fish
and squid

Uncommon; feed on fish and squid
Common; year-round; feed primarily on squid
Uncommon; feed on fish, squid and
crustaceans

May be year-round near Shelf edge; feed on
fish and copepods

Uncommon; feed on cephalopods
                                    3-41

-------
 TABLE 3-9  (Continued)
           Cetaceans
               Behavior
 Pygmy killer whale
   (Feresa attenuata)

 False killer whale
   (PseudoTca crassidens)

 Short-firmed pilot whale
   (Globicephala macrornyncha)

 Killer whale
   (Orcinus orca)
            *
 Sperm whale
   (Physeter catodon)
 Pygmy sperm whale
   (Kogia breviceps)

 Dwarf sperm whale
   (Kogia simus)

 Goose-beaked whale
   (Zipfaius cavirostr.is)

 Gervais beaked whale
   (Mesoplodon europaeus)
Rare;  little known
Uncommon; feed  on  fish
Year-round  in deep water;  probably feed on
squid and fish

Uncommon; feed on fish,  cephalopoda,  and
other cetaceans

Winter resident or possibly year-round;
calving in  summer; feed  on cephalopoda  and
some fish

Year-round; feed on squid  and pelagic
crustaceans, such as shrimp

Uncommon, possibly year-round; feed on  squid
and pelagic crustaceans, such as  shrimp

Rare; feed  on squid and  deepwater  fishes
Rare; little known
           Sirenean
 West Indian manatee
   (Trichechus manatus)
Presently not found west of Aucilla and Port
St. Joe Rivers, Florida; feed on aquatic
vegetation
 * Endangered  species,  Federal Register,  1979

 Source:   BUM,  1978


  However, Lyons and Collard  (1974)  further divided the Shelf  Into  five regions
corresponding to floral  and  fauna!  changes as  a  function  of depth:   Shoreward,
Shallow Shelf,  Middle  Shelf  I,  Middle  Shelf II, and  Deep Shelf  (Figure  3-17).
The  Shoreward   region  (depths  less   than   10m)  is   comprised   of  temperate  and
subtropical estuarine species with low biological diversity.   The  Shallow Shelf,
extending  from 10m  of  water  to  30m  and  containing Sites  A and  8  and  the
                                       3-42

-------
       Ocu/i'na diffusa,
       Pilumnuf sayi
       Leptogorgia virgutata
       L setacea
       Scirpearia grandis
       Muricea penduta
       Astrangia sotilaria
       Ptiyttangia americana
       Ceodia gibberosa
       Petmtutries galanthinus
SHALLOW-SHELF COMMUNITIES (10- TO 50-METER DEPTHS)
                                                  SAND
                            ROCK
                     Sphenciospongia vesparia
                     Axinella polycapella
                     Stenorhynchus seticomis'
                     Irdnia campana
                     I. fascKulata
                     Tabularia crocea
                     Conodactyius townsendi
                     Spondylus americanus
                     Echinochama cornuta
                     Siderastrea siderea
                Argopecten gibbui
                Scaphella kieneri
                Cerianthiopsis americanus
                F'KUS communti
                Tonna galea
                Cassis  madegascariensis
                Renilta multeri
                                                               • .-'  Cardiomya gemma'-  '   '."/
                                                               . _ - 'Clypeaster subdepressui. •  . •
                                                               ".' •  ' Plagiobrissus gradis  '
                                                               .  ,   Amphipolis gracillima
 Figure  3-14.   Shallow-Shelf  Benthic  Communities  Offshore of  Tampa  Bay
                        Source:   Collard  and D.'Asaro,  1973
                   DEEP-SHELF COMMUNITIES (30- TO 200-METER DEPTHS)
                     ROCK
Pettochronchus irregularis
Phicpagurus corailinus
tridopagurus d'tspar
Hypoconcha sabulosa
Muricea laxa
Thesea grandfflora
Caligorgia verticillata
Trichogorgia viola
Villogorgia nigrescent.
Thesea plana
Mitlepota alcicomis f
diona caribboea
         Sc/erac/j guadalupensii -
         Batanui dedivis
         Hippiospongia lachne
         Eucidaris tnbuloides
         Scirpearia funiculina
         Ircinia laciculata
         I. campana
         Dysidea fragilis
         Spheciospongia vesparia
         Neopetroiu longieyi
         Caltyspongia vaginalis
Murex bcaui
dsa superba
                                                    SAND
Ponunus spinicarpus
Kanilia muricata
Pitar cotdata
Fusinus covei
Wystira albida
Scaphella junonia
                                                                    • Qypeaiter subdepeessus
                                                                      Plagiobrissus grandis
                                                                      Amphipolis gracillima   •
  Figure  3-15.
  Deep-Shelf  Benthic Communities  Offshore of Tampa  Bay
     Source:    Collard and D'Asaro,  1973
                                             3-43

-------
                           SLOP! COMMUNITIES (CONTINENTAL SLOPE)
                   HARD SUBSTRATES
                    MUD
             Cladocarpus ilexilis
             Actinauge longicornis
             Bebryce grand/s
             Acanella ebumea
             Chiysogorgia etega/is
             Munida forceps
             Poicellana sigsbeiana
             Cryptopora gnomon
             Oallina floridana
Stytocidaris aftinis
Calocidaris nticans
Madrepora ocufcta
Demophytlum crisiagalli'
Detlocyathus italicus
Coniaster tessellatut
PHnthaster dentatus
Nymphaster arenatus
Soknocera vioxai
Hymenopenaeus tropicalis
H. robustus
Bemhesicymus cenus
B. bartletti
Acavithocatpu* alexandri
Raninoidet constricta
Bathyptax typhla
Caltapa angusta
            Figure  3-16.  Slope Benthic  Communities Offshore  of Tampa  Bay
                          Source:  Collard and D'Aaaro, 1973  •
 Shallow-Water Alternative  Sites,  consists  of  inshore  temperate and  subtropical
 species with  the addition  of  tropical  Gulf species.  Biological  diversity  within
 the Shallow  Shelf region  is high.   The  Middle Shelf I and  II regions, with  depth
 ranges  of 30m  to  60m,  and  60m  to  140m,  respectively,  contain  predominantly
 tropical species with  occasional  inshore species.  The  Mid-Shelf Alternative Site
 is  in  the Middle Shelf  II region.   Biological   diversity  is  greater  at  Middle
 Shelf I depths  than at  Middle Shelf II depths.   The Deep  Shelf  region  ranges from
 104m   to  200m  of  water' where   biological  diversity  is   low  and  dominated  by
 deepwater tropical  species.  The Oeepwater Alternative  Site is  at  the  lower  limit
of  the Deep Shelf region.


 Shoreward Region


  The Shoreward region, 0  to  10m,  has  rolling  topography, a  quartz-sand bottom
overlain by a  fine  layer of silt, and  is inhabited primarily  by echinoderms  and
other, coarse  sand  dwellers.   Occasional  small  (less than one  meter  in  height)
                                            3-44

-------
3-45

-------
 limestone  rock outcrops,  paralleling the  shoreline, rise  through the  sediment
 layer.   The outcrops support a  variety  of epifaunal organisms,  such  as  solitary
 corals,  algae,  pholadids,  and  polychaetous annelids.

    Species  abundance and  diversity at depths less than 10m  is  low,  a  function of
 the shifting  substrata  and the inability of many organisms  to  survive the stress
 of  wave  action  and temperature  fluctuations.   Lyons and Collard  (1974)  reported
 the region  was dominated  by temperate molluscs  and echinoderms; vegetation  was
 scarce.   Joyce and  Williams   (1969)  observed  extremely  high numbers  of  sand
 dollars  (Hellitta quinquiesperforata)  and sea  urchins   (Lytechinus variegatus);
 molluscs  (Atrina  sp.  and  Busycon  sp.),  hydroids,  and  a few  sponges were  also
 present.    The  occasional   rock  outcrops  support   coirsnunities of- hard  corals,
 bryozoans,  tubeworms, and calcareous algae  (Gould  and Steward, 1956).   Phillips
 and Springer (1960)  also  reported varying  numbers of  molluscs  (Area  sp.  and
 Spondylus "sp.)  on the'rock  outcrops.

 Shallow  Shelf
   Beginning at a depth  of  10m,  and extending to 30m, the nearshore  quartz  sand--
shell  topography  is  gradually  replaced  by.  carbonate  sediments.     Limestone
outcrops occur in greater numbers and may  rise  one  or two  meters  from the  bottom,
supporting  a  diverse assemblage of  flora  and fauna.  Joyce  and Williams  (1969)
characterized this region as a typical Gulf patch reef community.

   At  Shallow-Shelf  depths, temperate  and tropical  species  are  present  due  to
intrusion of Loop Current water.   Associated  with rock outcrops are  crustaceans,
molluscs,  scleractinians (hard  corals),  alcyonarians  (soft  corals),  and  other
invertebrate  species (Lyons and  Collard, 1974).   Phillips  and  Springer  (1960)
reported a wide variety of benthic flora,  identifying 186 taxa of plants attached
to rock outcrops or  epiphytic  on other  plants.*  The  shallow-water rock outcrops
were  described  by Smith  (1976b) as  covered  with  an overlay  of scleractinians
(Cladocora   arbuscula   and   Solenastrea   hyades)   -and   loggerhead   sponge
(Spheciospongia  vesparia),  along  with   the  green  alga  (Caulerpa  sp.),  and
coralline  algae  (Halimeda  sp.  and  Udotea  sp.).     Echinoids,  tunicates,  and
sabellid polychaetes also were observed.  Numbers of grouper, flatfish, snapper,
grunt, and other reef  fishes were  present, as well  as Florida  spiny and Spanish
                                       3-46

-------
 lobsters (G.  Smith, personal communication*).   Reefs  and rocky outcrops  of this
 region   have  been  characterized  as . biologically  sensitive  areas  (G.   Smith,
 personal communication*;  BLM,  1978).

    Results  of the EPA  May 1982,  survey  demonstrated the similarity of Alternative
 Sites -3 and'4  located  in this  shallow shelf  environment  (Cf.  Appendix C).   The
 two sites were  generally  very  similar  in  sediment^and  polycHaete composition.   As
 previously  mentioned,  however, Alternative Site. 3  contains  numerous  hard  bottom
 areas  with  attached coralline  communities.   The  polychaetes  characteristic  of
 Sites  3 and 4  were primarily  species  typical  of sandy, soft-bottomed  habitats.
 Many  of these species, such as Aglaophamus verrilli,  Parapri onospi o  p'rimata,  and
 Qwenia   fusiformis  were  widespread  across  the  study  area,  but  reached  their
.highest abundances, in the finer-textured  samples.    The  analysis  of  results
 revealed a  relatively  high  degree of  distinct  species-habitat  groupings  in  the
 shallow-water environment;  however,  these results must be interpreted within  the
 context  of  the  overall  natural .variability  of  the  shallow-water   benthic
 community.   The communities may  vary  considerably  due to periodic  environmental
 influences  such as  storms, hurricanes,  periods  of high  freshwater runoff,  and
 temperature changes, -which  may  drastically modify the benthic habitat.  The high
 physical  energy associated  with  high wind and  wave  activity may  drastically alter
 the  nearshore  sediment  composition.   Typically,  some  areas  will  be scoured,
 whereas others   will be  subject  to a  high level  of  deposition  of  sedimentary
 materials.    These periodic  episodes   of high bottom currents  may  drastically
 change  the  distribution of  sedimentary  components in an area, ultimately  causing
 a concomitant change in the  associated  faunal  composition.  These  periods  of high
 energy   also  disperse  dredged   material,  restoring  .the  habitat  to   natural
 conditions, and allowing  the recovery  of the  previously established  communities
 following the cessation of  dumping activities.   Thus,  analyses  of this.benthic
 environment  should be  regarded -as  part of  a  continually  ongoing  process   of
 ecological  change and adaptation.
 G.Smith, Professor, Indian River College, Fort Pierce, Florida, 1980'
                                         3-47

-------
Middle Shelves I and II

   The area between 30  and  60m (Middle Shelf I)  has  the highest diversity  found
off Tampa Bay (Lyons and Col lard, 1974).   Beyond  60m,  to a depth of 140m  (Middle
Shelf II), diversity and productivity  decline.   At depths greater than 60m,  rock
outcrops  diminish  in  size  and  number, and the  bottom is  composed  primarily  of
irregularly distributed  carbonate  sediments ranging from  hard,  compact sand  and
silt, to shell rubble with  silt (Doyle et _al_._, 1974).

   Flora  and  fauna  characteristic  of  the Middle  Shelf  I  include   loggerhead
sponges,  calcareous  algae   (Lithothamnion sp.),  foraminiferans,  alcyonarians,
tropical, algae,  decapod crustaceans (Stenopus hispidus and Penaeus duorarum),  and
bryozoans  (Stegaporella  magnilabris and  Hippopotraniela marglnata)  (Joyce  and
Williams, 1969;  Lyons and Col lard, 1974; Hopkins,  1974; Smith, I976b).
   In  the  Middle   Shelf II  region,  biological  diversity  and abundance   drop
substantially and  fewer  rock  outcrops  are  present.    Sediments  are primarily
carbonates,  composed  of skeletons  of  coralline  algae,  bryozoans,   and  shell
rubble.  Sponges, corals, and living bryozoans occur, but are  scarce,  and  limited
to the  few rock outcrops  present.   Molluscs  (Chamys sp.)»  crustaceans   (Munida
sp.), echinoderms  (Astropecten sp.  and  Echinaster  sp.),  and the  alga Caulerpa
predominate the region (Lyons and Col lad,  1974; Hopkins, 1974).

Deep Shelf

   In the Deep Shelf area  (140  to  200m),  biological  diversity further  decreases.
Poor light penetration and  a flat carbonate substatum provide minimal  habitat  for
organisms.   A number  of species  of  the  Middle  Shelf  II  zone  occur; however,
species composition changes occur at about  140m  (Lyons and Collard, 1974).
                                     3-48

-------
 RARE  AND  ENDANGERED  SPECIES

     Six .endangered  species  of whales reportedly occur in the  Gulf of Mexico:   sei
 (Balaenoptera   borealis),   fin   .(Balaenoptera   physalus),   blue   (Balaenoptera
 rcu,s_cuj_us),  humpback   (MegajJtera  novaeangliae). right  (Eubalaena glacial is),  and
 sperm (Physeter catodon)  (January 17, 1979, 44 Federal Register 3636).   The Gulf
 serves  as a winter  feeding, mating,  and  calving ground  for-all species.   Most
 whales  remain  offshore, beyond the  Continental  Shelf in deep waters; however, the
                                                                      i
 right whale  is primarily  coastal,  and occasional  inshore sitings of other species
                                                                       i
 occur  (D. Odell, personal  communication*}.
I
  ; -A critical habitat  has  been  designated  for the West  Indian manatee :(Tricnechus
 manatus)-.in  and around  Tampa  Bay. ' Its  range  is  normally restricted  to  inland
 waterways  near  coastal inlets  in  depths  of 1 to 3m  of water, but  manatees  have
            *
 also been  observed  in  shallow-coastal waters, traveling  along  shallow-water  rock
 outcrops (BLM,  1978).        .                                    •

    F.ive endangered  and threatened species  of turtles migrate  from  the. Caribbean,
 to nest  along the  Gulf  coast  of  Florida:    hawksbill  (Eretmochelys  1mbrlcata),
 loggerhead   (Caretta   caretta),   green    (Chelonia   mydas),   Atlantic   ridley
 (Lepidochelys kempti), and  leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea).   The  turtles  range
 from Cedar Keys  south to  the Dry  Tortugas  as well  as  in  open  Gulf waters;
 however, they are usually  found in shallow  waters,.less than 15m.   They commonly-
 occur near shallow  reefs and in lagoons and  nest  on sandy  beaches.

    Twelve  endangered  species of  birds  occur in  the  eastern Gulf  of Mexico  and
 Florida; however,  only one, the  brown  pelican.  (P_e1_ecan_tis_ occjjentalis), can  be
 found offshore.  'Brown pelicans nest .along  several  coastal sites in west central
 Florida, and feed primarily  on  fish captured  in  nearshore  waters.
*D. Odell, Professor, University of Miami, Miami,  Florida,  1980
                                        3-49

-------
                               PRESENT AND POTENTIAL
                      ACTIVITIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE SITE

 FISHERIES (Recreational and Commercial}

 >  Sites  A'  and  B  and  the  Shallow-Water  Alternative   Sites  are  offshore  of
 Pinellas, Manatee, and  Hillsborough  Counties.   Pinellas  County  has  the second-,
•third-,   and   sixth-largest  commercial,   party,   and   charter  boat   fleets,
\respectively, in the  State  of Florida.   Hillsborough and Manatee Counties have
 moderate fishing activity in comparison to Pinellas County (Moe, 1963).  In 1978,
 the  recreational  and commercial  landings  in  these  counties  totaled over $9.4
 million, or 16% of the total Florida west coast landings.  Shrimp,  red and black
 grouper,  arid  red snapper are  the major  species  of  economic importance   (NMFS,
 1978).

    Commercial  finfishing in  the immediate vicinity of Sites A and  B  and  Shallow-
 Water  Alternative  Sites  is  limited,  with  most  occurring  further  offshore.
 However, Sites A and B are  in  the vicinity of  areas utilized for  recreational
 fishing by charter,  party,  and private boat  operators (Figure  3-18).   A number of
 rock  outcrops,  artificial   reefs,  and  designated  fish  havens   are   located
 approximately three  nmi  north of  Site B.  Species commonly taken in  this  area by
 recreational   fishermen  (Table  3-10)   include  grouper,  mackerel,  redfish,  red
 snapper, grunt, bluefish, and spotted  seatrout  (Moe,  1963).

    Commercial  fishing in the offshore waters of west  central Florida  is  limited,
 totaling less than 3,500 tons in  1978  (NMFS, 1979).   This catch is limited to  a
 few species,  the most important of which  are grouper,  scamp,  black  mullet,  and
 red snapper.   The offshore  commercial  shellfish  industry harvests pink and rock
 shrimp, stone  crab, lobster,  and calico scallop.

    The  level  of commercial   finfishing  is  relatively  constant  year-round,  except
 for Manatee County, which  has  seasonal peaks  of activity during  April-May  and
 October-November.  Party and charter boat  fisheries have  some degree of activity
                                       3-50

-------
                                                     - 28'QO'
   C"~1 SHELLFISH AREA (APPROVED)
   ^3 SHELLFISH AREA (PROHIBITED)
   P773 SHELLFISH AREA (UNCLASSIFIED I
   E?x3 COMMERCIAL FINFISH AREA
   ESS PARTY BOAT AREA
   •1 CHARTER BOAT AREA
   f~~7 FISH HAVEN
    ©  SITES A and B
    ®  SHAULOW-WATER ALTERNATIVE SITE 1
    D  SHALLOW-WATER ALTERNATIVE SITE 2
    A  SHALLOW-WATER ALTERNATIVE SITE 3
             20
     Nautical Miles s

                                                     PINELLAS;
                                                     COUNTY'
                                                     STATE*
                                                     AQUATIC
                                                     PRE5ERV
                                                                              • 27'00'N
               84*00'
        83*30*
                                                   83*00*
                                                                      82'30-W
           Figure 3-18.
                Source:
Fishery Areas  in  Tampa Bay and Adjacent Waters
MOE, 1963,  FDNR  Shellfish Harvesting Atlas
year-round.    However, the peak  seasons  for  party  boats  are January-March- and
June-July;  for  charter  boats,  the  peak  occurs  during March-May  and October-
November.

   Shellfish, comprised 59%  of  all  commercial   species  taken off  Hillsborough,
Manatee,  and Pinellas  Counties,  representing 66%  of the catch value.   Pink  and
rock   shrimp  comprised   97%  of  the   total   shellfish  tonnage  (Z,066  tons),
and  represented 96%  of the  commercial   value.   However,  some of  the landings  in
the  Tampa-St.  Petersburg  area  were  reported  taken  from  waters  outside  the
immediate  area.*   Calico  scallops  (Argopecten  gibbus)  and  stone crabs (Menippe
mercenaria)  were  the  second  and third most  important  shellfish  species  taken
offshore  of the tri-county  area.   Large  commercial  catches  of "pink shrimp  have
infrequently been  recorded offshore  of Egmont'Key.   -These  catches -occur during
April-July,  when  larger shrimp  migrate offshore  from Tarapa  Bay.
* Florida Department of Natural  Resources, Personal  communication, 1982.

                                          3-51

-------
                         TABLE 3-10
IMPORTANT FISHES OF THE OFFSHORE FISHERY OF COASTAL COUNTIES
County
Manatee








Hill sboro ugh


,


PInellas





Status of Fish
v
Host abundant
fishes in the
i
catch
\
Most preferred
fishes


Most abundant
fishes in the
catch
Most preferred
fishes

Most abundant
fishes in the
catch
Most preferred
fishes
.
Type of Vessel
Commercial
Red grouper
Red snapper

Black grouper

Red snapper
Yelloweye
snapper
Black grouper
Red grouper
Red snapper
Black grouper
Red snapper
Black grouper
Red grouper
Red grouper
Black grouper
Red snapper
Red snapper
Black grouper
Red grouper
Party
Black grouper
Red grouper

Red snapper

Black grouper
Red grouper
Red snapper







Red grouper
Black grouper
Grunts
Black grouper
Red grouper
Grunts
Charter
King mackerel
Red grouper

Bluef ish

King mackerel
Black grouper
Red grouper

-





Spanish mackerel
King mackerel
Black grouper
King mackerel
Spanish mackerel
Black grouper
                            3-52

-------
    Small  squid and sponge  fisheries  exist in the  area;  however, neither  are  as
 economically  important  as  the  shrimp  fisheries.

    A  sardine  fishery is presently  in  a developmental stage.   In the  past,  this
 species  has not  been  commercially fished due to poor demand.   However, increased
 commercial value of sardines  is promoting a widening interest  among  fishermen  of
 this  region.

 MARINE RECREATION         .  .

    The   Florida  marine environment  .provides  recreational   opportunities  for
 residents  and visitors,  producing  revenue  for  local  business  and  the  State.
 Sportfishing, 'swiramingi sailing,  pleasure boating, beachcombing,  and  diving are
 important  recreational  activities  (Table 3-11).    In  1975,  approximately  $115
million  was spent  in the  State on activities associated  with marine  recreation
 (j_..e»., tackle, boating  fees,  fuel, and  services)-,  more than  any  other state.  on
the Gulf or East Coasts (NMFS,  1977).
                                                                            *'
   However, as  noted earlier  in  Chapter  2  of this  FEIS, a  recent  Corps study
examined  the  minimal use   of  Shallow-Water. Alternative  Site  4  by  recreational
fishermen and divers.   On  only  one occasion  over  twelve successive weeks between
mid-March and June  1983, was a  vessel  seen  in  Site  4.  -On June 1, 1983, a  single
dive boat was  noted within  the  site.   On no  weekend days  during the  surveillance
period were any vessels seen within Site 4.
                                    TABLE 3-11
             RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF THE FLORIDA MARINE ENVIRONMENT
                                    (thousands)
Activity
S winning
Beachcombing
Finfishing
Pleasure boating
Shell fishing
Sailing
Diving
Households
1,388
981
954
711
419
295
263
Participants
4,026
2,760
2,101
1,847
989
598
462
                  Source:   NMFS,  1977
                                       3-53

-------
   In 1975,- 98 minion pounds of finflsh were caught by  recreational  fishermen  on
the  west coast  of  Florida   (NMFS,  1975);  the most  abundant  was  the  spotted
seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), which totalled 6.4 million pounds.  Approximately
27  million  pounds  of  shellfish  were  collected  during  1975  by  recreational
fishermen (NMFS, 1975}.

   Numerous public and private beaches occupy the coast  of western  Florida.  Fort
De Soto  County Park, located  on  Mullet Key,  is  the  recreational  beach  nearest
Sites A  and B.   The park  provides  year-round  recreation  for  an  estimated 1.5
                                     i
million people (W. Grabowski, personal communication*).

   The State  of  Florida also  has  established an aquatic preserve,  encompassing
the length of Pinellas County, extending  from the  shoreline to the 3-mile limit.
Site B is southwest of the preserve, Site A is westsouthwest of the preserve, and
Shallow-Water  Alternative  Site  4  is  approximately  15  nmi   southwest  of  the
preserve.   Egmont  and Passage Keys,  located at least 18 nmi east  of  Site 4, are
designated by the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges.
SHIPPING

   The Port of Tampa  Bay  is  vital  to the economy of both  Florida  and the United
States.  Based on tonnage, the Port of Tampa ranks fourth in the nation in export
goods, and  in  overall tonnage  is  the eighth-largest  port  in the  United States
(Corps, 1974).

   In 1979, the  Port of  Tampa  had an  import  tonnage  of  over 49  million tons,
valued at $490 million, and an export tonnage  of  19  million tons,  valued at over
$1.2  billion.     Major   commodities  include  the  export   of   phosphate  rock
(representing in excess of 97%  of  all export  goods),  citrus  fruits and seafood,
and the import of sulphur, petroleum products, and foreign trucks.
*W. Grabowski, Park Director, Fort De Soto Park, Pinellas County, Florida, 1980

                                    3-54

-------
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

   The nearest  active  oil  and gas leases., part  of  the Bureau of Land  Management
(BLM)  Outer  Continental  Shelf  (OCS)  Oil   and  Gas  Lease  Sale   No.   65,   are
approximately 55  nmi to  the  southwest of Sites A and  B,  and 50 nmi  southwest  of
Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4  (Figure  3-1).   The  nearest  proposed leases  (BLM,
1980), OCS Nos.  A66  and  66, are  approximately 40  nmi   south  of  Shallow-Water
Alternative  Site  1,  and 46  nmi  south  of Sites  A  and  B  (Figure  3-19).    The
distance of these sites  to  the oil  and gas lease  sites eliminate any  problem  of
interference of dredged  material  disposal  operations with drilling  or  production
operations.                         J
                                       3-55

-------
3-56

-------
                                     Chapter  4

                            ENVIRONMENTAL  CONSEQUENCES
           Possible adverse effects  on  hard bottom communities  resulting
           from  burial  may  occur when  dredged  material  disposal   Is
           performed.   This  Impact  would be  mitigated by  disposal  at
           Shallow-Water  Alternative Site  4.    Recent surveys  of  this
           Site have confirmed that  fewer hard bottom  areas  occur within
           and in  the  vicinity  of Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4  than
           In any  of the other Shallow-Water Alternative Sites examined.
           Water quality  impacts are expected to  be absolutely minimal
           at Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4.
                           DREDGED MATERIAL TRANSPORT

  • Unavoidable"mi nor and temporary disruptions .of harbor and channel traffic will
occur as a result of dredging, transportation, and disposal of dredged  material.
Most  inconveniences will  be  caused by  dredging;  minor  inconveniences  may  be
caused by transportation of the dredged material through Tampa Bay.

   Transportation costs of hauling dredged materials  from  the bay to a  disposal'
site is directly affected by  location.   Transport  of dredged material  to Sites A
and B has cost  approximately  $5/yd-*  {$10,000/vessel  load, assuming  the  use of a
2,000 yd3 hopper dredge).   (A recent letter from the  Corps  indicates  that 2,800
to  3,200  yd3 barges  may  be  used in the  remaining  phases  of the  Tampa  Harbor
Project.  Cf.  Letter from Major  General  John  F. Wall, Director  of  Civil  Works,
U.S. Army, on August 19, 1983, to Jonathan E.  Amson,  Office  of Water Regulations
and Standards,  EPA).   Additional  expenses for fuel,  labor,  and equipment  rental
are directly related to the distance between the dredging and disposal sites, and
time involved  in dredged  material disposal.    The  Corps estimates the  costs  for
additional transport distances beyond Sites  A and B  will  average $0.15/yd3/nmi.
Cost estimates  for  hopper  dredge  transport of dredged  material  to several sites
are presented in Table 4-1.  Based on this cost comparison, the added expense per.
vessel   load  of dredged material  precludes  the use  of  a mid-Shelf  or  deepwater
disposal  site  alternative; the   additional  transport   distance  required  to  use
Shallow-Water  Alternative  Site 4 has the smallest  economic impact  on  disposal
operations.   (Cf.  Letters  from Col.  Alfred B. Devereaux, Jr.,  District  Engineer
for  the Corps'  Jacksonville  District,  on  April 29,  1983,  to  Ms.  Patricia  M.
Glass,  Vice Chairman of the Manatee  County Board of  County Commissioners,  and on
May 13, 1983, to Edward W. Chance, Chairman of the same Board),

                                        4-1

-------
                                    TABLE 4-1
                        COMPARATIVE TRANSPORTATION COSTS*'




Site 8
Site A
Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4
Mid-Shelf Site
Deepwater Site
Distance
From
Tampa Bay
(nmi)
9
13
18
70 "
104
Additional
Transport
Distance
(nmi}
5
57
91
Costs Per
Round Trip
Vessel Loa,d+
(dollars)
0 \
0 \
1,470 '
17,100
27,300
*Based on Corps co-st figures
^Estimated costs are those required in addition to the present $10,000/vessel
-load to Sites A and B; costs based on a 2,000 yd-* barge.  A recent  letter  from
 the Corps indicates that 2,800 to 3,200 yd^ barges may be used in the
 remaining phases of the Tampa Harbor Project.  Cf. p. 4-1.
                       EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

   Ensuring that  public  health and  safety are  not  adversely  affected  by ocean
disposal of dredged materials is EPA's primary concern.  Health hazards may arise
if the  material  has the  potential  for  toxic  bioaccumulation  in  organisms,  and
there  is  a possibility  that these  organisms  could be  consumed by  the  public.
Navigational safety  hazards may arise  from potential  shoaling  of the material,
and from the movement of disposal vessels to and from the ODMDS.

   Potential  impacts  on   human  health   can   be  inferred  from  bioassay  and
bioaccumulation tests  performed  on  marine  animals.   The results  of .these tests
performed on Tampa Bay dredged materials (considered later  in this Chapter) do
not indicate any potential  human health hazards.
                                        4-2

-------
    Navigational  safety  is not  expected  to be  adversely  affected  by  disposal
operations.   Although  there is a risk of  collision  when any vessel  is  underway,
the degree of probability  is  negligible,  due to the  relatively few transits  by
disposal  vessels.

    Navigational  hazards  as a  result  of shoaling  of  dredged material  is  considered
minimal.   At shallow water, high-energy  sites, dredged  material  accumulates  only
temporarily  in mounds  (Bastian,  1975).    Any potential  navigational hazards  at
Site 4 are expected  to be  substantially  less than at Site A due  to the  increased
area and  depth of Site 4.
                            EFFECTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM

   The effects  of  ocean  disposal  of dredged material  on  the ecosystem may  cause
public concern.  Some  effects,  such  as  burial  of benthic organisms and habitats,
are  immediately apparent;  others,  such  as  bioaccumulation  of  sediment-bound
contaminants,  may  be  subtle  and  difficult  to  assess. .  Short-term  effects  on
biological  communities can  be difficult to  differentiate  from natural fluxes  in
diversity and community  composition.   Long-term adverse effects  can  be the  most
difficult to assess, because the effects may be indirect or  cumulative.

   The  degree  of  effect  on   the  ecosystem- depends  on.  a  number  of  factors:
sediment  characteristics of  the  dredged  material,  the   degree  of similarity
between  dredged material  and  sediments  at  the  disposal   site,  the amount  of
material to be  disposed, the  frequency of disposal,  chemical characteristics  of
the dredged material,  nutrients associated with dredged material,  and turbidity
associated with disposal.

   The  following  discussion  of effects  on  the  ecosystem  is  divided .into two
sections:   (1)  effects  on  water and  sediment quality, and (2) effects  on the
biota.   This  division  facilitates  comparison between  effects  on the  physical
environment, which in  turn, directly and indirectly affects  the biota.
                                        4-3

-------
MATER AND' SEDIMENT QUALITY

   Oceanic  dredged  material  disposal  may  affect  a   number   of  environmental
parameters.  This type of disposal  has been observed and studied at a variety  of
locations and  depths.   Studies at other disposal  sites  allows  comparisons to  be
drawn, and predictions made, concerning the expected behavior of dredged material
when disposed  at the site designated in this EIS.

   The following discussion  addresses  potential effects  of disposal on turbidity,
nutrients,  dissolved  oxygen,  trace   metals,  and  organic  compounds,  based   on
analyses of  sediments  from  the Tampa  Harbor Main Channel and from  Sites  A and B
(Table 4-2), and analyses of elutriate tests on  sediment  samples  from the Tampa
Harbor Main Channel and St.   Petersburg Harbor (Table 4-3).
                                    A
TURBIDITY

   The method  of dredging and  the amount  of water contained in  dredged sediments
will influence the behavior of materials after  release.   Tampa Harbor sediments
are primarily  fine sand  with silt and  clay fractions,  whereas  channel  sediments
are  medium  to coarse  sand overlain  with  fine  sand  and  silt  (Corps,  1974).
Because  of  the similar  depths at  Sites  A and  B and  Shallow-Water  Alternative
Sites  (10  to  27m),  it is  anticipated there  will  be  little difference  in  the
behavior of dredged material during disposal.

   The disposal characteristics of dredged  material  after release into the water
has been described by Bokuniewicz et al. (1978) as occurring in three phases:

   (1)  Descent as a well-defined jet  of high-density fluid that may contain
        solid blocks .of material, with ambient water entrained;

   (2)  Impact with the bottom; and

   (3)  Formation of surge:   a horizontally-spreading bottom movement that
        radiates from the center  of impact  until driving forces  are sufficiently
        reduced to allow deposition to occur.
                                           4-4

-------
                                TABLE 4-2
                      RESULTS OF SEDIMENT ANALYSIS
                                 (ppm)
                          Main Channel
                            Sediments
                      Site A,B
                     Sediments
                     Average
                      Value
TOG
Ammonia-N
Nitrate-N
Hitrite-N
Organic Nitrogen
Oil and Grease
Ortho Phosphate
Total Phosphate
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Vanad ium
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
 100 to 620
   0 to 1

 190 to 330
 340 to 3,700
"   2 to 5

   1 to 2
   3 to 4
   4 to 7
 870 to 3,900
  25 to 52
'0.06 to 0.25
   7 to 14
   0 to 18

   6 to 10
                  530 to 4,420
                  120 to 2,940
 0.002 to 0.09
<0.003 to 0.50
<0.00009 to 0.01
                       147.8.
                       788.0
0.'03
0.13
0.00
- Not analyzed
* Corps/. 1974•(average values, not reported}
t EPA/IEC, 1979  and 1980 (determined by  weak acid  leach  discussed in
  Appendix A)
                                 4-5

-------
                                    TABLE 4-3
                RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LIQUID-PHASE
    ELUTRIATE TESTS OF SEDIMENTS FROM OLD TAMPA BAY AND ST. PETERSBURG HARBOR
                                (mg/liter [ppra])

Anmonia-N
Nitrite-N
Nitrate-N
Organic Nitrogen
Ortho Phosphate
Total Phosphorus
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Total Organic
(Carbon)
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Oil and
Grease
TB
7.7
<0.10
0.01
2.2
9.6
10.8
<0.001
<0.01
0.0003
9.0
None
detected

<0.2
Control
0.04
<0.01
0.01
0.10
0.03
0.15
<0.001
<0.01
<0.0001
5.0
None
detected

<0.2
SP
5.53
0.07
. 0.06
1.47
4.03
4.27
0.06
0.31
0.0011
8.33

19.6
Not
Reported
Control
0.20
0.04
0.24
<0.20
0.46 *
0.80
0.066
0.34
0.0006
4.0

21.0
''
<0.2
 TB = Tampa Bay
 SP - St. Petersburg Harbor (values equal average of three samples)
 Source:   Jones,  Edmunds and Associates (1979, 1980)
   The rate of descent and amount of residual turbidity is determined by particle
size, concentration, moisture content,  and  cohesiveness  of the dredged material.
The clods  will  fall  at varying rates,  depending  on their size  (Table  4-4), and
will  form  the leading edge  of  a downward-flowing  jet  which  contains  the  loose
silt  and  clay.   The  jet  will  entrain  considerable amounts of  water  and  become
less  dense.   Fine sand,  which  represents  most  of  the  material to  be dredged,
(Cf.  Appendix C  of DEIS), descends  slowly  at a  rate of  1.8  cm/s  (Graf,  1971).
Silts and  clays  in suspension  may remain in  the  water column for  up  to several
days  (depending on  the  degree  of  flocculation),   and  during  this  period the
fine-grained  sediments will  be  spread  out  thinly over  the surrounding seafloor.
                                           4-6

-------
                                     TABLE 4-4
                 SETTLING VELOCITIES FOR SAND AND ROCK PARTICLES

Fine gravel


Coarse sand



Medina sand



fine sand

Particle
Diameter
(mm)
11.2
8.0
5.66
4.00
2.83
2.00
1.41
1.00
0.71
0.51
0.31
0.25
0.18
Settling
Velocity
(cm/s)
45.0
40.0
35.0
31.0-
25,0
• 20.0
16.0'
13.0'
10.0
7.0-
3.0
3.0
1.8
Sites
A. and B
33
38
43
43
60
75 '
94
115
ISO
214
500
500
333
Shallow-Water
Alternative
Site 1
29
13
37'
42 • -
52
65
82
100
130
186
433
433
722
Shallow-Water
Alternative
Site 2
44
50
57
55
30
100
125
154
200
286
666
666
1,111
Shallow-Water
Alternative
Site 3
60
63
77
87
103
135
169
208
270
386
900
900
1,500
  Note: Velocity - time to settle to bottoia (seconds)
  Sources:  Adapted from Chave and Miller, 1977; Tetra'Tech, 1977
   As discussed  above,  most of the  dredged  material  sinks' as  a  jet, but some  of
it will  remain  suspended and  cause temporary  turbidity.   Calculations  of  the
initial mixing zone  at  Sites  A  and B  and the  Shallow  Water Alternative  Sites
during  a  10m  thermocline condition  indicate a  dilution  factor of 1:3,668  for
suspended  particulate  matter   (SPM).     Dilution  and  dispersion  will   reduce
suspended particulate levels to  nearby ambient  levels  relatively  quickly,  over
several hours.   Natural SPM  levels  measured in local  bottom waters range from 0.5
to ,2.9 mg/liter  (Table A-3).

   A bottom  turbidity plume  caused by  dredged  material  and  indigenous sediment
results from  impact of the.disposed material on  the  seafloor.   The seafloor  at
Shallow-Water  Alternative Site  4  is in  large-part sand; thus,  indigenous material
should  redeposit  rapidly in  the  local  area  (Table  4-4);   The   finer-grained
dredged  materials,  however,  will   remain  in  suspension  longer,   and will   be
dispersed over a somewhat wider area of seafloor.
                                       4-7

-------
   Short-term turbidity may affect biotal respiratory surfaces by clogging gills,
interfering  with  feeding  activity  of  coral  polyps  and  zooplankton,  reducing
photosynthetic activity by  decreasing light  penetration,  promoting flocculation
of  phytoplankton,  and  increasing  sorption   of  essential  nutrients  or  toxic
contaminants (Table 4-5) (Stern and  Stickel,  1978;  Pequegnat  et_ al_._, 1978).  The
environmental consequences  of increased  turbidity  are  related  to concentration
and the  type of  organisms  present in the affected  environment.    Because  of the
potential sensitivity,  of hard  bottom communities  to siltation and sedimentation,
these  areas  should be exposed  to  lesser  amounts  of  disposal   activity,  where
possible.

NUTRIENT RELEASE

   Greater concentrations  of nutrients are usually present in  sediment  than in
the  overlying water.    Mechanical  disturbance,  such  as disposal  of  dredged
material, releases  some  of these  nutrients  (Table  4-3).   The  primary dissolved
nutrients    in     sediment     interstitial    water     are     NC^'1,    NOs"1,
NH3+^,   and  P(>4~3;   the   concentrations  Of  these   radicals   are  related  to
the decomposition of organic matter  (Pequegnat et a1,» 1978).

   The release of nutrients, especially  ammonia, from  disposed  dredged material
can stimulate growth of marine plants,  and  in heavy concentrations, can be toxic
(ibid.).   In most sediments, ammonia is  stable  under anoxic conditions  below 2
cm,  and  can accumulate  in  interstitial  water to  high levels.    Phosphorus
(generally   found  as  PO^3  and  organic  phosphates)  is  commonly  associated
with  domestic  wastewater,  but  may  be   found  when  organically  rich  sediments
decompose.   In  Tampa  Bay,  the  elevated  phosphorus  levels  may  be  caused  by
discharges from the  phosphate industry.   Since  red tides  occur periodically in
the vicinity of Tampa  Bay, the increased nutrient  availability  to phytoplankton
may be of concern.  The occurrence of undesirable effects, however, are dependent
on the concentrations  of constituents  released,  oxygen levels,  mixing  character-
istics,  and  diluting capacities of receiving waters (ibid.).
                                      4-8

-------
                                     TABLE 4-5
                           SHORT-TERM EFFECTS OF DREDGED
                MATERIAL DISPOSAL AT NEARSHORE ALTERNATIVE SITES
           .Effect  (Turbidity)
          1,  Reduce  light
             penetration
         2.  Flocculate
             phytoplankton

         3.  Decrease  avail-
             ability of  food

         4.  Drive mobile
            • organisms out of
             the environment

         5.  Affect respira-
             tory surfaces

         6.  . Sorption  of .
             toxic materials
        Sites A and B and
 Shallow-Water Alternative  Sites
Can be important to  phytoplankton
and phytobenthos

Can have effects on  hard-bottom
areas

Can  be important  in  estuaries   and
above thermocline in neritic waters

May  be  important; dilution of  food
particles with useless material

Temporary effect
Can be important
Can be important to filter feeders
         Source:  Adapted  from Pequegnat  ejt  ai.  (1978)
   Released nutrients are affected by a number of physical and chemical processes
(the most important of which  is  dilution),  reducing levels of released nutrients
immediately.  Soluble phosphorus is reduced by re-adsorption on oxidized iron and
manganese present  in  seawater.   Ammonia is unstable  in  oxygenated  waters  and is
rapidly oxidized to  nitrates  by nitrifying bacteria.   In addition, high ammonia
levels will be  lowered  to  ambient  levels  rapidly by  dilution,  and  will  cause no
adverse  effects.   Therefore,  any  nutrients  released   are  not  anticipated  to

enhance the potential for causing  red tides.
                                         4-9

-------
OXYGEN DEMAND

Chemical And Biological  Oxygen Demand Levels

   Participate matter with potentially high oxygen  demand is  generally  present  in
dredged material, and is released into the water on disposal.   Reduced inorganic
matter,  including  sulfur   compounds,  iron,  and  manganese,  which is  readily
oxidized by free oxygen in  the water, .imposes  a  chemical oxygen demand  (COD)  on
the aquatic ecosystem.  Those  organic substances  which are oxidized by  bacteria
in the  presence of  oxygen  also impose  biochemical  oxygen demand  (BOD)  on -the
ecosystem.

   Schubel  et^  aK  (1978)  showed that the  effect  that oxygen-demanding  material
has on the water column  is a function of the length of time the material  resides
in the  water,  and  the  amount of water  available for dilution.    Only  a  small
fraction.of the oxidizable components in  dredged material  are  reactive  before the
majority of the  discharged  particulate matter settles to the  bottom.   Reduced
elements present in  interstitial water appear  to  be the  most reactive, and are
the only components which place a rapid oxygen demand  on the water column.  The
oxidizable particulates  simply settle on the seafloor  before  imposing  any  oxygen
demand  (ibid.).     The  study  concluded  that  the  apparent  oxygen   demand   of
fine-grained estuarine sediments removed by pipeline dredge, with water  contents
of 80% (such as the material dredged  from  Tampa Harbor)  is approximately 0.4  mg
     of sediment dredged.
                                  4-10

-------
 POTENTIALLY TOXIC TRACE ELEMENTS

 Oxidation Reduction Controj  Mechanisms

    The  term  "trace  elements"  refers to  a  group  of  elements  which  includes
 arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,  copper, chromium,  iron,  lead, manganese,  mercury,
 nickel,  selenium,  and  zinc,  among  others.    Natural   processes  in   aquatic
 ecosystems tend to concentrate  trace' elements in bottom sediments, and  a number
 of these  are  toxic to marine  organisms  at elevated  levels  (Stoker and  Seager,
 1976).  A ge'neral concern about dredged material disposal  is that  trace  elements
.contained in disposed  sediments may  subsequently deteriorate water quality,  and
 adversely affect marine organisms.                                       .   ...

    Estuarine sediments such  as  harbor-dredged materials tend  to be depleted  of
 oxygen (anoxic)  below  2 cm in depth,  resulting in.an  oxygen-reduced environment.
 Microbial   action   in   reduced  environments  encourages  formation   of  sulfides,
 ammonia, and reduced forms  of iron  and manganese.  Sulfides of  trace elements  are
 stable  in  such  reduced  environments (Burkes  and  Engler,  1978);-however," when
 noncohesive sediments  are disposed   of  into  oxygenated  water,  these  sulfides
 oxidize.  Oxidized metals,  with the  exception  of  iron and  manganese, are more
 soluble than  their reduced forms, creating   possible  sources  of  contamination.
 However, such releases are  offset  by  co-precipitation .with oxides  of iron  and
•manganese and  re-absorption  onto sediment  particles.

 DMRP  Results -

    DMRP studies  indicate that  there  may  be  limited releases  of trace  elements
 during ocean disposal.   Investigation of  sediments  show that  manganese is  the
 only  trace  metal  consistently released during  ocean disposal  (Brannon,  1978};
 other trace elements occasionally  released in small  quantities include mercury,
 lead, cadmium, nickel, iron,  and  manganese.    However,  iron and manganese both
 oxidize rapidly,  and  scavenge other  metallic ions from  solution   (Jenne, 1978;
 Burks and Engler,  1978).
                                       4-11

-------
Elutriate Test Results

   Liquid-phase  elutriate  test results  from  recent Tampa  Bay  dredging projects
indicate that  disposed sediments  will release  only small  quantitites of certain
metals  (Jones,  Edmunds,  and Associates,  1979  and  1980).   Sediments tested  from
St.  Petersburg Harbor showed  only arsenic,  mercury,  and  vanadium  liquid-phase
samples  elevated above  control  levels.    In  all  of  the  elevated  samples, the
greatest increase occurred  in  one test  for  arsenic, in  which the  element was
elevated by  a factor  of seven;  two  other  arsenic values  were  elevated only by
factors  of  two  and  three.   All  other  sample  values were  at   or  below control
values.   Elutriate  samples  from  Tampa  Harbor  upper-main channel  showed  only
mercury  above  control  levels, and  this  only by  a factor  of three.   Again all
other metals  tested (12)  were measured  at  or below  control  values.   Based on
these  findings,  and considering  the  large  dilution   factor  involved  (1:3,668},
sediments disposed at  any  designated  ODMDS should  have  no significant effect on
receiving water quality.

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

   Organic matter passing  through  the water  column   during  disposal operations
will settle on the bottom, where  it will be  subject  to  bacterial decomposition.
Changes  in the redox potential  of  the sediment will occur  as  oxygen is depleted
by  metabolization of  organics by  bacteria (Pequegnat  et_ a].,  1978).   Anoxic
conditions could  result; however,  Pequegnat et^ aV. (1978) stated this should not
be a problem unless there  is  very  frequent  disposal and/or high organic loads in
the disposed sediments.
                                            /
   Of more concern are the synthetic  organic  compounds produced by man.  Organic
substances  such  as  petroleum hydrocarbons  and  chlorinated   hydrocarbons  are
frequent  contaminants   in   marine   environments.    Potential  effects  of  these
compounds after  ocean  disposal are unknown.    However,   it  is  known  that  these
compounds are  relatively  insoluble  in  water,  and will  tend  to be  absorbed by
particulate matter,  or  absorbed by aquatic  organisms (Burks and  Engler,  1978;
Stoker and Seager, 1976).   Due to  their  low solubility in water, these compounds
tend  to concentrate  in  sediments,  especially  in estuaries  and  harbors  where
                                         4-12

-------
sedimentation  rates are  generally high.   The  contaminant sources  derive from
municipal  and  industrial  wastes, urban and agricultural  runoffs,  and accidental
and  chronic  spillages.    Once  deposited  in  sediments,   these  compounds  are
relatively stable.

   Results of elutriate tests indicate that petroleum hudrocarbons are present in
Tampa Bay, and  are  released  and bioaccumulated in low concentrations (Tables 4-3
and  4-6).    Bioaccumulation  tests  using these  sediments  showed  that  petroleum
hydrocarbons were not detected  in tissues of the  clam Mercenaria mercenaria taken
from the  St.  Petersburg boat  slip area, but  were detected at  low  levels (<1.0
ug/g) in sediments  from the  channel area  (Table  4-6).   Bioaccumulation  tests to
determine PCB uptake showed  that uptake  levels were lowest from sediments midway
up Tampa Bay Channel (<0.0l  ug/g),  and highest at the  mouth of the bay and upper
channel (<0.01  to  0.04  ug/g (Table 4-6)).   PCB  uptake tests  were not  performed.
for St. Petersburg Harbor sediments.

BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS

   Direct  effects  of   disposal   operations  on   the  biota  include   damage  from
sediment clumps impacting the  bottom,  as well  as burial.   The  response  of an
organism may  range  from  no visible  effect,  to a stress response, to death,
depending on the extent of the  disposal  operation and  the  characteristics of the
dredged material.  A stress  reaction  or  death  may have as  great an environmental
consequence on  the  associated  benthie community  as on  the  organism  in  question,
because organisms are closely associated  through an often complex web of feeding
relationships.  A simplified food web with potential adverse impacts  from dredged
material disposal is presented  in Figure 4-1.    Assessment  of  adverse impacts is
often difficult to interpret  because effects  may not be  evident  until  higher
trophic levels  are affected.
                                         4-13

-------
                       TABLE 4-6                 ,
     CHEMICAL ANALYSES FROM BIG-ACCUMULATION TESTS
                     (ppm [pg/g])

               Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Replicate
1
2
3
4
5
Control
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SP1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SP2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SP3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
               Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Replicate

    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
               Control
TB1
TB2
TB3
              Polychlorinated Biphenals
                                       t
Replicate
1
2
3
4
5
x =
CS.S -
8 -
Control
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.02
0.0008
0.0002
TB1
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.03
<0.01
0.026
0.00052
0.00013
TB2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
-
-
TB3
0.10
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.038
0.00548
0.00137
  t Variances  were  heterogeneous;  therefore, the
    approximate test  of equality of means given by
    Sokal and Rohlf was  used.

  F - 0.571 (Not significant)
  F.05(2,7) - 4.74
  * Test species Mercenaria mercenaria  (clam)
  ND = None detected
  SP = St. Petersburg Harbor
  TB = Tampa Bay Main Channel

Source:  Jones, Edmunds,  and Associates  (1979  and 1980)

                         4-14

-------
                      TURBIDITY: REDUCE PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND
                               BUOYANCY CONTROL; IMPAIR
                               FEEDING AND RESPIRATION
                      RELEASE
                      NUTRIENT: OVERENRICHMENT/RED TIDES
                      O2 DEPLETION: EARLY LIFE STAGES
                                  SUSCEPTIBLE
                      FLOCCULATION: MECHANICALLY TRAPPED
 TURBIDITY: DISPLACEMENT, GILL CLOGGING
 BURIAL: SPAWNING AREAS, DEMERSAL EGGS
• TRANSFER TO ENERGY - MAJOR FOOD PATHWAY
 ' TRANSFER OF ENERGY - MINOR FOOD PATHWAY
TURBIDITY: REDUCE FEEDING, RESPIRATION,
         METABOLIC STRESS
O, DEPLETION: MAY CAUSE ANOXIC TOXIC
            CONDITIONS
ORGANICS: HIGH LOADS DECOMPOSING MAY
         CAUSE TOXIC CONDITIONS
PARTICLE SIZE: HABITAT AVAILABILITY
            REDUCED
BURIAL: SMALL OR LESS MOTILE ORGANISMS
       SMOTHERED
      Figure 4-1.  Major  Food Pathways of  Marine Organisms
     (with potential impacts from dredged  material disposal,
      not including  degradation and  nutrient input process)
                                   4-15

-------
 PLANKTON

    Direct adverse effects on plankton populations from  disposal  operations  arise
 primarily from turbidity effects.   The turbidity caused  by disposal  of  dredged
 material  at Shallow-Water Alternative  Site  4 will  have minor  short-term  adverse
 environmental  effects on plankton  communities,  including:   (1)  mortality due  to
 mechanical   or  abrasive  properties  (impairing  feeding  and  respiration),  (2)
 possible   reduction  of  photosynthetic  activity  by   interference   with   light
 penetration, and  (3)  entrainment in falling  dredged  material,  and  transport  to
 the bottom.

    The effects  of dredged material  disposal  have been  synthesized in  several DMRP
 reports  (Hirsch  et_ al., 1978;  Stern and Stickle,  1978; Wright,  1978).    These
 studies have concluded that effects on open  ocean planktonic  populations  will  be
 highly  localized  and  transitory,  and  adverse  impacts  may  be  mitigated  by
 stimulated growth  from  nutrient inputs.   Other studies indicate  that long-term
 impacts  on  primary productivity  from disposal  of  dredged  material  are  highly
 unlikely  (Taylor and Saloman,  1968; Wright,  1978; Hirsch j* aj_._, 1978).   Factors
 contributing to the low  potential  impact at  open  ocean sites  include dilution,
 mixing, low levels of contaminants  in dredged material,  and  the patchy and motile
 nature of planktonic populations (Sullivan  and Hancock,  1977).

    Impact on plankton communities at Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4 is expected
 to be  very  limited and  of quite short  duration.   The  volume of  ocean in  which
 plankton  might be  adversely affected  can  be estimated by considering the  volume
 of initial  mixing.  During summer,  with a thermocline  at 10  meters, Shallow-Water
 Alternative Site  4 would have  an  initial  mixing zone  volume  of  2.3 x  106  m3.
 During nonstratified periods, the initial mixing zone volume would be 4.7  x  106
 m3 for Shallow-Water  Alternative Site  4.    Thus, the  initial  mixing  zone  volume
 would be over twice as large as the middle  summer months for  the majority of the
-year.
                                       4-16

-------
   Bloassays  on  grass  shrimp  larvae  revealed  no  significant  mortality  from
suspended participates  (at 100% elutriate  sample concentration) from  Tampa Bay
channel locations, and two of three boat slip sites in St. Petersburg Harbor (see
Elutriate Test  Results,  previous  section).   Dredged material  from  any  future
channel improvement or maintenance projects is predicted to be similar to channel
sediments previously  tested  by bioassay.   Based on  findings  from  other studies
and  bioassay  results, effects  on  plankton  are  expected  to  be  very localized,
transitory,  and insignificant.
NEKTON
   Results  from  the  DMRP  indicate  that  the  nekton  community  is  the  least
sentitive to dredged material  disposal  because  of  their mobility (Wright, 1978;
Peguegnat et al., 1978).  Dredged  material  disposal in  the  vicinity  of  a nekton
community may result in three responses:   (1)  avoidance of the area by sensitive
species due to  residual  turbidity; (2) changes  in  the  benthic  community  due to
burial; and (3)  damage to spawning grounds which may  reduce population  size, or
cause shifts in  local  species dominance.   At Shallow-Water  Alternative  Site 4,
these factors  are anticipated  to  have  little effect  on the  nekton  community.
Although commercial,  fisheries  are  economically important  and  are known  to exist
in  the  vicinity  of  Tampa  Bay,  no  regularly  active fishing  sites  have  been
identified  at  or  in  the  vicinity  of  Shallow-Water   Alternative  Site  4.    In
contrast, rock outcrops near Sites A and B serve as habitats supporting sport and
commercial fishing activities.

BENTHOS
                                                                  t
   Direct effects  on  benthic  populations  from  dredged material  disposal  arise
primarily from burial  and resultant smothering.   Other effects may be turbidity,
high  organic  sediment  loads,  oxygen  depletion,  changes  in  sediment  particle
size, and habitat alteration.   Effects are generally  greatest on benthic fauna,
because of  their limited mobility and the time  required to restore the  area to
predisposal  conditions (Pequegnat et _al_1, 1978; Wright  1978).
                                       4-17

-------
   Turbidity may  adversely affect  benthic  organisms through  changes  in  feeding
habits,  photosynthesis,  and  respiration.     Sublethal   responses  may   include
increased mucus production, pseudofecal production,  reduced feeding  response,  and
increased  respiration  rates,  all  of  which  cause  increased  metabolic  stress
(Pequegnat et al.,  1978).   The degree of impact  will  depend  on concentration  of
           ~^~ ^—~  ,                          (
suspended  particulates, their  duration in  the  water  column,  and  the  type  of
organisms present  (e.g.,  sessile  filter feeders are more affected than burrowing
deposit feeders).

   Adverse turbidity effects could  be relatively  high at  Sites  A and B because of
the scattered presence of hard bottom  flora  and fauna  in  the areas surrounding
the  site.    Impacts  should  be   substantially  less   severe   at   Shallow-Water
Alternative  Site  4 because  very few  hard  bottom  areas occur  either  within  or
surrounding the site.

   If  a  nepheloid  layer  is  present   at  Sites  -A  and   B  or  the   Shallow-Water
Alternative Sites  (which  is  the  case  at the more northerly Mississippi,  Alabama,
Florida Outer Continental  Shelf study  area  used by the Department  of  Interior;
SUSIO,  1974), the  fine particulates from the  dredged  material  may contribute  to
this  layer.   Although it is  not   known  what  type  of  effect  -this  may  have  at
Shallow-Water Alternative Site  4,  it  is  anticipated  that  suspended  sediments
introduced by dredged  material  disposal  will  be indistinguishable from naturally
occurring suspended material.

   Changes in benthic  species  abundance and composition  have been documented  for
ocean  dredged material disposal  areas.   Changes  in community  structure  increase
with  increased  disparity  between site  sediments  and dredged  material  (Pequegnat
il«LL_» 1978).   The dynamics of the receiving  environment  are also an important
consideration;  the more  naturally  variable  the environment,  the  less  effect
dredged material  disposal  will  have (Hirsch et al., 1978).   This occurs  because
organisms living  in high  energy  environments are normally extremely adaptable  to
natural fluctuations.
                                    4-18

-------
   Recolonization  of  dredged material  disposal  sites depends  on  a  number  of
factors,  including the characteristics of the  receiving environment, composition
of the dredged material,  the disparity between  site  and  dredged  sediments,  and
the  indigenous  fauna  (Hirsch  et  al.,  1978).

   In  a four-year  study,  Oliver  et  al.  (1977)  monitored recovery of benthic fauna
following  dredged  material disposal.   The  general pattern of  recovery consisted
of  an  initial   recolonization  by  larvae  of  opportunistic  polychaetes  (e.jg.,
Capitella capitata),  and  immigration  of mobile crustaceans  (cumaceans and certain
amphipods).  This  was followed by a gradual recolonization by  the  predisturbance
fauna.  The  fauna  of  shallow  high energy  environments  recovered quickly,  within 7
to 12 months.

   Based on  the  data  presented above, the impact  of dredged material  disposal  is
expected to  be much less  at Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4 than  at  Sites A  and
B because  of the  very limited extent  of  hard  bottoms.   Adverse  effects  should
also be substantially  lower at Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4 than  Sites A  and
B because of reduced  commercial  and recreational  uses  of the  area.

FISHERIES

   Short-term avoidance  of locally  higher turbidity  is predicted to be  the only
significant  environmental  effect on fisheries.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED  SPECIES

   All Federal  agencies  are  required  to  carry  out  programs  for conservation  of
threatened  or  endangered  species,  and to  ensure that  actions  "...authorized,
funded, or carried out by  them do  not jeopardize the continued  existence  of such
endangered...and threatened species,  or result  in  the  destruction or  modification
of habitat of such species..."  (16 USC  §1536[a]).
                                         4-19

-------
                                    TABLE 4-7
                        SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM EFFECTS ON
                   DISPOSAL SITES OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
             Effect
           Result
1.  Smother benthic organisms
2.  Reduce spawning areas
3.  Reduce phytobenthos cover
4.  Change in grain size distribution
Can be important because of the
high proportion of epibenthic
species

May be important

Locally important

May reduce diversity
Source:  Pequegnat et al., 1978

   Endangered species reported  from  the Gulf of Mexico  (discussed in Chapter 3)
include whales, turtles, the manatee, and the brown pelican.

   Although whales use the Gulf as feeding, mating, and calving grounds, most are
located well offshore, beyond the Continental Shelf.  Site use is  not expected to
interfere in  any way with  whales,  considering  their  substantial  range  and the
limited size of the disposal site.

   Sea turtle populations occur on the west coast of Florida, frequenting shallow
patch  reefs,   rock  ledges,  and  estuarine  lagoons;  the  turtles  also  nest  on
beaches.  Alternative Shallow-Water  Site  4  is in waters  with  very limited patch
reefs.   No  significant impacts  on  turtles  are  anticipated  from  the  use  of
Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4 for dredged material disposal.
                                         4-20

-------
   The feeding  range of the brown  pelican  extends  over all of  the  West Florida
Shelf  in  the   Tampa  area.    However,  any  site  used  should  not   in  any  way
significantly  affect the  feeding  activities  of  the  pelican,  because of  the
infrequent  nature  of dumping  activities,  and because  Alternative  Site  4  is
extremely small in relation to the  total feeding area available.

                                    EFFECTS ON
                      RECREATION, ECONOMICS, AND AESTHETICS

RECREATION

   The nearshore areas of Tampa Bay are  used  for  sport  diving and fishing.   Rock
outcrops  and several  artificial   reefs  occur  offshore,  and most  recreational
diving and fishing activities take  place in these nearshore areas.

   Several designated fish havens and  rock  outcrops  are located near Sites  A and
B.   Moe  (1963)  reported a  charter boat  fishing  area  close to  Sites  A  and B
(Figure 3-11).  Potential  adverse  effects  on  recreational  activities in the area
of Sites  A and  B  are expected to be greater than at  Alternative Site 4, because
of the relative density  of rock outcrops in the vicinity of Sites A and  B.

   Recreational fishing  and diving  activities  are  not known to occur at Shallow-
Water Alternative  Site  4 other than  on  a  very  occasional  basis.   This site is
characterized by  very low  relief   sandy bottoms.   A  recent  study by  the  Corps
corroborates the minimal use  of  Shallow-Water Alternative Site 4 by recreational
fishermen  and   divers.   On  twelve  successive  weekends as  well  as  occasionaly
during the  week between mid-March  and early-June 1983,  the  area of  Site  4 was
overflown by aircraft,  which noted any  vessels  that  were  seen  within  the  area.
On only one occasion was a vessel seen in Site  4;  on  June  1,  1983, a single dive
boat was  seen  anchored  within the  area  of  the site.    On  no  weekend days during
the  surveillance  period  were any vessels seen  within the boundaries  of Site 4.
Determination  of  the  boundaries  of   Site  4 was  aided  by the  presence  of  an
anchored  float  at the center of Site 4, which was emplaced there at the  beginning
                                             4-21

-------
of  the surveillance  period.    Although  party  boat  or  commercial   fishing   or
recreational  diving  may   occur  in  the   general   vicinity  of  Shallow-Water
Alternative Site 4, no  interference with these  activities  is anticipated in  any
way.

ECONOMICS

   Commercial  finfishing activities  exist  seaward of  Sites  A  and  B  and  the
Shallow-Water Alternative Sites; therefore,  there would  be  no direct interference
by disposal operations.  Approved shell fishing areas occur  close to shore  (Figure
3-18), thereby mitigating interference to these  areas during  disposal  operations.

   Small  charter  and  party  boat   operations  may  frequent  areas   around  the
Alternative  Site  4,  although  usually  not within the  actual  site.   Disposal   of
dredged materials  in  the ocean will create  a  localized  turbid  plume  during,  and
immediately  after, disposal  operations,  which may  cause displacement  of  nekton.
However,  the turbid  plume  is  short-lived, and  direct   interference  with  these
fishing operations will  be minimal  and transitory.

AESTHETICS

   Disposal of dredged material will result  in a localized  turbid plume  that will
reduce  water  clarity at  the  site.     Because  Alternative  Site  4   is  located
approximately  18  nmi  offshore,  adverse  impacts  on visual  aesthetics  from  shore
will be non-existent.

                          POTENTIAL UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE
                  ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS  AND  MITIGATING MEASURES

   Potential unavoidable adverse  effects from  dredged material  disposal that  may
occur at Shallow-Water Alternative  Site  4 include:

   0  Localized turbid plumes, which will temporarily lower water quality.
                                         4-22

-------
   0   Probable displacement  of  fish during, or  immediately  following, disposal
      operations.

   0   Smothering  of non-motile  or less  motile benthic  biota by  burial  under
      dredged material.

   0   Change  in sediment composition,  which may alter  abundance,  diversity, or
      community structure.

   The effects described above would occur  at any ODMDS.   Most of these effects,
however,  are  of  short  duration  and have  a limited  effect,  due  to  the  rapid
dilution of the material after  release.   Other  impacts pose little environmental
consequence because of  the  limited  size  of  the  site.    Changes  in  community
structure are  lessened  by  the great  degree of environmental  variability  in  the
high energy,  shallow-water  area.    Based  on all   data  and  information available,
Shallow-Water Alternative Site  4 possesses the  attributes  necessary  to minimize
adverse effects associated with  ocean  dredged material disposal in the Tampa Bay
region.

                              RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
                    SHORT-TERM USE AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

   Tampa  Bay  is  an  important  harbor  for  commercial  shipping  and  fishing
activities.    The 'continued  use  of the  harbor  is essential  for the  economic
viability of the region.  Maintenance dredging of the  harbor is necessary to keep
the harbor open.

   The offshore areas of Tampa  Bay  are diverse,  ranging from  flat .sand to patch
reef habitats.   Hard  bottom habitat  can  be sensitive  to burial  and  siltation
associated with dredged  material  disposal.   Therefore,  the  relationship between
short-term  use  and  long-term   productivity can   be  considerably  improved  by
locating a designated ODMDS  in  an area with the  fewest hard  bottom  areas.   This
                                      4-23

-------
has been done with the designation of Alternative Shallow-Water Site 4, which  has
been demonstrated to have a minimum  of  significant  hard bottom areas, and by  far
the least amount of hard bottom of any  area  studied  in  the  vicinity of Tampa Bay.
                                 IRREVERSIBLE OR
                      IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

   Resources committed upon implementation  of the proposed action  include:

      0   Loss  of the dredged  material  for use as  landfill  or beach  nourishment
         material.
                                                                                  i>
      0   Loss  of energy  in the form of fuel required  to transport barges to  and
         from  the  disposal  site.   Transport to  more distant sites requires more
         fuel  than to nearshore sites.

      0   Loss  of economic  resources  due  to the high  costs  of ocean   disposal  at
         sites  far from  land.   Ocean disposal costs,  however,  may be  lower than
         alternative land-based disposal  costs,  resulting  in  a  net economic  gain.
                                                                                  v
                                                                                  t
      0   Loss  of  constituents, such  as  trace  metals in the  dredged  material,
         because existing  technology  is not adequate for efficient recovery.

      0   Loss  of biota  smothered by dredged material  during  disposal  operations.

      0   Loss  of habitat.
                                        4-24

-------
                                  Chapter 5

                                 COORDINATION

                          Preparers of the Final EIS

   This  Final  EIS  was  issued by  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency's  Ocean
Dumping  EIS  Task  Force.   The document  was  based  on the  Draft  EIS  issued  in
November  1982 by the  EIS Task Force.   Revisions  using  data  supplied  by  EPA's
October  1981,  May  1982,  and  February, March,  and  April   1983,  surveys  were
prepared  by  Jonathan  E. Amson and Joseph  N. Hall.   Mr.  Amson  received  his B.S.
in  Biochemistry  from  St.   Lawrence  University,  and  his  M.S.   from  New  York
University's  Osborn  Laboratories   of  Marine   Science,   specializing  in  marine
physiology  of chondrichthyean and  telepst  vertebrates.   Mr.  Hall  received his
B.S. in  Biology from  Southwestern Missouri  State  University,  and  his  M.S. from
Southeastern  Massachusetts  University,  specializing  in  marine  microbiology and
water quality.

   Reviews of the Draft  EIS-were also provided  by:

        U.S. Army Corps  of Engineers
        Water Resources  Support Center
        Fort  Belvoir, Virginia  22060

        U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
        Region IV
        Ecological Review Section
        345 Court!and Street,  NE
        Atlanta, GA  30365

        EPA Headquarters
           Office of Research  and Development
           Office of General Counsel
           Office of Federal Activities
                                         5-1

-------

-------
                                  Chapter 6

         GLOSSARY, ABBREVIATIONS, AND REFERENCES
                                  GLOSSARY
ABDNDAHCE
ADSORB
ALKALXZtXT?
AMBIENT
AMPHIPODA
ANTHROPOGENIC
'APPROPRIATE
 SENSITIVE
 BENTEIC
 MARINE ORGANISMS
APPROPRIATE
SENSITIVE MARINE
 ORGANISMS
ASSEMBLAGE
The number of  individuals of a species inhabiting a given
area.  Normally, a community of several component species
will  inhabit  an area.   Measuring the abundance  of each
species is one  way of estimating the comparative  importance
of each component species.

To adhere  in an extremely  thin  layer of  molecules to the
surface of a  solid or liquid.

The number of milliequivalents of hydrogen  ions neutralized
by one liter of seawater at 20°C.  Alkalinity of water is
often taken as  an indicator of  its  carbonate, bicarbonate,
and hydroxide content.

Pertaining to  the undisturbed or unaffected conditions cf
an environment.

An order  of  crustaceans  (primarily marine) with laterally
compressed bodies,  which  generally appear similar to
shrimp.   The  order  consists  primarily  of  three  groups:
hyperiideans, which inhabit open ocean areas;  ganmarideans,
which  are primarily  bottom  dwellers;  and  caprellideans,
common fouling  organisms*

Relating  to  the  effects or.  impacts of  man  oo~ nature.
Construction  wastes,  garbage,  and sewage  sludge  are
examples of anthropogenic materials.

Pertaining to  bioassay samples required  for  ocean dumping
permits,' "at least one species  each representing filter-
feeding, deposit-feed ing, and burrowing species chosen  from
among the most  sensitive species accepted  by EPA as being
reliable test organisms to determine the anticipated .impact
on the site"   (40 CFR 5227.27).
                                   '                      *
Pertaining  to  bioassay  samples  required  for  ocean
dumping permits, "at  least  one  species each  representative
of  phytoplankton  or  zooplankton,  crustacean or mollusk,
and • fish   species  chosen from  among the  most  sensitive
species documented  in the scientific literature or  accepted
by EPA  as being reliable test  organisms  to determine the
anticipated impact of  the  wastes  on the  ecosystem at the
disposal site"   (40 CFR 5227.27).
                            \
A group of organisms sharing a common habitat.
                                     6-1

-------
BACKGROUND
LEVEL
BASELINE
 CONDITIONS
BASELIHE SURVEYS
BASELIHE
 DATA.

BENTHOS
BIOACCTHDIATIOS
BIOASSAY
BXOMASS



BI06EHIC

BIOTA

BIOTIC GROUPS


BLOOM
BOD
The  naturally  occurring concentration  of a  substance
within  an  environment  which  has  not  been  affected  by
unnatural additions of that substance.

The characteristics of an environment  before the onset of
an  action  which  can alter  that  environment;  any data
serving as a basis for measurement of other data.

Surveys and data collected prior  to the  initiation of  AKD
actions which may alter an existing environment.
All marine organisms (plant or animal) living on or  in  the
bottom of the sea.

The  uptake  and  assimilation  of  materials  (e.g.,  heavy.
metals)   leading  to   elevated  concentrations  of   the
substances within organic tissue, blood,  or body fluid.
                                          i
A method for determining the toxicity of  a substance  by  the
effect of varying  concentrations  on'growth or  survival of
suitable  plants,  animals or  micro-organisms;  the concen-
tration  which  is lethal  to  SOZ of  the  test organisms or
causes a defined effect in 50* of the test organisms, often
expressed in  terms of lethal  concentration (LC.Q)  or
effective concentration (EC,.), respectively.

The quantity (wet weight) of living  organisms inhabiting a
given area or volume at  any  tiae; often  used as a means of
measuring the productivity of an ecosystem.

Produced by living organisms.

Animals and plants inhabiting a given region.
Assemblages   of  organisms  which   are
structurally, or taxonomically similar.
ecologically,
BOREAL
A  relatively high  concentration of  phytoplankton  in  a body
of water  resulting from rapid  proliferation -during  a time
of favorable growing  conditions  generated by nutrient  and
sunlight availability.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand  or Biological Oxygen  Demand;  the
amount  of  dissolved   oxygen  required  by  aerobic  micro-
organisms  to  degrade  organic matter  in  a sample of water
usually held in the dark at 20°C  for 5 days; used  to  assess
the  potential   rate of, substrate  degradation  and  oxygen
utilization in aquatic ecosystems.

Pertaining to the northern geographic regions.
                                     6-2

-------
CEPHALOPODS



CETACEANS

CHAETOCHATHA



     X N I T Y
CHLOROPHYLL
CHLOROPHYLLS
COELENTEHATA
COLXF08MS
COHTIHEKTAL R*SE
Exclusively  marine  animals  constituting  the  most  highly
evolved class of the phylum Molluscs (e.g., squid,  octopus,
and Hautilus).

Large marine mammals represented as whales and  porpoises.

A  phylum  of  small  planktonic,   transparent,  wormlike
invertebrates known as arrow-worms; they  are often used  as
water-mass tracers.

The  quantity of  chlorine equivalent  to  the  quantity  of
halogens  contained  in 1  kg of  sea water; may  be  used  to
determine seavater salinity and density.

A  specific  chlorophyll  pigment characteristic  of  higher
plants and  algae;  frequently  used  as a  measure  of
phytoplaakton biomass.

A group of oil-soluble, green plant pigments which  function
as  photoreceptors  of  light  energy for photosynthesis  and
primary productivity.

A large diverse phylum of primarily marine animals, members
possessing  two cell   layers  and   an  incomplete digestive
system,  the  opening   of  which  is usually  surrounded  by
tentacles.  This group includes hydroids,  jellyfish, corals
and anemones.

Bacteria residing in  the  colons of mammals;  generally used
as indicators of fecal pollution.

A gentle  slope with a generally smooth  surface between the
Continental Slope and the deep ocean floor.
CONTINENTAL SEEL?  That part of the Continental Margin adjacent to a continent
                   extending  from  the  low  water line  to  a depth,  generally
                   200m, where the Continental Shelf and the Continental 'Slope
                   join.

CONTINENTAL SLOPE  That  part  of  the  Continental  Margin  consisting, of  the
                   declivity  from  the  edge of  the  Continental Shelf down  to
                   the Continental Rise.
CONTOUR LINE
CONTROLLING
 DEPTH
COPEPODS
A  line on  a  chart  connecting  points  of equal  elevation
above or below a reference plane, usually mean sea level.

The least depth in the approach or channel to an area, such
as a port, governing the maximal draft of vessels which can
enter.                   •

A  large  diverse  group  of  small. planktonic  crustaceans
representing an important link in oceanic food chains.
                                     6-3

-------
CRDSTACEA
CURRENT DROGUE
CURRENT METES


DECAPOD*



DEMERSAL

DBHSITY



DETRITI70RES
DIATCMS
DIPFUSIOH
DIFOFLAGELLATES
DISCHARGE


DISPERSION


DISSOLVES OXIGEN
A  class  of arthropods consisting  of animals with jointed
appendages and  segmented  exoskeletons  composed  of chitin.
This class includes barnacles,  crabs, shrimps  and  lobsters.

A  surficial  current  measuring  assembly  consisting  of  a
weighted current cross,  underwater  sail  or  parachute and an
attached surface buoy;  it moves with the  current so that
average current velocity and direction can  be  obtained.

An  instrument  for  measuring the  speed  of  a  current, and
often the direction of flow.

The largest order of crustaceans; members have five sets of
locomotor  appendages, each joined  to  a  segment  of the
thorax; includes crabs,  lobsters, and shrimps.

Living at or near the bottom of the sea.

The- mass per unit volume of a  substance, usually  expressed
in grams per cubic  centimeter  (Ig  water in reference to a
volume of 1 cc 6 4°C).
                                                *         •
Animals  which  feed  on detritus;  also  called  deposit-
feeders .

Product of decomposition or  disintegration; dead  organisms
and fecal material.

Microscopic phytoplankton characterized by a  cell vail of
overlapping  silica  plates.'    Sediment  and  water  column
populations  vary  widely   in response   to  changes  in
environmental conditions.

Transfer  of  material  (e.g., salt)  or  a  property  (e.g.,
temperature)  under  the  influence  of a concentration
gradient;  the   net  movement  is from   an  area  of  higher
concentration to an area of lower concentration.

A  large diverse group of  flagellated phytoplankton with or
without a  rigid  outer  shell,  some  of   which feed  on
particulate matter.   Some members  of .this  group are
responsible for toxic red-tides.

The region of water  affected by a  discharge of waste  which
can be distinguished from the surrounding water.

The dissemination of  discharged matter  over large areas by
natural processes (e.g., currents).

The quantity of oxygen (expressed  in mg/liter, ml/liter or
parts  per million)  dissolved  in a  unit volume of water.
Dissolved  oxygen (DO) is  a  key parameter in the  assessment
of water quality.
                                     6-4

-------
DIVERSITY
(species)
IXMTHAKT SPECIES
EBB CORRENT,
 EBB TIDE

ECH1HODBFMS
ECONOMIC
RESOURCE ZONE
ECOSYSTEM
EDDY
ENDEMIC

ENTRAIN

EPIFADNA

EPIPE1AGIC



ESTuARY
FAUNA
A  statistical  measurement  which  generally  combines  the
measure of  the  total  number  of  species  in a  given
environnent and the number of  individuals of each species.
Species diversity is high when it  is difficult  to predict
the  species  or  the  importance  of  a  randomly  chosen
individual organism, and low  when  an accurate  prediction
can be made.

A  species  or  group of  species which,  because  of  their
abundance, size,  or control of  the energy  flow, strongly
affect a community.

Tidal current moving away'from land  or down  a tidal stream.
Exclusively marine animals  which are distinguished by
radial symnetry,  internal  skeletons of calcareous  plates,
and  water-vascular  systems  which  serve  the needs of
locomotion, respiration, nutrition,  or perception;  includes
starfishes, .sea urchins, sea cucumbers and sand dollars.

The  oceanic  area within 200  nmi from  shore in which the
adjacent coastal  state possesses exclusive  rights to the
living and non-living marine resources.

The  organisms  in  a  community  together with  their  physical
and chemical environments.

A circular mass  of  water within a larger water mass  which
is usually formed where currents  pass  obstructions,  either
between  two  adjacent  currents  flowing  counter  to  each
other, or  along  the edge of a permanent 'current.   An eddy
has  a  certain  integrity and life history, circulating and
drawing energy from a flow of larger scale.

Restricted or peculiar to a locality or region.
                                                      ' *
To draw in and transport by the flow of a  fluid.

Animals which live on or near the bottom of the sea.

Of, or pertaining, to', that portion of the  oceanic  zone into
which  enough  light  penetrates  to  allow  photosynthesis;
generally extends from the surface to about  200m.

A  semienclosed coastal  body  of  water which  has  a  free
connection to  the sea,  commonly  the lower end of  a river,
and  within which  the  mixing  of  saline  and  fresh  water
occurs.                                         '
              v^
The  animal life of any location,  region, or period..
                                     6-5

-------
FESFISH
•FLOCCBLATION
FLOOD TIDE,
 FLOOD CU2REHT

FLOBA

GASTROPODS
GYRE
     VOB£S
 HOPPER DEJQXZ
HYD40GKAPHY
 ICHXEYOPLAHKTOH


 INDICATOR SPECIE'S


*
 INDIGENOUS


 IKFAUNA

 INITIAL MIXING



 IB SITU
 ISTEKIX DISPOSAL.
 SITZS

 Ifi *KK1Rff FAT^ft
Term used to distinguish "normal" fish (e.g., with fins and
capable of  swimming)  from shellfish, usually  in reference
to the commercially important species.

The  process of  aggregating  a number of  small,  suspended
particles into larger masses.

Tidal current moving toward land, or up a tidal stream.
The plant life of any location, region, or period.

Molluscs which possess a distinct head (generally with eyes
and tentacles),  a broad, flat  foot,  and usually a  spiral
shell (e.g., snails).

A closed circulation system, usually larger than an eddy.

Animals which feed chiefly on plants.
                                             t
                                                     *
A self-propelled vessel with capabilities to dredge,  store,
transport, and dispose of dredged materials.

That  science  vhich  deals  with  the  measurement  of  the
physical features of  waters and their marginal  land  areas,
with  special  reference  to  the  factors  which affect  safe
navigation, and  the publication  of  such information  in a
form suitable for use by navigators.

That portion  of  the planktonic mass  composed of  fish eggs
and weakly motile fish larvae.

An  organism  so  strictly  associated  with  particular
environmental conditions that its presence is indicative of
the existence of such conditions.

Having  originated in, being  produced, growing,  or  living
naturally in a particular region or environment; native.

Aquatic-animals which live in the bottom sediment. •

Dispersion  or diffusion of liquid,  suspended particulate,
and solid  phases  of a waste material- which occurs within 4
hours after duaping*

(Latin] In  the  original  or natural  setting  (in  the
environment).

Ocean  disposal  sites tentatively approved  for use  by the
EPA.

Animals lacking a backbone or internal skeleton.
                                      6-6

-------
ISOBATH
ISOTHERMAL
KASST
LARVA
LITTORAL .
LONGSHORE CURRENT
LOBAH-C
 A line on  a chart connecting points  of equal depth belov
 mean sea  level.

 Approximate  .equality  of   temperature  throughout   a
 geographical area.

 A type of  topography formed  over  limestone,  'dolomite, or
 gypsum,  caused by dissolution, and characterized by  closed
 depressions or sinkholes,  caves,  and underground drainage.

•A young  and iamature  form  of an organism which must usually
 undergo  one or more  form  and size changes before assuming
 characteristic features of the adult.

 Of or. pertaining  to  the  seashore,  especially the regions
 between  tide lines.

 A current which flows  in  a direction parallel to a  coast-
 line.

 Long Range Aid to Navigation, type  C;  low-frequency radio
 navigation system having a range of approximately 1,500 mi
 radius.
     SHIP CHANNEL  The designated shipping corridor leading into a harbor.
MAIHTEHAHCE
DREDGING

MESOPELAGIC
MICRONDTRIENTS
MIXED LAYER
MOLLUSCA
MONITORING
NEKTON
REMATOM
 Periodic dredging  of a waterway,  necessary for  continued
 use of the waterway.

 Pertaining to  depths of  200m to  1,000m below  the  ocean
 surface.

 Microelements,  trace  elements,  or  substances  required  in
 minute amounts; essential  for normal growth  and development
 of an organism.
                                                        *
 The upper layer of the  ocean which  is  well mixed by  wind
 and wave activity.

 A  phylum  of  unsegmented  animals  most of which  possess  a
 calcareous  shell;  includes   snails,  mussels,  clams,  and
 oysters.           .                  .      •

 As  used herein,  observation of. environmental  effects  of
 disposal' operations  through biological  and chemical  data
 collection and  analyses.

 Free swinning  aquatic  animals which move independently  of
 water currents.

 A  phylum  of  free-living  and parasitic  unsegmented  worms;
 found in a wide variety of habitats.
                                     6-7

-------
HE&ITIC



NEUSTON


HBISABCE SPECIES



OMBTVOROuS
O&GANOBALOGEH
PESTICIDES
OXIDE


PARAMETER


PATBDGEH

PCB(a)
PELAGIC
PERTURBATION
pH-
PHOTIC ZONE
 PHYTOPLANKTON
 Pertaining  to  the region  of shallow  water  adjoining the
 seacoast, and .extending  from  the  low-tide  mark to a depth
 of about 200m.

 Organisms which are associated with the upper 5  to 20 cm of
 water; mainly composed of copepods and  ichthyoplankton.

 Organisms  of  no  commercial value,  which,  because  of
 predation or  competition, may  be harmful  to  commercially
 important organisms.

 Pertaining  to   animals  which  feed  on  animal  and  plant
 matter.

 Pesticides whose  chemical  constitution  includes  the
 elements carbon and hydrogen, plus a common element of the
 halogen family:  bromine, chlorine, fluorine, or iodine.

 One  of 'the salts of orthophosphoric   acid;  an essential
 nutrient for plant growth.

 A binary chemical compound in which oxygen  is combined with
 another element, metal, nonnetal,  gas,  or radical.

 Values  or  physical  properties  which  describe  the
 characteristics or behavior of a set of variables.

 An entity producing or capable of  producing disease.

 Polychlorinated  biphenyl(s);  any of  several   chlorinated
 compounds having  various  industrial applications.   PCB's.
 are highly  toxic pollutants which  tend  to accumulate in the
 environment.

 Pertaining  to  water   of  the  open   ocean  beyond  the
. Continental Shelf and above the abyssal zone.

 A  disturbance  of  a natural or  regular  system;  any
 •departures  from an assumed steady  state of  a  system.

 The  acidity or alkalinity "of a  solution, determined by the
 negative  logarithm  to   the  base   10  of 'the  hydrogen ion
 concentration  (in gran-atoms  per  liter), ranging from 0 to
 14 (lower than 7 is acid, higher than 7 is  alkaline).

 The  layer  of  a  body of  water  that  receives  sufficient
 sunlight  for photosynthesis.

 Minute passively  floating plant  life  in a body of water;
 the  base of the food  chain in the sea.
                                     6-8

-------
PLAHKXOB
PLDME
P0L1CHAETA
PRECIPITATE
PRIMARY
PRODUCTIVITY
PROTCZOAHS



QUALITATIVE

QUAKTI1ATIVE

RECRUITMENT


RELEASE ZORE*



RDHOFF


SALIHITY


SHELF WAXES.



SHELLFISH
 The passively floating or  weakly  swinging,  usually minute
 animal and plant  life  in  a  body of water.

 A patch of turbid water, caused by  the suspension of fine
 particles following -a  disposal operation..

 The largest class of the  phylum Annelida (segmented worms);
 benthic  marine  worms  distinguished  by  paired,  lateral,
 fleshy appendages provided with bristles (setae)  on most
 segments.                ...

"A solid  which separates  from a solution or  suspension bj
 chemical  or physical change.

 The amount of organic  matter synthesized  by produces
 organisms (primarily  plants) from inorganic substances pez
 unit tine  and volume  of  water.-  Plant respiration may oz
 may  not  be  subtracted  (net  or  gross  productivity,
 respectively).

 Mostly microscopic,  single-celled  animals which constitute
 one of the largest  populations  in  the ocean.   Protozoans
 play a major role in the  recycling of nutrients.

 Pertaining to the non-numerical assessment of a parameter.

 Pertaining to the numerical measurement of a parameter.

 Addition  to a  population of organisms by  reproduction oz
 immigration of new individuals.

 An area defined by the locus of  points 100m from a vessel
 engaged in dumping  activities; will  never exceed the total
 surface area of the duapsite.

 That portion of  precipitation  upon land which ultimately
 reaches streams,  rivers,  lakes and oceans.

 The amount of salts  dissolved in water; expressed 'in parts
 per thousand (°/oo, or ppt).
    i

 Water  which originates in, or can be  traced  to  the
 Continental Shelf,   .differentiated  by  characteristic
 temperature and salinity.

 Any invertebrate, usually of connercial importance, having
 a rigid  outer  covering,  such as  a shell  or exoskeleton;
 includes  some  molluscs  and  arthropods;  term  is  the
 counterpart of  finfish.

 A shipboard observer, assigned by the U.S.  Coast Guard tc
 ensure that a waste-laden  vessel  is dumping  in accordance
 with permit specifications.             '
                                     6-9

-------
SljOPE WATER
SPECIES
STANDARD
ELUTRIATE
 ANALYSIS

STANDING STOCK
SUBSTRATE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TBERMOCLZHE
TRACE METAL OR
ELEMENT  •
TRAHSMITTAHCE
 TREHD ASSESSMENT
 SURVEYS

 TROPHIC  LEVELS
 TURBIDITY
 VECTOR
Water which orginates from, occurs at, or  can be  traced  to
the  Continental  Slope,  differentiated  by  characteristic
temperature and salinity.

A  group of  morphologically similar  organisms  capable  of
interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

A  test  used  to  determine  the  types   and  amounts  of
constituents which can be  extracted  from a known  volume  of
sediment by mixing with a known, volume of water.

The biomass or abundance of living material per unit volume
of water, or area of sear-bottom.

The  solid material  upon  which  an  organism  lives, or  to
which it is attached (e.g., rocks, sand).

Systematic "observation  of  an  area by visual, electronic,
photographic, or other  means for. the purpose of ensuring
compliance with  applicable laws,  regulations,  permits, and
safety.

Finely  divided  particles of a solid  temporarily  suspended
in a liquid (e.g., soil particles in water).

A  vertical  temperature gradient  in  some layer  of  a body of
water,  which  is appreciably  greater than the  gradients
above or below it; a layer  in which such a gradient occurs.

An element  found in  the  environaent  in  extremely  small
quantities; usually includes metals constituting  O.iZ
(1,000  ppm) or less, by weight, in the earth's crust.

In defining water clarity,  an instrument which can transmit
a  known quantity of  light through a  standard distance  of
water  to  a collector.   The percentage of  the beam's energy
which reaches the collector is expressed as transmittance.

Surveys conducted over  long  periods  to  detect  shifts  in
envirotnental conditions within a region.

Discrete  steps  along  a  food  chain  in   which   energy  is
transferred  from  the  primary  producers   (plants)  to
herbivores  and  finally  to  carnivores and decomposers.  -

Cloudy  or  hazy  appearance in  a  naturally clear liquid
caused  by a suspension of colloidal  liquid droplets,  fine
solids, or  small organisms.

A straight or curved line representing both direction and
magnitude.
                                      6-10

-------
VAXES. MASS         A  body of  water,  identified  by  its  temperature-salinity
                   values, or chemical composition, consisting of a mixture of
                   two or more water types.

ZOOPLAHKTON        Weakly swimming aniaals whose distribution  in  the  ocean is
                   ultimately determined by current movements.
                                     6-11

-------
                                ABBREVIATIONS
BLM           Bureau of Land Management
C             Carbon
*C            Degrees Centigrade
CE   .         U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CFR        '   Code of Federal Regulations  .
DA            District Administrator (CE)
DMRP          Dredged Material Research Program
DO     '      Dissolved Oxygen
DOC           U.S. Department of Comerce
DOC           dissolved organic carbon
DOI           U.S. Department of the Interior
EIS           environmental impact statement
EPA           17. S. Environmental Protection Agency  .
FDHR          Florida Departaent of Natural Resources
FtfPCA         Federal Water Pollution Control Act
FWPCAA        Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
g             gram(a)
hr       •     hour(a)
IEC          * Interstate Electronics Corporation
QfCO          Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization
k             kilogram(s)   .
kHz           kilohertz
km            kilameter(s)
lot            knot(s)
MAFIA •       Mississippi, Alabama, Florida
m             meterCs)
m             square meter
mg            milligram(s)
mm            millimeter(s)
MP&SA       .  Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
M             north
ng            nanogram
NEPA          National Environmental Policy Act

                                     6-12

-------
               nautical mile( s )
               Rational Marine Fisheries Service
 NQAA          National Oceanic' and Atmospheric  Administration
 800           Naval Oceanographic Office
 NTU           Nephelometric turbidity units
 HUSC          Naval Underwater Systems Center
 OCS           Outer Continental Shelf
 OIMBS          Ocean Dredged Material  Disposal Site
 PL             Public Lav
 POC           particulate  organic carbon
 ppb           parts per  billion
 ppa           parts per  million
 ppt           parts per  thousand (°/oo)
 /oo          parts per  thousand (ppt)
 Z              percent.                                        .
 RA             Begional Administrator  (EPA)
 s              second(s)
 SPM           suspended  particulate matter
 T              transmissivity
 TOG            total organic carbon
 TSS            total  suspended  solids
             •
p   .         micron
 ng            microgram(s)
 pg-at         microgram  atom(s)
 umole         micronole
 USCC           U.S.  Coast Guard
 USGS          U.S.  Geological  Survey
V             west
wt            weight
yd            yard(s)
yd            cubic  yard(s)
yr            year(s)
                                     6-13

-------
At wood, D.K.,  P. Duncan,  M.C. Stalcup,  and M.J* Barcelona.    1976.   Ocean
     thermal energy conversion:  resource assessment and environmental impact
     for proposed Puerto Rico Site.  University of P.R., Mayaguez.

Bastian, D.F.   1975*   Effects of  open-water disposal of dredged material on
    •bottom topography along Texas  Golf coast.  HTXS AD-A002  659.

Betzer, P.R., M.A.B.  Peacock, R.P. Jolly* '  1979.  Trace metals in  suspended
     matter and  zooplankton of the north east  Golf  of Mexico.   p  991-1068.
     In:  The Mississippi,  Alabama* Florida,  Outer continental Shelf Baseline
     Environmental Survey, MAFIA,  1977-1978.  Vol. II-B:   Compendium of Work
     element reports*

BLM.  See U.S. Bureau of Land Management*                    ,               !

Boknnievicz, H.J.,  J. Gebert, R.B.  Gordon,  J.L* Biggins, P*  Kaminsky, C.C.
     Pilbeam, M. Head, and C. Tuttle.  1978.   Field study of* the mechanics of
     the placement  of dredged material at open-water disposal  sites.   Tech.
     Rep. D-78-7.  U.S. Army Engineer Waterways  Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
   .  MS.

Brannon, J.M.    1978.   Evaluation of dredged  material  pollution potential.
     Tech. .Rep.  DS-78-6.   U.S.  Army  Engineer  Waterways  Experiment Station,.
     Vicksburg, US.  39 pp.

Burks, S.L. and R.H. Engler.  1978.  Water quality impacts of aquatic dredged
     material.disposal (Laboratory  Investigations).  Tech. Rep. DS-78-4.  U.S.
     Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, US.

Cairns,  S*D.    1977.   Memoirs of  the Hourglass  Cruises:  .  Stony  Corals.   I
     Caryohylliina  and Dendrophylliina  (Anthoroa Scleractina).    Fla.  Dept.
     Sat* Res., Uar* Res. Lab. 3(4):l-27.

Chave, K.E.  and J.N.  Miller.  1977.   Baseline  studies and  evaluation of the
     physical,  cheaical,  and biological  characteristics of  nearshore dredge
     spoil  disposal,  Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.   Part 3:   Immediate  effects of
     dumping:    monitoring  studies.   Final  report.    Prepared  for Pacific.
     Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Honolulu. HI.   Environ-:
     mental Center, Univ. of Hawaii*

Chew, P., J.J. Bein, and J.H.G. Stimson.  1959.   A data report of Florida Gulf*
     coast  cruises.    Tech.  Rep.  to  OKR   by  Univ.  of Miami,  Uar.  Lab.:
     p. 59-109.                           .             ,
                                     6-14

-------
Chittenden,  M.E.  and  J.D.  McEachran.   1976.    Composition,  ecology,  and
     dynamics of demersal fish communities on the northwestern Gulf of Mexico
     Continental Shelf* with  a similar synopsis for  the entire Gulf.  Texas
     A&H Univ., Sea Grant Coll.  TAMU SG-76-208.

Cobb,  S.P.,  C.R..  Futch,  and  O.K. Comp.   1973.   Memoirs of the Hourglass
     Cruises.  The rock shrimp, Sicyonia breulrostris  Stiapson 1971  (Decapoda,
     Pennaeidae).   Fla. Dept.  Hat. Res.. Mar.  Res. Lab.  3(l):l-37.

Collard, S.B. and C.H. D'Asaro.   1973.   Benthic Invertebrates of the Eastern
     Golf  of Mexico.   In:   A suanary of  knowledge  of the  Eastern  Gulf of
     Mexico.  State Univ. System of Florida lust. Oceanogr.  (SUSIO).

Collins, L.A.  and  J.B. Finucane.   1974*   Hydrographic observations in Tampa
     Bay -and adjacent  waters, May  1971  through  Apr 1973.  U.S. Dept. Comm.
     Data Rep. 87i   146 pp*

Daves, C.T. and J.F. von Breedveld.  1969.  Memoirs of  the  Hourglass  Cruises:
     Benthic marine algae.  Mar.  Res. Lab., Fla. Dept.  Hat. Res. Vol. I, Part
     XX.  45 pp.

Daves, C.L., S.A. Earle, and'F.C. Croley.   1967.  The  offshore  benthic flora
     of the  southwest coast of Florida.  Bull. Mar.  Sci. 17(1):212.

DOC. See U.S. Department of Commerce.

Doyle, L.J.,  W.  Huang, T. Ma you, G.  Eayward, D. Hamm, and 7.  Hall.  1974.
     Standard  sediment  parameters.    In:    Final  report on  the  baseline
     environmental  survey  of  the  MAFLA lease areas,  CT 1974.   State Univ.
     System of Fla. last. Oceanogr. (SUSIO).

Doyle, L.J.  and T.N.  Sparks.   1980.   Sediments  of the Mississippi,  Alabama,
     and Florida (MAFLA) Continental Shelf.   J. Sed. Petr.  50(3):905-916.

Dragovich, A., J.A. Kelly,  and J.H. Finucane.   1966.  Hydrographic  observa-
     tions  of Tampa Bay,  Charlotte Harbor,  Pine  Island  Sound, Florida and
     adjacent  waters in  Gulf of Mexico, Feb  1964-Feb 1965.   U.S.  Fish  &
     Wildlife Data Rep. 13.   pp 8-66.

Eldred,  B., R.M.  Ingle,  K.D. Voodburn,  R..F. Button,  and H.  Jones.  1963.
     Biological  obsrevations  on  the  commercial  shrimp,  Penaeus duorarua,
     Burkenroad, in Florida waters.  Fla.  Sta.  Bd.  Conserv., Mar. Lab. Ser.
     Ho. 60.  139 pp.

El-Sayed,  S., V. Sackett, L. Jeffrey, A. Fredricks, fc. Saunders, P.  Conger,  G..
     Fry*ell, K. Steidinger,  and  S. Earle.   1972.   Serial Atlas of  the Marine
     Environment Folio 22.  Chemistry, Primary Productivity, and Benthic Algae
     of the  Gulf of Mexico, Amer. Geogr. Soc.  29 pp.

EPA.   See  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.

EHA.   See  Espey, Huston and Associates.
                                     6-15

-------
Emery, K.O. and  E.  Ccbupi.  1972.   Western North Atlantic ocean topography,
     rocks, structure, water, life and sediments.  Amer. Petr. Geol. Mem. 17.
     Tulsa, OK. '532 pp.

Espey,  Huston and  Assoc.,  Inc.    1979.    Environmental  assessment  report,
     proposed multipurpose deepwater port and crude oil distribution systems,
     Galveston,  TX.   Board of  Trustees,  Galveston Wharves, Horthville
     Industries Corp.  417 pp.

Estes, E.L. and X.J. Scrodato.  1977.  Aquatic disposal field investigations,
     Galveston, Texas, offshore disposal site.  Appendix A:  investigation of
     the hydraulic  regime and physical nature  of sedimentation.   Texas A&M
     University,  Oept. Mar. Sci.  134 pp.

Fernandez-Partogos, J.  1975.  Meteorological disturbances.  In:  Compilation
     and summation of historical  and existing physical  oceanographic data from
     the eastern Gulf of Mexico, in.support of the creation  of a MAFIA sampling
     program.  BIM  08550-CT4-16.   State  Univ. 'Syst.  of Fla.  Inst. Oceanogr.
     (SUSIO).                                                * •.               j

Finucane, J.H. and  A.  Dragovich.   1966.   Bydrographic observations of Tampa
     Bay, Florida and  adjacent Gulf of Mecico.   U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Data
     Rep. 14.

Fisher, N.S., L.B.  Graham,  E.J.  Carpenter,  and  C*F.  Vurster.    1973.
     Geographic differences  in phytoplankton sensitivity  to  PCB's.  Nature.  .
     241;548-549.

Fisher,  N.S.   1977.    On  the   differential  sensitivity  of  estuarine  and
     open-ocean diatoms to exotic chemical stress.  Amer. Nat. 111:871-895.

Florida Dept. of. Natural Resources.   Shellfish Harvesting Atlas.

Florida Sea  Grant.   1979*  Recreational use of reefs  in Florida:  Artificial
     and natural.  Fla. Sea Grant Coll. Mar. Adv. Prog. Map-9.

Forstner,  U.  and G.T.W.  Wittmann.    1979.   Metal pollution  in the  aquatic
     environment.  Springer-Verlag,  NT.

Gould,  H.R.  and  R.H. Stewart. .  1956.   Continental terrace sediments  in the
     northeastern Gulf of Mexico.   In:    J.L.  Hough  and  H.W.  Menard  (eds*)
     Finding  Ancient Shorelines.   Society  of  Economic  Paleontologists  and
     Mineralogists.  Special Pub. 3, Tulsa, OK.

Graf,  W.H.    1971.    Hydraulics  of  sediment transport.   McGraw-Hill  Book
     Company.  531 pp.

Graham,  H.W., J.M. Amisan,  and  K.T. Marvin.   1954.    Phosphorus  content of
     waters along the vest coast  of  Florida.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
     Spec. Sci. Rep. Fisheries No. 122.  43 pp.

Grassel,  J.F.   1967.     Influence of  environmental variations  on  special
     diversity in benthic communities of  the  Continental Shelf  and  Slope.
     Fh.D. Thesis, Drake Univ.  194 pp.

                                     6-16

-------
Greenman,  N.N.  and  R.J.  LeBlanc.    1956.    Recent  marine  sediments and
     environments of northwest Gulf of Mexico.  Bull. Amer. Assoc.  Petr.  Geol.
     40:813-847.

Guntber, G.   1967.   Some relationships of  estuaries  to the fisheries of the
     Golf of  Mexico.   In:  G.H.  Lauff (ed.).'  Estuaries, p. 621-638.   Amer.
     Assoc. Advance. Sci. Pub. 83.

Gunter, G., R.H. Williams, C.C. Davis, and  F.G.W. Smith.   1948.  Catastrophic
     mass mortality  of marine animals  and  coincident phytoplankton bloom on
     the  West  Coast  of Fla.  Hov  1946-Aug  1947.    Ecological  Monographs
     18(3):311-324.                                                 -.

fiela, I., D.  de  Sylva, and  C.A. Carpenter.   1955.   Drift currents in the red
     tide area of the easternmost region of the  Gulf of Mexico.  Rep. to Fla.
     Bd. of Cons., Univ. Miami Mar. Lab.,  55-11,  31  pp.
    -,                                         *
Henningsen, l.F.   1977.   Temporal effects  of  dredging and dredged material
     disposal on nekton in the offshore waters of Galveston, Texas, with  notes
     on.the natural histories of  the most abundant taxa.  M.S. Thesis,  Biol.
     Sept., Texas A&M Univ.  228 pp.

Henry, C.A*.   1976.  A study of  offshore benthic communities in natural  areas
     and in areas  affected by dredging and dredged material disposal.  M.S.
     Thesis, Texas A&M Univ.  186  pp.

Hirsch, N.D., L.H.  DiSalvo, and R. Peddicord.  1978.  Effects of dredging and
     disposal on aquatic  organisms.   Dredged Material  Res* Prog.  Tech. Rep.
     05-78-5.   Prepared for U.S.  Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
     Vlcksburg, MS.
             I
Bobbie, J.E.  1974.  Ecosystems receiving phosphate wastes.  In:   H.T.  Odua,
     B.J. Copeland, and E.A. HeMahan (eds.)  Coastal Ecological Systems of the
     U.S. Conserv.  Found., Washington, DC.                            •

Holliday, B.W.   1978.    Processes affecting  the  fate  of dredged material.
     Tech. Rep.  DS-78-2.    U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
     ?icksburg, MS.

Hopkins, T.S.  1974.   Characterization of the epifaunal and epiflora benthic
     communities in the MAFLA lease  areas.   In: Final report on the baseline.
     environmental survey on the MAFLA lease areas,  CT 1974 State Univ. System
     of Fla. lust.  Oceanogr. (SUSIO).  Vol.  V.

Houde, fi.D.  and K. Chitty.   1976.   Seasonal abundance  and distribution of
     zoo plankton, fish eggs,  and  fish larvae in the eastern Gulf of Mexico,
     1972-74.   NOAA Tech.  Rep.  HMFS SSRF-701.

Huberts, J.M.   1967.   A study of  the Loop Current in the  eastern  Gulf of
     Mexico.  Unpub.  Rep., Texas A&M Univ.   92 pp.
                                     6-17

-------
Huff, J.A. and S.P. Cobb.  1979.   Penaeoid  and Sergestoid Shrimps (Crustacia:
     Decapods)*  Memoirs of the Hourglass Cruises-  Fla. Dept.  Nat. Res., Mar.
     Res. Lab. 5(4):1-102.

Hulbert, E.M. and N. Corwin.  1972.  A note on the phytoplankton distribution
     in the offshore waters of  the eastern  and central  Gulf  of Mexico.  Woods
     Hole Oceanographie Institute.  Carib. J.  Sci. 12(1-2):29-38.

Ichiye, T.,  Ban—Hsiung Kno,  and M.R. Games.   1973.  Assessment of currents
     and hydrography of the eastern Golf of Mexico.  Contrib. So.  601, Dept.
     Oceanogr., Texas ASM Dniv.                    '

Jenne, E.A.   1968.  Controls  of Mn, Fe,  Co, Si, Cu, and Zn  concentrations in
     soils and  water:  • The significant  role  hydrous Mn  and Fe oxides.  In:
     R..A. Baker (ed.) Trace inorganics in water*   Advances in Chem. Ser. 73.
     p. 337-338.
                                          •                   _
Jones, Edmunds  and  Assoc.,  Inc.   1979.   Results of bioassay  evaluation of
     sediments froa St. Petersburg Harbor, Florida.  Final report prepared for
     Dept. of the Army, Jacksonville Dist.,  Corps of Engineers.' 32 pp.

     1980.   Results of bioassay  evaluation of  sediments  from  Tampa Harbor,
     Florida.   Final  report  prepared  for  Dept.  of the Army,  Jacksonville
     Dist., Corps of Engineers.  54 pp.

Jordan, C.L.   1973.  The Physical Environment:   Climate.   In;  A summary of
     the knowledge of the eastern Gulf  of Mexico.   State Univ.  System Fla.
    . Inst.'Oceanogr. (SUSIO)..

Jordan,  G.F. and  H.B*  Stewart.    1959.   Continental  Slope  off southwest
     Florida.  Bull. Aner. Assoe.  of Petr. Ceol. 43(5):974-991.
              •                               *
Joyce,  E.A.   and  J. Williams.    1969.    Memoirs  of the  Hourglass Cruises:
     rationale  and pertinent data.   Fla. Dept. Nat.  Res.,  Mar.  Res.  Lab
     1(1):1-50.

Leipper, D.F.   1970.   A sequence of current  patterns  in the Gulf  of Mexico.
     J. Geophy. Res. 75(3):637-657.
            *
Lyons, W.G. and S.B. Coliard.   1974.  Benthic  invertebrate communities  of the
     eastern  Gulf  of  Mexico.    Fla.  Dept. Hat. Res., Mar. Res.  Lab. Contrib.
     Ho. :223.  p. 157-165.
                                      •
Manheia, F.T.,  J.C. Hathaway,  and E.  Uchupi.   1972.    Suspended matter in
     surface  waters of  the  northern  Gulf  of Mexico.    Limn, and Oceanogr.
     17(1):17-27.

Manheim, F.T.,  R.G. Steward,  and K.C.   Carder*    1976*   Transmissometry and
     particulate matter  distribution on  the  eastern Gulf of  Mexico Shelves.
     MAFIA survey, 1975-76.
                                     6-18

-------
Mature,  F.J., ?.L. Heame, V.  Ingram,  J.H. Caldwell, and  Antonielle.   1974.
     Analysis of baseline studies of zooplankton from offshore oil lease sites
     is  the  eastern Golf  of Mexico.    In:    Final report  on the  Vaseline
     environmental survey of the  MAFIA, lease  areas.   Vol.  II,  CT  1974  BLM
     08550-CT-4-11 State Univ. System of Fla. last. Oceanogr (SUSIO).

Haul,  G.A.   1977.   The annual cycle  of  the  Gulf  Loop Current.   Part  I:
     Observations  during a one-year tine series.  J. Mar. Res. 35(1):29-47.

Moe,-M.A.   1963.   A  survey of offshore  fishing  in Florida.   Fla.  St.  Id.
     Conserv.  Prof. Pap. Ser. Ho. 4*  115 pp.

Hoe, M.A. and  G.T.  Martin.  1965.   Fishes  taken  in  monthly trawl  samples
     offshore of  Pinellas  County,  Florida/ nith  new additions  to the  fish
     fauna of the  Tampa Bay area.  Tulane Stud,  in Zool. 12(4):129-151.

Molinari,  S.L.,  D. Cochrane,  and G.A. Haul.   I975a.  Beep basin oceanographic
     conditions  and  general circulation.   In:   Compilation and summation of
     historical  existing physical oceanographic data from the eastern Gulf of
     Mexico  in  support  of  the creation of a  MAFLA sampling program.   BLM
     08550-CT4-16.  State Univ. System of Fla. Inst. Oceanogr. (SUSIO).

Molinari,  E.G.,  M.  Binkel, .C.S.K.  Mooers,   and  W.W.  Schroeder.    1975b.
     Oceanographic conditions.   In:   compilation and summation of  historical
     and  existing  physical oceanographic data from  the  eastern Gulf of Mexico
     in  support  of  the  creation  of  a MAFLA  sampling   program.    BLM
     08550-CT4-16. State Univ. System Fla. Inst. of Oceanogr.  (SUSIO).

Mooers,  C.N.K.  and  J.F. Price.    1975.   General Shelf  circulation.    In:
     compilation and summation of  historical  and  existing physical  oceano-
     graphic  data  from the  Eastern Gulf of Mexico  in support .of the  creation
     of  a. MAFLA sampling  program.   BLM  08550-CT4-16.   State Univ.  System
     Fla.  Inst.  of Oceanogr. (SUSIO)*

Mote Marine Laboratory.   1980.   A  dye  dispersion and movement  study  off
     northern  Pinellas county, Florida.   Unpublished draft report submitted to
     Gannett  Fleming Corddry, and Carpenter, Inc.,  Earrisburg, PA.   42 pp.

HOAA-NMFS.  See  National Marine Fisheries Service.

National  Marine Fisheries  Service.    1975.    Fishing  records, southeastern
     region.    National  Marine  Fisheries  Service   Data  Management  and  Stat*
     Div., Washington, DC.              .      .

     1977.  Participation in marine recreational fishing, southeastern  United
     States,  1974.   National Marine  Fisheries Service  Data Management  and
     Stat, Div., Washington, DC.

_,	1978.  County landings and values by  species  for Pinellas, Hillsborough,
     and Manatee Counties*  National Marine Fisheries Service  Data  Management
     and Stat. Div., Washington, DC.

     1979.  Commercial fish  catch statistics by  county.   Dnpub.


                                     6-19

-------
                                    J
HODC (national Oceanographic Data Center).  1980.  Data base information.

Odtaa,  H.T.,  B.J.  Copeland,  and E.A.  McMahan  (eds.).'  1974.    Ecosystems
     receiving  phosphate wastes.   In:   Coastal  Ecological  Systems  of  the
     United States.  Vol. III.  453 pp.

Oliver, J.S., P.H. Slattery, L.W. Hulberg, and J.W. Nybakken.  1977. Patterns
     of  succession  in benthic  infaunal  communities  following dredging  and
     dredged material  disposal  in Monterey Bay.  Dredged Material  Res.  Prog.
     Tech. Bep.  D-77-27.   U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
     Vicksbnrg, MS*                                          -
          •         •                                                     *
Pequegnat, W.E., D.D. Smith, i.M. Darnell, B.J. Presley, and R.O. Beid.  1978.
      An  assessment  of the potential  impact  of 'dredged material disposal  in
     the  open  ocean.    Dredged Material  Res.  Prog.,  Tech.  Rep*  D-78-2.
     Prepared for  Office  Chief  of Engineers,  U.S.  Army, Washington, DC 20314.
     Contr. Ho. DACW 39-76-C-0125.

Phillips, B.C. and 7.6. Springer.  1960.  Observations on the offshore  benthic
     flora in the  Golf of Mexico off  Pinellas County, Florida.  Amer.  Midland
     Sat. 64(2):362.

Plaisted,  R.O., K.M.  Waters,  and  P.P.  Hiiler.   1975. '  Current  meter  data
     report  from the MSP Continental Shelf  dynamics program 1973-74.   Nova
     Univ. Sci. Data Bep. BLM Contr. Ho. 08550-CT4-161.

Pittsburg  Testing Lab.   1979.    Soils investigations, St.  Petersburg Harbor
     maintenance dredging.  Beport to CE, Jacksonville, FL.  Unpub.

Presley,  B.,  C. Linadau, and J. Trefrey.   1974.   Preliminary final report on
     sediment  trace  and  heavy  metal  concentrations.    In:   Baseline Environ-
     mental  Survey of  the  MAFLA lease areas, C7.  1974."  State  Univ.  Sys.  of
     Fla. last. Oceanogr.  (SUSIO).  Vol. III.

Price, W.A.  1954.   Shorelines  and coasts of the Gulf of Mexico.  In:  Golf of
     Mexico,  its origins, vaters,  and marine life.   U.S.  Fish and Wildlife
     Serv., Fish.  Bull. Bo. 89:39-65.

Quick, J.A.  and 6.E. Henderson.  1975a.  Evidences of  new ichthyointoxicative
     phenomena  in Gymnodinuim  breve  red tides.   Fla. Dept.  Nat.  Res.,  Mar*
     Res. Lab.  Contrib. No. 249.  11  pp.

	19750.   Effects  of Cymnodinuim breve' red  tide  on fishes  and birds:   A
     preliminary report on behavior,  anatomy, hematology, and histopathology.
     Fla. Dept.  Nat.  Res.,  Mar. Res.  Lab. Contrib. No.  241.  28  pp.

Rice,  S.A.,  G.W.  Patton, and  S. Mahadevan.   1981.   An ecological study of the
     effects of offshore dredge material disposal vith  special reference to
     hard-bottom habitats in  the eastern Gulf of Mexico.  Report submitted to
     Manatee County  Chamber of  Commerce.  45  pp.

 Saunders, R.P. and  D.A. Glenn.   1969.   Diatoms.   Memoirs  of the Hourglass
      Cruises.   Fla.  Dept. of  Hatl.  Res.,  Mar.  Res. Lab. 1(3):1-119.


                                      6-20

-------
Salooan, C.H.   1968.   Diel  and seasonal occurrence of pink  shrimp,  Fenaeus
     duorarum Burkenrod,  in  two divergent  habitats of  Tampa Bay,  Florida.
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Spec.  Sci. Rept. Fish. No. 561.  6 pp.

     1973a.  Hydrographic observations  in Tampa Bay - 1970.   U.S. Dept.  Comm.
     Data Rep. 77.  245 pp.

     1973b.   Hydrographic observations  in  the Gulf  of Mexico  off Finellas
     County, Florida, (Nov 1970-Jan 1972).  U.S. Dept. Comm. Data Rep. 78.

     1974.  Hydrographic observations in Tampa Bay and the adjacent  Gulf  of
     Mexico - 1971.  U.S. Dept.  Comm. Data Rep* 84.  553 pp.
                                                •
Saloman, C.H., D.M. Allen, and  T.J.  Costello.  -1968.  'Distribution of  three
     species  of   shrimp (Genus  Fenaeus) in  waters  contiguous  to  southern
     Florida.  Bull. Mar. Sci.  18(2):342-350.
                                                                  *
Saloman, C.H. and L.A. Collins.   1974.  Hydrographic observations in Tampa Bay
     and adjacent watersr-1972.   U.S. Dept. Comm. Data Rep. 90.  176 pp.

Saloman, C.H.,  J.H. Finncane,  and  J.A.  Kelly.   1964.   Hydrographic obser-
     vations  of  Tampa 'Bay,  Florida  and  adjacent  waters, Aug  1961-Dec  1962.
     U.S. Dept. Comm* Data Rep.  4.           .                 .

Saloman, C.H. and J.L. Taylor.   1972.  Hydrographic observations in Tampa Bay,
     Florida—1969.  U.S. Dept.  Comm. Data Rep. 73.  88 pp.

Schroeder, W.W.   1975.   River  Run-off. In:    Compilation and  summation  of
     historical and existing  physical oceanographic data from the eastern Gulf
     of Mexico in support of the creation of  a MAFIA sampling program.   BLM
     G8550-CT4-16.  State Univ.  System of Fla.  Inst. Oceanogr-. (SUSIO).
            *

Schubel, J.X., H.H. Carter,  R.E- Wilson,  W.M. Wise,  M.G.  Beaton, and  M.G.
     Gross.  1978.  Field investigations of the nature, degree, and extent of
     turbidity generated by  open-vater pipeline disposal operations.   Tech.
     Rep. D-78-30.  U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Serafy, O.K.    1979.    Memoirs  of  the  Hourglass  Cruises:    Echinoids
     (Echinodexmata:  Echinodea).   Fla.  Dept.  Nat.  Res.,  Mar.  Res*   Lab.
     5(3>sl-119.

Shepard, F.P.  1973.  Submarine Geology.   Harper & Row, HI.  557 pp.

Slobodkin, L.B.  and H.L. Saunders.  1969.   On the  contribution of environ-
     mental  predictability  to  species  diversiity.   Brookhaven Symp.  Biol.
     22:82-95.

Smith,  G.B.   1975.    The  1971 red tide  and its  impact  on  certain  reef
     communities  in  the mid-eastern  Gulf  of  Mexico.   Envir.  Letters
     9(2):141-152.

Smith, G.B., H.M. Austin, S.A. Bortone, R.W. Bastings, and L.H. Ogren.  1975.
     Fishes  of  the  Florida middle  ground  with  comments  on  ecology  and
     zoogeography.  Fla. Dept.  Nat. Res., Mar.  Res. Lab. No. 9. 14 pp.

                                     6-21

-------
Smith, G.B.   1976a.   The  impact of fish-killing  phytoplankton  blooms upon
     mideastem Gulf of Mexico  reeffish communities.   Za:   Bullis,  H.R.  and
     A.C. Jones  (eds.)*   Proceedings:   Colloquium on snapper-grouper fishery
     resources of  the western  central  Atlantic  Ocean  Fla. Sea  Grant  Coll.
     Progress. No.  17.

     1976b»  Ecology and distribution of  eastern Golf of  Mexico reef fishes.
     Fla. Dept. Rat. Res.,  Mar.  Res.  Lab.  No. 19.  78  pp.

Springer, V.G. and K.O. Woodburn.   1960.   An ecological study of the fishes of
     the Tampa Bay area.  Fla. St. Bd.  Conserv.,  Mar. Lab.  Prof. Paper Series
     Ho. 1. 104 pp.

Steidinger, K.A., J.T. Davis, and J. Williams.  1967.  Dinoflagellate studies
     oa the inshore vaters  of the  vest coast of  Florida, Fla. St. Bd. Conserv.
     Prof. Papers Series  Ho. 9.  p. 4-48 (in part only).

Steidinger, K.A. and J*  Williams*   1970.  Dinoflagellates.   Memoirs of  the
     Hourglass Cruises.   Vol.  II.  Fla. Dept.  Nat. Res., Mar.  Res.  Lab.,
     Contrlb.  No.  147.   251 pp.

Steidinger,  K.A.   1975a*    Implications  of  dfino flagellate  life eye Its  on
     initiation  of  Gymnodinium  breve  red   tides.     Envir.  Letters*
     9(2):129-139.

     I975b.  Basic factors influencing  red tides.  Fla. Dept. Nat. Res.,.Mar.
     Res. Lab*, Contrib.  86. 246.   9  pp.

Stern E.M.  and  W.B.  Stickle.   1978.    Effects  of  turbidity  and suspended
     material in aquatic  environments.   Tech. Rep. D-78-21.  U.S. Aray Engineer
     Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Stoker,  H.S. and S.L. Seager.  1976.  Environmental Chemistry:  Air and water
     pollution.  2nd ed.   Scott, Foresman  & Co.,  Glenviev, IL.

Sullivan, B.K.  and D. Hancock.   1977.    Zooplankton  and  dredging:   research
     perspectives from a  critical  review.   Water Res.  Bull.  12(3).

SUSIO. .  1974.  Final report on the baseline environmental survey of the MADLA
     lease areas CY 1974.   State Univ. Syst. Fla.  Xnst. of Oceanog.  5 Vol.

Sykes,  J.E.   1964.    Requirements of  Gulf  and  south  Atlantic  estuarine
     research.  Proc. Gulf and Caribb. Fish Inst., 16th Ann. Ses:  113-120.

     1968.   Commercial values of   estuarine'generated fisheries on the  south
     Atlantic and  Gulf of  Mexico  coast.  In:   J.D. Nevsom  (ed.)  Proc.  marsh
     and estuary management symposium,  T.J. Koran's  Sons,  Inc.  Baton Rouge,
  .   LA.  pp. 73-78.

Sykes, J.E.  and  J.H. Flnucane.    1966.   Occurrence in Tampa Bay,  Florida of
     immature species dominant in Gulf  of Mexico commercial fisheries.   U.S.
     Fish Wildlife Serv.  Fish. Bull.  65(2):369-379.


                                     6-22

-------
Tampa  Fort  Authority.   1979.    Annual Report.    Published by  Tampa  Fort
     Authority, Tampa, FL.             / .

Taylor» J.L. and C.H. Salomon.  1968.   Some  effects  of hydraulic dredging and
     coastal development  in  Boca  Ciega Bay,  Florida.   U.S.  Fish and  Wildlife
     Serv., Fish Bull. 67(2):213-241.

Taylor, H.   1981.   Letter to J. Stevely, Multi-County marine Advisory Agent,
     Falmetto, FL.  Unpub.

Tetra Tech, Inc.  1977.  Ocean disposal of harbor dredged materials in Hawaii.
     Final  report.    Prepared  for  the U.S.  Army  Corps of Engineers,'  Ft.
     Shafter, EX.  Tetra Tech Be p. TC 852.   154 pp.

Tolbert,. W.H.  and G.G.  Salman.   1964.   Surface circulation of  the  eastern
     Gulf of Mexico as determined by drift  bottle  studies.   J. Geoph.  Res.
     69(2):223-230.                                      .

Topp, R.W.  and  F.H.  Eoff,  Jr.    1972.   Memoirs of  the Hourglass  Cruises:
     Flatfishes  (Plneronectif oxa'es) •    Fla.  Sept. Nat.  Res., Mar. Res.  Lab.
     4(2)rl-136.             .

Torpey, J. and R.M. Ingle.   1966.  The red tide.  State of Fla. Bd. of Cons.
     Educ. Ser. So. 1 lev. 1966 orig. issue.   1943.  pp. 7-26.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  1974.   Tampa Harbor Project Final Environmental.
     Impact Statement.  Prepared by CZ, Jacksonville Dist*

     JL977.  Dredged Material Research Program Fourth  annual rep.   U.S.  Army
     Engineer Water-nays Experiment Station, Vicksbcrg,  MS.

     JL979a.  Bioassay analyses and  statistical  analysis of  samples  obtained
     from Calveston Harbor,  Texas.   Final report,  winter series*   U.S.  Army
     Engineer District, Calveston, TX.  Contr. No. BACW 64-79-C-0037.

     _1979b.  Final  Environmental  Impact Statement on  multipurpose deepwater
     "port and  crude  oil  distribution  system  at Calves ton,  TX.   U.S. 'Army
     Engineer District, Calveston, TZ.

U.S.  Bureau of  Land  Management.   1978.    Environmental  Impact  Statement:
     Proposed 1978 DCS Oil-and Gas Lease Sale No. 65.  New Orleans  office.

     1980.   Environmental Impact Statement:    Proposed 1981  DCS Oil  and  Gas
     Sales A66 and 66.  Sew Orleans,  OCS office*

US DOC.  See U.S. Department of Commerce.

U.S. Department, of  Commerce.  1978.   Tampa  Bay  circulatory  survey 1963.   NOS
     Oceanog.'Circ. Sur. Rep. No. 2.   NOAA.  NOS NOS002728.   39 pp. '
                                                                     *

U.S.  EPA  and  CE*   1977.   Ecological', evaluation of  proposed discharge of
     dredged material into  ocean  waters.    Environmental  Effects  Lab.,  U.S.
     Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.  Yicksburg,  MS.  128  pp.


                                     6-23

-------
Cf.S. Naval  Oceanographic Office.   1963.   Oceanographic  atlas  of the  North
     Atlantic Ocean, See. IV.  Pah. Ho. 700.  Washington, DC* U.S. Havy.

U.S. Naval Weather Service Command.  1970.   Summary of synoptic meteorological
     observations - Horth American coastal marine areas*   Vol 5.   Springfield
     VA-  Bat. Tech. Infa. Serv.
              *

Wright, T.3.   1978.  Aquatic  dredged material disposal  impacts.  U.S.  Army
   •  Engineer Watersays Esperiment Station*  Tech.  Sep. DS-78-1.   57 pp.
                                     6-24

-------

-------

-------