X
i
0
^
K
tv
(Y
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
Canaveral Harbor, Florida
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site Designation
A Supplement to the Jacksonville Harbor
Dredged Material Disposal
Final Environmental Impact Statement
August 1990
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLANO STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30363
TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
Enclosed for your information and examination is the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation of the Canaveral
Harbor, Florida, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site. Any comments
should be furnished within 30 days from the date of publication of
the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.
Wesley ns. Crum, Chief
Wetlands and Coastal Programs Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
-------
-------
Hw .
oo|(,
4
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
SITE DESIGNATION
A Supplement to the Jacksonville Harbor
Dredged Material Disposal Site
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Cooperating Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District
Comments or inquiries should be directed to;
Wesley Crum, Chief
Wetlands and Coastal Programs Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia, 30365
(404)347-2126
(FTS) 257-2126
APPROVED BY:
£Q.
September 5, 1990
Greer C. Tidwell Date
Regional Administrator
CD
CJJ
HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
SUMMARY SHEET
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
DESIGNATION OF A
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
A Supplement To The Jacksonville Harbor
Dredged Material Disposal Site
Final Environmental Impact Statement
( ) Draft
(X ) Final
( ) Supplement to Draft
( ) Supplement to Final
1. Type of Action.
( x) Administrative/Regulatory action
( ) Legislative action
2. Description of the Proposed Action. The proposed action is to
designate an environmentally acceptable, adequately sized and
economically feasible Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS)
for the Canaveral Harbor, Florida, area. This action complies
with the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
1972, as amended by providing an environmentally acceptable ODMDS
in compliance with the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 220-229}.
The candidate ODMDS presented in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) as the preferred alternative has been
re-configured in this FEIS to be consistent with 40 CFR 228.5(e).
Maps and coordinates are based on the North American Datum of 1927
(NAD 27). The candidate site is larger than the interim site and
encompasses it completely. EPA considers the re-configuration to
be relatively minor, without apparent significant environmental
impact. For this reason, no additional biological sampling was
conducted to supplement the existing site characterization
studies. Nor was a supplemental EIS were felt necessary. A Site
Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) is being incorporated
(Appendix H) into this FEIS to provide a mechanism to monitor for
potential impacts and to provide management options in the event
that such impacts are detected.
3. EnvironmentalEffects of the Proposed Action. Use of the proposed
site is expected to produce the following adverse environmental
effects: (1) water quality perturbations (turbidity plumes,
release of chemicals, lowering dissolved oxygen concentration);
(2) smothering of the site's benthic biota; (e) changing the site
bathymetry; and (4) altering the site's sediment composition.
Generally the effects of water quality perturbations should be
local and short-term and should have minimal effect on the region.
However, turbidity attributable to dumping activities and erosion
of disposed dredged material is expected to contribute to the
apparent naturally turbid conditions of the area of the candidate
site. However, the management and monitoring plan should detect
-------
potential concerns and aid in the prevention of any significant
adverse effects.
Need for the Proposed Actions. Projected volumes of new and
maintenance dredged material exceed the capacity of the existing
Canaveral interim ODMDS and available land disposal sites. The
designation of a larger ODMDS is needed if projected work in the
Canaveral Harbor area is to proceed.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action. The alternatives to the
proposed action are: (1) no action, i.e., the interim designation
of the existing Canaveral Harbor ODMDS not achieve final
designation and no new ODMDS would be designated; (2) final
designation of the existing interim Canaveral Harbor ODMDS; (3)
designation of another ODMDS for Canaveral Harbor, or (4) upland
nearshore alternatives.
Federal, State. Public, and Private Organizations From Whom
Comments Have Been Requested. See Section 7.04;
The oceanic-areas over the continental shelf off Canaveral Harbor,
Florida, are in the same oceanic Province as the Jacksonville
Harbor area, for which the ODMDS designation FEIS was filed on
February 14, 1983. To avoid repetition of background
environmental information, NEPA documentation for the designation
of the Canaveral ODMDS is in the form of a supplement to the
Jacksonville Harbor ODMDS Final Environmental Impact Statement.
11
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
DESIGNATION OF A
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
.».
A Supplement To The Jacksonville Harbor
Dredged Material Disposal Site
Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page No.
SUMMARY SHEET i
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF FIGURES VIi
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF APPENDICES viii
1.00 SUMMARY 1
1.01 Major Findings and Conclusions 1
1.02 Areas of Controversy 2
1.03 Unresolved Issues 2
1.04 Relationship of Alternative Actions to
Environmental Statutes 2
2.00 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 5
2.01 . Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act 5
2.02 National Environmental Policy Act 5
2.03 Canaveral Harbor, Florida 5
2.04 Purpose of the Proposed Action 5
3.00 ALTERNATIVES 6
3.01 Introduction 6
3.02 No Action 6
3.03 Upland and Nearshore Disposal 6
3.04 Selection of a New Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site 7
3.05 Interim Designated Site 7
3.06 Preferred Alternative - Designation of the
Candidate Site 7
4.00 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 9
4.01 Introduction 9
4.02 Geology 9
4.03 Physical Characteristics 10
4.04 Chemical Characteristics 10
4.05 Biological Characteristics 12
4.06 Endangered Species 13
4.07 Fish Havens, Wrecks,
and Sport Fishing Grounds 13
4.08 Coastal Amenities • 14
iii
-------
4.09
5.00
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
5.09
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
DESIGNATION OF A
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
A Supplement To The Jacksonville Harbor
Dredged Material Disposal Site
Final Environmental Impact Statement
,•
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Cont'd
Commercial Fisheries 15
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 15
Introduction 15
Geographic Position, Depth of Water, Bottom
Topography, and Distance from Coast 19
Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning,
Nursery, Feeding, or Passage Areas of
Living Resources in Adult or
Juvenile Phases 19
Location in Relation to Beaches and Other
Amenity Areas 19
Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed to be
Disposed and Proposed Methods of Release,
Including Packing the Waste, if Any . 19
Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring 20
Dispersal, Horizontal Transport, and Vertical
Mixing Characteristics of the Area,
Including Prevailing Current Direction and
Velocity, if Any 20
Existence and Effects of Current and Previous
Discharge and Dumping in the Area
(Including Cumulative Effects) 21
Interference With Shipping, Fishing,
Recreation, Mineral Extraction, Fish and
Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special
Scientific Importance, and other
Legitimate Uses of the Ocean. 23
The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the
Site as Determined by Available Data or by
Trend Assessment or Baseline surveys 24
Potentiality for the Development or
Recruitment of Nuisance Species in the
Disposal Site 25
Existence at or in Close Proximity to the
Site of Any Significant Natural or Cultural
Features of Historical Importance 25
The Dumping of Materials into the Ocean will
be Permitted Only at Sites or in Areas
Selected to Minimize the Interference of
Disposal Activities With Other Activities in
the Marine Environment, Particularly
Avoiding Areas of Existing Fisheries or
Shellfisheries, and Regions of Heavy
Commercial or Recreational Navigation 25
IV
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
DESIGNATION OF A
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
A Supplement To The Jacksonville Harbor
Dredged Material Disposal Site
Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Cont'd
5.14 Locations and Boundaries of Disposal Sites will
be so Chosen that Temporary Perturbations in
Water Quality or Other Environmental
Conditions During Initial Mixing Caused by
Disposal Operations Anywhere within the Site
can be expected to be Reduced to Normal
Ambient Seawater Levels or to Undetectable
Contaminant Concentrations or Effects Before
Reaching Any Beach, Shoreline, Marine
Sanctuary, or Known Geographically Limited
Fishery or Shellfishery 25
5.15 If at Anytime During or After Disposal Site
Evaluation Studies it is Determined that
Existing Disposal Sites Presently Approved
on an Interim Basis for Ocean Dumping do not
Meet the Criteria for Site Selection Set
Forth in 228.5 and 228.6, the Use of Such
Sites will be Terminated as soon as
Alternate Disposal Sites can be Designated. 25
5.16 The Sizes of Ocean Disposal Sites will be
Limited in Order to Localize for
Identification and Control and Immediate
Adverse Impacts and Permit the Implementation
of Effective Monitoring and Surveillance
Programs to Prevent Adverse Long-Range
Impacts. The Size, Configuration, and
Location of any Disposal site will be
Determined as Part of the Disposal Site
Evaluation or Designation Study 26
5.17 EPA will, Whenever, Feasible, Designate Ocean
Dumping Sites Beyond the Edge of the
Continental Shelf and Other Such Sites that
Have Been Historically Used 26
5.18 Relationship Between Short-Term Use and
Long-Term Productivity 26
5.19 Irreversible Or Irretrievable commitments of
Resources . 2 6
5.20 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects and
Mitigating Measures 26
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
DESIGNATION OF A
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
A Supplement To The Jacksonville Harbor
Dredged Material Disposal Site
Final Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Cont'd
6.00
7.
7,
7,
00
01
02
7.03
7.04
8.00
LIST OF PREPARERS
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Section 7 Coordination
Coastal Zone Management Consistency
Comments and Responses to the DEIS
Public Coordination
REFERENCES
28
29
29
29
29
29
31
VI
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
DESIGNATION OF A
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
A Supplement To The Jacksonville Harbor
Dredged Material Disposal Site
Final Environmental Impact Statement
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title
1 Location of the Candidate Canaveral Harbor Disposal
Site Relative to Canaveral Harbor (isobaths shown
in feet). 8
2 Bathymetry of Candidate Canaveral Harbor Disposal
Site. 11
3 Location of Candidate Site Relative to Fish
Havens, Wrecks, and Sport Fishing Grounds. 14
4 Location of Candidate Site Relative to Shore-
Related Amenities. 16
5 Historical Disposal Sites, Ship Channels, and
Hazard Areas in the Vicinity of the Candidate
Site. 22
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
1. Relationship of Alternative Actions to Environmental
Statutes 3
2. Summary of Specific Criteria as Applied to the
Candidate Site 17
3. Comparison of Ocean Characteristics Relating to the
Probable Fate of Dredge Material to be Discharged
at Ft. Pierce and Canaveral ODMDS Sites 21
4. Summary of Dredged Material Disposal Volumes at
the EPA Interim Designated ODMDS. Canaveral
Harbor, Florida 23
vii
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
DESIGNATION OF A
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
A Supplement To The Jacksonville Harbor
Dredged Material Disposal Site
Final Environmental Impact Statement
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A Field Survey
B Phylogenetic Listing of Macroinfaunal Taxa
C Rank Order of Abundance of Macroinfaunal Taxa
D Trawl Sample Data
E Latitude and Longitude of Corners of Site and
Sampling Stations
F Summary of Sediment Mapping Surveys
G Side Scan Sonar and Continuous Video Survey Narrative
with Artificial Reef Investigation
H Site Management and Monitoring Plan
I Coastal Zone Management Consistency Evaluation
J Comments and Responses to the DEIS
viii
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
DESIGNATION OF A
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
.*,
A Supplement To The Jacksonville Harbor
Dredged Material Disposal Site
Final Environmental Impact Statement
1.00 SUMMARY
1.01 Major Findings and Conclusions.
Need for a New Ocean Disposal Site - Canaveral Harbor is a man-made
channel that has been widened, deepened and maintained numerous times
in the past. Since 1974, an average of 1.1 million cubic yards have
been removed annually, including an estimated 249,000 cubic yards in
1990. Estimated future annual average quantities are projected at
around 800,000*cubic yards per year for the next five years. COE
projected estimates of authorized new and maintenance material from
the Canaveral region exceed the capacity of available land disposal
sites and the existing interim designated Canaveral Harbor, Florida,
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS). The present designation
status of the interim site is "interim-indefinite", so that the
interim status will continue indefinitely unless the site is
de-designated or permanently designated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Based on this identified need, EPA proposes
to designate the Canaveral Harbor candidate ODMDS, which encompasses
the interim site, on a permanent basis.
Two Alternative Ocean Disposal Sites Were Evaluated as to Their
Suitability for Designation Using EPA Guidelines - Two offshore
locations were evaluated utilizing the existing literature base and
site selection criteria promulgated in 40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6. The
initial evaluation process eliminated the existing interim designated
site because its size was not sufficient to accommodate the volume of
material to be generated through dredging activities. The candidate
site, larger than and encompassing the interim site, has attributes
that show minimal if any conflicts with the EPA site selection
criteria.
Upland and Nearshore Alternatives - COE estimates of dredged material
volumes exceed the capacity of upland disposal sites presently
available. Present indications are that easements for private land
would not be available without extensive condemnation proceedings and
considerable expense. There are three potential upland disposal sites
in the Canaveral Harbor area. Two are adjacent to the Trident Basin.
One is to the east and is owned by the U.S. Navy. A second is located
to the west and is owned by the U.S. Air Force. Both organizations
are reserving these sites for material to be dredged periodically front
their respective berthing areas. Neither site is available for
material from the deepening project or channel maintenance. A third
potential site is located north of and adjacent to the channel. This
area is under consideration for port expansion in the near future.
-------
Dredged material unsuitable for construction would not be acceptable
in this location. Other non-ocean disposal alternatives considered
were beach disposal, nearshore disposal, or diked island creation.
The fine-grained composition of the material expected to be dredged
from the presently permitted sites precludes beach disposal and
nearshore disposal.
Proposed Action - Designation of a New Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site the Canaveral Harbor Area - The candidate site is centered at
28"18'44"N (28* 18.73'N) latitude and 80*31'00"W
(80'31.00'W) longitude (NAD 27). Its boundary ranges between
3.5 and 7.0 nautical miles from shore and encloses an area of about
four square nautical miles. Water depth within the site ranges from
45 ft (13.5'm) to 53 ft.(15.9 m). The candidate ODMDS presented in
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as the preferred
alternative has been re-configured in this FEIS to be consistent with
40 CFR 228.5(e). Maps and coordinates in the text have been modified
accordingly. All coordinates are based on the North American Datum of
1927 (NAD 27). The candidate site is larger than the interim site and
encompasses it completely. Since EPA considers the re-configuration
to-be relatively minorv^without apparent significant environmental
impact, no field biological sampling to further characterize the site
or a supplemental EIS were felt warranted.
1.02 Areas of Controversy. Utilizing the literature base and field
data from a baseline survey, the site was selected with full
cognizance of criteria set forth in 40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6. However,
the State of Florida's decision regarding consistency with the State
Coastal Zone Management Program has been an area of controversy.
Concern was voiced by the Florida Department of Natural Resources that
designation of this site was not consistent in that there is no
specific ban on disposal of beach compatible material.
1.03 Unresolved Issues. As stated above, based on their comments to
the DEIS the State of Florida does not believe the designation is
consistent with the Florida CZM consistency program. There is general
agreement that beach nourishment is not a viable alternative for
disposal of the predominantly fine-grained material expected to be
dredged from the sites presently permitted. Designation of this site
does not rule out beach nourishment for suitable material that might
be determined to exist at dredge sites permitted in the future. The
decision on placement of any such material is properly made during the
project permit process. EPA is in agreement that beach quality
material should be used for nourishment to the maximum extent
practical. Discussions are underway to resolve State of Florida
questions regarding CZM consistency.
1.04 Relationship of Alternative Actions to Environmental Protection
Statutes and Other Environmental Requirements. The.relationship of
the various alternative actions to environmental protection statutes
and other environmental requirements is presented in Table 1.
-------
TABLE 1
RELATIONSHIP OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION STATUTES AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Federal Policies
No Action
Interim
Designated
Site
Candidate
Site
Preservation of Historical
Archeological Data Act
of 1974
National Historical
Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended
Clean Air Act, of 1955
as amended
.Clean Water Act of 1977-
Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972
Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended
Federal Water Project
Recreation Act of 1965
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act of 1958
Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act of 1965
Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
as amended
In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
N/A
In Compliance
N/A
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
N/A
In Compliance
N/A
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
N/A
In Compliance
N/A
In Compliance In Compliance In Compliance
National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969 N/A
River and Harbor Act N/A
of 1899, as amended
In Compliance
N/A
In Compliance
N/A
-------
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
RELATIONSHIP OF ALTERNATIVES TO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION STATUTES AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Federal Policies
No Action
Interim
Designated
Site
Candidate
Site
Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act of 1954,
as amended
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
of 1968, as amended
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Executive Orders
Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988)
24 May 1977 N/A
Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990)
24 May 1977 N/A
Environmental Effects Abroad of
Major Federal Actions (E.O. 12114)
4 January 1977 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Executive Memoranda
Analysis of Impacts on Prime and
Unique Agricultural Lands in
Implementing NEPA (CEQ Memorandum,
11 August 1980) N/A
Interagency Consultation to Avoid or
Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers
in the Nationwide Inventory (CEQ
Memorandum, 10 August 1980) N/A
State^ Policies
Florida Coastal Zone Management
Program
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A In Compliance In Compliance
-------
2.00 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
2.01 Marine Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries Act. Disposal of
dredged material in the ocean is permitted by provisions of Section
103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
as amended (MPRSA) (PI 92-532). Section 103, however, requires that
the dumping will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health,
welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems,
or economic potentialities. As authorized by Section 102 of MPRSA,•
EPA prepared and had promulgated the final revision of Regulations and
Criteria for Ocean Dumping (40 CFR 220-229) which established criteria
for reviewing and evaluating permits and criteria for site selection.
The purpose of the present action is to fulfill the provisions of
MPRSA and 40 CFR 220-229 by presenting information needed to evaluate
the suitability of a proposed ODMDS for final designation for
continuing use. The need for this proposed actions is also cited in
l.Ol above.
2.02 National Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, established the EIS process.
EPA-designates ODMDSs on a permanent basis through publication of a
voluntary EIS and subsequent rulemaking in the Federal Register. The
present FEIS in conjunction with the DEIS published on August 14, 1987
(52 FR 30429 [August 14, 1987]) fulfills the EIS portion of the
designation process.
2.03 Canaveral Harbor. Florida. Although the site is classified as
dispersive, COE projected volumes of new and maintenance dredged
material exceed the capacity of the existing Canaveral interim ODMDS
as well as capacity at available land disposal sites. COE estimates
projected volumes and apparent dispersal rate are such that it was
determined advisable to designate a site somewhat larger than that of
the existing interim site. The designation of a larger ODMDS is
needed if projected work in the Canaveral Harbor area is to proceed.
2.04 Purpose of the Proposed Action. The purpose of the proposed
action is to provide an environmentally acceptable, adequately sized
and economically feasible ODMDS for the ocean disposal of suitable
dredged materials from the Canaveral Harbor area. As such, the ODMDS
designation process makes available the option of an
environmentally-acceptable site for ocean disposal of suitable dredged
material. By itself, however, an EPA ODMDS designation neither
authorizes any dredging project or ODMDS disposal of any dredged
material.
-------
3.00 ALTERNATIVES
3.01 Introduction. The action proposed in this document is the final
designation of an environmentally and economically acceptable ODMDS
site off Canaveral Harbor. Alternatives to the proposed action
include no action,.upland disposal, nearshore disposal, diked island
creation, wetlands creation, and the designation of the interim ocean
disposal site. The designation of an ODMDS does not preempt any other
disposal option but does ensure that an ocean disposal option exists.
Individual disposal actions will continue to be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis and the disposal method that best suits public
interest will be selected. The need for ocean disposal is determined
on a case-by-case basis as part of the process of issuing permits for
ocean disposal. This process often involves an alternatives analysis
in a project-specific EIS (or other NEPA document) for proposed
dredging projects. Both ocean and upland disposal alternatives, as
appropriate, should be considered in these documents.
3.02 No Action. The no-action alternative would be to refrain from
final designation of the proposed ODMDS or another local site.
• Selection -of -the no-action alternative would indicate that no disposal
alternative was needed or that no environmentally or economically
sound alternative existed.
3.03 Upland and Nearshore Disposal. Upland disposal alternatives are
considered when evaluating need for ocean disposal. Upland disposal
areas are used for some work in the area, but estimated new work and
maintenance material from the greater Canaveral region for the future
exceeds the existing capacity. In addition, these sites need to be
retained for (although not restricted to) disposal of material with
toxicity/bioaccumulation levels unsuitable for ocean disposal.
Present indications are that easements for private land would not be
available for use as disposal sites without extensive condemnation
proceedings. Acquisition of easements for disposal of dredged
material on private land would be costly and time consuming, in view
of the projected annual quantity (800,000 cubic yards) to be dredged
from the Canaveral Harbor area (Operations Division, Jacksonville
Division, CE).
Other non-ocean alternatives include beach nourishment, nearshore
disposal, diked island creation, and wetland creation. Beach
nourishment is not a viable alternative for disposal of the material
expected to be dredged from the sites presently permitted. Material
dredged from these sites has been predominantly fine-grained and
therefore not suitable for use in beach nourishment. Designation of
this site does not rule out beach nourishment for suitable material
which might be determined to exist at dredge sites permitted in the
future. The decision on placement of any such material is properly
made during the project permit process. Most of the material
generated in the Canaveral Harbor area is unsuitable for dike
construction based on analyses provided by the Navigation Section,
Jacksonville District, CE. In addition, according to CE, "[N]earshore
disposal and/or wetland creation has been associated with Canaveral
Harbor and channel dredging projects as mitigating measures
-------
for adverse environmental impacts, but not as a practical alternative
to offshore disposal because of the volume of the dredged material and
its character".
3.04 Selection of a New Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site.
Selection of an appropriate ocean disposal site requires •'•
identification and evaluation of suitable areas for receiving the
dredged sediments. Identification relies on available information
from previous oceanographic studies (synoptic and site-specific) and
recommendations from State and Federal agencies. Selection of a
specific site requires a sustained effort involving collection and
analysis of both historical information and field survey data.
Results of this effort led to elimination of the interim designated
site per se and the selection of the candidate site as the preferred
alternative. Other new locations on the continental shelf off
Canaveral Harbor did not provide environmental benefits which would
compensate for greater transportation costs or for the disturbance of
ocean bottom not previously used for disposal of dredged material.
3.05 Interim Designated Site. The area of this site, centered at
:.-28'18l44"N and-80"31^00"W, is about 3.00 square nautical miles. Based
on COE estimates, this site does not contain sufficient capacity to
receive the COE projected quantities of dredged material from the
Canaveral area without mounding and subsequent shoaling. Expansion of
the site would alleviate the capacity problem, would satisfy 40 CFR
228.5(e) concerning sites of historical usage, and would be within
economic constraints related to transport or dredged material. This
proposed expansion of the interim ODMDS led to the configuration and
location of the candidate disposal site (see Figure 1).
3.06 Preferred Alternative - Designation of the Candidate Site.
Evaluation of this site involved the integration of new and existing
data in determining its ability to meet all criteria related to final
designation. The candidate site does meet the selection criteria; a
comparison of its attributes with the criteria (40 CFR 228.5 and
228.6) is given in Section 5.0. It is large enough and sufficiently
deep so that potential significant adverse impacts outside the site
will be minimized. The fine grained substrate is compatible with the
materials that are likely to be placed at this site. The candidate
site is adequately removed from amenities (i.e., beaches and fish
havens) to prevent these from being impacted, yet it is within an
economically transportable distance.
The candidate ODMDS (See Figure 1) presented in the DEIS published
August 14, 1987 has been re-configured in this FEIS. This
re-configuration is consistent with 40 CFR 228.5(e) in encompassing
all of the interim site. All coordinates in the text have been
-------
CANAVERAL HAfltON
28'20'08.63-N
80* 31' 10.10- H
28 18'52.93*N
80*29'24.38"H
28* 18'35.05"
80" 32' 35.62* H
28" 17*19.37* N
80*30' 49.90"W
.INTERIM SITE
* ISOBATHS
I •*IO'
SI •JO' —H
LEOCND
t CANDIDATE DISPOSAL SITE BOUNDARY
0 I I S NAUTICAL MILI*
1. LOCATION Of TNI CAMOttATI CANAVIffAL HAftBOft DtBPOBAL BIT!
MILATIVI TO CANAVMAL HAftiOM (IBOBATHB BHOWN IN Ft IT).
8
-------
modified to reflect the re-configuration. Appendices consisting of
contractor reports, including coordinates, have not been adjusted in
any manner in order to maintain their integrity, as noted in preface
pages for each of the relevant appendices. All coordinates are based
on NAD 27. As the alteration to the site configuration is considered
relatively minor, without apparent significant environmental impact,
no additional field biological sampling to further characterize the
site or supplemental EIS was performed.
The candidate ODMDS has an approximate 2.0 nautical mile x 2.0
nautical mile square configuration (an approximate 4.00 square
nautical mile area). The center coordinates for the candidate
Canaveral Harbor ODMDS are 28*18'44»N (28*18.73»N) latitude and
30°31'00"W (80*30.OO'W) longitude, with corner coordinates as follows:
28B20'15"N, SO'Sl'ir'W (28'20.25'N, 80'31.18'W);
28e18'51"N, 80*29'15"W (28*18.85'N, 80*29.25'W);
28*17'13"N, 80*30'53"W (28*17.22'N, 80°30.88'W);
28'18'36"N, 80*32'45MW (28*18.60'N, 80*32.75'W).
4.00 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4.01 Introduction. This description of environmental characteristics
in the general area of the candidate site was derived from information
in available literature and from a baseline survey of the site
conducted during late September and early October, 1985 (CSA, 1986).
The site is greatly influenced by seasonal weather patterns and is
characterized by a generally level, sand-bottom benthic environment
where the benthos and nekton are typically diverse and seasonally
variable.
4.02 Geology. The candidate site is located on the shallow
continental shelf in the Canaveral Bight east of Cocoa Beach. The
regional geology can be generalized as unconsolidated, fine marine
sediments (Field and Duane, 1974) that were deposited under relatively
low energy conditions created in the lee of the Cape (Meisburger and
Duane, 1971). Ferland and Weishar (1984) show modern clays, silts,
and fine sands in the area adjacent to Cocoa Beach which is in
agreement with findings from the field survey (see CSA, 1986).
Surficial sediment samples obtained from the candidate site had a
sand-size texture in which fine-grained sand with varying percentages
of silt and clay predominated. The sand-sized fraction was greater
than 80% in all of the samples collected.
Bottom topography on the inner shelf is depicted by Ferland and
Weishar (1984) as being irregular, with isolated ridges, shoals, and
depressions. The candidate site, however, is generally smooth with
depth gradually increasing from 45 ft (13.5 m) along the northwest
boundary to 53 ft (15.9 m) in the southern corner. A small rise is
located in the northwest portion of the proposed disposal site and is
possibly a remnant of past dumping at the interim site (see Figure 2).
-------
4.03 Physical Characteristics. The Canaveral Bight can be divided
into three hydrographic regimes: coastal, shelf, and Gulf Stream.
Being located in the coastal region, the candidate site is greatly
influenced by local climatic conditions. The degree of mixing between
the coastal and shelf regions is dependent on the intensity of
horizontal and vertical density gradients, tidal currents, and
wind-driven currents (Blanton and Atkinson, 1978). Currents in the
region of the candidate site have been studied by Bumpus (1964, 1973),
Carter and Okubo (1965), Leming (1979) and Kerr (1980), among others.
Net movement is alongshore, in a general north-south orientation, and
along bathymetric contours (Ferland and Weishar, 1984) at normal
speeds of approximately 0.1 to 0.4 knot, with occasional increases up
to 1.0 knot. Carter and Okubo (1965) found the direction of movements
to be seasonal, sometimes heavily dependent on the wind. Measurements
at the candidate site during the field, survey showed the predominant
currents to be moving to the north-northeast (approximately 45%) and
the south-southwest (approximately 26%). Predominant current speeds
measured were as follows: 41.4% of the measurements ranged from 0.1 to
0.2 knot whereas 29.6% of the currents were in the 0.2 to 0.3 knot
range.
The water column at the candidate site was relatively isothermal
during the field survey and showed a differential of only 1.3'C.
Surface temperatures averaged about 27.5"C while near-bottom
temperatures were rather constant (i.e., ranging from 26.5 to 26.8'C).
Leming (1979) reported the entire shelf shoreward of the 50-m isobath
to be essentially isothermal at 27°C during November along his
Transect 3. This line is approximately 1/4 mile from the candidate
site.
Salinity in the coastal region varies seasonally depending on the
proximity to river discharge (Matthews and Pashuk, 1982). Within the
water column at candidate site stations, salinities were found to be
very homogeneous, with the majority being about 35.5 ppt (± 0.2ppt).
This value is very similar to those reported by Atkinson et al.
(1983) for the Canaveral region and indicates that the site is not
readily influenced by riverine or estuarine waters.
4.04 Chemical Characteristics. Dissolved oxygen concentrations
within the water column ranged from 4.8 to 8.1 ppm at the candidate
site. These values are within the range reported by Matthews and
Pashuk (1982) for the continental shelf off the southeastern United
States. Oxygen minima were present in depths from 40 ft to the bottom
and maxima were always located in the upper 20 ft of the water column.
Samples for total suspended solids were collected near bottom at the
candidate site during the October, 1985 survey. Results of the
analysis revealed concentrations ranging from 14 mg/1 to 29 mg/1 (CSA,
10
-------
TM CANP0ATI 6ANAVOTM. HANSON
..11
-------
1986). For comparison, total suspended solids under average oceanic
conditions are in the range of 0.8-2.5 mg/1; whereas, suspended solid
values in estuaries and rivers commonly exceed hundreds of mg/1 (Home
1969). Water at the site during the field survey (See Appendix A) was
visibly turbid (CSA, 1986). Follow-up studies described in Appendix G
also reported turbid conditions. Vertical profiles of transmissivity
correlate well with video and diver observations and with data from
samples of total suspended solids. Transmissivity in near surface
waters ranged from approximately 7% to 19%. In general, near-bottom
waters had zero transmissivity.
Analyses of water samples collected at the candidate site were made
for trace metals (mercury, cadmium, and lead), high molecular weight
hydrocarbons, chlorinated pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenols
(PCBs). Results of these analyses showed all samples collected at the
candidate site were below the limit of analytical detection. Limits
of analytical detection were all below U.S. EPA (1976) water quality
levels.
Sediment samples from the candidate site were analyzed for trace
metals (cadmium, lead, and mercury), high molecular weight
hydrocarbons, oil and grease, total organic carbon, chlorinated
pesticides, and PCBs. Values for all of the above parameters were
classified as below the detection limit or in very low concentration
(CSA, 1986).
4.05 Biological Characteristics. The shelf phytoplankton of the
South Atlantic Bight is a diverse assemblage (Marshall, 1982) with
major components being diatoms, coccolithophores, and pyrrhophyceans
(U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service [USDOI,
MMS], 1984). Diatoms dominate the nearshore waters, including the
candidate site, but decrease in a seaward direction (Marshall, 1976).
Dinoflagellates dominate the offshore waters and may become abundant
during summer months (Hulbert, 1967; Roberts, 1974). The
phytoplankton standing crop is higher in the nearshore region than on
the outer shelf or in the oceanic region (Hulbert and MacKenzie,
1971).
Zooplankton populations in the region of the candidate site are mainly
composed of holoplanktonic organisms (those spending the entire life
cycle as plankton); however during the warmer months this dominance is
reduced when large numbers of larval crustaceans (shrimp, crabs, and
barnacles) and larval mollusks are present (USDOI, MMS, 1984). Bowman
(1971) found that zooplankton standing stock decreased but species
diversity increased in an offshore direction. He also recognized
specific zooplankton associations for water masses associated with
coastal, shelf, and oceanic regions. The coastal region is
characterized by a general abundance of copepods belonging to the
species Acartia tonsa and Labidocera aestiva.
Struhsaker (1969) divided the continental shelf of the South Atlantic
into five regions: the coastal, open shelf, live-bottom, shelf-edge,
and lower shelf habitats. The coastal habitat characterized-as having
a smooth, sandy-mud bottom out to depths of 14 to 18 meters (46 to 59
feet), is typified at the candidate site. This habitat is known for
12
-------
r
commercially important invertebrates and bottom fishes (USDOI, MMS,
1984) including penaeid shrimp, crab, croaker, flounder, sea trout,
and drum. The coastal habitat is not a limited entity but rather
occurs on most of the shelf region from Cape Hatteras to the Florida
Keys and in the northern Gulf of Mexico. During the field survey of
the candidate site, silver seatrout and silver perch dominated the >.
fish catch while shrimp were most conspicuous among the crustaceans.
Analyses of macroinfaunal data collected during the field survey of
the candidate site revealed four macroinfaunal assemblages associated
with four groups of stations. The distribution of these assemblages
did not appear related to sediment grain size or water depth. Spatial
proximity of the station appeared to be the only underlying factor
accounting for the station groupings. Echinoderms, annelids, and
mollusks dominated the biomass of the macroinfaunal assemblages.
The candidate site, whose average depth is around 50 feet, is at least
one nautical mile from all known fish havens, artificial reefs, and
fishing areas (e.g., hard banks) as reported by Hoe (1963); Freeman
and Walford (1976); USDOI, BLM (1979); Aska and Pybus (1983); USDOI,
MMS (1984); and CSA (1985). In addition, the proposed site is at
.least 14 nautical miles- shoreward of the economically important calico
scallop beds (Taylor, 1967) located off Cape Canaveral in the open
shelf habitat.
4.06 Endangered Species. The endangered species that may occur in
the area of the candidate site include five whale species and four sea
turtle species. Whale species include the finback whale (Balaenoptera
phvsalus), humpback whale (Meaaotera novaeanaliael, right whale
fEubalaena alacialis), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), and sperm •
whale (Phvseter catodonl. The four endangered sea turtle species
include the leatherback fDermochelvs coriacea), hawksbill (Ertmochelvs
imbricata), Kemp's Ridley fLepidochelys kempiii, and the green sea
turtle fchelonia mydasl. The green sea turtle is considered
endangered for Florida and east Pacific breeding populations, but
threatened everywhere else. In addition, the loggerhead sea turtle
(Caretta caretta), which is listed as a threatened species, may also
occur in the region of the candidate site (George Duray, 1986,
personal communication, Office of Endangered Species, Washington,
D.C.).
The disposal of dredged materials at the proposed site is not expected
to adversely affect these species because the area of the site is
small in comparison to the total available ocean habitat and because
of the wide-ranging habits of these species of concern.
The EPA has conferred with the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to obtain
assurance from these agencies that populations of threatened and
endangered species under their purview will not be,adversely affected
by the proposed action (See Appendix J). '~
4.07 Fish Havens. Wrecks. and Sport 'Fishing Grounds. All known fish
havens, wrecks, and fishing areas near the candidate site are shown in
Figure 3. Location of these sport fishing areas was derived from Moe
(1963); Freeman and Walford (1976); USDOI, BLM (1979); Aska and Pybas
(1983); and USDOI, MMS (1984). EPA conducted field investigations of
13
-------
o
KINOFISH
GHOUNOS
o
P4HTY
GROUNDS
\ SOUTHEAST
J S»«0*U
CANCMOATE
.DISPOSAL
SITE
RIDGE * \ SECOND
\ v RIDGE „-
\ \ '
:o -'
i n <
O I 1 1 NAUTICAL
•ILOKITC**
FlttUMI 3 LOCATION OP C A MO 10 ATI SITE H1LATIVI TO FISH HAVENS CX>. WRECKS (*»
AND SPOUT FISHINO OMOUNOS (o).
14
-------
the fish haven west of the Canaveral Harbor ODMDS, depicted in Figure
3, and did not find it to be a significant resource with only remnants
of its orginal condition(see Appendix G).
4.08 Coastal Amenities. The region's shore-related amenities, which
include the Kennedy Space Center, refuges, aquatic preserves, and
national seashores are shown in Figure 4.
4.09 Commercial Fisheries. Commercial fisheries in the Georgia Bight
represented 10% (by weight) and 5.9% (in value) of the total United
States landings in 1981 (USDOI, MMS, 1984). Florida east coast
landings in the same year represented 14% (by weight) and 39% (in
value) of the Georgia Bight landings. Ranked according to value, the
10 top commercial fisheries along Florida east coast in 1981 were:
(1) calico scallop, (2) shrimp, (3) various fish, (4) swordfish, (5)
king mackerel, (6) spiny lobster, (7) groupers, (8) Spanish mackerel,
(9) blue crab, (10) tilefish (USDOI, MMS, 1984). Shrimp and fish
occur in the area of the candidate site. The calico scallop beds lie
seaward of the site at a distance of at least 14 nautical miles.
5.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
5.01 Introduction. An assessment of environmental impacts at the
candidate site was performed based on criteria promulgated in 40 CFR,
Section 228.5 "General Criteria for the Selection of Sites", and
Section 228.6 "Specific Criteria for Site Selection". These criteria
deal with site evaluation in terms of requirements for effective ODMDS
management to prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine
environment. Site evaluation utilized a literature base and baseline
data collected at the site (CSA, 1986). Each criterion is addressed
in the following sections as it relates to the site's suitability as a
disposal site and/or its capacity or ability to receive dredged
material. Table 2 summarizes the application of the eleven specific
criteria for site selection as required by 40 CFR 228.5. Paragraphs
5.02-5.12 address compliance with those specific criteria. Paragraphs
5.3-5.17 address compliance with the general criteria as required by
40 CFR 228.6.
15
-------
CAttAVCIIAL NATIONAL
SCASMOKC
MERftITT ISLAND NATIONAL
WILDLIFE MFUOC
ftANANA HIV
AQUATIC P*ES
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER
CANDIDATE
.DISPOSAL
SITE
11*10 -
0, i t > n*MTiC*l mill
O I f » • » •ILOKlT«««
PIOUNf 4 . LOCATION OP CANDIDATE 8IT€ RELATIVE TO «HO«-MLATEO AMENITIES.
16
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AS APPLIED TO
THE CANDIDATE SITE
Criteria as Listed
in 40 CFR S 228.6
Candidate Site
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
resource in adult or
juvenile phases.
3. Location in relation
beaches and other
fishing amenity areas.
See Figures 1,2 and 3; 45-53-foot
depth with flat clay, silt, and fine sand
bottom; centered 4.5 nautical miles
offshore. Area of approximately
4.0 square nautical miles
centered on coordinates 28'18"44"
and 80'31'00" (NAD27).
No breeding, spawning or nursery areas
within 1 nautical mile. Approximately
6 nautical miles from nearest estuary.
Approximately 3.5 nautical miles from to
nearest beach. At least 1 nautical mile
from any fishing area. The fish haven
depicted in Figure 3 is no longer
considered to be a significant resource.
4. Types and quantities
of wastes proposed to be
disposed of, and proposed
methods on release
including methods of
packing the waste, 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.
An average of approximately 800,000 cy
maintenance dredged material from
Canaveral Harbor is proposed to be
disposed by hopper dredge or dump
scow.
Surveillance possibly by boat or plane
See Appendix H.
Any movement would be along shore.
Current velocities range from 0.1 to 0.4
knots, with movement to the NNE 45% of the
time and to the SSW 26% of the time. Gulf
stream frontal eddies are not a
significant transport mechanisms for
dredged material since the Gulf Stream
mean axis is located at about 47 nautical
miles from the proposed site.
17
-------
Table 2
continued
SUMMARY OF THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AS APPLIED TO
THE CANDIDATE SITE
Criteria as Listed
in 40 CFR S 228.6
Candidate Site
7. Existence and effects
of current and previous
discharges and dumping
in the area (including
cumulative effects.)
8. Interference with
shipping, fishing,
recreation, mineral
extraction, 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 site as determined
by available data, and
by baseline surveys.
10. Potentiality for
the development or
recruitment of
nuisance species in
the disposal site.
11. Existence at or in
close proximity to the
site of any significant
natural or cultural
features of historical
importance.
Approximately 6.6 mcy have been disposed
at the interim site since 1974. A small
rise in the northwest portion of the
candidate site may be mounding of material
disposed in the past. (See Appendix F).
No interference with
these activities is expected.
Water quality approximates open ocean.
Periodic turbulence caused by strong winds
can greatly increase turbidity at the
site. Bottom is typical shelf habitat
covered by disposed material.
Disposal of dredged material should not
attract or promote the development of
nuisance species. No nuisance species
have developed due to past operations at
the interim site.
At least four nautical miles from
any known features.
18
-------
5.02 Geographic position, depth of waterf bottom topography, and
distance from coast [40 CFR 228.6(a)!]. The candidate site is located
on the shallow continental shelf off east-central Florida. More
specifically, it lies in the Canaveral Bight with its center aboiit 4.5
nautical miles east of Cocoa Beach and with its western corner about
3.5 nautical miles east of Cocoa Beach (see Figure 4). Water depths.
within the site range from 45 ft (13.5 m) to 53 ft (15.9 m) from the
northwest to the southeast. Figure 2 is a bathymetric map of the area
of the proposed site showing the gradually sloping topography of the
site which is typical of the shallow shelf region. The only break in
topography is a small rise located in the northwest portion of the
candidate site. This rise is postulated to possibly be the result of
previous disposal of dredged material at the interim site. The rough
topography of the continental shelf described by Moe (1963) for the
Canaveral region lies seaward of the candidate site.
The center coordinates of the candidate Canaveral Harbor ODMDS are
28"18.72'N) latitude and 80*3l'00"W (80*31.OO'W) longitude, with
corner coordinates as follows (NAD 27):
28*20*15NNf 80"31I11IIW (28*20.25'N, 80*31.18'W);
28e18'51"N, 80*29'15"W (28*18.85'N, 80*29.25»W);
28-17'13"N, 80*30'53"W (28*17.22'N, 80*30.88'W);
28*18'36"N, 80'32'45"W (28*18.60'N, 80*32.75'W).
5.03 Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or
passage areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases [40 CFR
228.6(a}21. Many of the area's species spend their adult lives in the
offshore region but are estuary dependent because their juvenile
stages must utilize a low salinity estuarine nursery region. Specific
migration routes, from offshore to the estuaries and return to
offshore areas, are unknown in the Canaveral area. The candidate site
is not near the mouth of an estuary and thus should not encumber
migratory passage. The site is not known to be located in any major
breeding or spawning area, except for sea turtles which use the
eastern Florida beaches as nesting habitat. Due to the motility of
finfish, it is unlikely that dumping activities will have any
significant impact on any of species found in the area.
5.04 Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas f40 CFR
228.6(8)3"). The candidate site is located at least 3.5 nautical miles
from the nearest beach and 1.0 nautical mile from any recognized
amenity. Shore-related amenities include Canaveral National Seashore,
Merritt Island National wildlife Refuge, Banana River Aquatic
Preserve, and the Kennedy Space Center (see Figure 4). Currents in
the vicinity of the site trend alongshore, in a general north-south
orientation. Therefore, it is unlikely that detectable quantities of
dredged materials will be transported onto beaches. No adverse
impacts to. beaches have been associated with previous dredged material
disposal at this site. Final designation of the candidate site should
not adversely affect recreation, coastal development, or other uses of
the beaches and other coastal amenity areas.
5.05 Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed and
proposed methods of release, including methods of packing the waste.
if anv T40 CFR 228.6fa>41. It is anticipated that the candidate site
19
-------
will be used for disposal of maintenance dredged material from the
Port Canaveral Channel and Turning Basins. An annual average of
approximately 800,000 cubic yards of maintenance dredged material are
projected for disposal in the candidate site after designation. The
material is expected to be transported by means of hopper dredge
and/or dump scow. In addition, about 1.2 million cubic yards of
material dredged in planned expansion of the Port of Canaveral Harbor
will require disposal, either in the candidate site or elsewhere,
depending on the material. Dredging project projections for a
five-year period are provided in the Site Management and Monitoring
Plan (SMMP) for the Canaveral Harbor ODMDS (see Appendix H). All
dredged materials deposited at ocean dumping sites must comply with
EPA dredged material quality criteria for ocean dumping permits as
specified in the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR, 227).
5.06 Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring [40 CFR 228.6(a)5").
The geographic and physical setting of the candidate site poses no
special problems for monitoring or surveillance. Water depth at the
site is suitable for diver collection or surface sampling and does not
require use of a large, specialized surface vessel. The areal extent
•of the site allows use -of towed devices for bottom and water column
sampling. Baseline data collected at the site can serve as reference
information for future monitoring and aid in assessing possible
perturbations resulting from disposal at the site. The only
foreseeable hindrance to surveillance and monitoring is that the site
is often bathed by turbid waters. Photodocumentation of the bottom is
not possible during these turbid water periods.
Several attempts at video surveys and/or diver observations (see
Appendices A and G) have had limited success due to turbidity.
However, side scan (see Appendix G) and sediment mapping (see Appendix
F) surveys have been successful. In addition, the SMMP for the
Canaveral Harbor ODMDS referenced in Section 5.05 provides the present
management and monitoring approach for the site. EPA is also
conducting a benthic monitoring study concurrent with the ODMDS
designation process.
5.07 Dispersalf horizontal transport, and vertical mixing
characteristics of the area including prevailing current direction and
velocity, if anv T40 CFR 228.6(a)6]. Currents in the Canaveral
Project Area are mainly wind driven. Net current flow is alongshore
with the direction of movement related to season (Carter and Okubo,
1965). Current speeds are normally in the range of 0.1 to 0.4 knot
(Bumpus, 1973), with most in the 0.1 to 0.3 knot range. No conclusive
statement, however, can be made about the region's sediment transport
(Ferland and Weishar, 1984). Measurements at the candidate site
during the field survey showed approximately 45% of the currents
moving to the north-northeast and 26% trending south-southwest. Gulf
Stream frontal eddies are not a significant transport mechanism of
dredged material in the Canaveral area since the mean'axis of the
stream is located about 47 nautical miles offshore. A sediment
'transport*study was
-------
ambient velocity fields are not adequate to transport significant
amounts of sediment to the nearshore area. Results of long-term
simulations indicate that some sediment might leave the site but
should not affect the nearshore system.
COMPARISON OF OCEAN CHARACTERISTICS RELATING
TO THE PROBABLE FATE OF DREDGE MATERIAL
TO BE DISCHARGED AT FT. PIERCE AND
CANAVERAL CANDIDATE ODMDS SITES
Distance Prevailing Current
Water Depths from Shore Direction and Speed
Dredged
Material
Type
Canaveral 43-55 ft.
Candidate ODMDS
Ft. Pierce 40-54 ft.
Candidate ODMDS
3.5 nmi Northerly at 0.1
to 0.4 knot
4.5 nmi Northerly at 0.06
to 0.3 knot
Fine-grained
sand, silt,
clay, sand/
shell
Fine-grained
sand, silt,
clay, sand/
shell
5.08 Existence and effects of current and previous discharge and
iumpinq in the area (including cumulative effects) [40 CFR 228.6(a^71.
The interim designated site is contained within the perimeter of the
candidate site. Prior to 1974, dredged material was placed either in
the disposal area located directly adjacent to the inner reach of the
ship channel {Figure 5), or it was stockpiled on land for future use.
During the years 1974-1988, approximately 5.7 million cubic yards of
new material from the Trident Project and 10.9 million cubic yards of
maintenance material composed of clay, silt, sand, and/or shell
(McAdams, USACOE, personal communication) was placed in the site
(Perland and Weishar, 1984; and Farmer, 1988). The specific volumes
of material disposed per year in the interim site are shown in Table
4. Sediment mapping surveys were conducted by EPA in July 1988 and
April 1989. These studies, discussed in detail in Appendix F, were
conducted to characterize distribution of dredged material and to
21
-------
o i i i •*gTic*i.
O I t 1 « » «ltOH€*t«>
noune 5.. HietoaiCAt DH^OSAL siTft. SMI^ CHAM«L«. AND HAZARD ARIA* IN TMC
VICINITY OF THE CANDIDATE SITE.
-------
Table 4.
Summary of Dredged Material Disposal Volumes
at the Interim-Designated ODMDS, Canaveral Harbor*
Date
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1980
1981
1983
1984-85
1986
1987
1988
Dredaed Material
New Work
556,616
2,762,100
2,394,041
(estimated)
in Cubic Yards
Maintenance Work
1,010,457
312,771
494,720
40,593
282,517
1,402,547
494,620
930,000
3,084,117
351,535
2,064,258
385.000
Subtotals 5.712.757 10.853.135
Total 16.565.892
*Len Farmer, USACOE, personal communication, July 1988.
determine the direction, extent and character of any migration of
sediments after disposal. Some westward movement was indicated, with
fine-grained sediments located outside the site to the west. The
sediment mapping suggests that this material is of somewhat different
composition and may not be from the same source. A follow-up survey
conducted June 1990 is expected to provide additional information
regarding sediment movement patterns.
5.09 Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, fish and shellfish culture, areas of special scientific
importance, and other legitimate uses of the ocean F40 CFR 228.6(a)81.
Shipping traffic is not heavy in the candidate site area and all
anchorages are located inside the barrier island at Port Canaveral
(Hunt, 1980). There are no designated Safety Fairways in the Georgia
Bight or along the east coast of Florida (USDOI, MMS, 1984). Other
than periodic use of designated ship channels by hopper dredges or
towed barges on trips to and from the candidate disposal area, the
site and its uses should not interfere with shipping activities.
Fishing and Recreation - The candidate site is located at least one
nautical mile from any recognized sport fishing or recreational area,
and thus should not appreciably interfere with activity in either area
EPA has field-investigated the nearest charted fish haven west of the
candidate Canaveral Harbor ODMDS depicted in Figure 3 and did not find
it to be a significant resource. .Only remnants of the fish haven
23
-------
remain (see Appendix G). Commercially important species occur in the
area but not in sufficient quantity to make it a region of major
commercial importance (Moe, 1963; Drummond, 1969; Struhsaker, 1969;
USDOI, BLM, 1979; Gilmore et al., 1981; and USDOI, MMS, 1984). Even
though shrimp, crab, kingfish, seatrout, spot, croaker, and red and
black drum are found in the coastal habitat of the Canaveral Project
Area, they are not limited to the region.
Mineral extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture, and
areas of special scientific importance - No such activities are
occurring at present in the area. Future exploration for oil and gas
or sand extraction for beach nourishment projects should not be
hindered by the candidate site or associated activities.
Other legitimate uses of the ocean - Two telecommunication cables have
been identified in the Canaveral Project Area; however, the candidate
site is located at least five nautical miles from the cables. No
other legitimate uses have been identified in the general region of
the candidate site.
5.10 The^existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined
by available data or bv trend assessment or baseline surveys [40 CFR
228.6fa)9"). Water quality in the region of the candidate site is
mostly under the influence of the open ocean and salinities seldom
drop much below 34 ppt (Jacobson, 1974). Water clarity is normally
good but periodic turbulence caused by strong winds can make the
nearshore water quite turbid (Gilmore et al., 1981). Such an
occurrence was encountered during a recent field survey (CSA, 1986:
Appendix A). EPA video surveys of the bottom in 1988 and 1989 also
observed turbid bottom waters. Narrative for the these surveys is
provided in Appendix G. with the exception of suspended solids (i.e.,
a measure of turbidity), values for water quality parameters obtained
from samples taken during this survey were well within the limits of
applicable water quality standards. Dissolved oxygen concentrations
at the site (4.8 to 8.1 ppm) during the field survey (CSA, 1986) are
certainly sufficient maintain aquatic life (U.S. EPA, 1976).
The ecology of the candidate site is typical of the coastal habitat
described by Struhsaker (1969). Bottom sediments at the site were
predominantly fine sand with varying amounts of clay, silt, and medium
to coarse sand (CSA, 1986). Commercially important species supported
by the coastal habitat which were collected during the field survey
include shrimp, crab, seatrout, silver perch, croaker, and drum.
No critical habitat or unique ecological communities have been
identified at the candidate site. An EPA side scan sonar survey, as
well as attempts at video surveys and diver observations (limited
visibility), found no evidence of environmentally-sensitive features
on or near the candidate site. The fish haven west of the site
depicted in Figure 3 was not considered a significant resource since
it is in poor condition, based on side scan information and local
personal communication (see Appendix G). Buffer zone protection has
been applied to fish havens, artificial reef communities, turtle
nesting areas, and onshore amenities in the general region of the site
(CSA, 1985).
24
-------
5.11 Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance
species in the disposal site [40 CFR 228.6fal101. Disposal of dredged
material should not attract or promote development of nuisance or
undesirable species. No nuisance species have been reported in the
previously utilized interim disposal site. New material would contain
little or no fecal coliform bacteria, but such organisms may be
present in maintenance dredged material.
5.12 Existence ator in close proximity to the site of any
significant natural or cultural features ofhistorical importance T40
CFR 228.6(a)ll]. Features identified as possibly being relevant to
this criterion are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The candidate site is at
least 3.5 nautical miles from any identified feature on land and even
further from identified wrecks-at-sea which may or may not be of
historical importance.
5.13 The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only
at sites or in areas selected to minimize the interference of disposal
activities with outer activities in the marine enyironment,
particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shellfisheries.
and regions-of heavy cgmmercial or recreational navigation [40 CFR
228.5fal1. The location of the candidate site in relation to the
region's sport fishing and recreational areas is shown on Figure 3;
the shipping channel is shown on Figure 5. As detailed under Section
5.09, the boundary of the candidate site is at least one nautical mile
from any identified major fisheries, shellfisheries, or area of
recreational use. The site is at least one nautical mile from any
ship, channel or anchorage.
5.14 Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen
that temporary perturbations in water quality or other environmental
conditions during initial mixing caused bv disposal operations
anywhere within the site can be expected to be reduced to normal
ambient seawater levels or to undetectable contaminant concentrations
or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or
known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery [40 CFR
228.5(b)]. The boundary of the candidate site is at least 3.5
nautical miles from any beach. Shoreline, or marine sanctuary (see
Figure 4). Temporary perturbations in water quality are expected to
be reduced to ambient or undetectable levels within a short distance
of the release point. Therefore, no adverse impact to any beach,
shoreline, or marine sanctuary is expected due to use of the candidate
disposal site. In addition, no known geographically limited fishery
or shellfishery occurs in the Canaveral Project area. (Moe, 1963;
Struhsaker, 1969; U.S. D.O.I., MMS, 1984).
5.15 If at anytime during or after disposal site evaluation studies.
it is determined that existing disposal sites presently approved on an
interim basis .for ocean dumping do.not meet the criter-ia-.for site
selection set forth in 228.5 and 228.6. the use of such sites will be
terminated as-soon as alternate disposal sites can be designated T40
CFR 228.5(c)]. The site selection criteria in Section 228.5 and 228.6
of the Ocean Dumping Regulations were used as a basis for selecting
the candidate site for final designation action. Based on present
information, the candidate site meets all criteria. If, based on
future monitoring survey information, the Canaveral ODMDS is found not
25
-------
to meet these criteria, the use of this site will be terminated as
soon as an alternate disposal site is designated.
5.16 The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize for identification andcontrol any immediate adverseimpacts
and permit the implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance
programs to prevent adverse long-range impacts. The size^
configuration., and location of anv disposal site will be determined as
part of the disposalsite evaluation or designation study [40 CFR
228.5fd)1. The size of the site is an approximate
2.0 x 2.0 nautical mile square (approximately four square nautical
mile area). The size and location of the candidate site is amenable
to ODMDS monitoring and surveillance programs. A Site Management and
Monitoring Plan for the Canaveral Harbor ODMDS has been developed and
is presented in Appendix H.
5.17 EPA will, whenever feasible,, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that
have been historically usedj;40 CFR 228.5(el). The configuration of
the Canaveral Harbor candidate ODMDS presented in the DEIS only
partially- overlapped"the smaller historically-used interim site. The
candidate ODMDS has been re-configured for this FEIS to completely
encompass the interim site in partial fulfillment of 40 CFR 228.5(e)
concerning sites of historical usage. To attempt to place the
proposed ODMDS beyond the edge of the continental shelf, however, is
not feasible. The continental shelf is wide (over 35 nmi) in the
Canaveral area (Moe, 1963) and such a distance could not only be
economically prohibitive, but would also place the site in water
depths that would greatly limit benthic monitoring.
5.18 Relationship between short-term use and long-term productivity.
Disposal operations should not significantly interfere with the
long-term use of any resources at the candidate site. Commercial
fishing and sport fishing at or near the candidate site should not be
significantly affected because the site is not known
to be located in a limited fishery area. The site constitutes only a
very small part of the Georgia Bight inhabited by commercially
important species. The short-term perturbations at the site will not
significantly affect the long-term productivity of the region.
5.19 Irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources.
Resources irreversibly or irretrievably committed through use of the
proposed site will include: (1) loss of fuel for the hopper dredges to
transport the dredge material to the site: (2) loss of some
potentially recyclable material (i.e., sediment for land fill); and
(3) loss of some benthic organisms that will be smothered during
disposal operations.
5.20 ., Unavoidable adverse environmental effects and mitigating
measures. Use of the proposed site may produce the following adverse
.environmental effects: (1) temporary water column perturbations
(turbidity plume, release of chemicals, lowering dissolved oxygen
concentration),* (2) smothering of some of the site's benthic biota;
(3) changing the site bathymetry; and
composition.
(4) altering the site's sediment
26
-------
In general, water quality perturbations should have only local and
short-term effects and should have minimal regional effect. However,
turbidity attributable to dumping activities and the erosion of
disposed dredged material is expected to contribute to the apparent
naturally turbid conditions of the area of the candidate ODMDS. Some
adverse effects can be lessened through proper management of the
disposal site. Disposal material that might migrate off site should
cause only negligible effects since sediment grain sizes would
principally be compatible with surrounding native sediments (fine
grain on fine grain). Effects outside the candidate ODMDS boundaries
should be minimized through the management and monitoring approach
presented in the Canaveral Harbor SMMP (see Appendix H). This SMMP is
intended to be flexible and can be changed for cause by the
responsible agency for reasons such as results from monitoring
surveys.
27
-------
6.00 LIST OF PREPARERS The following people were primarily
responsible for preparing this document:
Preparer Contribution
Mr. Rea Boothby
Ecologist
18 years, EIS studies
Dr. Bela James
Biological Oceanographer
3 years, senior scientist
with CSA; 11 years, senior
scientist with TerEco Corp.
Dr. E. A. Kennedy
Oceanographer
3 years, senior scientist
scientist with TerEco Corp.
with CSA; 8 years, senior
Dr. Alan Hart
Biostatistician,
Oceanographer
4 years, senior scientist
with CSA; 2 years,
Mr. Keith Spring
Biological Oceanographer
6 years, senior staff scientist
with CSA
Dr. David Gettleson
Biologist
10 years, senior scientist,
vice president, and scientist
• director of CSA
Mr. Reginald Rogers
Ecologist
29 years experience in coastal
studies
Mr. Christian Hoberg
Ecologist
10 years experience in EIS
review, marine studies
Mr. Jeff Kellam
Environmental Scientist
9 years experience in marine
geology, environmental studies
Mr. Mark wren
Technical writer/editor
22 years experience in EIS
studies and preparation
EIS coordination
Jacksonville District, COE
Site selection criteria,
interpretation of hydrographic
and water quality data
Introduction, interpretation
of sediment and epifaunal data
Statistical analyses, meiofaunal
research and macroinfaunal data
analyses
Overall project coordination,
field and lab methodologies,
video data analyses
Technical review
EPA coordination
EPA review
EPA coordination
EPA review
EPA coordination
EIS editing
Jacksonville District, COE
28
-------
7.00 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
7,01 Section 7 coordination. By letter dated August 17, 1987, EPA
contacted the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding
coordination on Section 7, Endangered Species Act of 1973. By letter
dated October 8, 1987, NMFS concurred that species of concern would
not be affected by the proposed designation. Verification of
concurrence with the reconfigured site was obtained through EPA
telephone conversation with Dr. Terry Kenwood of NMFS on February 15,
1990, an EPA follow-up letter to NMFS dated February 28, 1990, and a
subsequent follow-up NMFS letter to EPA dated March 12, 1980. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was contacted by letter dated
August 17, 1987. In the reply dated August 27, 1987, FWS stated that
in this case "...consultation responsibility rests with the National
Marine Fisheries Service." Based on these consultations, EPA
considers designation of the ODMDS to be consistent with Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The three referenced concurrence
letters are provided in Appendix J.
7.02 Coastal Zone Management^Consistency. EPA prepared a CZM
^.Consistency'Evaluation*for submission to the State of Florida in
August 1987. EPA concluded that the designation is consistent with
Florida's CZM plan. The Consistency Evaluation is provided in
Appendix I with a new preface. EPA's 1987 evaluation was based on the
site configuration used in the DEIS. The reconfiguration used in this
FEIS does not alter EPA's conclusion. Because of the reconfiguration,
the sentence in the introduction stating, "[t]he proposed site
contains over half the area of the interim site and an adjacent area
seaward...11 should be revised to read: "The proposed site encompasses
the entire area of the interim site and a portion of the surrounding
area on all sides." In addition, reference to the site's distance
from Cocoa Beach, Florida, should be updated to read: "Site
boundaries are located 3.5 nmi east of Cocoa Beach, Florida, in the
Atlantic Ocean." In review of the draft consistency evaluation in
1987, the State of Florida did not concur. Comment letters regarding
/ the consistency evaluation are provided with EPA responses in Appendix
J.
7.03 Comments on and responses to the DEIS. Public comment letters
received during the 45-day NEPA review period and responses are
provided in Appendix J.
7.04 Public coordination. The FEIS has been circulated to the
following Federal, State, and local agencies and groups:
29
-------
Federal
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Navy
Office of Coastal Zone Management, U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Army
U.S. Coast Guard
National Park Service
National Ocean Survey, U.S. Department of Commerce
Bureau of Land Management/Minerals Management Service
State
Office of the Governor - Florida
State of Florida A-95 Clearing House
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
.Florida Marine Fisheries Commission
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Florida Office of Coastal Management
Local
Brevard County Board of Commissioners
Superintendent, Canaveral National Seashore
Manager, City of Cocoa Beach
Public
South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
Florida Sierra Club
Florida Audubon
Florida Wildlife Federation
Northeast Florida Shrimpers Association
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
Marine Advisory Office - Marineland
Florida Boating Council
Florida League of Anglers
Organized Fishermen of Florida
Florida Sport Fisheries Association
30
-------
8.00 REFERENCES
Aska, D. Y. and D. W. Pybas. 1983. Atlas of Artificial Reefs in
Florida. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Sea Grant Advisory
Bulletin Project No. M/PM-2. Gainesville, FL. 15 pp. ^
Atkinson, L. P., T. N. Lee, J. 0. Blanton, and W. S. Chandler.
1983. Climatology of the southeastern United States continental
shelf waters. J. Geophys. Res. 88(C8):4705-4718.
Blanton, J. O. and L. P. Atkinson. 1978. Physical transfer processes
between Georgia tidal inlets and nearshore water, pp. 515-532. In:
M. L. Wiley (ed.). Estuarine Interactions. Academic Press, Inc.
New York.
Bowman, T. E. 1971. The distribution of calanoid copepods off the
southeastern United States between Cape Hatteras and southern
Florida. Smithsonian Contribution to Zoology. 96:1-58.
Bumpus, D. F. 1964. Report on non-tidal experiments off Cape
Canaveral during 1962. A final report submitted under Contract No.
AT (30-1)-2972 with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Reference
No. 64-6. Unpublished manuscript. 32 pp.
Carter, H. H., and A. Okubo. 1965. A study of the physical processes
of movement and dispersion in the Cape Kennedy area. A final report
under Contract No. AT (30-1)-2973 with the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission. Report No. NYO-2973-1. 150 pp.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1985. Evaluation of the Proposed
Dredged Material Disposal Site in the Canaveral Project Area. An
interim report for the U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers, Jacksonville District. 37 pp.
< Continental 'Shelf Associates, Inc. 1986. Final Report for Field
Survey of the Canaveral Harbor Candidate Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site. A report for U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers, Jacksonville District. 86 pp.
Drummond, S. B. 1969. Exploration for calico scallop, Pecten gibbus.
in the area off Cape Kennedy, Florida, 1960-66. Fishery Industrial
Research 5(2):85-101.
Ferland, M. A. and L. L. Weishar. 1984. Interpretative analysis of
surficial sediments as an aid in transport studies of dredged
t materials, Cape Canaveral, Florida. A final report to the U.S. Army
Engineer District, Jacksonville, by the Coastal Engineering Research
Center, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 26 pp.
Field, M. E., D. B. Duane. 1974. Geomorphology and sediments of the
inner continental shelf, Cape Canaveral, Florida. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center Tech. Memo. No.
42. Ft. Belvoir, VA. 87 pp.
31
-------
Freeman, B. L. and L. A. Walford. 1976. Anglers Guide to the United
States East Coast. Section VII - Altamaha Sound, Georgia, to Fort
Pierce Inlet, Florida. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle,
Washington. 21 pp.
Gilmore Jr., R. G., C. J. Donohoe, D. W. Cooke, and D. J. Herrema,
1981. Fishes of the Indian River lagoon and adjacent waters,
Florida. Tech Rept. No. 41, Harbor. Branch Foundation, Ft. Pierce,
FL, 36 pp.
Home, R. A. 1969. Marine Chemistry. Wiley-Interscfience, New York,
NY. 568 pp.
Hulbert, E..M. 1967. A note in regional differences in phytoplankton
during a crossing of the southern North Atlantic Ocean in January
1967. Deep-Sea Res. 14(6):685-690.
Hulbert, E. M. and R. S. MacKenzie. 1971. Distribution of
phytoplankton species at the western margin of the North Atlantic
Ocean. Bull. Mar. Sci. 21(2):603-612.
Hunt, S.D. 1980. Port Canaveral Entrance - Glossary of inlets Report
#9. Florida Sea Grant College Report No. 39. University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL. 50 pp.
Jacobson, J. P. 1974. A socio-economic environmental baseline
summary for the South Atlantic region between Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Florida. Vol. I - Physical
Oceanography. A report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management
under Contract No. EQ4AC007 with the Council on Environmental
Quality, Washington, D.C. 211 pp.
Kerr, G. A. 1980. Low frequency current variability on the
continental shelf off Fort Pierce, Florida. M.S. thesis, Florida
Institute of Technology. 91 pp.
Leming, T. D. 1979. Observations of temperature, current, and wind
variations off the central eastern coast of Florida during 1970 and
1971. NOAA Tech. Mono. NMFS-SEFC-6. 172 pp.
Marshall, H. G. 1976.
coast of the U.S. I.
89.
Phytoplankton distribution along the eastern
Phytoplankton composition. Mar. Biol. 38:81-
Marshall, H. G. 1982. Phytoplankton distribution along the eastern
coast of the USA IV. Shelf waters between Cape Lookout, North
Carolina, and Cape Canaveral, Florida. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash.
95(1):99-113.
Mathews, T. S. and 0. Pashuk. 1982. A Description of Oceanographic
Conditions Off the Southeastern United States During 1974. Marine
Resources Research Institute. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine
Resources Department, Technical Report Number 50. Charleston, SC.
Meisburger, E. P. and D. B. Duane. 1971. Geomorphology and sediment
of the inner continental shelf Palm Beach to Cape Kennedy, Florida.
32
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center
Tech. Memo. No. 34. Ft. Belvoir, VA. Ill pp.
Moe Jr., M. A. 1963. A survey of offshore fishing in Florida.
Florida State Board Conserv. Mar. Lab. Prof. Pa. Ser. No. 4
(Contribution 72) 117 pp.
Roberts Jr., M. H. 1974. Phytoplankton community and productivity.
, pp. 80-118. In: M. H. Roberts, Jr. (ed.). A socio-economic
environmental baseline summary for the South Atlantic region between
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Vol. III.
Struhsaker, P. 1969. Demersal fish resources. Composition,
distribution, and commercial potential of the continental shelf
stocks off southeastern United States. Fishery Industrial Research
4(7):261-300.
Taylor, D. M. 1967. Billion dollar scallop find? Ocean Industry
2(12):20-24.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1979.
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed 1978 DCS Oil and
Gas Lease Sale No. 3. Bureau of Land Management, New Orleans, LA.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 1984.
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed 1985 Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale No. 90 Offshore the South
Atlantic States. Minerals Management Service, Vienna, VA. 455 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria for
Water. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 256 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Final Environmental
Impact Statement for Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation. Criteria and Standards
Division, Washington, D.C.
33
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
FIELD SURVEY
PREFACE
The following section of the contractor site characterization
report was completed before the Canaveral Harbor DEIS was
published. As such, the reconfigured ODMDS was not depicted in the
report. In order to maintain the integrity of the report, no
revisions were made.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION A: INTRODUCTION
SECTION B: METHODS AND MATERIALS
Navigation
Video and Bathymetry
Sample Collection Techniques
Bathymetric Data Analyses
Video Data Analyses
Hydrographic Data Analyses
Water Quality Data Analyses
Sediment Sample Analyses
Benthic Faunal Samples Analyses
Tissue Sample Analyses
Data Analyses
Quality Control
SECTION C: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Video and Bathymetry Data
Hydrographic Conditions
Water Quality Samples
Sediment Samples
Benthic Fauna
PAGE
iv
vii
1
2
2
5
5
12
12
12
13
.14
16
17
18
20
23
23
23
37
38
49
-------
Ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION D: REFERENCES CITED
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF THE FOUR SITE CORNERS AND THE
NINE SAMPLING STATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE POTENTIAL
CANAVERAL HARBOR CANDIDATE OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
SITE
A-1
-------
VI
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
DESCRIPTION PAGE
RESULTS OF HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS OF 81
TISSUE FROM SPECIMENS COLLECTED AT THE CANAVERAL CANDIDATE
SITE.
C.28 RESULTS OF PESTICIDE AND PCB ANALYSES OF TISSUE FROM SPECIMENS 82
COLLECTED AT THE CANAVERAL CANDIDATE SITE.
-------
Vll
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE DESCRIPTION
B.1 STATION LOCATIONS WITHIN AND AROUND THE CANDIDATE CANAVERAL
HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
PAGE
B.2 PROPOSED VIDEO AND BATHYMETRY SURVEY TRANSECTS THROUGH THE
CANDIDATE CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
B.3 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS AT THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
B.4 TRAWL SAMPLE LOCATIONS AT THE CANDIDATE CANAVERAL HARBOR
DISPOSAL SITE.
11
C.1 LOCATION OF THE TENTATIVE CANDIDATE CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL
SITE RELATIVE TO CANAVERAL HARBOR.
24
C.2 BATHYMETRY OF THE CANDIDATE CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE. 25
C.3 HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 1 OF THE CANDIDATE 26
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
C.4 HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 2 OF THE CANDIDATE 27
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
C.5 HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 3 OF THE CANDIDATE .28
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
C.6 HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 4 OF THE CANDIDATE 29
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
C.7 HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 5 OF THE CANDIDATE 30
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
C.8 HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 6 OF THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
31
C.9 HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 7 OF THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
32
C.10 HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 8 OF THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
33
C.11 HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 9 OF THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
C.12 SUMMARY OF NEAR-BOTTOM CURRENT MEASUREMENTS TAKEN AT THE
CANDIDATE CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
C.13 TERNARY DIAGRAM FOR SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
34
36
42
-------
V0.ll
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
DESCRIPTION PAGE
RESULTS OF THE PRINCIPLE COMPONENT ANALYSIS TO ORDINATE 47
STATIONS BASED ON THEIR GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS.
C.I5 DENDROGRAM FOR THE INVERSE CLUSTERING ANALYSIS OF THE €3
HACROINFAUNAL SPECIES LEVEL TAXA.
C.16 DENDROGRAM FOR THE INVERSE CLUSTERING ANALYSIS OF THE 64
MACROINFAUNAL SPECIES LEVEL TAXA.
C.17 AFFINITY OF SPECIES GROUPS FOR STATION GROUPS AS DEFINED BY 71
NORMAL AND INVERSE CLUSTERING ANALYSIS OF THE MACROINFAUNAL
SAMPLES.
C.I8 NODAL CONSTANCY AND NODAL FIDELITY BASED ON NORMAL AND 72
INVERSE CLUSTERING ANALYSIS OF THE MACROINFAUNAL SAMPLES.
C.19 RESULTS OF CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS TO ORDINATE STATIONS 74
BASED ON THEIR MACROINFAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE COMPOSITIONS.
-------
SECTION A: INTRODUCTION
1. This report describes the field sampling activities and
results of a survey at the Canaveral Harbor candidate ocean dredged
material disposal site (ODMDS). This site was selected for sampling
following a review of the existing literature and an information search
to identify environmentally sensitive areas and nearby amenities used by
man (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1985a).
2. Following site selection, various data and samples were
collected at the candidate site including bathymetry profile data, water
column, sediment, and biological samples. Samples were collected by
scientists and divers working aboard the 42-ft motor vessel AMITY. Five
sampling stations were established within the perimeter of the 2 nmi
square site and four additional sampling stations were located outside
the site but within 1,000 m of the site boundaries. The latitude and
longitude of each of the sampling stations and the four corners of the
site are listed in Appendix C.
-------
SECTION B: METHODS AND MATERIALS
3. This section describes the field and laboratory methods
employed during the survey of the potential Canaveral Project Area
disposal site and during subsequent analyses of the field samples and
data. Included are descriptions of navigation, underwater video, and
bathymetry systems, rationale for utilizing diver sample collection
methods, sample collection techniques, laboratory analytical methods,
data analyses methods, and quality control. Methods used during the
surveys are based upon the Procedural Guide for Designation Surveys of
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites prepared by Pequegnat et al. (1981}
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Navigation
4. The location of the candidate Canaveral Harbor ODMDS was
selected by the Jacksonville District. The latitude and longitude
provided by the Corps were converted to Loran-C coordinates in the field
using a navigation system which consisted of an EPSCO Model C-Nav XL
Receiver, EPSCO Model C-Plot II 10-inch plotter, and a Digitec
Alphanumeric Paper Roll Printer. Prior to the beginning of sampling at
the Candidate Canaveral Harbor ODMDS, a navigation system calibration was
performed at two Corps of Engineers benchmarks in Port Canaveral to
determine Loran-C propagation error. Upon arrival at the potential
ODMDS, the site boundaries were established on the EPSCO plotter along
with survey station locations and underwater video and bathymetry survey
transects. The survey vessel captain was then able to follow the boat's
progress on the plotter and more accurately navigate to sampling stations
and follow survey transects.
S. Five stations were established within the site boundaries
and four stations were set up outside the site, one each to the
northeast, southeast, southwest, and northwest (Figure B.1). Nine
transects for the video and bathyraetric survey were established in an
east-west orientation through the site (Figure B.2).
-------
28° I8.QO
• s STATION LOCATION
|] = INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
— = CANDIDATE DISPOSAL SITE BOUNDARY
80° 30.00'j
O.J9 0.90 O.TS |.00 NAUTICAL MH.CS
d ' pj
MOO 4000 COOO FECT
FIGURE 8.1. STATION LOCATIONS WITHIN AND AROUND THE CANDIDATE CANAVERAL
HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
STATION LOCATIONS
VIDEO AND BATHYMETRY
TRANSECTS
CANDIDATE DISPOSAL SITE
BOUNDARY
INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
O O.t9 O.9O O.TS |.00 NAUTICAL WIIC*
80° 3000'0 ,<£„ 4000 COOQ FEET
FIGURE B.2. PROPOSED VIDEO AND BATHYMETRY SURVEY TRANSECTS THROUGH THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
Video and Bathymetry
6. Acceptable video data were not collected at the candidate
Canaveral Harbor ODMDS due to extremely low visibility at the site. A
Ikugami video camera in a waterproof housing was mounted to a sled which
was towed across the site. Underwater visibility was less than one foot
along the entire tow track and it was not possible to tell when the
camera actually touched the bottom. Because of this high turbidity (CSA,
1985b), the requirement for an underwater video survey at the tentative
Canaveral Harbor ODMDS was dropped.
7. Bathymetry data were collected along the pre-plotted
transects (Figure B.2) using a Raytheon DE-719 Recording Fathometer. The
depths were recorded on continuous fathometer chart paper and navigation
fixes were automatically marked on the chart paper by the navigation
system. Navigation position fixes were plotted at 300-m (984-ft)
intervals along survey transects. Water depths were checked using a
measured weighted line at the beginning of every second survey transect
to calibrate the fathometer and determine potential instrument drift.
Sample Collection Techniques
8. Divers were utilized during this survey to collect both
water quality and sediment samples. Advantages of using divers over
remote methods in shallow depths are numerous and include
cost-effectiveness, higher quality samples, and elimination of many
contamination problems.
9. Divers were able to collect all the water quality samples or
sediment samples for a station on a single dive of under 15 minute
duration. This is a much shorter period of time than would be required
to obtain samples in water collection bottles or using box corers or
sediment grabs, especially when sampling in areas of choppy or rough
water where premature releases of sampling gear can be a common
occurrence.
-------
10. Divers are infinitely superior in collecting undisturbed
sediment samples in areas of sand or rubble covered bottoms. Most remote
coring devices are unable to collect an undisturbed sample in a sand or
shell-covered bottom due to insufficient penetration. Divers are also
able to carefully insert hand corers to standard depths in the sediments
and take replicate samples in close proximity to each other.
11. Collecting samples by diving can also eliminate the problem
of shipboard contamination because the actual collection corer or jar
also serves as the storage vessel for the sample. The sample is
collected underwater, the container is sealed, and the sample is not
exposed to possible contamination until arriving at the laboratory.
Hydrographic data
12. Water column profile data (salinity, temperature, depth,
dissolved oxygen, and transmissivity) were collected at each station
using a Beckman RS5-3 Portable Salinometer, a YSI Model 54 Dissolved
Oxygen Meter, and a Hydro Products Model 912S Transmissometer. Readings
were taken at 0.5 m (1.5 ft) below the surface and at 3m (10 ft)
intervals through the water column down to approximately 0.5 m (1.5 ft)
above the bottom.
13. Current measurements were made using an ENDECO Model
105 Recording Current Meter. The current meter was deployed at the
candidate Canaveral Harbor ODMDS center at the beginning of the survey
and recovered after sampling activities were completed. The current
meter was attached to a taut-line mooring array and was positioned 1.5 m
(5 ft) above the bottom. Current speed and direction measurements were
recorded on film at 0.5-hr intervals for the entire time the current
meter was deployed.
Water samples
14. Water quality samples for total suspended solids
determination were collected by divers from near the bottom (1 m above
bottom) where turbidity was highest at each of the nine sampling
stations. Water quality samples for trace metals (cadmium, lead, and
mercury), high molecular weight hydrocarbons, and chlorinated pesticides
and PCBs were also collected by divers from near the bottom (1m above
bottom) at the five stations within the project area and at the proximal
upcurrent station (Figure B.3).
-------
-------
28»;
80° 00"
18.00"
LIMN
• • STATION LOCATION
a INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
...
4000
«*UTICAL Mats
«OOO FCET
—•••••••
CANAVERAL
-------
15. Total suspended solid samples were collected in 3.8-1
polyethylene jars. The jars were washed with detergent and tap water,
rinsed with distilled water, and then filled with distilled water and
capped.
16. Water samples to be analyzed for cadmium and lead were
collected in 0.5-1 linear polyethylene jars. Mercury samples were
collected in 0.5-1 glass jars with a teflon-lined lid. Trace metal
sample jars were precleaned by washing with detergent and tap water,
rinsing with tap water, rinsing with 1:1 nitric acid and tap water, then
rinsing with deionized water. The jars were then filled with deionized
water and capped.
17. Water samples for high molecular weight hydrocarbons and
chlorinated pesticides and PCBs were collected in 2-1 glass jars with
teflon-lined lids. The sample jars were cleaned by washing with
detergent and tap water and then rinsing with pesticide-grade hexane.
The jars were then filled with deionized water and capped.
18. Divers took the jars to the bottom, opened and purged them
by filling them with air from their spare scuba regulators, filled them
with water from a depth of 1 m above the bottom, and then recapped the
jars. Upon reaching the surface, the sample jars were immediately stored
on ice until delivery to the laboratory. Table B.I shows the types of
water quality samples collected, the containers used, the preservation
techniques, and amount of sample collected.
Sediment samples
19. Sediment samples for granulometry, trace metals, high
molecular weight hydrocarbons, chlorinated pesticides and PCBs, oil and
grease, and total organic carbon were also collected by divers at each of
the nine stations using precleaned sample jars and corers. Sediment
sample-jars were precleaned using the same methods employed for water
quality samples. The jars were then filled with deionized water and
capped. Table B.1 lists the types of sediment samples collected, the
containers used, the preservation techniques, and amount of sample
collected.
20. Sediment samples for granulometry were collected by
inserting two coring tubes (3.18 cm inside diameter, 15.0 cm length) into
the sediment to a depth of 10 cm, scooping sediment away from the sides
-------
9
BQ
s
s
•H
1C
V
i
s
CO
c
o
^Jj
Ij
, M
to
V
V.
p.
VI
£
-rt
4J
o
o
I
1
id
10
r-l
00
m
u
0
O
r-l
O
6
u
•H
4J
W
«d
r-l
ft
H
CD
•
f)
to
•C
-rl
r-l
•O
•§
C
•P (X
-rl M
M 3
r-l
^1
4=
V
r-l
O
ft
r-l
O
ft
eu
fc
•o
CJ
H •-(
in o
O C>3
CJ CJ
0 0
O 0
H r-l
O 0
cS cS
W (0
co to
IB id
rH r-l
r— 1 rH
in o
O C4
W
c
'1
o
Vi O
r-l -0
§*
12
5E O*
•H
£ 01
O* «H
X X
r-l
O
rv
CJ
e
0
^
O
o
CJ
10
w
ID
r-H
&*
rH
O
w
10
•o
§
m
•s
•H
U
•rl
JJ
<0
p.
O
m
CN
OO
oo
CNCM
OOO •<-!
OOOOM
O O O CM
CP
O
o
O O
o f>
»-A
O
O
CJ
N
0)
u
4)
N
(U
N
(U
V
Vl
VI
o
•o
0)
s
<1)
N
«
0)
Vl
0)
3
(B
a)
id
in
o
Q)
m M w >i
W U) (I) .C
id id * jJ
r-! rH r-l fl)
in
o
in
o
in
o
O
ft
to
en
id
s-i
jj
v>
«
r-l
Ol
o Z
11
U
c
Vi
a
T)
3 . .
U X
V
•H
X
0)
a
CJ
•o
c
01
•o
o
•rl
4J
(0
-------
10
of the tubes, carefully inserting rubber stoppers in the lower end of the
coring tubes, inserting rubber stoppers in the upper end of the coring
tubes, and then placing both capped tubes inside a ziploc bag. The
remainder of the sediment samples were collected by gently scooping
sediment into the predesignated containers which were then capped. The
granulometry samples were stored on ice following collection. The rest
of the sediment samples were transferred to larger precleaned jars upon
reaching the surface, labeled, and frozen.
Benthic faunal samples
21. Two meiofaunal samples were collected at each station by
divers using coring tubes (3.18 cm inside diameter, 20.0 cm length).
Each corer was inserted 15 cm into the sediment. Sediment was then
removed from around the base of the corer, rubber stoppers were inserted
into first the bottom and then the top of the corer, and the corer and
stoppers were placed into a large ziploc bag. Meiofaunal samples were
narcotized in magnesium sulfate solution for 20 to 30 min after
collection, preserved with buffered formalin in individually labeled
jars, and stored at ambient temperature.
22. Five replicate macroinfaunal samples were obtained by divers
at each station using stainless steel hand corers (12.5 cm x 12.5 cm x-
15.0 cm high). The corers were inserted 15 cm into the sediment, then
one side of the buried corer was exposed by digging away the sediment.
The diver slipped a hand under the mouth of the corer to cover it, and
the corer was lifted out of the sediment, inverted, and placed along with
the sediment sample in a cotton bag which was securely tied shut. The
bags were placed in magnesium sulfate for 20 minutes to narcotize the
infaunal samples and the samples were then gently sieved on a 0.5 mm mesh
sieve. All material not passing through the sieve was transferred to
labeled containers and preserved with a rose bengal stained 10% buffered
formalin solution.
23. Macroepifauna were collected using a 3-m beam trawl at two
stations within the potential site, one station upcurrent of the site,
and one station downcurrent of the site (Figure B.4). Two replicate tows
of approximately 10-rain duration at two knots were made at each station.
Each trawl sample was brought aboard ship and weighed in a previously
tared noncontaminating mesh bag on a calibrated balance.
-------
STATION LOCATION
- INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
-CANDIDATE DISPOSAL SITE BOUNDARY
= TRAWL SAMPLES 80" 30.00'
O.IS O.9O 0.75 I.QO NAUTICAL MILES
d . pd
2000 4000 6000 FEET
FIGURE B.4. TRAWL SAMPLE LOCATIONS AT THE CANDIDATE CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
12
24. Organisms were then selected for tissue analyses for trace
metals, high molecular weight hydrocarbons, and chlorinated pesticides
and PCBs. Both a fish and a shellfish species were selected from the
trawl samples at each station for tissue analyses. Specimens for trace
metal analyses were removed from the trawl sample with precleaned,
nonmetallic forceps and placed in separate ziploc plastic bags. Each bag
was then placed into another plastic bag containing an identifying label
and the samples were frozen. Fish and shellfish specimens for
chlorinated pesticides and PCBs analyses were removed from the trawl
sample with hexane-washed, stainless steel forceps and each set of
specimens was then wrapped tightly in hexane-cleaned heavy duty aluminum
foil, labeled, and frozen. Pish and shellfish specimens for analyses
were field processed in the same manner as the high molecular weight
hydrocarbon samples.
25. Following the removal of specimens for tissue analyses the
remainder of the trawl sample was rough sorted. Specimens were preserved
in buffered 10% formalin in labeled containers and stored at ambient
temperature.
Bathymetric Data Analyses
26. Bathymetric profile data were transferred from the
fathometer chart paper to bench sheets, and tide tables (NOAA, 1986) were
used to determine the actual water depth relative to mean low water
(MLW). The corrected water depths were plotted along the bathymetric
survey transects and contours were drawn at 1-ft intervals.
Video Data Analyses
27. Due to conditions of high turbidity at the candidate
Canaveral Harbor ODMDS no video data were collected or analyzed.
Hydrographic Data Analyses
28. Water column profile data were recorded in data logs in the
field and transferred to bench sheets upon return to the laboratory.
-------
13
Corrections were applied to the data sets to account for instrument drift
recorded during post calibrations. The corrected data were utilized to
prepare vertical water column profiles for the various parameters.
Water Quality Data Analyses
Total suspended solids
29. A known volume of water sample was filtered through a
pre-weighed, 0.4-um pore size, 47-mm diameter polycarbonate filter. The
filters were rinsed with deionized water to remove salts, vacuum dried,
placed in a drying oven at 60°C for 24 hours, and then placed in a
desiccator. Filters were weighed on a six-place balance and returned to
the desiccator. Each filter was weighed on three successive days and the
three weights were then averaged.
Trace metals
30. Cadmium and lead concentrations were determined by use of
atomic absorption spectre-photometry (AAS) heated graphite furnace. Prior
to analysis, the Cd and Pb had to be concentrated by extraction chelation
due to their dissolved concentrations in seawater. This concentration
method is presented in the U.S. EPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes (1976) and is summarized by Pequegnat et al. (1981).
The sample was then analyzed by AAS heated graphite furnace.
31. Levels of mercury in seawater samples were determined by
cold vapor AAS. Bromide-bromate digestion procedures (Farey et al.,
1978) were used to convert organically bound Hg to inorganic Hg. After
the digestion process, the samples were analyzed using the EPA-approved
cold vapor AAS method (U.S. EPA, 1976).
High molecular weight hydrocarbons
32. High molecular weight hydrocarbons were extracted from water
by liquid-liquid partition. Extraction and concentration methodologies
are explained in U.S. EPA (1977). Silica-alumina column chromatography
was used to separate fractions and the extracts were analyzed using glass
capillary gas chromatography with a flame ionization detector.
-------
14
Chlorinated pesticides and PCBs
33. The water samples were extracted with two volumes of
methylene chloride, dried with sodium sulfate, and concentrated over
steam and under nitrogen. PCBs were separated from pesticides using a
silicic acid column chromatographic separation detailed in the U.S. EPA
Manual of Analytical Methods for the Analysis of Pesticide Residues in
Human and Environmental Samples (U.S. EPA, 1977). Electron capture
gas-liquid chromatography was used for chlorinated pesticides and PCBs
analysis. Chlorinated pesticide Levels were quantified by comparison to
an EPA-type pesticide mixture. PCB quantities were determined by
comparison to results of analyses of a known weight for Arochlor R 1254.
Sediment Sample Analyses
Granulometry
34. Grain size analyses were performed using methods outlined in
Pequegnat et al. (1981). Sand fractions were separated from silt and
clay fractions by wet sieving samples through a series of standard
sieves. The percent of the total sample by weight retained on each sieve
was recorded. The hydrometer method (Smith and Atkinson, 1975) was then
utilized to determine silt and clay fractions.
Trace metals
35. Eighty percent of the sediment samples were treated by
seawater elutriation and the remaining 20% by 0.1 N HC1 partial
extraction. Seawater elutriation liquid phase preparation is described
in U.S. EPA/COE (1977) and the HC1 partial extraction is outlined in
Pequegnat et al. (1981). The sample aliquots to be analyzed for Cd and
Pb were preserved by adding concentrated HN<>3 to a pH of less than 2.0.
The Hg sample aliquots were preserved with the addition of a 1% aqueous
solution of KMn(>4 and adjustment of pH to less than 2.0. The Cd and Pb
samples were analyzed by AAS using a flameless graphite tube furnace
attachment. The Hg samples were analyzed by the cold vapor AAS method
given in U.S. EPA (1976).
High molecular weight hydrocarbons
36. Measurements of high molecular weight hydrocarbons in
sediment samples (250 g) were made using the methods outlined by
-------
15
Pequegnat et al. (1981). Following extraction of the aliphatics and
aromatics by silica-alumina column chroraatography, the fractions were
analyzed by glass capillary gas chromatography with a flame ionization
detector.
Chlorinated pesticides and PCBs
37. Chlorinated pesticides and PCBs were 'extracted from
partially dried sediments (100 g) using methods described by U.S. EPA
(1977) and Pequegnat et al. (1981). Separation of the chlorinated
pesticides and PCBs was by silicic acid column chromatography and
analyses were by electron capture gas-liquid chromatography.
Oil and Grease
38. Sediment oil and grease concentrations were determined by
adding acid to a weighed sample, adding MgSC^ol^O to remove water,
grinding the sediment in a mortar, and extracting the oil and grease.
Procedures followed those described in the EPA sediment analysis manual
(U.S. EPA, 1969).
Total Organic Carbon
39. Sediment total organic carbon was determined using the dry
combustion method which utilizes a high temperature induction furnace
(Allison et al., 1965). The sediment sample was air dried and then
ground with a mortar and pestle to pass through 100-mesh screen. A known
weight of the sample was then combusted at a programmed rate of 300° to
6SO°C in 10 min and at 650°C for an additional 20 min. The CC>2 was
trapped in ascarite and weight recorded as organic carbon. The organic
carbon concentration (Co) of the sample (in mg/g) was calculated as
follows:
Co = (Xo) (12/44)
(9)
where
X0 = weight of CC>2 evolved at 650°C, in mg
g = weight of sample combusted, in g
-------
16
Benthic Faunal Samples Analyses
Meiofaunal sample analyses
40. Upon arrival at the laboratory, meiofaunal samples were
washed through nested 500 urn and 63 urn sieves. The portion remaining on
the 500 urn sieve was discarded. The portion remaining on the 63 um sieve
was washed thoroughly to remove as much sediment as possible. The
samples contained very little sediment after washing. The 63 um samples
were washed into a beaker, and water was added to bring the volume to a
suitable level for subsarapling (between 175 to 325 ml). The total sample
was then stirred and aliquoted using a pipette. Several aliquots were
taken to achieve a total subsample volume equal to 10% of the sample
volume.
41. Aliquots were placed in a gridded counting dish and only
nematodes and harpacticoid copepods were counted. These taxa were also
removed and vouchered in labeled and stoppered vials. All counts were
then extrapolated to represent total numbers expected in the sample
volume. These numbers as well as the total sample volume and the total
aliquot volume were then recorded on standard data entry sheets and
entered into the computer data base.
Macroinfaunal sample analyses
42. Macroinfaunal samples were sieved on a 0.5 mm mesh screen
for removal of fine particles before sorting. The organisms were sorted
by major taxonomic group, (i.e., Annelida, Arthropoda, MoLlusca,
Bchinodermata, and miscellaneous phyla) and then identified to species
level. Meiofaunal groups (e.g., nematodes, copepods, etc.) retained on
the 0.5 mm sieve were not sorted. Unidentifiable immature or damaged
animals were taken to the lowest practical identification level (LPIL).
A representative of each species identified was placed in a voucher
collection designated for the respective survey sites. Wet weight
biomass determinations were made of the major taxonomic groups by
replicate. Samples were blot-dried and weighed to the nearest 0.1 mg on
a Mettler AC100. The data were then recorded on standard data entry
sheets and incorporated into the computer data base.
-------
17
Macroepifaunal identifications
43. Macroepifaunal samples were returned to the laboratory,
sorted, and then identified to the lowest practical taxonoraic level.
These data were then recorded on bench sheets and entered into the
computer data base. Specimens retained for tissue analyses, which were
listed in the survey logs, were also incorporated into the data base.
Tissue Sample Analyses
Trace metals
44. Specimens for tissue analyses for cadmium, lead, and mercury
were thawed in a laminar flow clean hood and processed according to
animal type. Only the edible tail section of shrimp was utilized
following deheading, deveining, and removal of the exoskeleton. Fish
were rinsed with deionized water, the skin laid back, and axial muscle
tissue removed.
45. Tissue samples for the analysis of Cd and Pb were digested
using a nitric acid reflux described by Pequegnat et al. (1981). The
samples were then analyzed by flameless AAS.
46. Tissue samples for Hg analysis were digested separately from
the other metal samples using methods described by Velghe et al. (1978)
and summarized in Pequegnat et al. (1981). Analysis of the digestate for
Hg was by the cold vapor method of AAS.
High molecular weight hydrocarbons
47. Approximately 100 g of tissue from the specimens was
homogenized using the complete organism. Hydrocarbons were extracted
using methods adapted from Smith et al. (1977) and described by Pequegnat
et al. (1981). Silica-alumina column chrqraatography was performed on the
extracts to separate fractions. The extracts were then analyzed using
glass capillary gas chromatography with a flame ionization detector.
Chlorinated pesticides and PCBs
48. Tissue samples to be analyzed for chlorinated pesticides and
PCBs were thawed in a laminar flow clean hood. A minimum of 10 g of
-------
18
edible tissue was dissected from the animals and prepared as described by
U.S. EPA (1977). Chlorinated pesticides and PCBs were recovered by
silicic acid column chroraatography. Analyses of the extracts was by
electron capture detector gas-liquid chromatography, described in U.S.
EPA (1977) and Pequegnat et al. (1981).
Data Analyses
Water
49. Hydrographic data (temperature, salinity, transmissivity,
and dissolved oxygen concentration) at each station were reported on raw
data sheets. Salinity data were corrected based on post calculations to
correct for drift in the instrumentation. The data were plotted as
vertical profiles for each of the nine stations.
50. Data film from the current meter was transmitted to the
manufacturer for interpretation. Upon receipt of the printout of the
current meter data, the data were summarized by frequency of current
speed and direction. A current rose plot was generated from the
summarized data.
51. Correlations among the chemical parameters measured from
water samples were calculated using Pearson's product moment correlation
(Steele and Torrie, 1960). The concentrations of many of the chemical
parameters were below the limits of detection; hence, in such-cases, the
concentrations of these parameters were included in the correlation
analysis as zero.
Sediment
52. Sediment grain size data were reported as the percentage of
total weight of the sample which was finer than individual grain size
categories. The grain size categories were: (1) 4.75 mm, (2) 2.00 mm,
(3) 0.850 mm, (4) 0.425 mm, (5) 0.2SO mm, (6) 0.150 mm, (7) 0.075 mm,
(8) 0.062 mm, (9) 0.004 mm, and (10) 0.001 mm. Cumulative weight
percentage curves were plotted on probability paper. Mean grain size,
sorting coefficient, skewness, and kurtosis values were then calculated
for each sample using the formulas presented by Pequegnat et al. (1981).
Ternary diagrams were also prepared based on the weight percentages of
sand/ silt, and clay in each sample.
-------
19
53. Principal components analysis (PCA), a statistical
ordination technique, was used to order the stations with respect to the
grain size distribution at the stations. Ordination consists of
numerically positioning a set of samples (e.g., stations) into a space
defined by measured characteristics of the samples, (e.g., weight
percentages in different phi grain size categories). The locations of
the samples in the space are determined by the magnitude of the
characteristics for the respective samples. The axes of the ordination
space are then numerically rotated to account for the maximum variance
within the data set in the fewest possible dimensions. The first axis
accounts for the greatest portion of the variability; the second axis is
orthogonal to the first and accounts for the second greatest portion of
the variability. The remaining axes account for progressively less
variability and are mutually orthogonal to the previous axes. Each
sample can be located in the space defined by the rotated axes as a
linear combination of the original variates. After the ordination was
performed, the stations were plotted in the plane defined by the first
two principal components.
54. Correlation among the chemical parameters measured from
sediment samples were calculated using Pearson's product moment
correlation. The concentrations of many of .the chemical parameters were
below the limits of detection. In such cases, the concentrations of
these parameters were included in the correlation analysis as zero.
Benthic fauna
55. Standardized abundances of nematodes and harpacticoid
copepods were calculated for the meiofauna samples collected at the nine
infaunal sampling sites. The harpacticoid to nematode ratio {Pequegnat
et al., 1981) was calculated using these data. The relationships between
the ratio and (1) the average of the mean phi of the sediment sample
replicates, and (2) the average percentage of fine material in the
sediment samples was examined using Spearman's Rho (Conover, 1971).
56. Standardized abundances of macroinfaunal taxa were
calculated for the five replicate samples collected at each of the nine
sampling sites. The Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index, Pielou's Evenness
Index, and Margalef's Species Richness Index were determined for each
station.
-------
20
57. Clustering analysis was used to classify stations based on
their macroinfaunal species composition (normal mode analysis) and to
classify species based on their abundances at the stations (inverse mode
analysis). A hierarchical agglomerative technique using the Bray-Curtis
similarity index was used. Results of the analyses were presented as
dendrograms. In the dendrogram for the normal analysis, the more similar
stations were in terms of their infaunal species composition, the more
closely these stations were grouped in the dendrogram. Species which
were similar in terms of their abundances at stations were more closely
grouped in the inverse mode dendrogram.
58. Correspondence analysis was used to ordinate the
macroinfaunal stations based on their particular species composition.
Correspondence analysis differs from PCA in that chi-square distances are
used to determine the distances between pairs of stations. Use of this
distance measure insures that the ordination is not dependent on the
statistical distributions of the species among the stations, which
sometimes affects other ordinations methodologies. Relationships among
the stations based on their composition of infaunal samples were examined
from the reduced space defined by the axes of correspondence.
Tissue
59. Concentrations of chemical parameters in the tissue of fish
and crustacean specimens collected at four stations were reported.
Correlations among these chemical parameters measured from sediment
samples were calculated using Pearson's product moment correlation. The
concentrations of many of the chemical parameters were below the limits
of detection. In such cases, the concentrations of these parameters were
included in the correlation analysis as zero.
Quality Control
Shipboard quality control
60. The survey Chief Scientist was responsible for ensuring the
quality of the data and samples collected during the survey. His
responsibilities included keeping a log detailing the breakdown of each
field day, supervising the collection of hydrographic profile data,
checking data recording logs, and ensuring that correct sample collection
and preservation techniques were followed. A quality control notebook
containing detailed descriptions of standard operating procedures for
-------
21
collecting, handling, and preserving each type of data or sample was kept
aboard the survey vessel and was available to all personnel.
Manufacturers' operating manuals for all survey instrumentation were also
included in the notebook.
61. All sample containers were precleaned as described in a
previous section before being taken into the field. Sample collection
information was recorded in data logs immediately following the
processing and preservation of each sample. This information included
sample type, time, date, location, preservation technique, and any
additional comments. At the conclusion of each survey day, newly
collected samples were checked against the daily data logs, sample
custody sheets were filled out, and samples were stored pending delivery
to the laboratory.
Laboratory quality control
62. Following completion of the survey, all raw field data were
returned to the office for reduction. Data forms were photocopied and
then transmitted to the proper individuals for data reduction.
63. Water quality, sediment, tissue, meiofaunal, and
macroinfaunal samples were delivered to the propor laboratories
immediately following survey completion. Sample custody sheets
accompanied each set of samples to the laboratory. Upon arrival, the
samples were checked against the custody sheets, which were then signed,
photocopied, and returned to the Project Manager.
64. Analytical laboratory quality control was maintained in
accordance with the program outlined in the Handbook for Analytical
Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories (U.S. EPA, 1979) and
the Association of Analytical Chemists' (AOAC) Quality Assurance
Principles for Analytical Laboratories (AOAC, 1984). With each set of
samples, the following quality control procedures were implemented:
1) reagent blanks were run;
2) standards were run to determine if the reagents and
instruments were in control;
3) 10% of all samples were spiked with standards to obtain
accuracy data;
-------
22
4) duplicate analyses were made on 10% of all samples to obtain
precision data; and
5) a minimum of one audit sample was analyzed.
65. A computerized system was utilized for calculating and
updating precision and accuracy data. This system allowed easy
evaluation of control data by the Chief Chemist or the Laboratory
Director.
66. Quality control for meiofaunal and macroinfaunal analyses
included resorting a minimum of 5% of all the samples sorted per person
during each quality control period. If the number of animals left behind
after the first sort was equal to 5% or more of the number of animals
found in the entire sample, a quality control failure would be logged,
and another sample (in addition to the mandatory 5%) worked by that
sorter would be checked, if this was also a failure then all the samples
previously sorted by that person would be resorted.
67. Quality control at the identification and enumeration levels
of sample processing relied upon the following:
1) preparation of voucher material for each species
identified;
2) preparation of consistency card files for each species
identified;
3) in-house verification of identifications during sample
processing;
4) in-house examination of sample data sheets for questionable
identifications and enumeration of data;
5) in-house support for scientific research and publications;
6) close communication with recognized outside experts,
including verification of identifications; and
7) constant update of taxonomic libraries.
In addition, at the Laboratory Manager's discretion, up to 10% of the
samples worked by a given taxonomist would be reidentified if
consistency, identifications, and/or enumeration problems were thought to
exist. If quality control failures were found, all samples worked by
that taxonomist since the last quality control check would be
reidentified.
-------
23
SECTION C: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Video and Bathymetry Data
Candidate Canaveral Harbor ODMDS Video Survey
68. An underwater video survey of the candidate Canaveral Harbor
ODMDS was attested on 2 July 1985. Water turbidity limited visibility
to less than 1 ft which prevented collection of underwater video data.
The site was reoccupied on 27-28 September and 2-4 October 1985, and
underwater visibility had declined further with no apparent light
penetration greater than approximately 30-35 ft depth. The high
turbidity levels observed at the site may be predominantly due to
resuspension of silt and clay particles from the interim disposal site
immediately to the northwest of the candidate Canaveral Harbor ODMDS (see
Figure C.1). Because of these conditions, underwater video data were not
collected from the candidate Canaveral Harbor disposal site.
Candidate Canaveral Harbor ODMDS Bathymetry
69. Bathymetry data from the Canaveral Harbor candidate site
show depths within the site ranging from 47 ft (14.3 m) to 55 ft (16.8 m)
(Figure C.2). Water depths of 55 ft (16.8 m) were observed along the
survey transects at the southern edge of the site. Depth generally
decreased from southeast to northwest with the shallowest areas found in
the vicinity of Station 9, to the northwest of the candidate site. A.
small rise occurred in this area with water depths of 44 ft (13.4 m).
This rise was most likely the result of previous disposal of dredged
material at the interim disposal site.
Hydrographic Conditions
Introduction
70. Hydrographic measurements for temperature, salinity,
dissolved oxygen, and transmissivity were collected on 2 and 3 October
1985 during the baseline survey. Vertical profiles of these data are
shown in Figures C.3 through C.11 for Stations 1 through 9, respectively.
stations were sampled in the following sequence: 9-1300 h; 5-1410 h;
6-1515 h; 2-1600 hf 1-1645 h EOT on 2 October, and 4-0945 h; 8-1045 h;
3-1145 h; 7-1235 h EDT on 3 October. Knowledge of sampling order is
-------
CANAVERAL HARBOR
CANDIDATE
DISPOSAL
SITE
CANDIDATE DISPOSAL SITE BOUNDARY
NAUTICAL MILES 0
K3URE C.I. LOCATION OF THE TENTATIVE CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE RELATIVE TO
CANAVERAL HARBOR .
-------
53
54' 55'
0.25 0.50 0.75 I.OO NAUTICAL MILES
* , * I1
2OOO 4000 «000 FEET
30.00*
• STATION LOCATION
52*6 DEPTH IN FEET RELATIVE TO MLW
PRE - PLOTTED BATHYMETRY
TRANSECTS
BATH YMET RIC CONTOURS
CANDIDATE DISPOSAL SITE BOUNDARY
INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
FIGURE C2. BATHYMETRY OF THE CANDDATE CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
26
TEMPERATURE t«c(
zs.oo Z6.oo ZT.OO ZB.OO
10
zo
4O-
50-
60-
7O J
TRANSMISSIVITY {% T)
IO 20 30 «0
10
zo
50 -
60 -
TO -
SALINITY («/.o)
JJ.OO 34.OO 33.OO 36.00 jr 00
10
20
- 30 -
so-
60 -
TO J
DISSOLVED OXYGEN tppm)
4.0 3.0 6.0 r.o e.o
10
20
- SO -
50-
60-
TO J
FIGURE C.3. HYDROGRAPHY MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 1 OF THE CANDIDATE CANAVERAL
HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
27
Z5.OO
70 -J
TRANSMISSIVITV (%T)
K) ZO 30 40
20
~ jo
40 -
5O -
60-
TO -«
S3 .OO
SALINITY (%.)
34.OO 35.OO J6.OO 37.OO
IO
- 30
4O -
SO-
DISSOLVED OXYGEN Cppm)
4.O S.O 6.O 7.O 6.O
10
- 30
»-
a.
40-
50-
60-
70 J
FIGURE C.4. HYDROQRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 2 OF THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
28
TCUf»EIIATU«C <*
tt.OO CT.OO
V 30-
4O-
50-
60-
TOJ
ta.oo
I
TRANSHISSIVITY <%T)
to 20 so
10
20
r 30-
z
i-
s
so -
60-
ro -
40
I
SALINITY <%•!
tt.OO 34.00 SS.OO J6.00 37.00
10 •
20-
- 30-
40 •
90 -
6O -
TO -I
7
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
-------
29
TEMPEMATURE («Cl
25.00 tC.OO 17.00 M.OO
SALINITY (%.}
JS.OO 34.0O Sfl.OO M.OO 37.00
10
»• SO
4O-
50-
60-
TOJ
IO
50-
CO -
70 J
THANSWISSIVITY (%T)
» 20 90 40
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (ppn)
4.O 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
10
2O
50-
70 -
10
20
- so
40-
50-
6O-
70-"
FIGURE C.6. HYDROQRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 4 OF THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
30
TEMPCKATUftC f»C)
zs.oo tc.oo tr.oo
10-
2O -
£ SO-
40-
so-
60-
Z6.00
I
TKANSMISSIVITY (%T)
TO-"
SALINITY <%*)
ss.oo 94.00 aa.oo M.OO 37.00
10
ZO-
50 •
60-
70 J
OISSOLVCO OXYGEN
4.0 S.O 6.0 T.O a.O
10
20 •
£ 30-
40-
50-
60-
FIGURE C.7. HYDROORAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 5 OF THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
31
••ci
M.OO CC.OO tf.OO M.OO
10
50-
60-
TO J
SALINITY (%.)
ss.oo 14.00 js.oo sc.oo sr.oo
I 1 . I I
10
- so-
50-
6O -
TO J
TftANSMISSIVfTY <%T)
K) ZO SO
10
~ 30-
*o -
so-
•4O
(
DISSOLVED OxrGEM (ppm)
4.0 S.O 6.0 T.O 6.0
w so -
40-
50-
70 J
FIGURE C.8. HYOROQRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 6 OF THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
32
Z5.OO
TCMPCftATUftE (*C)
tc.oo
TRAWSMISSIVITY (%T)
tO 20 50 40
IO
20-
C 50-
son
60 H
70-"
50
SALINITY (%.)
55.00 S4.OO 99.00 M.OO I7.OO
20 H
. son
W 40 -i
TO-1
\
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (ppm)
4.0 s.o 6.0 r.o e.o
FIGURE C.8. HYDROQRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 7 OF THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
33
TCMPEftATVMC <*CI
zs.oo tc.oo tr.oo tt.ao
10
SO
4O-
50-
60-
TO-I
TRANSUISSIVITY <%T»
10 » 30 «0
10
20-
r 30-
x
i-
4O -
SO-
60-
TO J
SALINITY <%,!
13.00 94.00 ».00 M.OO S'.OO
IO
.. SO
w 40-
SO-
60-
TO J
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (ppn,)
4.0 5.O 6.O T.O 8.O
IO
e so-
4O-
50-
60-
FIGURE C.10. HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 8 OF THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
34
rCMPEMATUNC (*CI
ts.oo M.OO tr.oo xa.oo
zo
- so
4O-
50-
6O-
70 J
TRANSMISSIVITY (%T)
to zo so
10
20
r so
a.
w
e>
50 -
60-
70-i
SALINITY (%,)
SS.OO S4.OO 38.00 3€.00 S7.OO
IO
so-
60-
70 -1
4.O
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (ppm)
5.0 «.0 7.0 8.0
IO
- 50-
40-
50-
7OJ
FIGURE C.11. HYOROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AT STATION 9 OF THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
35
deemed important since temporal variations can be greater than spatial
variation in nearshore waters.
71. A recording of near-bottom current speed and direction was
obtained to document conditions existing at the candidate site and to aid'
in data interpretation. The current rose shown in Figure C.12 depicts
percentages of speed and direction at the site during the period of 28
September through 4 October 1985.
Temperature
72. A temperature differential of only 1.3*C in the water
column revealed that temperature structure is relatively isothermal at
the candidate site. Surface temperature ranged from a low of 27.2*C at
Station 4 to a high of 27.8°C at Stations 1 and 2. Station 4 was
occupied at 0945 h in the morning and Stations 2 and 1 were sampled at
1600 and 1645 h, respectively, in the afternoon. These data show the
effect of the upper layer diurnal temperature cycle on surface water
temperature. Near-bottom temperatures were relatively constant, ranging
from 26.5° to 26.8°C, at depths of 47 to 55 ft.
Salinity
73. Salinities within the water column at the candidate site
ranged from 35.2 to 36.0 ppt with the majority being near 35.5 ppt
(i.e.+^ 0.2 ppt). Station 5 revealed the maximum at a depth of 10 ft
whereas the minimum occurred at Station 5's 20 ft reading. The
homogeneity of salinities within the water column indicates that the site
is not readily influenced by estuarine waters.
Transmissivity
74. Water at the site was visibly turbid with underwater
visibility being less than 1 ft {CSA, 1985b). Transmissivity in near
surface waters ranged between 7 and 19%. All stations had zero
transmissivity in near-bottom waters except Station 1 (31%) and Station 2
(1%). Transmissivity exceeded 20% (i.e., 21%) only at Station 2's 30 ft
measurement.
-------
36
330°
30Q°
60
270
240
120°
210
150°
180°
PERIOD: 28 SEP TO 4 OCT 1985
DATA SETt CANAVERAL
VALID READINGS: 100. OZ
CURRENT SPEED (cm s'1)
0-10
10-20
>20
SCALE
10X
FIGURE C.I2. SUMMARY OF NEAR-BOTTOM CURRENT MEASUREMENTS TAKEN AT THE CANDDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
37
Dissolved Oxygen
75. Dissolved oxygen concentrations within the water column
ranged from 4.8 to 8.1 ppm at the candidate site. Oxygen maxima were
always located in the upper 20 ft of the column and minima were present
in depths from 40 ft to the bottom. Values for dissolved oxygen measured
during the baseline survey are within the range reported by Mathews and
Pashuk (1982).
Current Measurements
76. Near-bottom currents at the candidate site flowed
predominantly in a north, northeast-south, southwest direction and
generally followed the topography of the seafloor (see Figure C.2).
Approximately 45% of the currents moved within the 0°-60° arc whereas 26%
headed to the 150°-240° arc. Current speeds ranged from about 0 to >20
cm/s with 11.8% being in the range of 0-5 cm/s, 41.4% in the range of
6-10 cm/s, 29.6% in the range of 11-15 cm/s, 14.8% in the range of 16-20
cm/s, and 2.4% in the range of 21-25 cm/s. These speeds and the general
net movement agree with CSA (1985a) who reported historical net movement
alongshore at normal speeds of approximately 0.1 to 0.4 kn with
occasional speeds up to 1.0 kn.
Water Quality Samples
Total Suspended Solids
77. Results of the total suspended solids analyses of
near-bottom water were as follows (in mg/1): 19, 20, 26, 24, 23, 29, 32,
16, and 14 for Stations 1 through 9, respectively. These values are
intermittent to those reported by Home (1969) for oceanic water (i.e.,
0.8-2.5 mg/1) and for rivers and estuaries which commonly exceed hundreds
of milligrams per liter; however, the data agree very well with Values
reported by CSA (1986) for the coastal waters off Fernandina Harbor,
Florida.
Trace Metals
78. Near-bottom water was collected at Stations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 7 for mercury, cadmium, and lead analyses. Except for lead at
-------
38
Stations 2, 3, and 4, trace metals were below the limit of detection.
Lead values at the stations were also very near the limit of detection
(see Table C.1 for results of trace metal analyses).
High Molecular Weight Hydrocarbons
79. Samples for high molecular weight hydrocarbons were
collected from near-bottom water at Stations 1 through 5, and 7.
Analyses of these samples showed that all parameters were below the
limits of detection (Table C.2).
Chlorinated Pesticides and PCBs
80. Analyses of water samples for pesticides and PCBs yielded
results that were also below the limits of detection. Values for these
parameters are shown in Table C.3.
Sediment Samples
Granulometry
81. The Canaveral Project Area contains the sedimental
transition zone between calcareous sands of the south and the quartzose
sands of north Florida. Inner continental shelf sediments to the north
have been described by Meisburger and Field (1975) as one of the most
common lithologies off north Florida. It consists of a fine to medium,
moderately well to well-sorted, quartz sand that contains only small
amounts of calcareous material and displays little variation in textural
and compositional characteristics. At Cape Canaveral, it becomes
increasingly enriched in biogenic constituents and grades into medium to
coarse/ quartzose-calcareous sand. Field and Duane (1974) describe
Canaveral sediment as a fine to coarse, moderately well sorted sand
composed of nearly equal parts of terrigenous and biogenic material.
Sediment patchiness is noted in transitional areas even though grain size
is relatively uniform. Surficial sediment data obtained from the
candidate Canaveral disposal site agree with the aforementioned
observations.
82. Grain size analyses performed on sediments collected during
the field survey revealed a sand-sized texture (Figure C.13) at all
stations. Five stations were predominated by fine-grained sand, three
-------
39
•
1!
M
(0
M
g
O
M
S
2
y
W
I*
£
O
e
CO
w
(J
§
w
1
§
w
y
2
*
H
rt.
[3
O'
OS
u
1
1
o
03
1
OS
flj
z
o
H
CO
><
*
F**
*
O
W
£
rtj
e-
c
o
•r
4-
K
«
r-
in
^
"i
(N
T*
k4
0)
4J
I
-------
40
(ti
i
£H
X
8
w
U
£
w
in
Z
g
OS
8
(X
O
s
n*
t4
tt
i
1
§
a:
U?
H
•V4
3*
£]
M
Jj
8
QM
U
§
£
O
|^
Q
CQ
I
a.
u w
M
O
M EH
W <
m o
!* M
tJ Q
ft Zi
55 <
ft U
m
fN!
*
CJ
U
o
0
•H
*j
*
jj
cn
1
r>
m
^*
CO
CM
*-
Vl
V
JJ
e
e
Wl
*
rH
E
o
o
in
r-l
e
o
Q
IT)
r-^
E
o
^D
in
r-t
e
O
O
in
H
e
o
fj
in
i-t
e
o
in
•o
0)
jj
U
10
4J
X
0)
x e
e -
w
« 0
0) •<-!
0) 4J
•d o
^ J |,|
U id
10
V< TJ
JJ C
X *
U
U-l U
O -H
JJ
JJ Oi
*t-| >rt
V i-t
S rt
in in
0 0
o o
0 0
0 0
m in
o o
0 0
0 0
0 0
in m
O 0
0 0
0 0
o o
in in
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
V V
m in
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
in m
o
V r-l
> o
r-l W
o v
CO \4
m C
K D
in in
o o
o o
o o
o o
in in
o o
o o
o o
o o
m m
O 0
O 0
0 0
o o
V V
in in
0 O
o o
o o
o o
V V
in m
0 O
0 0
0 0
0 0
in in
o o
0 O
o o
O 0
rH
X
E
^H **
^ s
«
CO iH
Q> <0
« C
U.
r-l C
10 V
t >
C CD
H t ||^
o o
Er fr
3 3
(0 10
in
O
o rf
o X
o
in
o
O ft
O X
o
in
o
0 <
0 X
0 *
in
o
o <
0 X
o
V
in
o
0 ft
o x
o
in
0
O fC
o X
O
H
\
^P ^^
E co co
C C
en Jo £
« ti ^
C « *
>
i-t •-)
u-i O 0
O <0 CO
a> 4)
S VJ V4
55
i^j
rt
53
rt
x
f£
«'
<
ff
X
c
0)
^
U
n
0)
c
id
*/
pH
10
c
CO
*C QJ
•0 C
O ^
• 4 I^J
O r-l
•H 10
JJ <
id C
a
2
14 *%
Zra»
«b
«£i
rt rf
29
•"
ft ft
x x
Z9
«4
rf rf
X X
Z*T
^
4jgJ rf
x x
Z^
*•*
•0
at
^c
U
en c
TJ ^
tx
X W
a) at to
c c c
*B id o
* 3 •£
t.*! *0 tJ
f. \ 0
a c o
.. .. tn
O O *O
•H -H >i
4J 4J ffi
a) «
K (t
.<
x
^
X
ft
ft
rtj
X
(^
U
1
X
0)
c
(0
JJ
co
•H
(4
a
o
4J
id
•o
0)
*
r-l
3
0
l-l
(0
0
,8
r-*
*j
c
c
id
o
0
-H
JJ
id
PS
4)
pH
J3
10
U
•H
r-l
a
10
JJ
o
z
\
ft
z
-------
41
o
w
J
Vl
V
4J
V
fl
p.
m vo
o\
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
m vo
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Wl \D 0^
o o fM f> o CM «N r> \D in \o
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
m
a\
OOGOOOOt- ^ »- O O O O «fr
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
in <£>
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
oc-ooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
m vo ffi
OOOOOOOT-^-i-OOOO^"
ooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
f.
4>
•o
X
t
Vl
e e
UOO
see
DHO6
QOt
f& (& £ tt ofOOOn)-^! - D _
I ( OCDCUDQQTIViCQQ
£giJ(OVi4-i--- Or-ivi- — nj in
rfoffm
-------
42
Ib
FIGURE C.13. TERNARY DIAGRAM FOR SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM THE CANDIDATE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
-------
43
stations were basically medium-grained sand, and the remaining station
revealed a somewhat homogenous mixture of fine-and-medium-grained sand
(see Table C.4 - a generalized listing of textural analyses results).
Coarser grained sediments appeared in a shoreward direction. Only
Stations 1 and 2 revealed significant quantities of fine material (i.e.,
>10% silt-clay fraction) and Station 3 had the highest percentage of
coarse sand and gravel (see Table C.5). Information concerning mean
sorting coefficient, skewness, and kurtosis of sediments from the grain
size samples is listed in Table C.6.
83. Relationships among the nine stations with respect to the
grain size distribution of the sediments, as investigated using principal
components analysis, are presented in Figure C.14. The purpose of this
analysis is to ordinate the stations based on their respective grain size
distributions. The grain size distribution of each station was defined
by the weight percentage in 11 phi size categories.
84. The first two principal components accounted for over 85%
of the total variability in the grain size data set. The first component
accounted for about 58% of the total variability. Because the first two
principal components accounted for such a large portion of the total
variability, a relatively strong gradient existed among the nine
stations. If these principal components had accounted for a smaller
portion of the variability, the analysis would have indicated a
relatively more homogeneous distribution of grain size. The gradient of
grain size distribution appeared related to neither the location of
station nor the depth of the stations.
Trace Metals
85. Few trace metal values are reported in the literature for
surficial sediments in the Canaveral Project Area. Kouadio (1984)
analyzed sediments approximately 2 mi offshore the Port Canaveral jetty
and found low concentrations of trace metals (i.e., mercury - 5 ppb,
lead 13 ppm, cadmium - <0.1 ppm) when extracted by complete dissolution.
These low values were attributed to the sandy, shell-hash nature of the
sediment which contained a low percentage of the silt/clay fraction.
Since trace metals are positively correlated with the silt/clay content
of the sediment, the low percentage of such fine material in sediments at
the candidate site (see Table C.5) probably accounts for the low values
of the metals shown in Tables C.7 and C.8. Only the cadmium content at
Station 2 and the mercury content at Station 9 were above detection
-------
44
TABLE C.4. GRAIN SIZE PERCENT COMPOSITION OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM THE
CANAVERAL CANDIDATE SITE.
Station/
Replicate
1a
1b
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b
Sa
5b
6a
6b
7a
7b
8a
•8b
9a
9b
Gravel
3
0
0
0
4
2
0
i
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Coarse
10
5
5
8
12
11
9
12
2
10
15
1
3
8
1
2
3
0
Sand
Medium
14
5
14
17
. 74
50
73
62
13
29
29
19
21
20
46
30
74
73
Fine
60.0
63.0
65.0
59.0
8.8
34.975
17.475
21.85
81.85
58.475
55.85
63.0
74.425
62.0
46.3
61.3
21.425
24.6
Silt
8.7
13.0
10.1
10.3
0.4
0.675
0.175
1.05
1.05
0.175
0.05
12.8
0.525
2.4
2.5
2.7
0.525
0.8
Clay
4.3
14.0
5.9
5.7
0.8
1.35
0.35
2.1
2.1
0.35
0.1
4.2
1.05
7.6
4.2
4.0
1.05
1.6
-------
45
g
m
s
s
a
a
8
•3
0?
£A
«C
8
u
g
g
s
u
d
8
u
Id
O,
i
^,
^
M
W
U
W
I
u
N
o>
z
i
o
Id
g
|
b.
K
U
Z
Cu
C
g
i
g
A.
in
U
S
a
f«
I
•**
1 s
6
v
5
V
N
in
c
a
t.
0
o
o
«
o
o
A
o
£
°.
O
o
o
o
n
0
in
N
o
o
in
HBP- r»iN iNr» *»p>j coin mcD f^r^ in^o rccs
S? ££ ^ S S S S S "* S S S S ?£
r* in mr4 ^f r- •- r* com m ffi r- r* 01 CD r- o
"
\o r- oo ^ rv r* o om r- o oo oo o cs
r^ o oo torn oo* ooo oo oo oo oo
*-
-------
46
TABLE C.6. MEAN, SORTING COEFFICIENT, SKEWNESS, AND KURTOSIS FOR THE
GRAIN SIZE SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE CANAVERAL CANDIDATE
SITE.
Station/
Replicate
la
1b
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b
5a
5b
6a
6b
7a
7b
8a
8b
9a
9b
Mean
2.71
4.33
3.00
2. BO
0.94
1.48
1.41
1.56
2.86
1.89
1.64
2.80
2.06
2.42
2.22
2.51
1.62
1.62
Sorting
Coefficient
1.92
2.77
1.75
1.89
0.99
1.13
0.87
1.39
0.67
1.05
1.03
1.60
0.78
1.89
1.32
1.33
0.61
0.91
Skewness
-0.13
0.45
0.03
0.02
-0.09
-0.36
-0.19
0.00
-0.39
-0.45
-0.60
0.51
-0.37
0.04
0.39
0.20
-0.02
0.18
Kurtosis
1.87
2.91
2.95
2.22
1.78
1.40
1.67
1.70
1.66
1.79
1.40
2.60
2.21
2.46
1.91
1.90
1.37
1.24
-------
47
0.0
1.0
0.5
o:
O
o
(O
o
a.
s
o
o
(L
O
tr
a.
O
o
UJ
o.o -
-0.5 -
-I.O
II 1
0.5
t i
1.0
3. .9
.4
_0.5
1.0
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0
FIRST PRINCIPAL COMPONENT SCORES
FIGURE C.14 . RESULTS OF THE PRINCIPLE COMPONENT ANALYSIS TO ORDINATE
STATIONS BASED ON THEIR GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS.
-------
48
*
u
H
W
«
O
H
S
g
iJ
S
U
2
g
U
E
o
fa
CO
1
HI
Q
W
co
fc
o
,_.
[4
jrfj
g
E
z
M
CO
M
co
j
pjj
g
j
«E
Ct]
o
tu
O
to
D
(0
S
.
t~
o
w
S
6*
I S
4J
| 4J
O1*
CO
vO
m
m
N
^
Vl
4J
i
<0
id
a
m
o in r*
o o o
o o o
o o o
• * *
o o o
V V V
in
o in i
1 « g
*t3 *fl Vi
m 0> 4)
U J Z
CO
^
w
£
HI
g
CO
Cx
o
,^
CO
§
M
£4
V
E"
X
u
z
M •
**^ K
f4
CO H
HI CO
CO
>< U
ni t*
*x 4
§^^
HI
Q
< <
1 u
g
(J W
•3C ^
tf ^
6*^ Z
1^
(K U
o
b)
CO 3C
D £
CO O
§Q£
£
•
cc
CJ
S
S
^
c
0
o co o
0 O O
V
VC
€*> C*) f>
o <*> o
# • •
o o o
V
^ "&.
\ -• \
&^ o^ ^p
e >s s
^-* ^x ^"^
^t
6 £. ^
•H " ?
6-00
13 id w
id en fl>
u >J s:
**
, .
• •
-------
49
limits when subjected to seawater elutriate analysis. Values for cadmium
and lead derived from partial extraction with weak acid are lower than
those values reported by Kouadio (1984) and total extraction of mercury
resulted in values below detection limits* In general, trace metals
concentrations at the candidate site are comparable to those reported by
windom and Betzer (1979) for the nearshore shelf sediments off
northeastern Florida, an area relatively free of trace metals.
High Molecular WeightHydrocarbons
86. Values for high molecular weight hydrocarbons from sediment
samples collected at the candidate site are indicative of a nonpolluted
area. Data in Table C.9 show that only 22% of the samples had values
above detection limits and these were very near the limit. Even those
stations where samples contained the largest percentage of fines were
essentially pristine with respect to hydrocarbon concentration.
Chlorinated Pesticides and PCBs
87. Pesticides and PCB constituents were not detected in
sediments collected from the candidate site. Results of these analyses
are shown in Table C.10 and are all below the limits of detection.
Oil and Grease and Total Organic Carbon
88. Oil and grease concentrations ranged from 12.0 to 200.0
mg/kg at Stations 1 and 5, respectively. Total organic carbon values
ranged from 1400 mg/kg at Station 8 to 16000 mg/kg at Station 3. Table
C.11 shows values for these trace contaminants at all candidate site
stations.
Benthic Fauna
Meiofauna
89. Meiofauna are those organisms which live within the
interstitial spaces between sediment grains. Typically, the criteria for
differentiating this group of organisms from the larger macroinfauna is
size, a meiofauna being between 0.5 and 0.062 mm in length. Because this
component of the benthic assemblage is generally dominated by nematodes
and harpacticoid copepods, Pequegnat et al. (1981) suggested that the
harpacticoid copepod to nematode ratio be used to trace dredged material.
-------
50
03
e
C
4-
co
1
CD
VO
in
parameter 1
*n<»t0^*oooooo z Z z ZZ
rsjf-r* ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ X XX XX
mco^ooooooo Z 22 ZZ
tyi o^
mr^cNr-oooooo z ZZ ZZ
cv^-r^Mvvvvvv
ty tn
fM»-m«noooooo Z ZZ ZZ
V V V V
OU1flPlOCMCM»-*-»-*- tf < < < <
CMtNCC»-OOOOOO O ZZ ZZ
V V
moO^vor^OoOoOo Z ZZ ZZ
incnor-oooooo Z ZZ zz
«-«-«-«-«-t- rt rfrt rtrt
Wet weight of sample extracted 250
Dry weight of sample extracted 165
Percent dry weight of wet weight 66%
VJeight of extractables, mg/kg 14
Aliphatics and aromatics, mg/kg <0.
Resolved hydrocarbons, mg/kg <0.
Unresolved hydrocarbons, mgAg <0.
Sum of n-alkanes, mgAg <0.
Sum of even n-alkanes, mg/kg <0.
Sum of odd n-alkanes, mgAg <0.
Unresolved hydrocarbons/
resolved hydrocarbons N/
Ratio: odd n-alkanes/even
n-alkanes N/
Ratio: phythane/n-c18 N/
Ratio :n-alkanes/branched
hydrocarbons N/
Ratio:pristane/n-c17 N/
-------
51
U
c
E-
en
tu
o
w
s
s
u
s
a
H
0)
00
LI
a1
X)
v
(0
kl
10
a
CD
U)
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
n xr r-
o>
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
V VVVVVVVVVVVVV
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
o
o
o
V
(M
o
o
•
o
V
O
O
o
V
CO
o
o
•
o
V
CO
o
o
•
o
V
CM
o
o
*
o
V
fsl
o
o
•
o
V
ro
o
o
•
o
V
n
o
o
•
o
V
en
-O
tr>
oi\.
KEr^O r^KQE-iCC DtJ=DQD*"H «ODO<
1 lOCCUOQQ-Ct-iCQQ
- Oi-lki-
a, --I w >o T
O »-
-------
52
TABLE C.11. OIL AND GREASE AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON CONCENTRATIONS IN
SEDIMENTS FROM THE CANAVERAL CANDIDATE SITE.
Oil and
Station Grease
(mg/kg)
1 12
2 21
3 22
4 140
5 200
6 32
7 23
8 25
9 110
Total Organic
Carbon
(mgAg)
6600
11000
16000
3200
11000
3600
8700
1400
9300
-------
53
The abundance of nematodes was thought by these authors to be regulated
by the quantity of sand in the sediment—increasingly large populations
of nematodes are found as sand percentages approach and exceed 60%. The
abundance of harpacticoid copepods was thought to be regulated by the
concentration of biologically available organic matter in the sediments
(Pequegnat et al., 1981). Shifts in the ratio at individual stations are
thought to reflect the nature of the environmental change commensurate
with the disposal of dredged material.
90. Standardized abundances of the nematodes and harpacticoid
copepods collected at the nine stations in the Canaveral site are
presented in Table C.'12. In addition, the harpacticoid copepod to
nematode ratio for each of the two replicates collected at each station
are presented. This ratio was highest at Station 1. Stations 3/5, and
7 had higher values (^ 0.17) for one replicate and lower values for the
other. Values at Station 4 were 0.10; values at the remaining stations
were less.
Macroinfauna
91. Five replicate 0.016-m^ cores were collected to sample the
macroinfaunal assemblage at each of the nine Canaveral stations.
Specimens collected in these core samples were identified to the lowest
practical identification level (LPIL). Phyletic listings of the results
of these taxonomic analyses are presented in Appendix B.
92. The compositions of the macroinfaunal samples were
dominated by annelids (polychaetes and oligochaetes) and mollusks
(bivalves and gastropods) in terms of abundance (Table C.13).
Contributions of annelids to total abundance ranged from 33.3% at
Stations 1 to 59.4% at Station 9. The contribution of mollusks ranged
from 13.5% at Station 8 to 44.2% at Station 1. With the exception of
Station 8, the contribution of arthropods (crustaceans) to the total
abundance, did not exceed 14%. Contribution of echinoderms did not
exceed 13% at any stations. Echinoderms were not collected at Stations
4, 8, and 9.
93. The abundances of mollusks and echinoderms were strongly
related to depth (r = 0.72, p<0.05 and r = 0.66, p<0.05, respectively),
increasing as the water depth increased. Although the abundances of
annelids and arthropods were positively related to depth (r = 0.57 and r
= 0.61, respectively)/ these correlations were not statistically
significant. Higher abundances of annelids and mollusks were observed at
-------
54
TABLE C.12. ABUNDANCES (INDIVIDUAL PER 10 cm2) OF NEMATODES AND
HARPACTICOID COPEPODS AND THE HARPACTICOID COPEPOD TO
NEMATODE RATIO FOR THE MEIOFAUNAL SAMPLES AT THE CANAVERAL
SITE.
Station/ Mean Nematode Mean Harpacticoid
Replicate Abundance Copepod Abundance
Harpacticoid Copepod to
Nematode Ratio
1a
b
2a
b
3a
b
4a
b
5a
b
543.1
482.5
1407.0
808.4
1626.8
338.5
250.1
265.2
778.0
276.6
209.7
98.5
80.8
37.9
98.5
87.2
25.3
25.3
505.2
0.0
0.39
0.20
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.26
0.10
0.10
0.36
0.00
6a
b
1352.7
1654.6
87.2
101.0
0.06
0.06
7a
b
1313.6
1376.7
37.9
227.4
0.03
0.17
8a
b
973.8
1061.0
10.1
0.0
0.01
0.00
9a
b
429.4
237.5
12.6
0.0
0.03
0.00
-------
55
TABLE C.13. ABUNDANCE OF MAJOR TAXONOMIC GROUPS (PERCENT CONTRIBUTION TO
TOTAL ABUNDANCE) IN INDIVIDUALS PER SQUARE METER AT THE
CANAVERAL MACROINFAUNAL STATIONS.
Taxon
Station
1
2
3
4
-
5
6
7
8
9
Mean
Annelida
1062.4
(33.3)
1587.2
(36.7)
1843.2
(41.1)
230.4
(40.0)
1062.4
(49.7)
1228.8
(45.9)
3840.0
(52.3)
243.2
(36.5)
729.6
(59.4)
1314.1
(44.4)
Mollusca
1408.0
(44.2)
1740.8
(40.2)
1561.6
(34.9)
230.4
(40.0)
640.0
(29.9)
704.0
(26.3)
2022.4
(27.5)
89.6
(13.5)
281.6
(22.9)
964.3
(32.6)
Arthropoda
51.2
(1.6)
89.6
(2.1)
166.4
(3.7)
76.8
(13.3)
153.6
(7.2)
307.2
(11.5)
243.2
(3.3)
217.6
(32.7)
64.0
(5.2)
152.2
(5.1)
Echinodermata Other
192.0
(6.0)
563.2
(13.0)
448.0
(10.0)
0.0
(0.0)
76.8
(3.6)
89.6
(3.3)
934.4
(12.7)
0.0
(0.0)
0.0
(0.0)
256.0
(8.7)
473.6
(14.9)
345.6
(8.0)
460.8
(10.3)
38.4
(6.7)
204.8
(9.6)
345.6
(12.9)
307.2
(4.2)
115.2
(17.3)
153.6
(12.5)
271.6
(9.2)
Total
3187.2
4326.4
4480.0
576.0
2137.6
2675.2
7347.2
665.6
1228.8
2958.2
-------
56
offshore stations compared to inshore stations. Higher abundances of
arthropods occurred at the three southernmost stations and at the
stations located in the northeast corner of the study area (Station 6).
Echinoderms were not collected at the three inshore stations.
94. Annelids and mollusks were generally the predominant
contributors to the total number of taxa at each station (Table C.14).
From 30.8% (Station 3} to 50.0% (Station 9) of the macroinfaunal taxa
were comprised by annelids. Mollusks contributed from 19.4% at Station 8
to 38.6% at Station 5 of the total number of taxa at each station. With
the exception of Stations 6 (20.4%) and 8 (38.7%), the contributions of
arthropods were less than 20%. Contributions of echinoderms were less
than 8% at all stations.
95. The numbers of molluscan and echinoderm taxa present at
each station were correlated with the depth of the stations (r = 0.73,
p<0.05 and r = 0.73, p<0.05, respectively). Positive, but
non-statistically significant, correlations were also observed for the
numbers of annelid and arthropod taxa (r = 0.52 and r = 0,52,
respectively). The numbers of taxa in each of these four phyletic groups
were generally higher at the offshore stations and generally higher
toward the southeast corner of the study area.
96. Mean abundances and standard deviations of the taxa
collected at each station are presented in order of decreasing abundance
in Appendix C. The mean abundances of the 20 most abundant taxa are
presented in Table C.15. Right of these taxa are polychaetes (Annelida).
Molluscan taxa were comprised by six pelecypod taxa and one gastropod
taxa. Three of these taxa were echinoderms. The two remaining taxa
belong to Rhyncocoela and Phoronida.
97. Over the entire study area, biomasses were dominated by
echinoderms based on the mean of the nine stations; however, the
contribution of echinoderms to the total biomass at particular stations
was variable (Table C.16). Little or no echinoderm biomass was collected
at four of the nine stations. At four of the remaining five stations,
the contribution of echinoderms exceeded 50%. Annelids and mollusks
contributed considerably to the biomass at each of the nine stations
compared to arthropods. Contributions of annelids and mollusks were
generally greater than 10% at the stations while, with the exception of
Station 8, the contribution of arthopods was less than 3%.
-------
57
TABLE C.14. NUMBER OF TAXA (PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF TOTAL TAXA) COLLECTED
AT THE CANAVERAL MACROINFAUNAL SAMPLING STATIONS.
Taxon
Station
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
Annelida
22
(44.9)
18
(36.7)
16
(30.8)
11
(42.3)
18
(40.9)
19
(35.2)
30
(42.9)
11
(35.5)
15
(50.0)
Mollusca
16
(32.7)
18
(36.7)
17
(32.7)
8
(30.8)
17
(38.6)
14
(25.9)
18
(25.7)
6
(19.4)
7
(23.3)
Arthropoda
4
(8.2)
6
(12.2)
9
(17.3)
5
(19.2)
5
(11.4)
11
(20.4)
13
(18.6)
12
(38.7)
5
(16.7)
Echonodermata
3
(6.1)
2
(4.1)
4
(7.7)
0
(0.0)
1
(2.3)
4
(7.4)
4
(5.7)
0
(0.0)
0
(0.0)
Other
. 4
(8.2)
5
(10.2)
6
(11.5)
2
(7.7)
3
(6.8)
6
(11.1)
5
(7.1)
2
(6.5)
3
(10.0)
Total
49
49
52
26
44
54
70
31
30
-------
58
,1
<
IS
4
Z
S
H
<
Q
m
£H
p
J
•J
o
tj
os
III
i
1
D
cx
01
K
K
g
D
M
H
Q
Z
M
•£
EH
J
§^
^
b.
Z
O
K
S
EH
Z
Q
en u
•S EH
M
EH 10
§ W
EH
>• 0
EH M
z o
ja Z
EH CJ
*
in
*
0
U
0
EH
C
•H
4
«
c.
o
r-l -H
4t
m
o»
CO
r-
VO
in
5^<
n
CM
,_
C
o
X
*
EH
C
5
T
f
a
e
cc
I'-
VE
in
CN
CN
in
fi
xf
vo
r_
in
00
vo
CN
r-
10
c
•H
Vj
,0
O
10
-H
rH
rH
0)
EH
1 0
r a
. u
T li
c
c>
0
r
> V£
1 IT
> "i
n
CN
in
f
5f
5T
oc
IT
VD
*
m
CM
00
tM
<*>
n
vo
in
5F
fo
5I1
51*
fjx
CM
«
CC
•
o,
tn
0
rH
0)
tr
S
9 C
3 0
1 C
J f^
1 r1
> a
i n
» T-
VC
\t
rv
C
VC
CT
CC
CN
m
t»-
*~
T
00
m
oc
»
f\
^
VO
f--
n
in
CO
CN
n
ro
vO
V7»
oc
•
K
•
O,
m
o
•H
Q
U
O
0
H
> r
r* e
4 r
J
i
i
i
i
VC
m
vG
VC
00
CN
^
5T
^r
VTl
CM
CM
in
ff)
^f
O
CO
CN
ffi
C
r-l
r-l
-H
0
10
tr
ID
•H
O
|
O
•H
S
• r- c
> O U
* r> vj
VO C>
o> ir
eo «-
T-
CO
•
VO
oc a
o
r- ^
5J CM
^r m
en ^
CM »-
-H
^^ rH
•-3 *H
flu iM
J k4
^ a>
10
>> e
K i-3
> a
> e
> •!
1 C
> IT
' T*
• r
CC
VC
r-
*»
a
in
f
^
c
^"
O O
c «- c
J 00
» CM
I *~
CM *»
0\ (C
fs. rn
(f_
N <«
O> CM
r*- o
*- *~
CO 5J-
O CM
Tf O
CD 5f
• •
VD CO
r*» r^
VO 00
CO ^3
tn v£J
^" ^f
^ a>
^D F1*
T* ^
vo
en
CO
,<•*
j
M
a —
«— H
Pu
(J -H
0) rH
r-f r-l
0) 0)
0. H
P r> <*
1 VO tf
•> en a
M" C
VO 4
VD
•
m
CN
CM CD
0 00
*~
^r CN
vo i-
>f> m
^
»
CO
f)
0 00
00 i»
CN 0
»- CM
0 *»
5t CM
VO 0
T-
O CM
CO «-
CN in
1C
^j
m
c
c
•H
— a
t-H O
Q, -H
•4 Q
** 0
01 C
a o
•0 -H
c a
•H 10
U rl
3 10
PI a
•> co r
*r cv
CO T-
*n in
vO
4
Ul
CN
*?j *q
U5 1C
\D 1C
*- r-
00 CD
^p ^
•T CN
CO »-
f> in
00 CC
• •
CN CM
r3 >
~ w
?I
C. X
0 Q
r. O
J-l (0
0) r-H
^
• v(
rv
«— <-
r ^r ^1
) 5T 51
VC
If
f\
VO VC
CTl PI
co in
*™
•o
•H Of
O M
a*
•H <0
ft -H
O «>
• C
F r
F f
e
CN
01
CN
T-
m
vc
en
CO
r-*
rl
r-l
O.
fj
0
f
P
v^
(fl
X
) VC
• ir
i f
CN
f
^
CO
VO
f<-
^*^
i_^
M <•»
a- J
t-3 t-i
— &
r?
a> ~
TJ O
•rl 10
U "O
3 -H
,£ 01
a e
g (y
2 tr,
-------
59
TABLE C.16. BIOMASS OF MAJOR TAXONOMIC GROUPS (PERCENT CONTRIBUTION TO
TOTAL BIOMASS) IN GRAMS PER SQUARE METER AT THE CANAVERAL
MACROINFAUNAL SAMPLING STATIONS.
Taxon
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mean
Annelida
4.75
(19.1)
4.39
(8.8)
10.64
(25.8)
0.58
(47.2)
2.39
(43.4)
6.94
(41.6)
12.86
(16.6)
0.23
. (20.5)
2.29
(68.8)
5.01
(20.4)
Mollusca
4.74
(19.1)
9.32
(16.8)
2.48
(6.0)
0.59
(48.0)
1.64
(29.8)
2.62
(15.7)
4.78
(6.2)
0.61
(54.5)
0.56
(16.8)
3.04
(12.4)
Arthropoda
0.02
(0.1)
0.10
(0.2)
0.81
(2.0)
0.03
(2.4)
0.11
(2.0)
0.41
(2.5)
0.11
(0.1)
0.16
(14.3)
0.01
(0.3)
0.20
(0.8)
Echinode rmata
14.26
(57.3)
34.46
(69.4)
26.62
(64.4)
0.00
(0.0)
<0.01
(0.0)
5.22
(31.3)
58.66
(75.7)
0.00
(0.0)
0.00
(0.0)
15.47
(63.0)
Other
1.10
(4.4)
1.36
(2.7)
0.77
(1.9)
0.03
(2.4)
1.37
(24.9)
1.50
(9.0)
1.06
(1.4)
0.12
(10.7)
0.47
(14.1)
0.86
(3.5)
Total
24.87
49.63
41.32
1.23
5.51
16.69
77.47
1.12
3.33
24.57
-------
60
98. The biomasses of annelids were lower at Stations 4 and 8,
two inshore stations; higher biomasses were observed at the two southern,
offshore Stations 3 and 7. Annelid biomasses ranged from 2.29 to 4.75 g
m~2 at the remaining five stations. Lower values for molluscan biomass
were observed at the three inshore stations, ranging from 0.56 to 0.61
g m~2. Biomasses of moHusks ranged from 1.64 to 9.32 g m~* at the six
stations located farther offshore. The biomass values of echinoderms
were definitely higher offshore because echinoderms were not collected at
the nearshore stations. The biomass at Station 5, in the center of the
northern stations, was also negligible. Higher biomasses were observed
in the southeastern quadrant of the study area.
99. Diversity, evenness, and species richness were calculated
for the macroinfaunal samples collected at each of the nine stations.
Values for these, parameters are presented in Table C.17. The
Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index incorporates the number of species and the
distribution of individuals over species within each station. The values
for this index ranged from 2.91 at Station 9 in the northwestern corner
of the study area to 3.41 at Station 6 in the northeastern corner of the
study area. No distinct pattern of values with respect to the spatial
distribution was evident.
100. Evenness is the Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index scaled to
the maximum diversity, i.e., each species is represented by equal numbers
of individuals. The evenness values at all stations were relatively
high, exceeding 0.79 in every case. In contrast to the lack of a
discernible pattern of diversity values with respect to space, a pattern
was evident for evenness values. The highest values were observed at the
three westernmost (nearshore) stations. These values ranged from 0.86 to
0.95. Lower values (0.79 to 0.81) were observed in the southeastern
quadrant of the study area (Stations 1, 2, 3, and 7).
101. Species richness is a measure of the total number of
species present at a station. Lower values (6.4 to 7.6) were observed at
the three westernmost stations. Values at the remaining six stations
exceeded 8.2.
102. Clustering analysis was used to classify the stations
(normal analysis) at the Canaveral site based upon their respective
macroinfaunal assemblages. Taxa were also clustered (inverse analysis)
based on their abundances at the nine stations. Only those taxa which
-------
61
TABLE C.17. SHANNON WIENER DIVERSITY INDEX (H1), PIELOU'S EVENNESS INDEX
(J), AND MARGALEF'S SPECIES RICHNESS INDEX (D) FOR THE
MACROINFAUNAL SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE CANAVERAL CANDIDATE
SITE.
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
H'
3.08
3.08
3.18
3.09
3.19
3.41
3.38
3.22
2.91
J
0.79
0.79
0.81
0.95
0.84
0.85
0.79
0.94
0.86
D
8.7
8.2
8.7
6.6
8.4
9.9
10.9
7.6
6.4
-------
62
were identified to a unique species level taxon were included in the
analysis.
103. The results of the normal clustering analysis are presented
as a dendrogram in Figure C.15. Station groups were delineated in the
analysis based on their respective species composition. Four groups of
stations are evident from this analysis. The first group is composed of
Stations 1, 2, 3, and 7; the second group is composed of three
stations—5, 6, and 9. The third and fourth groups each consists of a
single station, 8 and 4, respectively.
104. These station groups do not appear to be related to the
grain size distributions or the depths of the stations. Spatial
proximity of the stations to each other seems to be the only underlying
factor accounting for the station groupings that can be discerned from
these data. The stations in Station Group 1 (1, 2, 3, and 7) were
located in the southeastern quadrant of the study area. Station Group 2
(5, 6, and 9) were located along the northern boundary of the study area.
The two remaining groups [Station Group 3 (Station 8) and Station Group 4
(Station 4)] were located along the southwestern boundary of the study
area.
105. Inverse clustering analysis was performed to classify the
species into groups based on their abundances at the nine stations in the
Canaveral site. Four major species groups were delineated (Figure C.16).
The fourth group was divided into three subgroups. The species level
taxa and their respective occurrences at the nine stations are presented
in Tables C.18 to C.23.
106. To delve deeper into the relationships among the station
groups and the species groups, several presentations of nodal analysis
(Boesch, 1977) are made which relate the results of the normal and
inverse clustering analysis (Figures C.17 and C.18). In each of these
figures, station groups are defined as follows:
Station Group Statipn_s
1: 1, 2, 3, and 7;
2: 5, 6, and 9;
3: 8; and
4: 4.
-------
63
*> —
m oo
o
At
O*
LU
O
(O
a
a>
10
o
en
«
O
y
IT
Cl
i^-
6
CO
en
6
CO
2
O
I-
01
3
<
U.
Z
o
oe
o
Ul
x
t-
u.
O
03
5
O
z
£
HI
»-
CO
Z
tt.
O
Z
Ul
(C
o
U.
1C
(9
O
oc
o
z
Ul
a
to
^
u
oc
o
-------
64
a.
3
O
oc
(9
CM
O.
3
O
a.
o
DC
O
ac
aa
a.
O
Ul
CO
UJ
o
UJ
a
C0
-------
65
TABLE C.18. OCCURRENCES OF THE SPECIES LEVEL TAXA IN GROUP 1 OF THE
INVERSE CLUSTERING ANALYSIS OF THE MACROINFAUNAL SAMPLES
FROM THE CANAVERAL SITE.
Stations
Species
7231
695
Ceratocephale sp. B
Bowmaniella brasiliensis
Crassinella lunulata
Megaluropus myersi
Mooreonuphis cf. nubulosa
Olivella dealbata
Olivella nivea
Scolelepis texana
Strorabiformis sp. D
Tiron tropakis
Tiron triocellatus
Cyclaspis sp. Q
Branchiostoma yirginiae
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-------
66
TABLE C.19. OCCURRENCES OF THE SPECIES LEVEL TAXA IN GROUP 2 OF THE
INVERSE CLUSTERING ANALYSIS OF THE MACROINPAUNAL SAMPLES
FROM THE CANAVERAL SITE.
Stations
Species
695
Hauchiella sp. A
Batea catharinensis
Podarkeopsis levifuscina
Brasiloiiysis castroi
Mysidopsis sp. C
Paramphinome sp. B
Lucifer faxoni
Sigambra wassi
*
*
*
*
*
-------
67
TABLE C.20. OCCURRENCES OF THE SPECIES LEVEL TAXR IN GROUP 3 OF THE
INVERSE CLUSTERING ANALYSIS OF THE MACROINFAUNAL SAMPLES
FROM THE CANAVERAL SITE.
Stations
Species
7231
695
Corophium acutum
Anelassorhynchus sp. A
Cyclaspis sp. P
Diopatra neotridens
Laonice cirrata
Ogyrides alphaerostris
Oxyurostylis sp. C
Glycera americana
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-------
68
TABLE C.21. OCCURRENCES OF THE SPECIES LEVEL TAXA IN GROUP 4A OF THE
INVERSE CLUSTERING ANALYSIS OF THE MACROINFAUNAL SAMPLES
FROM THE CANAVERAL SITE.
Stations
Species 7231 695
Metharpinia floridana * . *
Automate evermanni *
Ampelisca parapacifica *
Lumbrineris sp. Q *
Ophiactis sp. B *
Abra aequalis * * * * * *
Goniada littorea **** * * * * *
Acteocina bidentata * * * * * *
Nannodie1la cf. vespuciana * *
Apoprionospio pygmaea * *
Kototnastus lobatus *
Epitonium cf. apiculatum *
Odostomia weberi *
Acteon punctostriatus *
Parvilucina multilineata * *
Onchnesoma squamatum * * *
Cryoturris fargoi * *
Natica pusilla * * .
Sabellides sp. A *
Moira atropos *
-------
69
TABLE C.22. OCCURRENCES OF THE SPECIES LEVEL TAXA IN GROUP 4B OF THE
INVERSE CLUSTERING ANALYSIS OF THE MACROINFAUNAL SAMPLES
FROM THE CANAVERAL SITE.
Species
Armandia atjilis
Exosphaeroma crenulata
Sabellaria sp. A
Magelona sp.H
Tellina probrina
Prionospio sp. E
Micropholis gracillima
Lumbrineris verrilli
Aglaophamus verrilli
Paraprionospio pinnata
Tellina versicolor
Sigambra tentaculata
Litocorsa sp. A
Solen viridis
Bowmaniella portoricensis
Hemipodus roseus
Dentalium texasianum
Nereis microtnma
Naineris sp. A
Volvulella persimilis
Spiochaetopterus oculatus
Golfingia trichocephala
Diplodonta sp. B
Strombiformis bilineatus
Loimia sp. A
Corbula contracta
Turbonilla hemphil.li
Dentalium pilsbryi
7
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3 1
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
*
*
*
* *
* *
* *
* *
*
* *
* *
Stations
695 8
* *
* * *
*
* * *
*
* * * *
*
* * *
* * * *
* * *
*
* * *
* *
*
* *
*
*
* *
* *
*
*
* *
*
*
4
*
*
*
*
*
*
-------
70
TABLE C.23. OCCURRENCES OF THE SPECIES LEVEL TAXA IN GROUP 4C OF THE
INVERSE CLUSTERING ANALYSIS OF THE MACROINFAUNAL SAMPLES
FROM THE CANAVERAL SITE.
Species
Owenia sp. A
And st rosy Hi s sp. B
Hiatella artica
Pinnixa chaetopterana
Micropholis atra
Promysis atlantica
Aspidosiphon albus
A pop r ion o sp i o dayi
Apseudes sp. H
Lepidasthenia varius
Malmgreniella sp. A
Ceratonereis irritabilis
Nephtys Sp. D
Pinnixa sp. A
Syncheliriiuni americanum
Listriella barnardi
Armandia maculata
Ptilanthura sp. A
Spiophanes cf. missionensis
Tharyx cf . annulosus
Leptochela serratorbita
Euceraraus praelonqus
Ancistrosyllis ionesi
Stations
7231 695 8 4
* * * * *
* *
*
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* *
* *
*
*
*
*
* *
* * *
*
*
*
*
* *
* *
«
*
-------
STATION GROUP
i 234
4A
O
o.o
-- o.o
FIGURE C.17. AFFINITY OF SPECIES GROUPS FOR STATION GROUPS AS DEFINED BY NORMAL
AND INVERSE CLUSTERING ANALYSIS OF THE MACROINFAUNAL SAMPLES.
-------
72
O —
D
e>
O h-
O «>
•*»••••««
**»*•••••»**••••••••••*€
• •»•••••**•»••••••»••••»
***••••*••*••••••*••••••••
**•***•••»••••••»••*«»•«
***»"":« """""*
::::::::;::::::::::::
»•*••••••*•••**•*•*****
••••••••••••*••••••••••
:;::::::::
•••••••••••••••••••••••••ft*******
*••*»••••••*•*••*•**•**•«•*• •*••*<
•••••••*••»••*••••*•»•••*•••••*«»<
• !!*••*••*••**•*••••*••••****• ***«•)
••••••••••••
•• •••••••**•*••••§ *•«**** t*******«i
•*•***•••*•**••••••*•****•*••4•**•
I •••••••*•••••••••••••••••*•••%*44
::::::::::::::H:::::::::::::::::i
••••••••»••••« •••••t •«•••••*•••<
(•^^^•^•••••••••••••^••^••••••••••<
•*•••••••••••••••••••••••••«••••*!
••••••••••••••••••••••A** ••••••••4
• •*•*••»•*•**•**** •***•**
•••«•••••«•••••••••••»»••<
• • ***• * **»* •*•••*•• ••*•*«<
***«
••••
•«••••*••*••••«*•••*»•••*•
m
S3ID3dS
O
10
o £ 6 2 d o d
• *
D
«*•**••••••••**•••<•••
••••••••••••••*•••*•
••«•*••••••*••*«•*»•••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••ft*»•*•*<
*••••••••••••••»*••*•*•*••»••*•*••
••***•*••••••*••••••••••••••••*•*'
*•**•••«••••••••***••••*•*••»••••
••*••»•••••••*•••••••••t•••••••••
•••••*«»**•*••••••••••
••••••*••»•»••*«••»•••
• •••« #»»•#••»**•»••••*
••••«•****••
«**«••«••••••»••*••
«*•«••«••••••»••*•• ••*•»««
•»••••••••••••*•*•• ••*•*•«
••4•**•••••••••*•••
•*••****•»*••••*•••
•••••••••*••••*•••• *•*•**•
••••••••••••••**•*• *•*•*••
*•••••**••******•** •**••••
•••••••••*•**•**••• *•*•*••
••••*•*«•****••*•*• •••*»••
•«»**•**•*••••••••** **»**••
*****t***«••*••••*••*•***••
4•••*•••••••••*•*#«•****••*
IO
«0
U
ui
X
t-
u.
O
m
m
ff
UI
I-
o
z
<
o
UI
<0
CO
>
O
o .
Z 09
A U
2J
z a.
§2
oz
00
-------
73
The members of the six groups of species are specified in Tables C.18 to
C.23.
107. The affinities of the members of particular species groups
for the station groups are presented in Figure C.17. Affinity, in this
case, is defined as the ratio of the number of occurrences of the species
in a particular station group to the total number of occurrences of the
species at all stations. Clearly, each of the four major species groups
had a higher affinity with a particular station group. These affinities
were as follows:
Species Group
Station Group
1
2
3
4
3
4
2
1
108. The major species groups were distinctly delineated by their
occurrences at particular station groups. Because the station groupings
were most related to the location of the stations (see above), the
distribution of the species groups were likewise strongly related
locations.
109. Nodal constancy of the species groups to the station groups
followed a pattern similar to that described for the affinity of the
species groups (Figure C.18), High constancy for Station Group 1 and 2
was observed for Species Group 4B. Moderate constancy was observed for
species group 4A for Station group 2 while low constancy was observed for
this station group by species group 4C. None of the species in groups 3
and 4 showed even moderate fidelity (see Boesch, 1977) to any station
group; however, species groups 1 and 2 were highly faithful to Station
groups 3 and 4, respectively (Figure C.18).
110. The macroinfaunal data (taxa identified to species level
taxon) were also analyzed using correpondence analysis. The results of
this analysis (Figure C.19) agreed well with those of the normal
clustering analysis. Stations 1, 2, 3, and 7 formed a tight group of
stations* Stations 5, 6, and 9 formed a somewhat less tightly clustered
group of stations. Stations 4 and 8 were distinct from each other and
from each of the other two groups. Comparison of Figure C.19 to the
results of the principal components analysis of the grain size data (see
-------
74
1
.
-
i i i
CO
.
tt1
•*° K) !»
«• o •«•.
Ill
IO
- in
to
UJ
o
o
CO
to
X
"> UJ
o
UJ
0
0
0.
to
. CM liJ
a:
a:
0
o
i-
(O
—
o
'
ro oj — O T-
SBUOOS SIXV 30N3QNOdS3dHOD QN003S
-I
z
3
U.
z
o
c
o
<
z
tc
UJ
z
t-
z
o
IU
CO
o
co
z
0
<
»-
CO
u
t-
0
CE
O
o
t-
(0
CD
J
Z
Ul
o .
Z CO
Ul Z
DO
ot
a. co
CO O
wo.
E 5
8«
o<
^1
3UI
CO CO
UJ CO
te<
<•
U
Ul
cr
3
0
ol
-------
75
Figure C.14) revealed no evident relationship between the distribution of
the macroinfauna and the sediment.
Macroepifauna
111. Replicate trawl samples were used to obtain data concerning
the benthic biota at the candidate Canaveral disposal site. The entire
trawl catch, comprised basically of fishes, crustaceans, echinoderms,
mollusks, and cnidarians, for each station is detailed in Appendix D.
Even though several of the species listed are not considered to be
macroepifauna sensu stricto, no distinction was made between nektonic and
benthic invertebrates and fishes since sampling bias (i.e., time of day,
season of year, catch of opportunity, etc.) is a normal occurrence during
field surveys. Differences in the catch among trawl samples are
indicative of sampling bias since water depth and sediment type were very
similar at all stations in the study area.
112. Sciaenids were the predominant demersal fishes collected in
trawl samples at the candidate site. Species of the drum family
accounted for 72.6% of the total fish catch with silver seatrout
Cynoscion nothus (41.4%), and silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura (22.8%),
contributing the largest numbers of specimens. The Atlantic cutlassfish
Trichiurus lepturus (5.7%), and rock sea bass, Centropristis
philadelphica (5.2%), were the next most abundant species collected.
Other demersal fishes common in the trawl samples were banded drum
(Larimus fasciatus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), hardhead
catfish (Arius felis), blackcheeked tonguefish (Symplmrus plagiusa),
fringed flounder (Etropus crossotus), Atlantic bumper (Chloroscombrus
chrysurus), and smoothhead scorpionfish (Scorpaena calcarata). These
fishes are common in the coastal habitat along the southeastern United
States (Struhsaker, 1969).
113. The striped anchovy (Anchoa hepsetus), also occurred in
relatively large numbers in the trawl samples. Although pelagic,
anchovies are frequently taken in benthic trawls (i.e., captured as the
trawl is moving through the water column). Presence of anchovy indicates
that the candidate site is somewhat estuarine influenced,- other common
littoral species in the samples considered to be estuarine dependent
include silver perch, banded drum, Atlantic croaker, spot (Leiostomus
xanthurus), and blackcheeked tonguefish.
114. Fourteen species of decapod crustaceans were collected in
the trawl samples. The sergestid shrimp Acetes americanus was
-------
76
numerically predominant in all samples followed by the hardback shrimp
(Trachypenaeus sp.) and the seabob (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri). The calico
crab (Hepatus epheliticus) was the most abundant brachyuran collected and
was captured at three of the four trawl stations (i.e., six of the eight
samples). The mantis shrimp (Sguilla empusa), a common inhabitant of
nearshore and estuarine waters, was collected in only three of the eight
trawls.
115. Echinoderms were represented by two species of starfish and
one species each of echinoids and holothuroids. Only 24 specimens were
collected, 13 of which were the sea star Luidia clathrata that was found
at all stations except Station 9.
116. Only five species of shelled nollusks totaling 10 specimens
were contained in the trawl catches. Four species of gastropods
accounted for six specimens whereas the bivalves were represented by four
specimens of the common jingle shell (Anomia simplex). The pelagic squid
Lolliguncula brevis was collected in all trawl samples with the number of
specimens ranging from 7-41 individuals per trawl.
117. It should be noted that the Calico scallop (Aeguipecteri
gibbus) was not taken in any of the benthic trawls at the candidate site.
This commercially important species is reported to occupy large areas
farther offshore (seaward of the 120 ft isobath) in the Cape Canaveral
area (Taylor, 1967).
Spibenthic Biomass
118. The benthic community in the Canaveral Project Area is close
in comparison to that occupying the shallow shelf off the
Fernandina-Jacksonville coast which is described as being diverse in
species and low in overall abundance (CSA, 1986). Appendix D shows the
numbers of species and specimens collected at the candidate site to be
less than at the Fernandina candidate site. Even though the average
biomass is a bit greater, it is not considered to be large in quantity.
Average epifaunal biomass (wet weight) ranged from approximately 2.57 to
4.54 grams per square meter (see Table C.24) at the four trawl stations.
Larger values were found at the seaward Stations 2 and 7 than at the
landward Stations 4 and 9. A hard sand bottom in the northern Gulf of
Mexico yielded similar biomass values (TerEco Corporation, 1981) and
similar benthic communities (Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Inc.,
1985).
-------
77
TABLE C.24. WET WEIGHT BIOMASS OF TRAWL SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
Station Replicate
Weight of Total Trawl Sample
kg (Ibs)
Average Epifaunal
Biomass
2a
2b
4a
4b
7a
7b
9a
9b
9.1
7.7
4.5
5.0
10.4
5.4
6.B
5.0
(20)
(17)
(10)
(11)
(23)
(12)
(15)
(11)
4.54
2.57
4.27
3.19
-------
78
Tissue Analyses
119. After the trawl samples had been weighed for wet weight
biomass, fish and shrimp were removed for future tissue analyses. Trace
contaminant values were determined for specified trace metals, high
molecular weight hydrocarbons, and chlorinated pesticides and PCBs.
Table C.25 lists those taxa that were selected for tissue analyses.
120. Trace metals values for specimens collected at the candidate
site are given in Table C.26. Lead concentrations in all tissue samples
were below detection limits and the cadmium levels were considered to be
low when compared to specimens from the northeast Gulf (Dames and Moore,
1979). Mercury values ranged from 0.02 to 0.06 ppm which is the same
range reported for the Fernandina specimens (CSA, 1986) and similar to
background levels and concentrations reported for a relatively pristine
area (TerEco Corporation, 1981).
121. High molecular weight hydrocarbon results are shown in
Table C.27. Concentrations in all shrimp tissue were below the limits of
detection and values in fish tissue are within acceptable ranges.
122. Concentrations of chlorinated pesticides in all tissue
analyzed from the candidate site were below detection limits (see
Table C.28). Very low values for total PCBs (<0.01 ppm) were detected in
fish tissue only and no significant degree of contamination was indicated
by such concentrations.
-------
79
TABLE C.25. TAXA SELECTED FROM TRAWL SAMPLES FOR TISSUE ANALYSES AT THE
CANAVERAL HARBOR DISPOSAL SITE.
Station Number
Taxa
Micropogonias undulatus (croaker)
Penaeus setiferus (shrimp)
Micropogonias undulatus (croaker)
Penaeus setiferus (shrimp)
Micropogonias undulatus (croaker)
Penaeus aztecus (shrimp)
Micropogonias undulatus (croaker)
Xiphopenaeus kroyeri (shrimp)
-------
80
TABLE C.26. TRACE METAL ANALYSES RESULTS OF TISSUE FROM SPECIMENS COLLECTED AT
THE CANAVERAL CANDIDATE SITE.
Station-Specimen
2 -Fish
2-Shrirap
4-Fish
4-Shrimp
7-Fish
7-$hrimp
9-Fish
9-Shrimp
Cadmium
(ug/g)
0.005
0.024
0.004
0.017
0.006
0.012
0.004
0.012
Parameter
Lead
(ug/g)
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
Mercury
(ug/g)
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.02
-------
•J
s
1
i
5
i
<
a
w
o
w
o
8
W
CO
Z
Jg
H
u
a.
CO
§
a:
b
W
D
CO
CO
H
£H
Cv.
O
CO
CO
I
§
a
a
5
Q
Q
z
t<
T
o
M
s
PS
r- vo n Oi
(Omrsif-«-i-»-i/)
CDZZMOOOOOOOZZZZ
V V
en
CO ^^ ^^ '^ ^*^ ^"^ '"^
rozZHOOOOOOZZZZB
Cn
**" 0S fO f>J fl
CO 0>fM<¥l»-'"'"'"*^
ZZHOOOOOOOZZZZ
V V
o, ^. v ^, ^, „ ^
tr < o 3 to
x u c
O1 T? * O
3 >, M JD
X 0) M
» C ID
4J -C ID U
C. 01 Jk! O
*O t? CT1 CP ^ rH Wl
OJ 0) "*^ """v CP CP rH id 'O
jj 4_) Q} pi CP *^v ^**. O I ^t
UU>X3O>Cn 0" MC £
*0 id CP 33 ^*s tT1 0)
^j fj 4J 3 *- CP X U C *D
1JJJ01 (0*» 3CP X 0* 0*
xx^-umw a w > jc
VV Ul -H C C tP » CO1 U
«4Jtt)*JOOXCO »OXCOCl^
01 01 OrH ID.DJD (7>0)Uja W>- «»-
iHH XlFUVipCOViOOi-lU
DiOi-UlDOlO<0 iBCiQCIjOl
e e £ j-i u u u »xl4lO'O'0CI lUVlOCCC
"wiwSxic^^idei >,i 1 0> r-l C 4J r-l iieo>>a.ei t<
CPtn O-H>>CO>O>OO£jBa>caooonoooo
O Cn Qi 0> 01 Ot -H -H .rt •«-!
4J >, tl .H -H (K ME E E l-l +J JJ 4-> 4-1
OlhOIOlrH C333C<0<0'die
saouSrfonwwco^QsosKa:
c
o
n
w
c
fe
0
01
ID
10
01
•H
O
CO
e
I
CO
to
w
*
-------
82
I/I
O
O»-CN»-»-fV
CO
o
s
n
a
c
o
JJ
(0
K
(0
fe.
I
CO
w
•H
EL
f-
§•
j:
to
10
CO
10
•H
&u
(N
ooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
OOOOOOOO4NNOOOOCO
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
oooooooooooooo^
ooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
CD
O«-CN«"1<-(NM mO>l*-0>
oooooooo4(MrMoooom
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
oooooooooooooo*-
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
CO
o»-r>jn'-CMM no>r^c^
OOOCOOOCNCMCMOOOOro
ooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
in r»
OO«-tNo*-CM tN VC in VD
OOOOOOO«-'-«-OOOOM1
ooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooocoo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
00
o«-fM(T>*-cNm foerir~{T»
OOOOOOONCNNOOOOIT)
ooooooococooooo
ooooooooooooooo
ocoooooooooocoo
VVVVVVVVVVVVVV
0)
4J
0)
Vi
(B
0> -H
0^ tT>\ X tP
^^ ^^ 0^ t^ 0 ^^ 0^ ^^ ^* 5^ CP
giep9x.i_Q)v.>vvtnx, x
3 !3 CP t^ pJ t^ w^ l^ S tr tP ^y^
-3X 999 9X9
• « M C7> Wl » CP
UUO»9O<>>-»(U>9«
SSr-l{J <-H KI Q H C C Q
PQGQ
-------
83
SECTION D: REFERENCES CITED
Allison, L. E., W. B. Bollen, and C. D. Moore. 1965. Total carbon,
pp. 1346-1366. In: Black, C. A., ed. Methods of soil analysis.
Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. Amer. Soc. of
Agronomy, Inc., Publ., Madison, WI.
Association of Analytical Chemists (AOAC). 1984. Quality Assurance
Principles for Analytical Laboratories. Arlington, VA.
Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Inc. 1985. Tuscalossa Trend Regional
Data Search and Synthesis Study. Vol. I Synthesis Report. A final
report to U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management
Service. 477 pp.
Boesch, D. F. 1977. Application of Numerical Classification in
Ecological Investigations of Water Pollution. Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/3-77-033. 115 pp.
Conover, W. J. 1971. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. John Wiley
and Sons. New York, NY. 462 pp.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1985a. Evaluation of the Proposed
Dredged Material Disposal Site in the Canaveral Project Area: An
Interim Report. A report for Department of the Army, Jacksonville
District, Corps of Engineers. 37 pp.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1985b. Field Sampling Report for
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Surveys off Fernandina Harbor
and Canaveral Harbor, Florida. A report for Department of the Army,
Jacksonville District, Corps of Engineers. 12 pp.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1986. Final Report for the Field
Survey of the Fernandina Harbor Candidate Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site. A report for Department of the Army, Jacksonville
District, Corps of Engineers. 86 pp.
Dames and Moore. 1979. The Mississippi, Alabama, Florida Outer
Continental Shelf Baseline Environmental Survey. A final report to
the Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 275 pp.
Farey, B. J., L. A. Nelson, and M. G. Ralph. 1978. Rapid technique for
breakdown or organic mercury compounds in natural waters and
effluents. Analyst. 103:656-660.
Feldhausen, P. H. and S. A. Ali. 1975. Sedimentary facies of Barataria
Bay, Louisiana determined by multivariate statistical techniques.
Sedimentary Geol. 14:259-274.
-------
84
Field, M. E. and D. B. Duane. 1974. Geomorphology and Sediments of the
Inner Continental Shelf, Cape Canaveral, Florida* Tech. Memo.
No. 42. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research
Center. 87 pp.
Home, R. A.
568 pp.
1969. Marine Chemistry. Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY.
Kouadio, I. 1984. A Comparative Study of Trace Metals in Coastal
Lagoons off the Ivory Coast and Florida. MS thesis, Florida Inst.
of Technology, Melbourne, FL.
Mathews, T. S. and O. Pashuk. 1982. A Description of Oceanographic
Conditions off the Southeastern United States During 1974. Marine
Resources Research Institute. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine
Resources Department, Technical Report Number 50. Charleston, SC.
Meisburger, E. P. and M. E. Field. 1975. Geomorphology, Shallow
Structure, and Sediments of the Florida Inner Continental Shelf,
Cape Canaveral to Georgia. Tech. Memo. No. 54. U.S. Army, Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center. 199 pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1986.
Tables 1986. High and Low Water Predictions. East Coast
and South American Including Greenland. 288 pp.
Tide
of North
Fay,
Pequegnat, W. E., L. H. Pequegnat, B. M. James, E. A. Kennedy, R. R.
and A. D. Fredericks. 1981. Procedural guide for designation
surveys of ocean dredged material disposal sites. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. 268 pp.
Smith, C. L., W. G. Maclntyre, and C. W. Su. 1977. Baseline studies of
hydrocarbons from the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Spec. Report in Applied
Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 178, Virginia Inst. of
Marine Sci., Gloucester Point, VA. 83 pp. In: Middle Atlantic
outer continental shelf environmental studies: Volume II. Chemical
and Biological Benchmark Studies to the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, August 1977.
Smith, R. T. and K. Atkinson. 1975. Techniques in pedology - a handbook
for environmental and resource studies. Paul Elek (Scientific
Books) Ltd./ London, Eng. 213 pp.
Steel, R. G. D. and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Procedures of
Statistics with Special Reference to the Biological Sciences.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY. 481 pp.
Stuhsaker, P. 1969. Demersal fish resources. Composition,
distribution, and commercial potential of the continental shelf
stocks off southeastern United States. Fishery Industrial Research
4(7):261-300.
-------
85
Taylor, D. M. 1967. Billion dollar scallop find? Ocean Industry
2(12):20-24.
TerEco Corporation. 1981. Ocean Dumping of Dredged Material and
Subsequent Environmental Monitoring of Possible Effects at the
Barataria Bay Disposal Site in the Region of the Mississippi Delta.
A report to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office
of Marine Pollution Assessment. Rockville, Maryland. 100 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1969. Chemistry laboratory
manual—bottom sediments. Compiled by Great Lakes Region, Committee
on Analytical Methods. EPA Federal Water Quality Admin., 101 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Methods for chemical
analysis of water and wastes. Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory. Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, OH. 298 pp.
EPA-625-16-74-003a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Analysis of pesticide
residues in human and environmental samples. Revised June 1977.
U.S. EPA Environmental Toxicology Division. Research Triangle Park,
NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Handbook for analytical
quality control in water and wastewater laboratories. Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 147 pp.
EPA-600/4-79-019.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers. 1977.
Ecological evaluationof proposed discharge of dredged material into
ocean waters. Implementation manual for Section 103 of Public Law
92-532 (Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972).
Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, MS.
Windom, H, L., and P. R. Betzer. 1979. Trace metal chemistry of South
Atlantic/Georgia Bight. Pages 153-195 in Texas Instruments
Incorporated. South Atlantic OCS Benchmark Program, 1977 report.
Volume 3: results of studies of Georgia bight of south Atlantic
Ocean. Equipment Group, Dallas, TX. 474 pp.
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYLOGENETIC LISTING OF MACROINFAUNAL TAXA COLLECTED AT SAMPLING
STATIONS AT THE CANAVERAL CANDIDATE SITE
PREFACE
The following section of a contractor site characterization report
was completed before the Canaveral Harbor DEIS was published. As
such, the reconfigured ODMDS was not depicted in the report. In
order to maintain the integrity of the report, no revisions were
made. Note that "LPIL" is defined as the "Lowest Practical
Identification Level."
-------
-------
APPENDIX B. TABLE 1. STATION 1.
B-2
Replicate
TAXON
Rhynchocoela
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Phoronida
Phoronis (LPIL)
Sipuncula
Sipuncula (LPIL)
Golf ingiidae
Golf ingia trichocephala
Annelida
Polychaeta
Ampha r et i da e
Sabellides sp. A
Capitellidae
Hedionastus (LPIL)
• Glyceridae
Glycera americana
Goniadidae
Goniada littorea
Lumbrineridae
Lumbrineridae (LPIL)
Lumbrineris verrilli
Magelonidae
Magelona sp. H
Nephtyidae
Aglaophamus verril_l_i
Nereidae
Nereidae (LPIL)
Nereis tnicromma
Opheliidae
Armandia maculata
Oweniidae
Owenia sp. A
Pilargidae
Sigambra tentaculata
Litocorsa sp. A
Polynoidae
Polynoidae (LPIL)
Spionidae
Spionidae (LPIL)
Apoprionospio pygmaea
Paraprionospio pinnata
Prionospio sp. E
Spiophanes ef . missionensis
Terebellidae
Loimia sp. A
Oligochaeta
Oligochaeta (LPIL)
Mollusca
Pelecypoda
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
1
4
0
1
3
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
3
3
3
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
3
5
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
4
5
5
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
7
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
5
9
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
7
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
1
Total
23
10
1
3
1
to
1
1
1
9
23
10
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
7
1
3
1
7
-------
B-3
APPENDIX B. TABLE 1. STATION 1. (CONTINUED).
Replicate
TAXON
Ungulinidae
Diplodonta sp. B
Semelidae
Semelidae (LPIL)
Arcidae
Barbatia
-------
B-4
APPENDIX B. TABLE 2. STATION 2.
TAXON
Replicate
12345 Total
Rhynchocoela
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Phoronida
Phoronis (LPIL)
Sipuncula
Sipuncula (LPIL)
Golfingiidae
Golfingia trichocephala
Aspidosiphonidae
Aspidosiphon (LPIL)
Annelida
Polychaeta
Capitellidae
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Chaetopteridae
Spiochaetopterus oculatus
Cirratulidae
Tharyoc cf. annulosus
Glyceridae
Hemipodus roseus
Goniadidae
Goniada littorea
Lumbrineridae
Lumbrineris verrilli
Magelonidae
Magelona sp. H
Nephtyidae
Aglaophamus verrilli
Nereidae
Nereidae (LPIL)
Nereis micromma
Opheliidae
Armandia agilis
Orbiniidae
Naineris sp. A
Pilargidae
Sigambra tentaculata
Polnoidae
Harmothoe (LPIL)
Spionidae
Spionidae (LPIL)
Paraprionospio pinnata
Prionospio sp. E
Terebellidae
Loimia sp. A
Mollusca
Pelecypoda
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
24422 14
21223 10
01000 1
10000 1
00001 1
25541 17
01000 1
00010 1
00100 1
00100 1
40313 11
57285 27
00140 5
01000 1
20102 5
01000 1
30020 5
11003 5
10024 7
00001 1
11213 8
16478 26
00001
1
13
-------
APPENDIX B. TABLE 2. STATION 2 (CONTINUED).
B-5
Replicate
TAXON
Ungulinidae
Diplodonta sp. B
Semelidae
Semelidae (LPIL)
Abra aequalis
Solenidae
Solen viridis
Arcidae
Barbatia (LPIL)
Lucinidae
Lucinidae (LPIL)
TeLlinidae
Tellina probrina
Tellina (LPIL)
Corbulidae
Corbula contracta
Gastropoda
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Pyramidal lidae
Turbonilla hemphilli
Vitrinellidae
Vitrinellidae (LPIL)
Olividae
Olividae (LPIL)
Melanellidae
Strombiformis bilineatus
Retusidae
Volvulella persimilis
Scaphopoda
Oentaliidae
Dent alt urn texasianum
Dentalium pilsbryi
Arthropoda (Crustacea)
Amphipoda
Melitidae
Eriopisa (LPIL)
Cumacea
Diastylidae
Oxyurostylis Sp. C
Mysidacea
Mysidae
Bowmaniella portoricensis
Decapoda (Natantia)
Ogyridae
Ogyrides alphaerostris
Pasiphaeidae
Leptochela serratorbita
Decapoda (Reptantia)
Decapoda Reptantia (LPIL)
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
1
0
1
0
0
2
12
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
3
14
12
0
8
1
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
Total
3
3
1
1
1
5
67
14
1
12
1
1
1
2
3
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
-------
B-6
APPENDIX B. TABLE 2. STATION 2 (CONTINUED).
TAXON
Replicate
12345 Total
Echinodermata
Ophiuroidea
Ophiuroidea (LPIL)
Amphiuridae
Micropholis qracillima
31123 10
7 3 2 11 11 34
-------
APPENDIX B. TABLE 3. STATION 3.
B-7
Replicate
TAXON
Rhynchocoela
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Phoronida
Phoronis (LPIL)
Sipuncula
Sipuncula (LPIL)
Golfingiidae
Golf ingia trichocephala
Onchnesoma squamatum
Aspidos iphonidae
Aspidosiphon albus
Annelida
Polychaeta
Capitellidae
Medioraastus (LPIL)
Goniadidae
Goniada littorea
Lumbrineridae
Lumbrineris verrilli
Lumbrineris sp. G
Magelonidae
Magelona sp. H
Nephtyidae
Aglaophamus verrilli
Nereidae
Nereidae (LPIL)
Oweniidae
Owenia sp. A
Orbiniidae
Orbiniidae (LPIL)
Pilargidae
Sigambra tentaculata
Polynoidae
Harmothoe (LPIL)
Spionidae
Apoprionospio pjrginaea
Paraprionospio pinnata
Prionospio sp. E
Terebellidas
Loimia sp. A
Poecilochaetidae
Poecilochaetus (LPIL)
Mollusca
Pelecypoda
Pelecypoda {LPIL)
Ungulinidae
1
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
3
1
0
0
4
1
1
3
6
1
0
0
2
10
0
0
1
0
1
4
0
4
0
7
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
12
0
0
2
3
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
10
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
4
3
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
5
1
4
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
7
14
2
1
2
5
7
2
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
5
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
10
0
1
6
Total
27
4
2
1
1
1
10
1
16
1
26
10
1
4
1
5
4
2
16
42
3
2
12
-------
B-8
APPENDIX B. TABLE 3. STATION 3 (CONTINUED).
Replicate
TAXON
Diplodonta sp. B
Semelidae
Semelidae (LPIL)
Abra aequalis.
Lucinidae
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Parvilucina multilineata
Tellinidae
Tellina probrina
Tellina (LPIL)
Nuculanidae
Nuculanidae (LPIL)
Gastropoda
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Acteocinidae
Acteocina bidentata
Pyramidellidae
Turbonilla hemphilli
Turbonilla (LPIL)
Turridae
Nannodiella cf. vespuciana
Melanellidae
Strombifornvis bilineatus
Scaphopoda
Dental iidae
Dentalium texasianum
Dentalium pilsbryi
Arthropoda (Crustacea)
Amphipoda
Ampeliscidae
Ampelisca parapacif ica
Phdxocephalidae
Metharpinia floridana
Mysidacea
Mysidae
Mysidae (LPIL}
Decapoda (Natantia)
Alpheidae
Automate everraanni
Decapoda (Reptantia)
Decapoda Reptantia (LPIL)
Pinnotheridae
Pinnixa chaetopterana
Pinnixa (LPIL)
Ostracoda
Ostracoda Family A
Ostracoda Family B
Echinoderraata
Ophiuroidea
Amphiuridae
Amphiuridae (LPIL)
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
7
5
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
3
3
0
0
0
6
0
0
9
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
IB
5
0
5
2
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
1
0
3
5
0
0
1
3
0
9
9
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Total
2
1
2
10
1
34
36
3
10
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
10
-------
B-9
APPENDIX B. TABLE 3. STATION 3 (CONTINUED)
Replicate
TAXON
Micropholis atra
Hicropholis qracillima
1
0
3
2
1
6
3
0
1
4
0
7
5
0
6
Total
1
23
Ophiactidae
Ophiactis sp. B
-------
B-10
APPENDIX B. TABLE 4. STATION 4.
TAXON
Replicate
5 Total
Rhynchocoela
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Annelida
Polychaeta
Capitallidae
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Glyceridae
Glycera americana
Goniadidae
Goniada littorea
Hesionidae
Podarkeopsis levifusclna
Magelonidae
Magelona sp. H
Nephtyidae
Aglaophamus verrilli
Nereidae
Nereis micromma
Orbiniidae
Naineris sp. A
Pilargidae
Litocorsa sp. A
Spionidae
Prionospio sp. E
Terebellidae
Hauchiella sp. A
Mollusca
Pelecypoda
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
Semelidae
Abra aequalis
Arcidae
Barbatia (LPIL)
Lucinidae
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Tellinidae
Tellina (LPIL)
Gastropoda
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Acteocinidae
Acteocina bidentata
Turridae
Nannodiella cf. vespuciana
Arthropoda (Crustacea)
Amphipoda
Bateidae
Batea catharinensis
Hysidacea
Mysidae
01020 3
00010 1
11001 3
00001 1
00020 2
00100 1
00002 2
00100 1
00101 2
100001
00001 1
11022 6
01000 1
01000 1
01020 3
00300 3
10000 1
01010 2
00010 1
00100 1
-------
B-ll
APPENDIX B. TABLE 4. STATION 4. (CONTINUED).
TAXON
Replicate
Total
Mysidae
Hysidae (LPIL)
Mysidopsis sp. C
Brasilomysis castroi.
Ostracoda
Ostracoda Family C
Cephalochordata
Leptocardii
Branchiostomidae
Branchiostoma virginiae
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
-------
B-12
APPENDIX B. TABLE 5. STATION 5.
Replicate
TAXON
Rhynchocoela
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Phoronida
Phoronis (LPIL)
Sipunculida
Golf ingiidae
Onchnesoma squamatura
Annelida
Polychaeta
Amphinomidae
Amphinomidae (LPIL)
Capitellidae
Capitellidae (LPIL)
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Notoraastus lobatus
Chaetopteridae
Spiochaetopterus oculatus
- Glyceridae
Hemipodus roseus
Goniadidae
Goniada littorea
Lumbrineridae
Lumbrineris verrilli
Magelonidae
Magelona sp. K
Nephtyidae
Aglaophamus verrilli
Nereidae
Nereis micromma
Pilargidae
Sigambra tentaculata
Litocorsa sp. A
Polynoidae
Polynoidae (LPIL)
Spionidae
Parapr ionospi o pinnata
Prionospio sp. E
Sabellariidae
Sabellaria sp. A
Oligochaeta
Oligochaeta (LPIL)
Mollusca
Pelecypoda
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
Senelidae
Semelidae (LPIL)
Abra aequalis
12345 Total
20242 10
21011 5
01000 1
01000 1
01000 1
20240 8
00001 1
00001 1
00010 1
10000 1
50130 9
9 8 2 2 \ 7 28
02101 4
00010 1
02100 3
02000 2
00001 1
11200 4
10011 3
0 13 0 0 0- 13
10000 1
11054 11
00100 1
01000 1
-------
B-13
APPENDIX B. TABLE 5. STATION 5 (CONTINUED).
Replicate
TAXON
Lucinidae
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Parvilucina multilineata
Tellinidae
Tel Una (LPIL)
Nuculanidae
Nuculanidae (LPIL)
Gastropoda
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Epitoniidae
Epitoniura cf . apiculatvim
Naticidae
Natica pus ilia
Natica (LPIL)
Acteocinidae
Acteocina bidentata
Acteonidae
Acteon punctostriatus
Pyraraidellidae
Turbonilla (LPIL)
Odostomia weberi
Turridae
Cryoturris fargoi
Scaphopoda
Dental! idae
Dentalium texasianum
Arthropoda (Crustacea)
Isopoda
Sphae rotoi dae
Exosphaeroma crenulata
Amphipoda
Amphipoda (LPIL)
Mysidacea
Mysidae
Promysis atlantica
Decapoda ( Reptant ia )
Decapoda Reptantia (LPIL)
Pinnotheridae
Pinnixa (LPIL)
Echinodermata
Ophiuroidea
Ophiuroidea (LPIL)
1
1
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
5
0
1
0
1
6
3
3
0
4
0
0
0
i
i
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
s
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
Total
13
1
8
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
7
1
2
1
1
6
-------
APPENDIX B. TABLE 6. STATION 6.
B-14
Replicate
TAXON
Rhynchocoela
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Phoronida
Phoronis {LPIL)
Sipuncula
Slpuncula (LPIL)
Golfingiidae
Golf ingia trichocephala
Aspidosiphonidae
Aspidosiphon albus
Echiura
Echiuridae
Anelassorhynchus sp. A
Annelida
Polychaeta
Capital lidae
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Cirratu Lidae
Cirratulidae (LPIL)
Glyceridae
Glycera americana
Goniadidae
Goniada littorea
Lumgrineridae
Lumbrineris verrilli
Magelonidae
Magelona sp. H
Nephtyidae
Aglaophamus verrilli
Opheliidae
Armandia acjilis
Onuphidae
Oiopatra neotridens
Oweniidae
Owenia sp. A
Pilargidae
Ancistrosyllis sp. B
Sigambra tentaculata
Litocorsa sp. A
Polynoidae
Polynoidae (LPIL)
Spionidae
Apoprionospio dayi
Paraprionospio pin n at a
Prionospio sp. E
Laonice cirrata
Terebellidae
Loimia sp. A
1
2
4
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
7
0
1
1
1
1
4
0
0
0
1
10
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
2
7
1
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
2
13
2
2
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
5
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
Total
15
7
1
1
2
1
8
1
1
4
6
34
6
6
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
7
9
1
2
-------
APPENDIX B. TABLE 6. STATION 6 (CONTINUED).
B-15
Replicate
TAXON
Hollusca
Pelecypoda
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
Ungulinidae
Diplodonta sp. B
Seme 1 idae
Abra aequalis
Lucinidae
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Tellinidae
Tellina versicolor
Tellina probrina
Tellina (LPXL)
Corbulidae
Corbula contracta
Nuculanidae
Nuculanidae (LPIL)
Gastropoda
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Pyr ami de 1 1 idae
Turbonilla hemphilli
Turbonilla (LPIL)
Me lane 11 idae
Strombiformis bilineatus
Retusidae
Volvulella persimilis
Arthropoda (Crustacea)
Isopoda
Sphaeromidae
Exosphaeroraa crenulata
Amphipoda
Cor ophi idae
Corophium acutum
Oedicerotidae
Synch elidium americanum
Cumacea
Bodotriidae
Cyclaspis sp. P
Diastylidae
Oxyurostylis sp. C
Hysidacea
My s idae
Promysis atlantica
Tanaidacea
Apseudidae
Apseudes sp. H
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
1
3
0
0
6
0
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
7
0
0
1
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
Total
14
1
1
8
6
2
8
3
1
6
2
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
3
2
-------
B-16
APPENDIX B. TABLE 6. STATION 6 (CONTINUED).
Replicate
TAXON
Oecapoda (Natantia)
Ogyriae
Ogyrides alphaerostris
Decapoda (Reptantia)
Decapoda Reptantia (LPIL)
Pinnotheridae
Pinnixa chaetopterana
Pinnixa (LPIL)
Echinodermata
Ophiuroidea
Ophiuroidea (LPIL)
Amphiuridae
Amphiuridae (LPXL)
Micropholis atra
Micropholis gracillima
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
Total
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
-------
B-17
APPENDIX B. TABLE 7. STATION 7.
Replicate
TAXON
Cnidaria
Actinaria
Actiniaria (LPIL)
Rhynchocoeal
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Phoronida
Phoronis (LPIL)
Sipunculida
Golfingiidae
Onchnesoma squamatum
Aspidosiphonidae
Aspidosiphon albus
Annelida
Polychaeta
Capitellidae
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Notomastus (LPIL)
Chaetopteridae
Spiochaetopterus oculatus
Cirratulidae
Tharyx cf. annulosus
Goniadidae
Goniada littorea
Lumgrineridae
Lumbrineris verrilli
Magelonidae
Magelona sp. H
Nephtyidae
Aglaophamus verrilli
Nephtys sp. D
Nereidae
Ceratonereis irritabilis
Nereis micromma
Opheliidae
Armandia maculata
Oweniidae
Owenia sp. A
Orbiniidae
Naineris sp. A
Pilargidae
An ci s it rosy His jonesi
Ancistrosyllis sp. B
Sigambra tentaculata
Litocorsa sp. A
Polynoidae
Lepidasthenia varius
Malmgrenlella sp. A
Harmothoe (LPIL)
1
0
1
2
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
9
5
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
3
2
0
4
1
1
0
10
0
0
1
0
20
9
6
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
4
6
11
1
0
7
3
0
5
0
0
1
3
0
1
0
1
4
1
3
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
5
4
1
4
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
13
5
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
0
10
7
2
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
1
1
2
0
Total
1
16
5
1
1
28
3
2
1
1
56
27
13
2
2
3
1
6
1
1
5
12
12
3
2
15
-------
APPENDIX B. TABLE 7. STATION 7 (CONTINUED).
B-18
Replicate
TAXON
Sigalionidae
Sigalionidae (LPIL)
Sptonidae
Spionidae (LPIL)
Apoprionospio dayi
Paraprionospio pinnata
Prionospio sp. E
Prionosplo (LPIL)
Spiophanes cf . missionensis
Terebellidae
Loimia sp. A
Poeci lochaet idae
PoecUochaetus (LPIL)
Hollusca
Pelecypoda
Pelecypoda {LPIL)
. Seme 1 idae
Semelidae (LPIL)
Lucinidae
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Tellinidae
Tellinidae (LPIL)
Tellina versicolor
Tellina probrina
Tellina (LPIL)
Cor bul idae
Corbula contracta
Corbula (LPIL)
Hiatellidae
Hiatella arctica
Lyonsiidae
Lyonsia (LPIL)
Gastropoda
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Acteocinidae
Acteocina bidentata
Py r amide 1 1 i dae
Turbonilla hemphiLli
Melanellidae
Strombiformis bilineatus
Retusidae
Volvulella persimilis
Scaphopoda
Dental! idae
Dental ium texasianum
Dent ilium pilsbryi
1
0
0
1
2
14
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
2
0
11
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
23
4
0
3
0
6
3
3
4
2
23
0
5
2
3
0
6
0
0
0
3
1
0
3
0
0
0
3
19
1
0
0
0
3
6
0
0
11
17
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
0
4
0
1
1
3
6
2
1
0
-
2
2
0
1
0
6
7
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
6
8
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0-
2
0
1
0
Total
1
1
2
16
70
7
1
4
2
14
12
4
6
19
61
3
5
2
6
1
13
1
2
2
3
3
1
-------
B-19
APPENDIX B. TABLE 7. STATION 7 (CONTINUED)
Replicate
TAXON
Arfchropoda (Crustacea)
Isopoda
Anthurdae
Ptilanthura sp. A
Atnphipoda
Oedicerotidae
Synchelidium americanum
Lil jeborgiidae
Listriella barnardi
Cumacea
Bodotriidae
Cyclaspis (LPIL)
Mysidacea
Mysidae
Promysis atlantica
Bowmaniella (LPIL)
Tanaidacea
Apseudidae
Apseudes sp. H
Decapoda (Natantia)
Decapoda Natantia (LPIL)
Pasiphaeidae
Leptochela serratorbita
Decapoda (Reptantia)
Decapoda Reptantia (LPIL)
Pinnotheridae
Pinnixa sp. A
Pinnixa chaetopterana
Porcellanidae
Euceracnus praelongus
Echinodermata
Ophiuroidea
Ophiuroidea (LPIL)
Amphiuridae
Amphiuridae (LPIL)
Micropholis atra
' Micropholis gracillima
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
4
0
9
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
1
0
18
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
1
16
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
5
0
0
0
1
0
t
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
Total
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
3
1
7
12
2
52
-------
B-20
APPENDIX B. TABLE 8. STATION 8.
TAXON
Replicate
5 Total
Rhynchocoela
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Annelida
Polychaeta
Capitellidae
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Goniadidae
Goniada littorea
Nephtyidae
Nephtyidae (LPIL)
Aglaophamus verrilli
Nereidae
Ceratocephale sp. B
Opheliidae
Armandia agilis
Onuphidae
Mooreonuphis cf. nebulosa
Oweniidae
Owenia sp. A
Sigalionidae
Sigalionidae (LPIL)
Spionidae
Prionospio sp. E
Scolelepis texana
Mollusca
Pelecypoda
Semelidae
Abra aequalis
Lucinidae
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Crassatellidae
Crassinella lunulata
Gastropoda
Olividae
Olivella dealbata
Olive1la nivea
Helanellidae
Strombiformis sp. D
Arthropoda (Crustacea)
Araphipoda
Oedicerotidae
Syncnelidlum americanum
Ganunaridae
Megaluropus myersi
Phoxocephalidae
Metharpinia floridana
11013
0 1 10 0
00010
00101
00100
00100
00010
00100
00001
10001
00100
01000
02000
01000
00100
00100
1
6
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
01000 1
00001 1
01000 1
-------
APPENDIX B. TABLE 8. STATION 8 (CONTINUED).
B-21
Replicate
TAXON
Synopiidae
Tiron triocellatus
Tiron tropakis
Cumacea
Cumacea (LPIL)
Bodotriidae
Cyclaspis sp. Q
Mysidacea
Mysidae
Bowcnaniella brasiliensis
Bowmaniella (LPIL)
Decapoda (Reptantia)
Pinnotheridae
Pinnixa sp. A
Paguridae •
Paguridae (LPIL)
Ostracoda
Ostracoda Family C
Cephalochordata
Leptocardii
Branchiostomidae
Branchiostoma virginiae
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
2
1
0
Total
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
3
-------
B-22
APPENDIX B. TABLE 9. STATION 9.
TAXON
Replicate
Rhynchocoela
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Phoronida
Phoronis (LPIL)
Sipuncula
Golfingiidae
GolfIngia trichocephala
Annelida
Polychaeta
Amphinomidae
Paramphinome sp. B
Capitellidae
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Notomastus (LPIL)
Chaetopteridae
Spiochaetopterus oculatus
Goniadidae
Goniada littorea
Lumbrineridae
Lumbrineris verrilli
Magelonidae
Magelona sp- H
Nephtyidae
Nephtyidae (LPIL)
Aglaophamus verrilli
Pilargidae
Siqambra tentaculata
Sigainbra wassi
Spionidae
Paraprionospio pinnata
Prionospio sp. E
Terebellidae
Loimia sp. A
Oligochaeta
Oligochaeta (LPIL)
Mollusca
Pelecypoda
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
Luciaidae
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Tellinidae
Tellinidae (LPIL)
Gastropoda
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Rcteocinidae
Acteocina bidentata
Cyclostremati dae
Cyclostrematidae (LPIL)
10312
21010
00100
10000
10512
00001
20100
02002
11000
10000
01211
01000
00100
10000
Total
7
4'
9
1
00101 2
10010 2
13302 9
53133 15
3
4
2
1
5
1
1
1
00010 1
33313 13
10001 2
01200 3
01000 1
10000 1
-------
B-23
APPENDIX B. TABLE 9. STATION 9 (CONTINUED).
TAXON
Scaphopoda
Dental!idae
Dentaliura texasianum
Arthropoda (Crustacea)
Isopoda
Sphaeroidae
Bxosphaeroma crenulata
Arophipoda
Amphipoda (LPIL)
Mysidacea
Hysidae
Brasilomysis castcoi
Decapoda (Natantia)
Luciferidae
Lucifer faxoni
Dec apo da (Reptant i a)
Pinnotheridae
Pinnixa (LPIL)
Replicate
12345 Total
01000
00100
00001
01000
00100
-------
APPENDIX C
RANK ORDER OF ABUNDANCE OF MACROINFAUNAL TAXA COLLECTED AT
SAMPLING STATIONS AT THE CANAVERAL CANDIDATE SITE
PREFACE
The following section of a contractor site characterization report
was completed before the Canaveral Harbor DEIS was published. As
such, the reconfigured ODMDS was not depicted in the report. In
order to maintain the integrity of the report, no revisions were
made. Note that "LPIL" is defined as the "Lowest Practical
Identification Level."
-------
-------
C-2
APPENDIX C. TABLE 1. STATION 1.
TAXON
Tel Una probrina
Magelona sp. H
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Aglaophamus verrilli
Mediomastus ( LPIL )
Micropholis gracilliraa
Phoronis (LPIL)
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Lumbrineris verrilli
Prionospio sp. B
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
Semelidae (LPIL)
Corbula contracta
Paraprionospio pinnata
Ophiuroidea (LPIL)
Golfingia trichocephala
Loiraia sp. A
Strombiformis bilineatus
Cryotarris fargoi
piplodpnta sp. B
Nereis microrama
Sigarabra tentaculata
Turbonilla hemphilli
Acteocina bidentata
Apoprionospio pygmaea
Armandia maculata
Barbatia (LPIL)
Dentalium pilsbryi
Glycera americana
Goniada littorea
Listriella barnardi
Litocorsa sp. A
Macoma (LPIL)
Moira atropos
Natica pus ilia
Owenia sp. A
Oxyurostylis sp. C
Ptilanthura sp. A
Sabe Hides sp. A
Spiophanes cf. missionensis
Synchelidium americanum
Lumbrineridae (LPIL)
Nereidae (LPIL)
Nuculanidae (LPIL)
Oligochaeta (LPIL)
Polynoidae (LPIL)
Sipuncula (LPIL)
Spionidae (LPIL)
STANDARD
MEAN DEVIATION
11.4
4.6
4.6
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.4
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
6.27
2.61
2.70
1.92
1.73
1.22
2.00
2.12
2.35
1.10
2.19
1.14
0.84
1.30
0.84
1.79
1.34
0.89
0.89
0.55
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.55
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
-------
APPENDIX C- TABLE 2. STATION 2.
C-3
TAXON
Tellina probrina
Micropholis gracillima
Magelona sp- H
Prionospio sp. E
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Tellina (LPIL)
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Luntbrineris verrilli
Phoronis (LPIL)
Ophiuroidea (LPIL)
Paraprionospio pinnata
Harmothoe (LPIL)
Aglaophamus verrilli
Dentalium texasianura
Naineris sp. A
Nereis micromma
Sigambra tentaculata
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Diplodonta sp. B
Volvulella persimilis
Semelidae (LPIL)
Dentalium pilsbryi
Strombiformis bilineatus
Decapoda Kept ant ia (LPIL)
Abra a equal is
Armandia agilis
Aspidosiphon (LPIL)
Barbatia (LPIL)
Bowmaniella portoricensis
Corbula contracta
Eriopisa (LPIL)
Golfingia trichocephala
Goniada littorea
Hemipodus roseas
Leptochela serratorbita
Loiraia sp. A
Ogyrides alphaerostris
Oxyurostylis sp. C
Solen viridis
Spiochaetopterus oculatus
Tharyx cf. annulosus
Turbonilla hemphilli
Nereidae (LPIL)
Olividae (LPIL)
Sipuncula (LPIL)
Spionidae (LPIL)
Vitrinellidae (LPIL)
STANDARD
MEAN DEVIATION
13.4
6.8
5.4
5.2
3.4
2.8
2.B
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0,2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
7.80
4.27
2.30
2.77
1.82
S.22
1.10
1.82
3.21
1.64
0.71
1.00
0.89
1.67
1.73
1.00
1.41
1.00
1.22
1.41
0.89
0.55
0.55
0.89
0.55
0.89
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
-------
APPENDIX C. TABLE 3. STATION 3.
C-4
TAXON
Prionospio sp. E
Tellina (LPIL)
Tellina probrina
Rhynchocoela {LPIL)
Magelgna sp. H
Hicropholis gracillima
Lumbrineris verrilli
Paraprionospio pinnata
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
Aglaophamus verrilli
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Amphiuridae (LPIL)
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Sigambra tentaculata
Harmothoe (LPIL)
Owenia sp. A
Phoronis (LPIL)
Pinnixa (LPIL)
Acteocina bidentata
Loimia sp. A
Nuculanidae (LPIL)
Abra a equal is
Apoprionospio pygmaea
Diplodonta sp. B
Nannodiella cf. vespuciana
Poecilochaetus (LPIL)
Strombiformis bilineatus
Ostracoda Family A
Sipuncula (LPIL)
Arapelisca parapacifica
Aspidosiphon albus
Automate evermanni
Dentalium pilsbryi
Dentalium texasianum
Golfingia trichocephala
Goniada littorea
Lumbrineris sp. G
Metharpinia floridana
Micropholis atra
Onchnesoma squamatum
Ophiactis sp. B
Parvilucina multilineata
Pinnixa chaetopterana
Turbonilla (LPIL)
Turbonilla hemphilli
STANDARD
MEAN DEVIATION
8.4
7.2
6.8
5.4
5.2
4.6
3.2
3.2
2.4
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
5.55
1.79
7.46
3.05
3.70
2.51
1.64
2.28
2.19
1.00
2.00
1.22
1.73
2.55
1.73
0.84
0.84
0.84
1.30
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.55
0,55
0.89
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
-------
C-5
APPENDIX C. TABLE 3. STATION 3. (CONTINUED).
TAXON
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
Decapoda Reptantia (LPIL)
Mysidae (LPIL)
Nereidae (LPIL)
Orbiniidae (LPIL)
Ostracoda Family 8
Semelidae (LPIL)
0.2
0.2
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
-------
C-6
APPENDIX C. TABLE 4. STATION 4.
TAXON
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
Goniada littorea
Medlotnastus (LPIL)
Tel Una (LPIL)
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Acteocina bidentata
Litocorsa sp. A
Mage loaa sp. H
Mysidopsls sp. C
Nereis microrama
Rhy nchocoe la ( LPIL )
Abra aegualis
Aglaopharnus verrilli
Barbatia (LPIL)
Batea catharinensis
Branchiostoma virginiae
Brasilomysis castroi
Glycera americana
Hauchiella sp. A
Naineris sp. A
Nannodiella cf. vespuciana
Podarkeopsis levifuscina
Prionospio sp. E
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Mysidae (LPIL)
Ostracoda Family C
STANDARD
MEAN DEVIATION
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.84
O.S5
0.89
1.34
0.89
0.55
0.55
0.89
0.55
0.89
0.89
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.4S
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
-------
C-7
APPENDIX C. TABLE 5. STATION 5.
TAXON
MageLona sp. H
SabelLaria sp. A
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Lumbrineris verrilli
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Tellina (LPIL)
Exosphaeroma crenulata
Ophiuroidea (LPIL)
Phoronis (LPIL)
Aqlaophamus verrilli
Paraprionospio pinnata
Prionospio sp. E
Sigambra tentaculata
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Acteocina bidentata
Acteon punctostriatus
Litocorsa sp. A
Proraysis atlantica
Abra aequalis
Cryoturris fargoi
Dentalium texasianum
Epitonium cf . apicuLatum
Goniada littorea
Heraipodus roseus
Natica (LPIL)
Natica pusilla
Nereis micromma
Notomastus Lobatus
Odostomia weberi
Onchnesoma squamatum
Parvilucina multilineata
Pinnixa (LPIL)
Spiochaetooterus oculatus
TurboniLla (LPIL)
Amphinomidae (LPIL)
Amphipoda (LPIL)
CapiteLlidae (LPIL)
Decapoda Reptantia (LPIL)
Nuculanidae (LPIL)
OUgoehaeta (LPIL)
Polynoidae (LPIL)
Senelidae (LPIL)
MEAN
5.6
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
STANDARD
DEVIATION
3.36
5.81
3.78
2.17
1.41
2.17
1.67
2.19
2.19
2.68
0.71
0.84
0.84
0.55
0.89
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.89
0.55
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
-------
APPENDIX C. TABLE 6. STATION 6.
C-8
TAXON
Magelona sp. H
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
Exosphaerotna crenulata
Prionospio sp. E
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Tellina (LPIL)
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Paraprionospio pinnata
Phoronis (LPIL)
Aglaophamus verrilli
Armandia agilis
Lurabrineris verrilli
Tellina versicolor
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Goniada littorea
Ophiuroidea (LPIL)
Corbula contracta
Promysis atlantica
An ci strosyllis sp. B
Ap_opr_i onosp i o dayi
Apseudes sp. K
Aspidosiphon albus
Litocorsa sp. A
Loiroia sp. A
Siqambra tentaculata
Tellina probrina
Turbonilla hemphilli
Abra aequalis
Ane 1 a s s o rhynchu s sp. A
Corophium acutum
CyclaspLS sp. P
Diopatra neotridens
Diplodonta sp. B
Glycera americana
Golfingia trichocephala
Laonice cirrata
Micropholis atra
Micropholis gracillitna
Ogyrides alphaerostris
Owenia sp. A
Oxyurostylis sp. C
Pinnixa (LPIL)
Pinnixa chaetopterana
Strombiformis bilineatus
SynchelidLum americanutn
MEAN 1
6.8
3.0
2.8
2.2
.8
.6
.6
.6
.4
.4
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
STANDARD
3EVIATION
4.44
2.35
2.77
3.90
2.95
1.52
2.61
1.82
1.14
1.67
1.30
1.30
1.30
2.17
0.45
1.30
1.30
1.34
0.89
0.89
0.55
0.89
0.55
0.89
0.55
0.89
0.89
0.55
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
-------
C-9
APPENDIX C. TABLE 6. STATION 6. (CONTINUED)
TAXON
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
Tarbonilla (LPIL)
Volvulella persi.mi.lis
Amphiuridae (LPZL)
Cirratulidae (LPIL)
Decapoda Reptantia (LPIL)
Nuculanidae (LPIL)
Polynoidae (LPIL)
Sipuncula (LPIL)
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
-------
c-io
APPENDIX C. TABLE 7. STATION 7.
TAXON
Prionospio sp. E
Tellina probrina
Lumbrineris verrilli
Micropholis gracillima
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Magelona sp. K
Tellina versicolor
Paraprioaospio pinnata
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Marmot hoe (LPIL)
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
Aqlaophamus verrilli
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Litocorsa sp. A
Sigambra tentaculata
Amphiuridae (LPIL)
Semelidae (LPIL)
Prionospio (LPIL)
Ophiuroidea (LPIL)
Hiatella arctica
Owenia sp. A
Tellinidae (LPIL)
Ancistrosyllis sp. B
Corbula contracta
Phoronis (LPIL)
Loimia sp. A
Decapoda Reptantia (LPIL)
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Dentalium texasianum
Lepidasthenia varius
Nereis micromma
Notomastus (LPIL)
Pinnixa chaetopterana
Tellina (LPIL)
Volvulella persimilis
A pop r i onosp io dayi
Ceratonereis irritabilis
Corbula (LPIL)
Ma 1 mg re n i e 1 1 a sp. A
Micropholis atra
Nephtys sp. D
Poecilochaetus (LPIL)
Promysis atlantica
Spiochaetopterus oculatus
Strombiformis bilineatus
Turbonilia hemphilli
STANDARD
MEAN DEVIATION
14.0
12.2
11.2
10.4
5.6
S.4
3.8
3.2
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
7.18
7.95
5.89
6.35
2.88
2.97
4.71
1.64
1.64
3.08
2.17
2.19
1.95
4.83
2.19
2.07
2.30
1.67
1.67
1.64
0.45
1.79
1.73
2.24
1.00
1.30
1.30
1.30
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.89
1.34
0.89
1.34
0.55
0.55
0.89
0.89
0.55
0.89
0.89
0.55
0.55
0.89
0.89
-------
C-ll
APPENDIX C. TABLE 7. STATION 7 (CONTINUED).
TAXON
Acteocina bidentata
Ancistrosyllis jonesi
Apseades sp. H
Armandia maculata
Aspidosiphon albus
Bowraaniella (LPIL)
Cyclaspis (LPIL)
Dental ium pilsbryi
Euceramus praelongus
Goniada littorea
Leptochela serratorbita
ListrielLa barnardi
Lyonsia (LPIL)
Naineris sp. A
Onchnesoma squama turn
Pinnixa sp. A
Ptilanthura sp. A
Spiophanes cf. missionensis
SynchelidAum americanum
Tharyx cf. annulosus
Actiniaria (LPIL)
Decapoda Natantia (LPIL)
SigalLonidae (LPIL)
Spionidae (LPIL)
STANDARD
MEAN DEVIATION
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4S
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.4S
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
-------
C-12
APPENDIX C. TABLE 8. STATION 8.
TAXON
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Rhynchocoe la (LPIL)
Branchiostoraa virginiae
Cyclaspis sp. Q
Aglaophamus verrilli
Bpwmaniella (LPIL)
Goniada littorea
Prignospio sp. E
Tiron triocellatus
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Paguridae (LPIL)
Abra aequalis
Arraandia agilis
Bowmaniella brasiliensis
Ceratocephale sp. B
Crassinella lunulata
Megaluropus myersi
Metharpinia floridana
Mooreomiphis cf. nebulosa
Olivella dealbata
Olivella nivea
Owen la sp. A
Pinnixa sp. A
Scolelepis texana
Strombiformis sp. 0
Synchelidium americanum
Tiron tropakis
Cumacea (LPIL)
Nephtyidae (LPIL)
Ostracoda Family C
Sigalionidae (LPIL)
STANDARD
MEAN DEVIATION
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.10
0.84
0.89
0.89
0.55
0.89
0.55
0.55
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
-------
C-13
APPENDIX C. TABLE 9. STATION 9.
TAXON
Magelona sp. H
Lucinidae (LPIL)
Lumbrineris verrilli
Mediomastus (LPIL)
Rhynchocoela (LPIL)
Paraprionospio pinnata
Aglaophamus verrilli
Phoronis (LPIL)
Gastropoda (LPIL)
Nephtyidae (LPIL)
Goniada littorea
Siqarnbra tentaculata
Spiochaetopterus oculatus
Tellinidae (LPIL)
Acteocina bidentata
Brasilomysis castroi
Dentalium texasianum
Exosphaeroma crenulata
GoLfingia trichocephala
Loimia sp. A
Lucifer faxoni
Notomastus (LPIL)
Paramphinome sp. B
Pinnixa (LPIL)
Prionospio sp. E
Sigambra wassi
Amphipoda (LPIL)
Cyclostreraatidae (LPIL)
Oligochaeta (LPIL)
Pelecypoda (LPIL)
STANDARD
MEAN DEVIATION
3.0
2.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.41
0.89
1.30
1.9.2
1.14
0.71
1.10
0,84
0.89
0.89
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0,45
0.45
0.45
0,45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.4S
0.45
0.45
-------
APPENDIX D
CANAVERAL CANDIDATE SITE TRAWL SAMPLE DATA
PREFACE
The following section of the contractor site characterization
report was completed before the Canaveral Harbor DEIS was
published. As such, the reconfigured ODMDS was not depicted in the
report. In order to maintain the integrity of the report, no
revisions were made.
-------
-------
D-2
APPENDIX D. CANAVERAL CANDIDATE SITE TRAWL SAMPLE DATA.
Taxa
Stations
2a 2b 4a 4b 7a 7b 9a 9b
Algae
Phaeophycophyta
Fucales
Sargassaceae
Sargassum sp.
Anthophyta
Angiospermae
Hydrocharitaceae
Thalassia sp.
Cnidaria
Hydrozoa
HydroIda
CarapanuLariidae
Campanularia marginata
Scyphozoa
Semaeastomeae
Olmaridae
Aurelia sp.
unid. Scyphozoan
Anthozoa
Octocorallia
Gorgonacea
unid. Gorgonacea
Zoantharia
Actinaria
unid. Actinaria
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Prosobranchia
Mesogastropoda
Crepidulidae
Crepidula fornicata
Crepidula plana
Muricidae
Eupleura sp.
N eo gas t r opoda
Olividae
Oli^va sayana
Bivalvia
LamelLibranchia
Pterioida
Anomiidae
Anemia simplex
X X X X
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
X X
6131
2
1
-------
D-3
APPENDIX 0. (CONTINUED).
Taxa
Stations
2a 2b 4a 4b
7b 9a 9b
Cephalopoda
Teuthoidea
My opsida
Loliginidae
LolIiguncula brevis
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Malacostraca - Decapoda
Penaeidea
Penaeidae
Trachypenaeus sp.
Penaeus aztecus
Penaeus setiferus
Xiphopenaeus kroyeci
Sergestoidea
Sergestidae
Acetes americanus
Caridea
Hippolytidae
Exhippolysmata oplophoroides
Anornura - Paguridea
Paguridae
Petrochirus diogenes
Pagurus pollicaris
Anoraura - Galatheidea
Porce1lanidae
Porcellana sayana
Brachyura
Calappidae
Hepatus epheliticus
Leucosiidae
Persephona mediterranea
Portunidae
Portunus qibbesii
Portunus sp.
unid. Portunidae
Malacostraca - Haplocarida
Stomatopoda
Squillidae
Sguilla erapusa
7 16 9 12 41 9 23 14
19 20 21 23 13 35
7 3
2231 2
7 1 5 N
NNNNNNNN
1 1
1 3
11234
1
3
432
-------
D-4
APPENDIX O. (CONTINUED).
Stations
Taxa
2a 2b 4a 4b 7a 7b 9a 9b
Ectoprocta
Gymnolaemata
Ctenostomata
Vescicularidae
unid. Vescicularidae
Echinoderraata
Stelleroidea
Asteroidea
Platyasterida
Luidiidae
Luidia clathrata
Spinulosida
Echinasteridae
Echinaster Sp.
Echinoidea
Arbacioida
Arbaciidae
Arbacia punctulata
Holothuroidea
Dendrochirotida
Cucumariidae
unid. Cucumariidae
Chordata
Osteichthyes
AnguilLiformes
Ophichth idae
Ophichthus gomesi
Clupeiformes
Clupeidae
Harengula clupeola
EngrauLidae
Anchoa hepsetus
Anchoa mitchilli
Myctophi formes
Synodontidae
Synodas^ foetens
Siluriformes
Ariidae
Arius felis
Gasterosteiformes
Syngnathidae
Hippocampus erectus
X X
244111
1 1
17 44
4 1 2
1132
5
13 9 9 8
15 3
-------
D-S
APPENDIX D. (CONTINUED).
Taxa
Per ci for roes
Serranidae
Centropristis philadelphica
Carangidae
Chloroscombrus chrysurus
Selene setapinnis
Selene vomer
Gerreidae
Eucinostomus gula
Sparidae
Lagodon. rhomboides
Haeraulidae
OrthopristJLs chrysoptera
Sciaenidae
Bairdiella chrysoura
Cynoscion nothus
Cynoscion regal is
Larimus fasciatus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Menticirrhus araericanus
Micropogonias undulatus
Ephippidae
Chaetodipterus faber
Sphyraenidae
Sphyraena borealis
Trichiuridae
Trichiurus lepturus
Stromateidae
Peprilus paru
Scorpaenidae
Scorpaena calcarta
Triglidae
Prionotus mart is
Prionotus scitulus
Prionotus sp.
Pleuronectiforraes
Bothidae
Etropus crossotus
Cynoglossidae
Syjgphurus plagiusa
Tet raodont if ormes
Balistidae
Monacanthus hispidus
Stations
2a 2b 4a 4b 7a 7b 9a
15 9 13 5 36 20 6
125712
1 1
1
1 1
3 211
21 48 47 24 300
45 301 115 98 110 1 56
7 11 10 7 19 15
3 23 2
2 213
31 9 3 12 7 16
215111
2222
1 25 20 33 1 18
1
12 424
2
1 223
1
1 1 1 1 12 8 2
8633 12 5 4
2
9b
11
2
1
1
4
17
104
1
15
4
4
2
4
1
17
6
1
5
3
N = Numerous, X — Present
-------
APPENDIX £
LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF THE FOUR SITE CORNERS AND THE NINE SAMPLING
STATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE POTENTIAL CANAVERAL HARBOR CANDIDATE OCEAN
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
The following section of the consultant report was completed before
the Canaveral Harbor DEIS was published. As such, the corner
coordinates provided are of the original DEIS configuration as
opposed to the reconfiguration presented in this FEIS. However,
corner coordinates for the reconfiguration are referenced in the
FEIS text. (The sampling station coordinates presented in this
Appendix E did not change with a change in site configuration.)
All coordinates are based on the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD
27) as opposed to the new NAD 83 measurements.
-------
-------
APPENDIX E. LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF THE FOUR SITE CORNERS AND THE NINE
SAMPLING STATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE POTENTIAL CANAVERAL
HARBOR OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE.
^.p,^ H, .^^ (^^ UH>q^BHVV^M^_Ml^v^^uwkwKWMIM^^^__q
Corner/Station
North Corner
East Corner
South Corner
West Corner
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 4
Station 5
Station 6
Station 7
Station 8
Station 9
Latitude
28-19.73'
28-18.45'
28-16,92'
28C18.21'
28-18.33'
28-18.43'
28«17.28*
28"18.30'
28-19. 371
28019.47*
28»17.37'
28°17.33'
28-19.32'
Longitude
80"30.30'
80«28.54'
80°30.00'
80°3t.74'
80-30. 11'
80028.92'
80°30.03'
SO'31.30''
80»30.23'
80-28. 99'
80-28.84'
80-31.25'
80-31.43'
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT MAPPING SURVEYS
-------
-------
4.0 CANAVERAL ODHDS
4.1 OBJECTIVE
On the Canaveral I ODMDS Survey (July 1988), the results showed the
possible presence of dredged disposal material to the west of the ODMDS. The
primary purpose of the Canaveral II ODMDS Survey was to identify whether this
material was natural or resulted from disposal activities. This
identification was to be made from gamma radiation data and XRF elemental
analyses of the seafloor sediments. With this data, site maps were to be
prepared showing the distribution patterns of the sediments on the seafloor
based on their natural radioactivity. Representative box cores were to be
taken from the newly surveyed area to confirm the presence or absence of
dredged material.
4.2 RESULTS
Immediately following the Fernandina Beach Survey, the OSV Anderson
headed for Cape Canaveral while the EPA-CAIS crew traveled by land. The ship
arrived at the city port at 0115 on April 25, 1989, and received the EPA-CAIS
crew members for the Canaveral ODMDS survey. The ship departed port at 0145
and the gamma sled was deployed for preliminary testing at 0250. Station 001
(28°19.24'N and 80'31.92'W) was reached at 0354. The entire survey area was
sampled and the survey concluded at Station 190 (28°19.27'N and 80°31.95'W) at
2143.
In Figure 18, the Canaveral ODMDS is shown in relation to the Canaveral
shoreline. Figure 19 shows the ship's transects and gamma measurement
stations in relation to the Canaveral ODMDS. Figures 20 through 27 show the
Bi-214, Tl-208, K-40, and total absolute gamma activity maps generated for the
survey area. Figures 28 and 29 show the depth contour and topographic profile
of the seafloor. Appendix C lists the gamma data collected on the survey.
The second part of the survey was to collect representative box cores
from the newly surveyed area. The first sample collected was at Site 2A
(28°19.62'N and 80°32.07'W) at 2223. The final box core was successfully
obtained at Site 5 (28'21.55'N and 80°31.97'W) at 2329. A total of seven box
cores were collected in the survey area. Figure 30A shows the location of the
23
-------
—28*25'
80*35'
CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
—28*20'
Cocoa
,<*•
80*35'
80*30'
CAPE CANAVERAL
28*25'—
H
28*20'—
28*15'—
1
Nautical Mites
80*30'
I
Figure 18. Canaveral Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site.
24
-------
N
N
c
«
«
u
3
n
« .
ww
SC
MO
Li
•w v
C>
fl«
e
u «
— c
o
JB-
W "
00
b.
N
25
-------
H1U
28* IT*
80* SBTT
ZB* IfV
80' 30TT
Figure 20. Contour map for Bi-214 absolute canma
activity for Canaveral ODMDS.
Figure 21. Topographic profile of Bi-214 absolute
gamma activity for Canaveral ODMDS.
26
-------
lUut !«•! Mil.
•••
ae
«•• 17TC
•0* 3«TT
80' 30-W
28' 22K
eo* 30-w
28' 17W
Figure 22. Contour map for Tl-208 absolute gamma
activity for Canaveral ODMDS.
Figure 23. Topographic profile of Tl-208 absolute
gamma activity for Canaveral ODMDS.
27
-------
!Uutl*«l KiU
80* 39*1
••* 12*1
20*
80' S8-W
•0* 30TT
2«' 32V
c
28* 17*
60* SOT
Figure 24. Contour map for K—40 absolute gamma
activity for Canaveral ODMDS.
Figure 25. Topographic profile of K-40 absolute
gamma activity for Canaveral ODMDS.
28
-------
K*iitl»l Mil*
Figure 26. Contour map for total absolute gamma
activity for Canaveral OOUDS.
Figure 27. Topographic profile of total absolute
gamma activity for Canaveral ODMDS.
29
-------
H*al!••! Kill
• 0* 98-V
• •• 88*
• 0' SO*
26' 23V
fc.
88* I7W
80* 3SV 80* 30TT
F igure 28.Cont our map of depth for Canaveral ODMDS.
Figure 29. Topographic profile of the seafloor for
Canaveral ODtoS.
30
-------
M
e
§
o
c^
(_>
u
g
u
X
f-l
*
3
X
£
z* 3
PM -1
H» vO V
• * (4
a ts o
-H to o
3 O X
00 O O
N 00 OS
03
Z * IN
MS 0 t>
O4 fM O
30 X
00 O O
(M 00 A
Z 3R K>
O <-i
•^p <*H^ QJ
• • l->
O> (XI O
1-1 tO (J
3 O X
00 0 O
«
^* »"* O
(j
O O X
00 O O
(M CO 03
Z 2
<7l r*
SO (N
O ro
CM K)
3 O
00 O
(N CO
N
o
k,
c
e
o
I.
o
•a
e
o
u
o
o
m
o
1*5
3
BO
01
03
N
31
-------
box cores in relation to the OOMDS boundaries. Figure 308 shows the box cores
from the Canaveral I Survey (CAIS, 1989). Figure 31 shows the particle size
analysis of the box cores. Table 3 shows the elemental and radiometric
analyses of the seven box cores. Completion of the box core collection
concluded the Canaveral II Survey and the ship headed for the city port.
Survey equipment and EPA-CAIS crew were off-loaded at-0730 on April 26, 1989.
The gamma activity data was later used to generate composite site maps
for the areas covered by Canaveral I and II Surveys. Figures 32 through 39
show the composite maps for Bi-214, Tl-208, K-40 and total absolute gamma
activity. Figures 40 and 41 show the composite depth contour and topographic
profile of the seafloor.
4.3 CONCLUSIONS
As a result of the Canaveral I ODMDS Survey (CAIS, 1989), the dredged
material was identified as a circular mound within the OOMDS boundaries that
had low gamma activity levels associated with the material. However, two
possible western extensions of the dredged material were also suggested by the
gamma maps. The first of these extensions was located near 28°20'N latitude
and was directed westward. This area was shown as a depression of gamma
activity similar to that of the area identified as the dredged material.
The Canaveral II Survey data determined this area to be separated from
the spoil site by a zone of higher gamma activity. This higher gamma activity
also coincided with a rise in the seafloor of approximately 1 meter just
outside the northwestern boundary line, box core 2B was collected on the
eastern edge of the depression, and 2A 108 meters to the west. The box core
locations were chosen because of the rapid change of gamma activity between
the two sites, higher for 28 and lower for 2A. Visual inspection of the core
samples showed both to be sand overlaying a light colored compact clay. The
particle size analysis compared closely, but sample 2A had a higher percentage
of fine (0.063 mm) and medium (0.125 mm) size particles than 28. box cores 3
and 4 showed medium particle size sand with no clay present. Particle size
analysis for these cores indicate a higher percentage of particle size 0.250
mm than 2A or 28. box cores 5 and 6 also showed a layer of sand over a
similar clay that had a dominant percentage of 0.063 mm particle size.
32
-------
o
u
X
£
g
e
o
M
£
Z
s
O
u
X
£
Ot
Ok
£
a g
M flO
^ o
in oo
r« 1*1
°00°0
°«°0
O) C4
* •
GD «
— Kl
°«°0
PM 00
oo o
p* ^
o o
00 O
CM 00
4)
»•
O
U
X
£
»• Kl
O O
eo o
cs» eo
£
oo r*>
i/i 4
O O
00 O
(M 00
Kl
£
Ol fV
•^ ro
O O
00 C
(M 00
- 00
eo
ts
33
-------
o i->
« *
o o
V
I
cn _
uj -E
1 i
.i o
n
s
d
CO
O
II
§
rt
S
«
J
o o
io
a
CD B
o
u
X
o
fr
o
v
a>
U.
34
-------
»- M m in» mcvj
» o f- vn in eo mar
r^ o o ^ o mo o
mo «\J t- O ONO»-
! m
o to 9 i- »oa-
— • meo eo ^ P«» in
o — «• o *-o»-
S
»
*- •- 9 in
9 vo a-
in in m a f- in ^ in t- •- in o
in M eo i-
' in i«- cr> o
w co in
•7 CD co in «- vo t-
in o t-
<\» vo 9C\jr>ina-
5
r\j -
o«O9fvi
^U ^^ *
•- »- vo X
-------
N4utle*l Mil*
so
28' 22V
28' 18V
80' 28TT
28* 22H
80' 38-W
Figure 32.
28" 1614
80*
Contour map of Bi-214 absolute gamma activity for
the combined survey regions of Canaveral I and II
Figure 33.
To
ac
pographic profile of Bi-214 absolute gamma
tivity for the combined survey regions of
Canaveral I and II.
36
-------
K.uilot! Mil*
BO* 38TT
28* 2271
28' 161*
80' 36TT
Figure 34.
80' 28'W
28' 2271
28" 16?!
80' 281*
Contour map of T1-208 absolute gajsna activity for
the combined survey regions of Canaveral I and II.
Figure 35.
Topographic profile of Tl-208 absolute gamma
tlvity for the combined survey regions of
ac
Canaveral I and II.
37
-------
H«ulie«l
80
28* 22V
28' 18W
80* 36TT
Figure 36.
80'
28' 22-N
28* 187J
80* 28?*
Contour map of K—40 absolute gamma activity for
the combined survey regions of Canaveral I and It.
Figure 37.
Topographic profile of K—40 absolute gamma
activity for the combined survey regions of
Canavera 1 I and I I.
38
-------
Ntullctl Mil*
80* 36Tf
88" 22V
28* 16V
80* 28-W
28* 22*N
80' 38TT
Figure 38.
28° 16H
80'
Contour map of total absolute gamma activity for
the combined survey regions of Canaveral I and II
Figure 39.
pographic profile of total absolute gamma
livity for the combined survey regions of
To
act ivity
Canaveral I and I I.
39
-------
80* 36TT
28* 22-N
H«uti«»l Mil*
i i
28'
80* 36-W
Figure 40.
80* E8TT
28* ZZV
28' 18-N
80* 2811
Contour map of depth for the combined survey
regions of Canaveral I and II.
Figure 41.
Topographic profile of the seafloor for the
combined survey regions of Canaveral 1 and II
40
-------
In the Canaveral I Survey, box core 5 (location shown in Figure 308) was
collected in the suspected dredge disposal material, and Cores 14 and 15 from
the channel for verification of the spoil sediments. The sediments found in
both the dredge material disposal site and channel consisted of a dark,
unconsolidated clay of fine (O.062 mm) grain size.
The particle size analysis from the Canaveral I Survey for Core 5 from
the dredged material sites, and 14 and 15 from the channel were highest in
<0.062 particle size, box cores 2A and 28 from the second survey were found
to have a broader distribution of particle sizes. The composite gamma
activity maps, shown in Figure 32-39 and generated by the data from both
surveys show, Bi-214, T1-208, K-40 and total activity were found to be
considerably lower in gamma activity in the area of Cores 2A and 2B than the
area previously identified as dredged material. Finally, the visual
inspection of Cores 2A and 2B showed a layer of light colored, compact clay
with overlaying sand. The dredged material was identified in the first survey
as a dark, unconsolidated clay without the presence of an overlaying layer of
sand.
The second region of interest was an area of low gamma activity
extending through the western corner of the ODMDS. The gamma activity level
of this region rises continuously to the west until the gamma levels are
similar to Cores 1, 26, 5 and 6. Box core 13 from the previous survey
(location shown in Figure 30B) was also of similar sand-over^clay composition.
It was also noted in the seafloor topographic map that there was a rise in the
seafloor of approximately 1 meter in this area.
The above gamma and box core data strongly infer that the sediments in
this western corner of the OOMOS area are an extension of the dredge material
sediments. The dark unconsolidated clay layer appears to thin to a surficial
layer and ends approximately 3/4 nmi from the western corner of the ODMDS
boundary. Box core 13 from the Canaveral I Survey identified the transition
of this area to a saryl with underlying consolidated clay. The gamma activity
map also verified this transition of sediment types and clearly showed a
termination of this extension.
41
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Center for Applied Isotope Studies. 1988a. Rapid surveillance of dredged
material site sediments by continuous seafloor sampling and analysis.
Completion-report to Battelle Ocean Sciences, under Work Assignment 75,
Contract No. 68-03-3319.
Center for Applied Isotope Studies. 19885. Gamma radiation surveillance of
dredged spoil site sediments at Fernandina Beach and Tampa Bay, Florida.
Completion report to Battelle Ocean Sciences, under Work Assignment 1-
103, Contract No. 68-03-3319.
Center for Applied Isotope Studies (March 1989). Sediment mapping at
Charleston, South Carolina, and Canaveral, Florida. Completion report
to Battelle Ocean Sciences, under Work Assignment 103, Amendment,
contract 68-03-3319.
42
-------
APPENDIX 6
SIDE-SCAN SONAR AND CONTINUOUS VIDEO SURVEY
NARRATIVE WITH ARITIFICAL REEF INVESTIGATION
-------
-------
SIDE SCAM SONAR
Immediately following the sediment mapping activities in
July 1988, side scan sonar was used to survey the same transects
traversed with the gamma sled. The primary purpose of the side
scan activities was to use them as a basis for clearing the
candidate disposal site respective to obstructions, outcrops
(live bottom), and any other relief features that may warrant
investigation by divers, ROV, or sled mounted video.
Additionally, real time (ship board) mapping of the total gamma
activity associated with the seafloor at the Canaveral site
revealed a distinct pattern of signatures which likely
represented disposed dredged material. Accordingly, it was
believed that, in addition to serving as a site clearing tool,
the side scan mapping might likewise reveal areas of deposited
dredged material.
A total of 20 transects, each approximately 3 miles in
length, were surveyed with side scan using a 100 KHz
transponder. Transect spacing was at approximately 1000-feet
intervals and side scan coverage was set at 100 meters. The
towfish was deployed within a range of seven to twelve feet above
the bottom. Ship positioning was controlled with a RAYNAV 750
Loran C receiver coupled with a NWU-51 navigational plotter.
While traversing each transect, fixes of latitude and longitude
were marked and recorded at 1000-feet intervals, generally
corresponding to the sediment mapping records.
Figure 1 depicts the side scan transects. In Figure 2 the
shaded area along certain transects represents areas at which
side scan sonar return indicated targets different from the
surrounding ambient material. Figure 3 represents an overlay of
the gamma map constructed by Center for Applied Isotope Studies
(CAIS) and the results of the side scan sonar mapping conducted
by EPA. Obvious from this comparison is that the location of
side scan targets (or areas of differing sediment character)
compare very favorably with the transects and areas of depressed
gamma activity verified by CAIS to have signatures coincident
with those of material removed from the Canaveral channel.
Figure 4 is a photomosaic of the side scan transects constructed
from photographing all tracings assembled collectively. The
rectangular distortion of the interim disposal site results from
the slant range of the side scan being uncorrected.
CONTINUOUS VIDEO AND PHOTOGRAPHY
During May 1988 continuous video recordings were attempted
at the interim Canaveral ODMDS but water clarity was not adequate
and the mission was aborted. However, in July 1988 an additional
attempt was made to obtain a video record of the site. The
primary purpose of the video attempt was to reveal, pictorially,
the nature of the sediment exhibiting unique gamma isotope
-------
signatures as well as differing sonar returns as discussed
earlier in the side scan section.
To obtain the video record, a sled mounted video camera was
mounted to a towed sled and hard-wired to a monitor and video
recorder located in the ships survey center. Also mounted to the
rear of the sled was a 35mm still camera which could subsequently
photograph any unique features revealed by the video camera as
the sled passed over them. The sled was lowered to the bottom
and towed via a cable through the ships U-frame. Towing speed
was varied between 0.5 and 1.0 knots.
Upon deployment of the camera it was immediately obvious
that visibility at the bottom showed little improvement from the
earlier aborted attempt in May 1988. Accordingly, the original
intent of obtaining a video record along each transect was
abandoned, as it would have been unproductive, and the effort was
reduced to an attempt at obtaining limited video and still
photographs in areas representative of different gamma and side
scan sonar signatures. Although the video picture of most of the
area surveyed was of poor quality, a number of still photographs
revealed the general character of the sediments associated with
the suspected disposal zone as well as the unimpacted ambient
sediments associated with the eastern area of the disposal site.
As evident in the four sample photographs (Figure 5) , in the area
where gamma isotope mapping indicated dredged material, large
slabs of eroding shell-imbedded clay appear to represent the
material targeted by side scan sonar. Photographs of areas where
side scan and gamma isotope mapping suggested ambient sediments,
revealed the sediments to be predominately sand and shell.
CONCLUSION
Results of the gamma isotope mapping, side scan sonar, and
bottom photography compare quite favorably in depicting and
defining the zone of disposed dredged material. Where the gamma
isotope map depicted the dredged material to be predominately
located in the western center of the site with a projection
toward the western corner, the side scan sonar, likewise,
confirmed striations of material in this same area with a
different sonar return than surrounding areas. Follow-up
photography at locations within this same zone revealed slabs of
aroding, shell-imbedded clay. Beyond this zone, photographs
revealed a predominately sand and shell bottom. Due to the
longevity of disposal operations at the interim Canaveral site,
and without a pre-disposal baseline, it can only be speculated
whether the location of dredged material near and beyond the
western boundary is a result of material movement or actual dumps
at these locations due to positioning error or other reasons.
However, since erosion and subsequent movement of material from
the disposal site toward the western boundary would be suspected
to occur in thin layers, and since the side scan sonar records
suggest definite deposits of different material at the western
-------
FIGURE I. SIDE SCAN TRANSECTS. CANAVERAL CANDIDATE AND INTERIM ODMDS,
JULY 1988.
28°20'
28°18'
28°16'
80*34'
80°32'
80°30'
80e28'
Corner of Interim Sice
-------
FIGURE 2. SIDE SCAN TRANSECTS WITH TARGET OVERLAY, CANAVERAL CANDICATE
AND INTERIM ODMDS, JULY 1988.
28°20'
28°18'
28°16'
80°36'
80°34'
80°32'
80°30'
80°28'
g Side scan sonar targets coinciding with gamma isotope signatures associated
with disposed dredged material
A Interim Site Corners
-------
FIGURE 3. GENERAL OVERLAY OF SIDE SCAN SONAR TARGETS AND GAMMA ISOTOPE
SEDIMENT MAP, CANAVERAL INTERIM AND CANDIDATE ODMDS, JULY 1988.
= Side Scan Sonar Targets
-------
CO,
"—,..;.;J^--;-' iiff"*' ••
•\i-JJ.. Lv<-^'U-y: fffjjglgffifffl
O
-------
FIGURE 5. PHOTO LOCATIONS CORRESPONDING TO SIDE SCAN SONAR TARGETS AND
GAMMA ISOTOPE MAPPING, CANAVERAL INTERIM AND CANDIDATE ODMDS,
JULY 1988.
28°20'
28°18'
28°16'
80U36'
80°34'
80°32'
80°30'
80°28'
m Side scan sonar targets coinciding with gamma isotope signatures associated
with disposed dredged material
-------
corner of the site, these factors would certainly favor the
location of the material as being a result of direct disposal.
-------
"•• •:"'":'-'«^&;- •i&A>i;
-------
-------
ARTIFICIAL REEF INVESTIGATION
During the July 1988 sediment mapping cruise it was necessary to
terminate the western-most transect short of a charted artificial
reef (Figure 6). The uncertainty of the composition proximate to the
charted reef location due to the possibility of entanglement and
subsequent damage or loss of the sled. After analysis of the results
of the July 1988 gamma isotope mapping the necessity of extending the
mapping effort further westward became apparent due to the
possibility of dredged material outside the western boundary of the
disposal site. Before this could be accomplished, the exact status
and location of the artificial reef had to be determined.
Initial investigation of the artificial reef's status focused
on contact of local individuals who had knowledge of the time of
construction and composition of the reef. Through such contacts it
was learned that the reef was originally constructed approximately
twenty years ago and was formed by alternately placing two rows of
2-1/2' X 4' X 8' concrete slabs atop each other. The original permit
called for the structure to be approximately 1200 feet in length but
actually was not constructed to the permitted size. During the first
year after construction, side scan sonar was conducted along with
diver observations and revealed that the structure had been
under-mined by wave and current action. This resulted in the
toppling of the layers and subsequent covering of the slabs by
sediment to a point that only remnants of the structure remained
above the sediment surface.
As a follow-up to the communicated information, EPA conducted a
side scan sonar survey to determine the location and general status
of the reef structure to date. Six east/west transects slightly less
than two miles in length located the structure at its charted
position as depicted on Chart No. 11476 (NOAA Navigational Chart).
Examination of the side scan information indicated a structure of
little to no relief existing in a broken and irregular pattern.
Remnants of the structure extended in a generally north to south
direction for a distance of approximately 125 meters. Navigation
fixes of the most distinct portion of the structure placed it at the
coordinates of Latitude 28dl9.49 and Longitude 80d33.73. Subsequent
to locating the structure with side scan sonar, a diving effort to
visually examine the remnants was unsuccessful due to zero visibility
at the bottom caused by suspended sediments in the water.
-------
-------
APPENDIX H
SITE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN
-------
-------
APPENDIX H;
Site Management and Monitoring Plan
Introduction. It is the responsibility of EPA under the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972 to manage
and monitor each of the ODMDSs designated by the EPA pursuant to
Section 102 of MPRSA. As part of this responsibility, a management
and monitoring plan has been developed to specifically address the
deposition,of dredged material into the Canaveral ODMDS.
SITE MANAGEMENT
Section 228.3 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 220 - 229)
states: "Management of a site consists of regulating times, rates, and
methods of disposal and quantities and types of materials disposed of;
developing and maintaining effective ambient monitoring programs for
the site; conducting disposal site evaluation studies; and
recommending modifications in site use and/or designation.11 The plan
may be modified if it is determined that such changes are warranted as
a result of information obtained during the monitoring process.
It is intended that the Canaveral ODMDS will be used for new work and
maintenance material from the Canaveral Harbor navigation project and
private entities such as the Port of Canaveral.
Management Obiectives. There are three primary objectives in the
management of each ODMDS. These are:
o Protection of the marine environment;
o Beneficial use of dredged material whenever practical; and
o Documentation of disposal activities at the ODMDS.
The following sections provide the framework for meeting these
objectives to the extent possible.
Dredged Material Volumes. During the years from 1974 to 1988,
disposal volumes at the interim site ranged from a low of 40,593 cubic
yards to 3,084,117 cubic yards. Future volumes and rates of disposal,
either from Federal or private applicants, are expected to range
around 800,000 cubic yards per year. Federal maintenance projects for
Canaveral Harbor are anticipated to account for 95 to 99% of the total
volume of material to be disposed at the ODMDS. A proposed deepening
project at Canaveral Harbor, if approved, would add a one-time
estimated contribution of 1.2 million cubic yards of new material.
-------
TABLE: Volumes of Dredged Material Disposed at Canaveral Site
1986 -1990 and Estimated Average 1991 -1995.
Complete Type of
Date Action
Volume
Composition
(cubic yards)
1986
1987
1988
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Maintenance
Maintenance
Mew Work
Maintenance
____
Maintenance
Maintenance
New Work
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
351,535
63,370
2,000,888
1,873,9300
290,000
800,000
1,200,000
800,000
800,000
800.000
silt/sand
sand/silt
sand/silt/clay
silt/sand/clay
sand/silt/clay
Because the site is considered dispersive, no restrictions are
presently placed on disposal volumes. Disposal of unrestricted
volumes is dependent upon results from future monitoring surveys.
i
Material Suitability. Two basic sources of material are expected to
be placed at the site, new work dredged material and maintenance
material. These materials will consist of mixtures of silt, clay and
sand in varying percentages.
There is no general restriction regarding the type of material that
may be placed at the site. However, the suitability of dredged
material for ocean disposal must be verified by the CE and agreed to
by EPA prior to disposal. Verification will involve: 1) a
case-specific evaluation against the exclusion criteria (40 CFR
227.13(b), 2) a determination of the necessity for bioassay and
bioaccumulation testing for non-excluded material based on the
potential for contamination of the sediment since last tested, and 3)
carrying out the testing and determining that the non-excluded tested
material is suitable for ocean disposal.
Documentation of verification will be completed prior to use of the
site. Documentation for material suitability for dredging events
proposed for ocean disposal more than 5 years since last verified will
be a new 103 evaluation and public notice. Documentation for material
-H3-
-------
suitability for dredging events proposed for ocean disposal less than
5 years but more than 3 years since last verified will be an exchange
of letters between the CE and EPA.
Should EPA conclude that reasonable potential exists for contamination
to have occurred, acceptable testing will be completed prior to use of
the site. Testing procedures to be used will be those delineated in
the EPA/CE testing manual ("green book"). Only material determined to
be suitable through the verification process by the CE and EPA will be
placed at the designated ocean disposal site.
Time of Disposal. At present no restrictions have been determined to
be necessary for disposal related to seasonal variations in ocean
current or biota activity. As monitoring results are compiled, should
any such restriction appear necessary, disposal activities will be
scheduled so as to avoid adverse impacts. Additionally, if new
information indicates that endangered or threatened species are being
adversely impacted, restrictions may be imposed.
Placement of Disposal Material. No specific disposal technique is
required for this site. However, there may be some environmental
advantages to disposing suitable dredged material using the following
procedures. These procedures will be followed to the extent
practical.
Due to the predominant current regimes in the area, the site is
considered to be dispersive. Scheduled monitoring surveys are
intended to provide additional information regarding the dispersive or
nondispersive nature of the site. Currents vary from north-northeast
(45%) to south-southwest (26%) . Sediment mapping surveys indicate
that some degree of westerly movement of disposed material may have
occurred. Based on the results of the sediment mapping study and
current studies, it may be desirable to predetermine the disposal
methodologies and locations within the ODMDS for disposal of dredged
material, at least until sufficient monitoring information has been
collected to provide assurance that dispersal does not result in
adverse impacts. A primary purpose for the designation of a dredged
material disposal site is, to the maximum extent feasible, to minimize
impacts of disposal. If survey results support a need, the initial
management strategy would be the placement of fine material in the
easternmost portions of the selected site, to the extent practical, in
order to assure that the material does not migrate off-site.
When no alternative exists to the placement of fine-grained material
on sand, the disposal should be made in such a manner as to limit the
geographic extent of the placement of this unlike material on the
existing sediments. This should be accomplished through mounding of
the disposed material to the extent practical.
It was agreed upon by EPA, COE and the State of Florida at a meeting
held in Tallahassee, Florida, May 3, 1990, that the presently
permitted dredging projects are not considered to be the sources of
significant quantities of beach compatible sand. The disposition of
any significant quantities of beach compatible sand from future
-H4-
-------
projects will be determined during permitting activities for any such
projects. It is expected that the State of Florida will exercise its
authority and responsibility, regarding beach nourishment, to the full
extent during any future permitting activities. Utilization of any
significant quantities of beach compatible dredged material for beach
nourishment is strongly encouraged and supported by EPA. Disposal of
coarser material should be planned to allow the material to be placed
so that it will be within or accessible to the sand-sharing system, to
the maximum extent practical, and following the provisions of the
Clean Water Act.
Multiple Use Management. The Canaveral ODMDS is intended for multiple
use by a number of entities including the CE, U.S. Navy, Port of
Canaveral, and private interests. Each of these users will have
different needs relative to quantity, type of material, timing, etc.,
therefore partitioning of the site for specific users may be an
appropriate management technique. This could facilitate monitoring
and surveillance of individual disposal activities, however, it may
not be the most appropriate management technique if the placement as
described in the preceding section is desired.
SITE MONITORING
Part 228 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations establishes the need for
evaluating the impacts of disposal on the marine environment. Section
228.9 indicates that the primary purpose of this monitoring program is
to evaluate the impact of disposal on the marine environment by
referencing the monitoring results to a set of baseline conditions.
Section 228.10(b) states that in addition to other necessary or
appropriate considerations, the following types of effects will be
considered in determining to what extent the marine environment has
been impacted by materials disposed at an ocean site (excerpted):
l. Movement of materials into estuaries or marine sanctuaries,
or onto oceanfront beaches, or shorelines;
2. Movement of materials toward productive fishery and
shellfishery areas;
3. Absence from the disposal site of pollution-sensitive biota
characteristic of the general area;
4. Progressive, non-seasonal changes in water quality or
sediment composition at the disposal site, when these changes
are attributable to materials disposed of at the site;
5. Progressive, non-seasonal changes in composition or numbers
of pelagic, demersal, or benthic biota at or near the
disposal site, when these changes can be attributed to the
effects of materials disposed at the site; and
6. Accumulation of material constituents (including without
limitation, human pathogens) in marine biota at or near the
site.
-H5-
-------
Part 228.10(c) states: "The determination of the overall severity of
disposal at the site on the marine environment, including without
limitation, the disposal site and adjacent areas, will be based on the
evaluation of the entire body of pertinent data using appropriate
methods of data analysis for the quantity and type of data available.
Impacts will be classified according to the overall condition of the
environment of the disposal site and adjacent areas based on the
determination by the EPA management authority assessing the nature and
extent of the effects identified in paragraph (b) of this section in
addition to other necessary or appropriate considerations."
Surveys appropriate for monitoring at the Canaveral ODMDS are based on
the attached flowchart. The predominant grain size of the disposal
material is expected to be fine. Actual on-site monitoring, as
opposed to extrapolation from data from other sites, is deemed
necessary for this ODMDS. At this time, no higher trophic level
studies are planned, but are conceivable, depending on future
determination of need, available resources, and technology
development.
Frequency of monitoring will be based on sufficiency of existing on-
site and vicinity data, monitoring technique, volume and predominant
grain size of the disposed material, and similarity to naturally
occurring sediment.
Baseline Monitoring. The results of investigations presented in this
EIS will serve as the main body of baseline data for the monitoring of
the impacts associated with the use of the Canaveral ODMDS. The
surveys conducted during the site characterization phase will serve as
the main body of baseline data for the monitoring of the impacts
associated with the initial disposal into the ODMDS (See FEIS
Appendices A, B, C, D, F, and G). A bathymetric survey will be
conducted by the COE or site user prior to each dredging cycle or
project disposal. No additional pre-disposal monitoring at this site
is proposed.
Disposal Monitoring. After the site designation, the initial disposal
operation is expected to take about four months to complete. For this
and subsequent disposal activities, the dredging contractor will be
required to prepare and operate under an approved electronic
verification plan for all disposal operations. As part of this plan,
the contractor will provide an automated system that will continuously
track the horizontal location and draft condition (vertical) of the
disposal vessel from the point of dredging to the disposal area, and
return to the point of dredging. Required digital data are as
follows:
(a) Date;
(b) Time;
(c) Vessel name;
(d) Captain of vessel;
(e) Number of scows in tow and distance from vessel or
-H6-
-------
other vessel used;
(f) Vessel position, at specified times (1) when within
the channel limits, (2) between the dredging area and
the disposal area, and (3) when within the disposal area
limits, and at similar intervals during the return of
vessel and scow{s) to the dredging area;
(g) Dredge scow or vessel draft, coincidental
measurement with "f" above;
(h) Volume of material disposed; and
(i) Disposal technique used.
As a precaution to protect marine mammals as well as sea turtles
during disposal operations, a bow observer will be stationed on
vessels participating in disposal activities.
Post Discharge Monitoring. As a follow-up to the baseline bathymetric
survey, the COE or other site user will conduct a bathymetric survey
after disposal. The number of transects required will be dependent
upon the length of the disposal operation and the quantity of material
proposed for disposal. The surveys will be taken along lines so
spaced and of sufficient length to adequately cover the disposal area.
These surveys will be referenced to the appropriate datum and
corrected for tide conditions at the time of survey.
The user will be required to prepare and submit to CE daily reports of
operations and a monthly report of operations for each month or
partial month's work
Material Tracking and Disposal Effects Monitoring. Based on the type
and volume of material disposed, various monitoring surveys will be
used to determine if and where the disposed material is moving, and
what environmental effect the material is having on the site and
adjacent area. A tiered approach will be used to determine the level
of monitoring effort required following each disposal event. At a
minimum, bathymetry and sediment mapping will follow disposal events
on an annual basis, until deemed unnecessary. Bathymetric surveys
will be the responsibility of the dredged material generator while EPA
will be responsible for sediment mapping.
The rationale for a phased or tiered monitoring approach is based on
that delineated in the EPA/CE Draft Ecological Evaluation of Proposed
Discharge of Dredged Material into Ocean Waters (1990). The basic
philosophy is to provide for proper oversight of ocean placement
activities at Canaveral ODMDS while properly managing personnel and
fiscal resources. Because a major portion of the Canaveral site has
been used historically without documented significant environmental
impacts, we believe that the phased approach would provide the
necessary information to determine the need for additional monitoring
and be the most expeditious approach. This phased approach is
especially appropriate for repeated disposal operations such as occur
during maintenance of projects. For construction (new work) dredged
-H7-
-------
material placement operations/ which typically involve large
quantities of material, variations of the phased approach may be
appropriate.
With the phased approach, an interagency team, consisting of
representatives of the state of Florida, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service,
and the user, would be established after designation. This team will
determine suggestions for appropriate monitoring techniques and level
of monitoring required for a specific action. This determination
would be based on type of disposal activity (i.e. O&M vs.
construction), type of material (i.e. sand vs. mud), location of
placement activity within the ODMDS, or quantity of material.
As of June 1990, the monitoring program has been initiated at the
Canaveral ODMDS. Benthic sampling by EPA is to be done for comparison
against baseline information (See FEIS Appendix F). A REMOTS
subbottom photography survey is to be completed for comparison with
baseline sediment mapping as well as for comparison with results from
the benthic sampling. Based on the results of these surveys, a
decision will be made regarding the nature and extent of future
monitoring activities based on the framework as described in this
plan.
After completion of the present phase of monitoring, the interagency
team would meet to review results of these efforts and determine
suggestions for additional information collection. Should the results
of these surveys conform with the expected scenario, no additional
monitoring would be required for the disposal event. At the next
event, the phased monitoring approach would be applied in a similar
fashion. At some point in time, as suggested by the interagency team,
a reassessment of the site would be undertaken. At a minimum, this
reassessment would include benthic macroinfaunal and sediment
chemistry surveys. Additional surveys for water quality or use of
remote sensing equipment might also be required.
Material Tracking
Discharged Material Geographic Extent. Thickness, and Movement.
Several methodologies can be used to characterize the extent of
the discharged sediment. Precision bathymetry or the REMOTS
subsurface prism camera can be utilized. Additionally, high
resolution (shallow) acoustic subbottom profiling may be used to
determine the vertical extent of the material, side scan sonar
and sediment mapping can be used to determine the geographic
extent of the discharged material. A planned sequence of surveys
may be necessary to determine whether or not movement is
occurring, as well as the nature and extent of the movement.
Based on information collected, benthic sampling stations can then
be located within the pathway of disposed material migration.
Sediment Characterization. One means of sediment characterization
uses gamma spectrometry (sand size material) and x-ray fluorescence
-H8-
-------
(XRF) (fine material) analysis. An additional method to be considered
is that using the REMOTS camera. An initial characterization is
performed just prior to disposal to establish a baseline of elemental
composition of the native sediment. Data obtained during this survey
are used to construct computer generated maps showing isopleths of
selected elements throughout the surveyed area. Upon completion of
the disposal activity, a second survey is performed to obtain a new
characterization of sediments with the dredged material in place.
Comparison of pre-disposal and post-disposal elemental
characterizations is used to determine the distribution of disposed
dredged material.
Disposal Effects
Benthic Analysis. The number of replicates taken at each station
will be determined based on the sampling technique employed
i.e., box core, grab, or diver collected core samples, and on
an evaluation of the species area curves from the site
characterization studies. Diver collection is the preferred
method for sample collection, with fifteen replicates required for
evaluation of the species area curves from the site designation
surveys. If diver collection proves not to be feasible, box core
or grab sampling are alternatives. All samples will be sieved
through 0.5 mm screen in the field, placed in appropriate
containers, and immersed in 10% formalin/seawater solution with
rose bengal stain for transport to the laboratory. Species
identification will be to the lowest practicable level. Data
analyses will include, at a minimum, species diversity, evenness,
richness and Q- and R- mode cluster analyses.
Sediment Chemistry. Sediment should be collected from these same
stations for sediment chemical analysis. All cores will be
refrigerated and iced for return to the laboratory for analysis.
Analyses shall include a metal scan, pesticides, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, oil and grease, and nutrients (NH3, N02+N03-N, TKN).
Sediment Particle Size. Samples should be collected for sediment
particle size analyses simultaneously with and in the same manner
as sediment chemistry sampling. All cores will be decanted and
frozen aboard ship prior to shipment to the laboratory. The
samples will be processed according to the wet sieve Modified
Wentworth method.
Water Quality Sampling. Water quality may be sampled at each of
the above stations. Dissolved oxygen, salinity and temperature
measures will be taken at 5-foot intervals from surface to bottom.
Light extinction profiles will be conducted at 10-foot increments
from surface to bottom. After determination of the 90, 50, and
10% light extinction levels, water samples will be collected,
composited, and a sample extracted and filtered for chlorophyll-a
analysis. Water samples for nutrient analysis will be taken at
the surface, mid-depth, and bottom at each sampling station.
-H9-
-------
Demersal Fishes. Demersal fishes may be collected along transects
established within the ODMDS and the area adjacent to the ODMDS
using a 40-foot otter trawl equipped with a 0.25 inch mesh liner.
A minimum of four transects should be established in each area.
Trawl times should be standardized at 20 minutes. Trawl catches
from each station should be placed in appropriate containers and
fixed with 10% formalin. Fish specimens larger than four inches
standard length should be slit to allow proper fixation.
Additional sampling techniques such as remote video, diver-operated
photography, side scan sonar or vertical sediment profiling may be
used as deemed necessary by EPA and the COE to determine the overall
effects of disposal in the Canaveral ODHDS. Close coordination
between EPA, COE, the State of Florida, and the user will be
maintained during development of the detailed monitoring plan and
evaluation of results. Should the initial disposal at the permanently
designated ODHDS result in unacceptable adverse impacts, further
studies may be required to determine the persistence of these impacts,
the extent of the impacts within the marine system, and/or possible
means of mitigation. In addition, the management plan presented may
require revision based on the outcome of the monitoring program.
Reporting and Data Formatting. Any data collected will be provided to
Federal and State agencies as appropriate. Data will be provided to
other interested parties requesting such data to the extent possible.
EPA requires data to be in the National ocean Data Center (NODC)
format, where appropriate. Data will be provided for all surveys in a
report generated by the action agency. The report would indicate how
the survey relates to the SMMP and list previous surveys at the
Canaveral ODMDS. The report should provide data interpretations,
conclusions, and recommendations, and should project the next phase of
the SMMP. Appropriate reporting deadlines will be established for
each monitoring activity.
Modification of ODHDS SMMP. A need for modification of the use of the
Canaveral ODHDS because of unacceptable impacts is not anticipated.
However, should the results of the monitoring surveys indicate that
continuing use of the ODMDS would lead to unacceptable impacts, then
either the ODHDS Management Plan will be modified to alleviate the
impacts, or the location of the ODMDS would be modified.
-Hio-
-------
-------
APPENDIX I
FLORIDA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY EVALUATION
PREFACE
EPA's 1987 evaluation was based on the site configuration used in
the DEIS. The reconfiguration used in this FEIS does not alter
EPA's conclusion. Because of the reconfiguration, the sentence in
the introduction stating "[tjhe proposed site contains over half
the area of the interim site and an adjacent area seaward..."
should be revised to read: "The proposed site encompasses the
entire area of the interim site and a portion of the surrounding
area on all sides." In addition, reference to the site's distance
from Cocoa Beach, Florida, should be updated to read: "Site
boundaries are located 3.5 nmi east of Cocoa Beach, Florida, in the
Atlantic Ocean."
-------
-------
CANAVERAL HARBOR OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
FLORIDA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CONSISTENCY EVALUATION
Submitted by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
-------
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in cooperation with
the U.S. Array Corps of Engineers (Corps), has prepared a draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS) titled "Draft Environmental Impact
Statement For Designation Of A Canaveral Harbor, Florida Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site." This DEIS evaluates the environmental conditions
relevant to the designation of an ocean disposal site offshore Canaveral
Harbor, Florida. Additionally, the DEIS evaluates the proposed Canaveral
Harbor site according to the eleven environmental criteria required for
site designations under 40 CFR 228.6 (Ocean Dumping Regulations).
The site proposed for final designation is an extension of the
Canaveral Harbor site that received an interim designation at 40 CFR
228.12 and has been used for dredged material disposal for many years. The
proposed site contains over half the area of the Interim site and an
adjacent area seaward. The total area of the proposed site is
approximately 4 square nautical miles (nmi). This site is located
approximately 5.75 nmi east of Cocoa Beach, Florida in the Atlantic
Ocean. Since 1974 approximately 10.3 million cubic yards of dredged
material have been disposed of at the interim site with no evidence of
adverse environmental impacts.
The site designation is needed in this area to provide an ocean
disposal option for dredging projects in the area. Potential sources of
the dredged material are the Port Canaveral Channel and Turning Basins.
It should be emphasized that final designation of the interim Canaveral
Harbor site does not imply EPA's approval of disposal of materials at the
site. EPA and the Corps must conduct an environmental review of each
proposed ocean disposal project. That review ensures that there is a
demonstrated need for ocean disposal and that the material proposed for
disposal meets the requirements for dredged materials given in the
Ocean Dumping Regulations.
II. The Florida Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP)
There are eight Florida statutes relating to ocean disposal site
designations. This assessment discusses how the referenced DEIS for the
Canaveral Harbor site designation and subsequent review, permitting and
monitoring actions will meet the CZMP objectives to protect coastal
resources while allowing multiple use of coastal areas. Consult the DEIS
for further data and Information.
A. Chapter 161: Beachand Shore Preservation
The Intent of Chapter 161 is the protection of thousands of miles of
Florida's coastline by regulating construction activities near and within
these areas. The Canaveral Harbor site designation will require no new
construction; and therefore no related support activities will be subject
to the construction regulations in this chapter.
The Canaveral Harbor site is located 5.75 nmi from Cocoa Beach, the
nearest beach and shore-related amenity. Sediment transport in the
vicinity of .the site is driven mainly by weather events. Because of. this,
dispersion of the material can be in any direction. However recsnt field
surveys have shown Chat currents move primarily in the north/south
-------
direction. Surveys at the site have not detected the accumulation of
material from past disposal toward the shore. A small mound is located
northwest of the site but it has not been determined that this is from
migration of dredged material. In short, the Canaveral Harbor site is
dispersive and the sediments are transported and diluted in all directions
by natural coastal processes. The distance of the site to the nearest
beach is great enough so that impacts to the beach resulting from the use
of the site are not reasonably anticipated. Fast use of the site has not
resulted in any interference with beach and shore activities in the
vicinity. Monitoring surveys at the site will continue to evaluate the
effects of disposal. In the event that significant accumulation of the
dredged material towards any amenity is evident, use of the site can be
modified or terminated.
B. Chapter^ 253; State Lands
This chapter addresses the responsibilities of the State Board of
Trustees in managing the State sovereign lands by Issuing leases,
easements, rights of way, or other forms of consent for those wishing to
use State lands, including State submerged lands.
Since the Canaveral Harbor site is not within State waters, Chapter
253 is not relevant.
C. Chapter 258: State Parks and Preserves
Figures 4.3 in the DEIS locate the Parks and Preserves in the vicinity
of the proposed Canaveral Harbor site. As simllarily discussed in Section
A above, the distance of these areas to the proposed site should prevent
any impacts to these areas from use of the site. Historical use of the
site has not interfered with these areas.
D. Chapter 267; Historic Preservation
See figures 4.2 and 4.3 of the DEIS. The proposed site is located at
least 4 nmi. from any known features/ and therefore it is unlikely that
the proposed site designation will result in any impact to these areas.
E. Chapter 288; Commercial Development and Capital Improvements;
Industrial Siting Act
The final designation of the Canaveral Harbor site provides an
environmentally acceptable ocean location for the disposal of dredged
materials that meet the Ocean Dumping Criteria. If ocean disposal is
selected as the most feasible option for a dredged material disposal
project, this site designation ensures that an ocean disposal site is
available in the area. Therefore the designation removes one barrier to
free and advantageous flow of commerce in the area in that dredging
projects and their associated navigational benefits cannot be halted due
to the lack of an acceptable ocean disposal site.
The Industrial Siting Act is not applicable to this proposed site
designation.
-------
F. Chapter 370; Saltwater Fisheries
Chapter 370 ensures the preservation, management and protection of
saltwater fisheries and other marine life. Most commercial and
recreational fishing activity in the Canaveral Harbor vicinity is
concentrated in Inshore and nearshore waters. No natural hardbottom areas
are known to occur in proximity to the proposed site. The nearest fish
haven is located about 2 ami from the site and past disposal operations at
the site have not Interfered with the use of this area as a fishery. In
short, the Canaveral Harbor site does not represent a unique habitat for
any of the important commercial or recreational fisheries. Use of the
site will smother the non-motive or slow moving benthic organisms at the
site* However the ability of these organisms to recolonize in similar
sediments renders this Impact short-term and insignificant. Evidence of
this is found in surveys at the site which have detected no significant
differences in the infaunal community between the site and control (not
dumped on ) areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service have been contacted and asked to respond to
EPA's conclusion pKe the endangered or threatened species which could
occur In this area should not be impacted by this site designation.
G. Chapter 376; Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal
Possible effects associated with the use of this site are local
mounding, temporary increases in turbidity and the smothering of benthic
organisms. The effect on the benthos should be minor as discussed In
Section F above. Bathymetrie monitoring will ensure that any mounding
does not become a hazard to navigation. Turbidities resulting from use of
the site will be temporary as the predominance of the dredged material
will fall rapidly to the bottom. Any suspended sediments remaining in the
water column will be diluted and dispersed so that the long term effect
would not be greater than ambient suspended solids concentrations. This
is supported by past experience with ocean disposal operations at the site
and the results of recent monitoring surveys.
Any material proposed for ocean disposal must meet the criteria given
in 40 CFR Part 227 (Ocean Dumping Criteria). EPA and the Corps will
continue to monitor the site as long as it is used to detect movement of
the material and any associated impacts.
-------
H. Chapter 403: Environmental Control
the principle concerns raised in this chapter are similar to those
addressed in many of the chapters discussed above: pollution control,
waste disposal and dredging.
The Corps and EPA will evaluate all Federal dredged material disposal
projects in accordance with the EPA criteria given in the Ocean Dumping
Regulations (40 CFR Sections 220-22$), the Corps regulations (33 CFR
209.120 and 209.145), and any state requirements. The Corps will also
issue permits to private dredged material disposal projects after review
under the same regulations. EPA has the right to dissaprove any ocean
disposal project if it believes that the provisions of the Marine
Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 have not been met*
III. Conclusions
Based oil the information presented in the DEIS, EPA concludes that the
proposed Canaveral Harbor, Florida ocean dredged material disposal site
designation is consistent with Florida's Coastal Zone Management Plan as
summarized above.
-------
APPENDIX J
COMMENTS ON AND RESPONSES TO THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PREFACE
Comments were made on the DEIS and as such were made prior to the
reconfiguration of the candidate site. EPA responses have been
modified where necessary to take the reconfiguration into account.
-------
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW
RICHARD B. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING, SUITE M34 1320
75 SPRING STREET, S.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
9*87
ER-87/982
Ms. Sally Turner, Chief
Marine Protection Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Court!and Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Turner:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Canaveral Harbor, Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site Designation, Brevard County, Florida, and has no
comments to offer.
Sincerely yours,
/
fr
I/
James H. Lee
Regional Environmental Officer
-------
U.S. Departnv if Housing and Urban Development
Atlanta Regional Office, Region fV I- ,-
Rtcrtard B Russell Federal Building /---'"-
75 Spring Street S.W.
Atlanta. Georgia 30303-3388
August 17, 1987
Ms. Sally Turner, Chief
Marine Protection Section
US Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Ms. Turner:
This refers to your letter dated July 30, 1987, transmitting the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Canaveral Harbor, Florida ocean
dredged material disposal site designation.
Our review indicates there will be no significant adverse impacts on any
HUD programs as a result of this project in the Atlantic Ocean Offshore
Canaveral Harbor.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your proposed
project.
Sincerely,
s
Ivar 0. Iverson
Regional Environmental Officer
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service
Centers for Disease Control
Atlanta GA 30333
* September 4, 1987
Ms. Sally Turner, Chief
Marine Protection Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, HE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Turner:
Thank you for sending us a copy of the Canaveral Harbor. Florida Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation. We are responding on behalf
of the U.S. Public Health Service.
He have reviewed the draft BIS for potential adverse human health effects
and have no comments to offer at this time.
He appreciate the opportunity to review this BIS. Please send us a copy
of the final document When it becomes available.
Sincerely yours,
I. Houk, M.D.
jtant Surgeon General
Director
Center for Environmental Health
and Injury Control
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE ,
National Ocaanie and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAl MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
October 8, 1987
F/SER23sTAH/td
Ms. Sally S. Turner, Chief
Marine Protection Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Court land Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Ms. Turner:
This responds to your letter of August 17, 1987, initiating
informal consultation for the designation of_jan.. ocean dredged
material disposal site offshore Canaveral Harbor, Florida. A
draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was transmitted
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA).
We have reviewed the DEIS and concur with your determination that
populations of endangered/threatened species under our purview
would not be affected by the proposed action.
This concludes consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of
the ESA. However, consultation should be reinitiated if new
information reveals impacts of the identified activity that may
affect listed species or their critical habitat, a new species is
listed, the identified activity is subsequently modified or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the proposed
activity. If you have any new information or questions
concerning this consultation, please contact Dr. Terry Kenwood,
Fishery Biologist, at FT- 82.S-3366.
Sincerely yours,
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Region
9450 Roger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
March 12, 1990 F/SER23:TLD
Mr. W. Bowman Crum, Chief
Wetlands & Coastal Program Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Crum:
This responds to your February 28, 1990 letter regarding
modification of site location for designation of Canaveral Offshore
Dredge Material Disposal Site. A Biological Assessment (BA) of the
previous site was submitted pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA).
We have reviewed the latest information provided and concur with
your determinations that populations of endangered/threatened ("ZJ
species under our purview would not be adversely affected by the
proposed action.
This concludes consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of the
ESA. However, consultation should be reinitiated if new
information reveals impacts of the identified activity that may
affect listed species or their critical habitat, a new species is
listed, the identified activity is subsequently modified or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the proposed
activity.
If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Terry Kenwood,
Fishery Biologist at 813/893-3366.
Sincerely yours,
O-
Charles A. Oravetz, Chief
Protected Species Management Branch
cc: F/SER1
F/PR2
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ENDANGERED SPECIES FIELD STATION
2747 ART MUSEUM DRIVE
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32207
August 27, 1987
Ms. Sally S. Turner, Chief
Marine Protection Section
United States Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Turner:
This responds to your letter of August 17, 1987, in accordance with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, on the
Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to designate an ocean
dredged material disposal site offshore from Canaveral Harbor,
Florida. You evaluated the impact this action would have on the
following species, and determined a no effect: leatherback turtle,
hawksbill turtle, Kemp's Ridley turtle, green turtle and loggerhead
turtle. Since no activity is proposed for the nesting beaches that
are found throughout the area, the consultation responsibility rests
with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments relative to
federally listed species. If we can be of further assistance, please
contact Don Palmer in this office.
Sincerely yours,
-------
RESPONSES TO THE FEDERAL AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS
***
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT
(September 9. 1987 Letter)
1. No response necessary. Thank you for your comments.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(Auouat 17. 1987 Letter\
1. No response necessary. Thank you for your comments.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
(September 4. 1987 Letter\
1. No response necessary. Thank you for your comments.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
(October 8. 1987 Letter!
1. Thank you for providing National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) concurrence. The re-configuration of
the Canaveral Harbor ODMDS since the DEIS stage (see
this FEIS) to encompass the interim ODMDS does not alter
EPA's determination on endangered/threatened species.
(March 12. 1990 Letter!
2. Thank you for providing verification of NMFS concurrence.
Verification was provided in response to EPA's telphone
conversation with Dr. Terry Henwood of the NMFS on February
15, 1990, during which EPA's plans to re-configure the ODMDS
were indicated.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(August 27. 1987 Letter)
1. No response necessary. Thank you for your comments.
-------
-------
STATE OF FIORIDA
©ffitc of tip (Soternur
THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE. FIORIDA 32399-0001
BOB MARTINEZ
GOVERNOR
October 6, 1987
Ms. Sally Turner, Chief
Marine Protection Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta. Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Turner:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, this office
reviewed and coordinated a state agency review of your tfi&ft"?
VflViT^ftmKilJil^ampacTiRStairejne^Ofor Designation of a Canaveral
Harbor, Florida, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS). ;
As part of our review process we requested and received
comments from the departments of Commerce, Environmental
Regulation, Natural Resources, and State and the Florida Game
and Fresh Hater Fish Commission. Their comments are enclosed,
and reflect in greater detail the state's concerns. We request
that you consider their comments as part of this letter and
respond accordingly as provided in the NEPA Regulations,
40 C.F.R. 150.4(a).
This draft supplement to the Jacksonville Harbor Dredged
Material Disposal Site Final EIS describes a proposal to
designate a four mile square permanent dredged material
disposal site approximately 4.5 miles offshore of Canaveral
Harbor. A portion of the proposed site has been used as an
interim disposal site since 1974. The document states that the
interim designation will expire in the near future but does not
give a date. Approximately 10.3 million cubic yards of dredged
material has been deposited at this location as a result of the
Corps of Engineers' Canaveral Harbor channel maintenance
activities. The channel has a 35 to 41 foot authorized depth
that serves the expanding Port Canaveral and U.S. Navy Trident
Submarine Basin.
The State of Florida has consistently supported economically
sound port development when it is in the state's overall
interest and adequate protection is given to environmental
resources. The state also recognizes that port development and
maintenance activities can have long-term adverse impacts and
-------
Page Two
waste valuable resources. To reduce environmental risks and
waste we have insisted that the selection of ocean disposal
sites be based on acceptable scientific surveys and
evaluations. Our cooperative efforts with EPA at Pensacola
resulted in a systematic scientific site investigation program
that we had expected would serve as a model for future site
evaluations. That this site designation study plan was not
used for the Canaveral Harbor site must be explained. A review
of this draft raises questions on the adequacy of the
scientific studies performed in support of the EIS. These
issues are expressed in detail by the Department of
Environmental Regulation and should be resolved before
finalizing the EIS.
The disposal site as proposed will permit the disposal of beach
quality sand material dredged from state sovereign lands.
Removal of beach quality sand from the littoral system will
exacerbate shoreline erosion problems. State policy and
Florida Statutes provide that beach quality material should be
placed on the downdrift beaches. Therefore, we find the
proposed use of the site unacceptable. The EIS should
acknowledge authority of the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund over dredged material removed from state
soverign lands and prohibit the disposal of beach quality sand
in the disposal site unless approved by the Trustees.
The State of Florida's review of this draft document finds
scientific deficiencies and policy issues that must be
corrected or receive further evaluation before proceeding to a
final EIS. The draft EIS, in our judgement, does not satisfy
the NEPA regulations and should not be considered an acceptable
document unless the concerns raised in this letter and
enclosures are satisfactorily answered.
We suggest that Florida's concerns be the subject of a
interagency meeting. Such a meeting could be hosted by this
office. Please contact Halt Kolb at (904) 488-8114 to make
the necessary arrangements. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
n W. Robertson
ector of Policy and Finance
GWR/wkm
Attachments
cc: Florida Cabinet
Dale Twachtman
Sally Munroe
Colonel Robert L. Herndon
-------
Page Three
cc: Thomas G. Tomasello
James MacFarland
Jeremy Craft
Kirby Green
Bradley J. Hartman
George Percy
Andrew Grayson
Wynne He Wilson
Dave Worley
Lynn P. Griffin
Mark Leadon
Dave Johnson
Clare Gray
Walt Kolb
-------
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMME
Division of Economic Development
August 25, 1987
Mr. Walt Kolb
Office of Planning and Budgeting
Executive Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Dear Mr. Rolbt
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for Designation of a Canaveral Harbor, Florida Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site. It is anticipated that
this site will be used for disposal of maintenance dredged
materials from the Port Canaveral channel and turning
basins.
Port Canaveral handled 1.6 million tons of cargo valued at
$13 million in 1985. The major import commodies were
cement, citrus and petroleum products, asphalt and
newsprint. The major export commodity was scrap iron.
The port is also home for three cruise ships.
For Florida's seaports to remain competitive with ports in
other states, it is important that they have EPA
designated spoil disposal sites with enough capacity for
long-term maintenance of their harbors. Designation of
this spoil disposal site is consistent with the
Department's goals and policies to promote international
trade and the cruise industry. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS.
Sincerely,
Wynnelle Wilson
Economist Supervisor
WW:bs:smj
COLLINS BUILDING
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301
TELEX 510/6002141 FL TRADE TAS
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING
2800 BLAIR STONE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2400
BOB MARTINEZ
GOVERNOR
DALE TWACHTMANN
SECRETARY
September 25, 1987'
Mr. Walt Kolb
Senior Governmental Analyst
Office of Planning and Budgeting
Office of the Governor
421 Carlton Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Dear Walt:
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Canaveral
Harbor ODMDS Designation
The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to designate a 4
nmi2 permanent dumpsite 4.5 miles offshore of Cocoa Beach,
Brevard County. Approximately 1/4 of the proposed site has been
used previously under an interim dumpsite designation. The site
is proposed for the disposal of maintenance dredged material from
the Port Canaveral entrance channel and turning basins.
The need for this site and the proposed expansion is not
sufficiently addressed as required by Section 102(c) of the
Marine, Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. If the
entrance channel material is beach quality, it is suitable for
beach disposal. If interior material is construction grade, it
could be stored temporarily in available land disposal sites and
•sold for fill. This would allow a recycling of material,
preclude unnecessary borrow pit construction, and be a more
conservation oriented approach to the management of coastal land
and water resources. We believe ocean dumping should only be
considered as a last resort when material cannot be recycled for
beneficial uses. Accordingly, we do not agree with designating
ocean disposal sites or expanding existing ones if alternative
disposal options are available.
The document does not include chemical analyses of dredged
material sediment quality, or detailed historical and projected
quantities to be dumped. It is acknowledged that 10.3 million
cubic yards have been dumped at the interim site since 1974 and
that in 1985 it was projected that 3.2 mcy will be disposed
0
Protecting Florida and Your Quality of Life
-------
Mr. .Walt Kolb
Page Two
September 25, 1987
during "the first year." What or when "the first year" is is not
explained nor how much material would be expected to be dumped,
and how often, in subsequent years. Also, quality and frequency
of material previously dumped should have been included to
qualify the assessment of impacts at the interim.-s-ite. -
As we have stated in previous comments, the scientific surveys
and evaluations are not complete and in concert with the protocol
developed for the Pensacola deep water site designation.
Although video work was attempted in the Canaveral surveys it was
not completed because of turbid conditions. Turbid water
conditions are described as occasional occurrences and possibly
due to the resuspension of nearby previously disposed material.
The video survey should have been attempted at other seasons or
times when turbid conditions were not present. If resuspended
material is causing turbid conditions, a survey with a wider
range could have been attempted to photodocument bottoms adjacent
to the site along the same contours. There is also no mention of
a side scan sonar survey which would have given preliminary
indications of the presence or absence of hard ground areas.
As with prior ElSs for the Pensacola interim site and the
Fernandina and Charlotte Harbor sites, this DEIS does not include
a dispersion analysis of the probable footprint of dumped
material of a given quantity and type. At the least, a thorough
bathymetric and sediment examination around the interim site
might have provided some insight into the behavior of discharged
material in this location.
We continue to be concerned that site designation surveys are not
systematic and thorough, following the pattern of the Pensacola
deepwater survey protocol. We wish to be consulted on the plans
of study for the surveys and preview photographic records and
"dispersion analyses prior to development of draft EISs.
* j»
We offer the following specific comments referenced to numbered
sections:
1.01: Why is it stated throughout the DEIS that the interim
site designation will soon expire? This site is listed
in 40 CFR Part 228.12(a)(3) as a dumpsite whose interim
designation has been indefinitely extended.
1.02: Had the state reviewed the field data from the baseline
survey its inadequacies could have been identified prior
to preparation of the technical report and the draft EIS
®
-------
Mr. .Walt Kolb
Page Three
September 25, 1987
2.02 and 2.04:
Which available land disposal sites were investigated?
Was construction reuse of temporarily stored fill
explored? .---
4.02: The affected environment should have been thoroughly
documented by including the area surrounding the interim Art,
site in the survey. It would strengthen the evaluation \ ' T>
of expected impacts to know how much area was affected
by a certain quantity, quality and frequency of
discharges-over the last 15 years.
5.07: We disagree that conclusive statements about sediment
transport cannot be made. If we know the dump stations,
quantity and quality of material, and current speed and
direction, a prediction of the areal extent and
thickness of deposited material can be made.
5.08: What is the history of the dumping schedule between 1974
and 1983? When was the last dump and how much material
was involved? What was its quality? Where was the dump
station? How was it determined that no long-term
i effects on water quality or the physical and chemical
composition of site sediments have resulted from these
prior dumps? If monitoring surveys were done as
required by the MPRSA, why weren't they included in this
DEIS?
5.09: ' Something is missing in the second paragraph of this
section.
5.20: How will the location of the dump station be determined
to insure that effects outside the disposal site can be
minimized?
'Judicious placement and movement of the dump buoy and
periodically monitoring the site's bathymetry" is an
insufficient description of site management. We need
explicit descriptions of dump stations, quantities and
rates of material to be disposed as well as the specific
parameters, schedule and contingency measures of the
monitoring program.
Appendix A
13 and 71:
To properly survey currents, an array should be deployed
so that bottom, mid depth and surface (wind influenced)
-------
Mr. Walt Kolb
Page Four
September 25, 1987
currents are measured. Also, the results should be compared with
whatever long-term data base is available in order to conclude (2.2-
that these measurements reflect typical conditions for the area.
Gulf Stream influences which are spurious'/ unpredictable
and high speed can produce eddies and filaments which
may disperse material in directions other than those
dominating the current rose. A dispersion analysis
needs to consider these anomalous, worst-case events as
well as more normal forcing functions.
91:
Were five macroinfaunal replicates determined through
species saturation curve analyses?
We request a response to these comments by EPA prior to moving
forward with finalization of this document. Since we consider
the scientific studies presented in the DEIS to be inadequate we
wish to meet with EPA to discuss an improved site survey. Such
information will be needed to finalize our site designation
recommendations.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document.
. Cordially,
/
Lynn F. Griffin
Environmental Specialist
Intergovernmental Programs
Review Section
LFG/jb
\
cc:
Dave Worley
Randy Armstrong
Dave Arnold
Andy Grayson
-------
-------
State of Florida
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
TOM GARDNER
Executive Director
Marjory S ion cm an Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
September 29, 1987
BOB MARTINEZ
Governor
JIM SMITH
Secretary ot State
BOB BUTTERWORTH \
Attorney General
GERALD LEWIS
State Comptroller
BILL GUNTER
State Treasurer
DOYLE CONNER
Commissioner of Agriculture
BETTY CASTOR
Commissioner of Education
PLEASE ADDRESS REPLY TO:
Walt Kolb
Senior Governmental Analyst
Office of the Governor
421 Carlton Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Designation of a Canaveral Harbor, Florida
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Dear Mr. Kolb:
The Department has reviewed the above-referenced draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for designation of a
permanent ocean dumping site proposed pursuant to 40 CFR
Part 228. The following comments are offered for transmit-
tal to the IT. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on
behalf of the Department, as well as the Board of Trustees
of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees).
Comments for the Division of Beaches and Shores are
attached and incorporated hereto. Consistent with those
comments, the Trustees object to the proposed permanent
designation of this ocean dumping site. The site as pro-
posed will permit the disposal of beach quality sand materi-
al dredged from state sovereign lands. Removal of such
beach quality sand material from the littoral system will
exacerbate the erosional problems of the downdrift shore-
line. Such beach quality sand material should be disposed
of on the downdrift beaches pursuant to the provisions of
Section 161.142, Florida Statutes (1986).
The Trustees authority over such dredged material is
provided as a mandatory enforceable provision of the Florida
Coastal Management Program (FCMP), as approved pursuant to
the Coastal Zone Management Act (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.).
The approved FCMP incorporates state legislative
amendments through the 1984 Legislative session. Included
"Working together to protect Florida's future"
-------
Walt Kolb
September 29, 1987
Page 2
within the approved program are the following statutory
provisions which constitute enforceable mandatory policy
pursuant to the FCMP: Section 161.042, Florida Statutes,
and Subsections 253.03(1) and 253.77(1), Florida Statutes
(1984).
Subsection 161.042, Florida Statutes (1984), provides:
The department is authorized to direct that any
person, or any public body or agency, responsible
for the excavation of sandy sediment as a result
of any activity conducted to maintain navigable
depths within or immediately adjacent to any
coastal barrier beach inlet within sovereignty
lands shall, after receipt of written authoriza-
tion from the Department of Environmental Regula-
tion relating to the deposition of spoil material
from the excavation pursuant to chapters 253 and
403, use such sediment for beach nourishment as
prescribed by the division. Requests for such
authorization shall be made by the applicant to
the Department of Environmental Regulation, and
such authorization shall be granted upon* issuance
of water quality certification by the Department
of Environmental Regulation. For any construction
1 or excavation within or immediately contiguous to
any coastal barrier beach inlet which has been
permitted pursuant to s, 161.041, the department
may require the permittee to supply beach profiles
and conduct hydrographic monitoring of the impact-
ed area.
Subsection 253.03(1), Fla. Stat.
part, provides:
(1984), in pertinent
The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund of the state is vested and charged with
the acquisition, administration, management,
control, supervision, conservation, protection,
and disposition of all lands owned by, or which
may hereafter inure to, the state or any of its
agencies, departments, boards, or commissions...
Subsection 253.77(1), Fla. Stat. (1984), provides:
-------
Walt Kolb
September 29, 1987
Page 3
No person may commence any excavation, construc-
tion, or other activity involving the use of
sovereign or other lands of the state, the title
to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the
Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department
of Natural Resources under this chapter, until
such person has received from the Board of Trust-
ees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the
required lease, license, easement, or other form
of consent authorizing the proposed use.
In summary, the Department and the Trustees object to
the permanent designation of an ocean dumping site offshore
of Canaveral Harbor, unless such site designation specifi-
cally excludes its use for the disposal of beach quality
sand material.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Tomasello
General Counsel
TGT/agj
*,
cc: Andrew S. Grayson
James MacFarland
Casey Fitzgerald
Bob Palmer
Greg Diehl
Kirby Green
Ralph Clark
Brett Moore
Mark Leadon
Jack Woodard
Clare Gray
Doug MacLaughlin
David W. Arnold
Lynn Griffin
Bob Schutte
-------
-------
State of Florida
Department of Natural Resources ^&^ Memorandum
September 23, 1987
TO: Andrew Grayson, Assistant General Counsel
Legal Office
FROM: Mark E. Leadon, P.E.
Bureau of Coastal Engineering & Regulation
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Canaveral Harbor
ODMDS Designation
Evaluation of the above-referenced Draft EIS has been conducted
by the Division and the following additional review comments are provided
for your review. Comments regarding consistency of the proposed site
designation with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program will be
provided separately although preliminary review is that the EIS does not
comply with the CZM Program. The EPA's consistency evaluation has
been provided to me by DER and a copy is attached for your review. Table
1, p. 2, of the EIS lists the candidate ocean disposal site as being in
compliance with the Florida CZM Program, as well as, a series of Federal
laws and policies related to ocean dumping and environmental protection.
The Division does not agree with these findings.
v It is felt that the above-referenced Draft EIS does not adequately
address alternative disposal site considerations. Land disposal alternatives
are considered in Section 2.04, p. 4, but beach disposal alternatives are
not considered. Section 3.00, p. 4, of the EIS further considers alternatives
but no beach disposal consideration is given. It is not evident that any
alternative upland sites including beach disposal were considered as
potentially acceptable in the ocean disposal site evaluation. The Division
is concerned that no beach disposal sites are discussed and that final
designation of the proposed ocean disposal site will promote future offshore
disposal and loss of beach quality sand. '
Department policy regarding use of beach quality sand from
inlet maintenance dredging for beach nourishment has been well enunciated
to the EPA and the Corps of Engineers over the years. Specific support
from the Legislature in this regard is found in Section 161.042, F.S. which
states that the Department is authorized to direct that sandy sediment
from navigational dredging be used for beach nourishment. This provision
is contained within the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program. More
recently Section 161.142, F.S., established Department policy that inlet
dredged sand be placed on beaches.
An environmental assessment of potential impacts of the site
designation based on criteria in the Federal Ocean Dumping Regulations,
40 CFR Parts 228.5 and 228.6, are provided on p. 15 of the EIS. In Section
5.02 impacts of placement of the dredged material in 47 to 55 foot water
-------
MEMORANDUM
Page 2
September 23, 1987
depths are discussed. However, no consideration of the adverse impact
associated with removal of the material from the active sand transport
system is addressed. Section 5.04 of the EIS does state that "It is unlikely
that there will be any appreciable quantities of dredged material transported
onto beaches "and" No adverse impacts to these beaches has been associated
with previous dredged material disposal at this site." Section 5.15 of the
EIS establishes that "Resources irreversibly or irretreivably committed
through the use of the proposed site will include: (1) loss of some potentially
recyclable material (i.e., sand for landfill)."
The predominant and most expected source of dredged material
to be placed in the proposed ocean dump site is the Canaveral Harbor project
which includes a U.S. Navy Trident Submarine Basin. The Harbor and
entrance channel were constructed between 1950 and 1954. Following
construction of the Harbor project erosion rates sky-rocketed for the first
couple of miles south of the project. Although the Navy/Corps placed
about 2.3 million cubic yards from the Trident project on the beach in
1974-1975, the beach continues to experience erosion and is in need of
on-going renourishment. The Corps of Engineers has planned a fixed sand
bypassing plant north of the Canaveral Inlet to transfer sand to beaches
south of the inlet, but bypassed sand will only partially mitigate Inlet-induced
erosion. Additional bypassing from dredging operations is needed.
Provisions of Federal law, specifically PL 90-483, Section 111
(Title 33, Section 426(i), U.S. Code), allow the Corps of Engineers to prevent
or mitigate shore damages attributable to navigation projects. Construction
of the sand bypassing plant will partially mitigate erosion impacts from
the Harbor project. However, redistribution of sand dredged from the
Canaveral Harbor Project to beaches south of the project would substantially
offset any erosion on the beaches attributable to dredging of the project.
The Division's preliminary Beach Management Plan for restoration of the
State's beaches identifies the need for restoration of the beaches south
of Canaveral Inlet and recommends a restoration project for the area.
The Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, is in the process
of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a Harbor expansion
project for Canaveral Harbor which will presumably utilize this proposed
ocean disposal site for material dredged in that project. The Division has
provided comments regarding placement of dredged sand on the beach
to the Corps in response to a request for comments to their EIS preparation.
The Division will likewise provide these comments to the Draft EIS for
the Harbor expansion when the Draft EIS is prepared and circulated for
comment.
Sediment analysis of the material presently existing in the
ODMDS is provided in Appendix A of the EIS. However, most importantly
-------
MEMORANDUM
Page 3
September 23, 1987
to this Division is the nature of sediment to be dredged from the channel
project. Core borings were taken in the Harbor in the past but grain size
distribution analysis for that material is not provided in the EIS. Although
the Harbor expansion project may produce high quantities of fine-grained
silts and clays unsuitable for beach placement, the Division will insist on
a comprehensive sediment analysis of proposed dredge material, particularly
for the Harbor expansion or Inlet maintenance projects. There will
presumably be substantial quantities of beach quality sand available for
beach nourishment in future projects.
In summary, it is felt that the draft EIS does not adequately
address environmental impacts as set forth in the Federal Ocean Dumping
Regulations nor potential alternative disposal sites, does not comply with
the State's policies and programs related to beach management, and is
not consistent with Florida's federally approved Coastal Zone Management
Program. The EIS is, further, in conflict with provisions of the Clean Water
Act, PL95-217 (Title 33,. Section 1344(t), U.S. Code) which calls for
compliance with State requirements relating to discharge "of dredge and
fill material.
MEL/sp
Attachment
cc: Kirby Green
Jack Woodard
Lynn Griffin
Bureau Office
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30363
GOVERNOR'S
Planning sh(, c...iAtttjl,6
PEF: 4-Kin-f'iyCP
Mr. Rick Smith
Federal Consistency Coordinator
State Planning and Developtrent Clearinghouse
Office of Planning and Budget
Executive Office of the-Covernor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Enclosed are five (5) copies of the Environmental Protection Agency's
evaluation of the consistency of the Canaveral Harbor ocean dredged
material disposal site designation with the Florida Coastal Zone
Management Plan. Information supporting this consistency evaluation ray
also he found in the draft environmental impact statement prepared for
this site designation. We have enclosed three (3) copies o'f this document.
We are formally request!no your concurrence on our conclusion that the
proposed designation of the Canaveral Harbor site is consistent with
Florida's Coastal Zone Management Plan. If there are any Questions,
please call me or Mr. Reginald Rogers at 404-347-2126.
Sincerely yours,
Sally Turner, Chief
Marine Protection Section
\
Enclosures
-------
-------
CANAVERAL HARBOR OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
FLORIDA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CONSISTENCY EVALUATION
Submitted by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
-------
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in cooperation with
the 0.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), has prepared a draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS) titled "Draft Environmental Impact
Statement For Designation Of A Canaveral Harbor, Florida Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site." This DEIS evaluates the environmental conditions
relevant to the designation of an ocean disposal site offshore Canaveral
Harbor, Florida. Additionally, the DEIS evaluates the proposed Canaveral
Harbor site according to the eleven environmental criteria required for
site designations under 40 CFR 228.6 (Ocean Dumping Regulations).
The site proposed for final designation is an extension of the
Canaveral Harbor site that received an interim designation at 40 CFR
228.12 and has been used for dredged material disposal for many years. The
proposed site contains over half the area of the interim site and an
adjacent area seaward. The total area of the proposed site Is
approximately 4 square nautical miles (ami). This site is located
approximately 5.75 nmi east of Cocoa Beach, Florida in the Atlantic
Ocean. Since 1974 approximately 10.3 million cubic yards of dredged
material have been disposed of at the Interim site with no evidence of
adverse environmental Impacts.
The site designation is needed in this area to provide an ocean
disposal option for dredging projects in the area. Potential sources of
the dredged material are the Port Canaveral Channel and -Turning Basins.
It should be emphasized that final designation of the interim Canaveral
Harbor site does not Imply EFA's approval of disposal of materials at the
site. EPA and the Corps must conduct an environmental review of each
proposed ocean disposal project. That review ensures that there Is a
demonstrated need for ocean disposal and that the material proposed for
disposal meets the requirements for dredged materials given in the
Ocean Dumping Regulations.
II. The Florida Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP)
There are eight Florida statutes relating to ocean disposal site
designations. This assessment discusses how the referenced DEIS for the
Canaveral Harbor site designation and subsequent review, permitting and
monitoring actions will meet the CZMP objectives to protect coastal
resources while allowing multiple use of coastal areas. Consult the DEIS
for further data and information.
A. Chapter 161; Beach and Shore Preservation
The intent of Chapter 161 is the protection of thousands of miles of
Florida's coastline by regulating construction activities near and within
these areas. The Canaveral Harbor site designation will require no new
construction; and therefore 'no related support activities will be subject
to the construction regulations in this chapter.
The Canaveral Harbor site is located 5.75 nmi from Cocoa Beach, the
nearest beach and shore-related amenity. Sediment transport .In the
vicinity of the site is driven mainly by weather events. Because of this,
dispersion of the material can be in any direction. However recent field
surveys have shown that currents move primarily In the north/south
-------
direction. Surveys at the site have not detected the accumulation of
material from past disposal toward the shore. A small mound is located
northwest of the site but it has not been determined that this is from
migration of dredged material. In short, the Canaveral Harbor site is
dispersive and the sediments are transported and diluted in all directions
by natural coastal processes. The distance of the site to the nearest
beach is great enough so that impacts to the beach resulting from the use
of the site are not reasonably anticipated. Past use of the site has not
resulted in any interference with beach and shore activities in the
vicinity. Monitoring surveys at the site will continue to evaluate the
effects of disposal. In the event that significant accumulation of the
dredged material towards any amenity is evident, use of the site can be
modified or terminated.
B. Chapter 253; State Lands
This chapter addresses the responsibilities of the State Board of
Trustees in managing the State sovereign lands by issuing leases,
easements, rights of way, or other forms of consent for those wishing to
use State lands, including State submerged lands.
Since the Canaveral Harbor site is not within State waters, Chapter
253 is not relevant.
C. Chapter258; State Parks and Preserves
Figures 4.3 in the DEIS locate the Parks and Preserves in the vicinity
of the proposed Canaveral Harbor site. As similarily discussed in Section
A above, the distance of these areas to the proposed site should prevent
any impacts to these areas from use of the site. Historical use of the
site has not Interfered with these areas.
D. Chapter 267; Historic Preservation
See figures 4.2 and 4.3 of the DEIS. The proposed site is located at
least 4 nmi. from any known features/ and therefore it is unlikely that
the proposed site designation will result in any impact to these areas.
E. Chapter 288; Commercial Development and Capital Improvements; .
Industrial Siting Act
The final designation of the Canaveral Harbor site provides an
environmentally acceptable ocean location for the disposal of dredged
materials that meet the Ocean Dumping Criteria. If ocean disposal is
selected as the most feasible option for a dredged material disposal
project, this site designation ensures that an ocean disposal site is
available in the area. Therefore the designation removes one barrier to
free and advantageous flow of commerce in the area in that dredging
projects and their associated navigational benefits cannot be halted due
to the lack of an acceptable ocean disposal .site.
The Industrial Siting Act is not applicable to this proposed site
designation.
-------
F. Chapter 370; Saltwater Fisheries
Chapter 370 ensures the preservation, management and protection of
saltwater fisheries and other marine life. Most commercial and
recreational fishing activity In the Canaveral Harbor vicinity is
concentrated in inshore and nearshore waters. No natural hardbottom areas
are known to occur in proximity to the proposed site. The nearest fish
haven is located about 2 nmi from the site and past disposal operations at
the site have not Interfered with the use of this area as a fishery. In
short, the Canaveral Harbor site does not represent a unique habitat for
any of the important commercial or recreational fisheries. Use of the
site will smother the non-motive or slow moving benthic organisms at the
site* However the ability of these organisms to recolonize in similar
sediments renders this impact short-term and insignificant. Evidence of
this is found in surveys at the site which have detected no significant
differences in the infaunal community between the site and control (not
dumped on ) areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Jjeryice have been contacted and asked to respond to
EPA's conclusion o&e the endangered or threatened species which could
occur in this area should not be Impacted by this site designation.
G. Chapter 376; Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal
Possible effects associated with the use of this site are local
mounding, temporary increases in turbidity and the smothering of benthic
organisms. The effect on the benthos should be minor as discussed in
Section F above. Bathymetric monitoring will ensure that any mounding
does not become a hazard to navigation. Turbidities resulting from use of
the site will be temporary as the predominance of the dredged material
will fall rapidly to the bottom. Any suspended sediments remaining in the
water column will be diluted and dispersed so that the long term effect
would not be greater than ambient suspended solids concentrations. This
is supported by past experience with ocean disposal operations at the site
and the results of recent monitoring surveys.
Any material proposed for ocean disposal must meet the criteria given
in 40 CFR Part 227 (Ocean Dumping Criteria). EPA and the Corps will
continue to monitor the site as long as It is used to detect movement of
the material and any associated impacts.
-------
H. Chapter 403; Environmental Control
The principle concerns raised in this chapter are similar to those
addressed in many of the chapters discussed above: pollution control,
waste disposal and dredging.
The Corps and EPA will evaluate all Federal dredged material disposal
projects in accordance with the EPA criteria given in the Ocean Dumping
Regulations (40 CFR Sections 220-229), the Corps regulations (33 CFR
209.120 and 209.145), and any state requirements. The Corps will also
issue permits to private dredged material disposal projects after review
under the same regulations. EPA has the right to dissaprove any ocean
disposal project if it believes that the provisions of the Marine
Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 have not been met.
III. Conclusions
Based on the information presented in the DEIS, EPA concludes that the
proposed Canaveral Harbor, Florida ocean dredged material disposal site
designation is consistent with Florida's Coastal Zone Management Plan as
summarized above*
-------
r r
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING §i => ~*2(- }\£ GOVERNOR
2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD "' „ „
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2400 \%WA*// uhUtoUSI OAHTWACHTMANN
SECRETARY
October 6, 1987
Mr. Walt Kolb
Senior Governmental Analyst
Office of Planning and Budgeting
Office of the Governor
421 Carlton Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Dear Walt:
Harbor ODMDS Designation"
We have previously reviewed the draft environmental impact
statement for the referenced designation and wish to incorporate
our September 25 comments as a part of this response. The
following comments respond to the Environmental Protection
Agency's federal consistency determination submitted under the
requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Our DEIS comments identified deficiencies in the scientific
surveys of the proposed site, specifically side scan sonar and
photodocumentation. The impacts evaluations did not provide a
dispersion analysis of the probable area of impact. Sediment
quality data and information on historical and projected use are
not provided. The DEIS also does not detail a site management
plan.
/'
Because of these deficiencies, EPA does not have sufficient data
and information on which to base a sound designation decision.
The conclusions summarized in its consistency determination
should be based on scientific evidence rather than assumption.
For instance, sections A and G do not reconcile the conclusion
that the site is dispersive with the bathymetric evidence of a
persistent mound in the interim site and with the speculation
that resuspension of previously dumped material is responsible
for locally turbid conditions. Similarly, the statement in
section F that "no natural hardbottom areas are known to occur in
proximity to the proposed site" is not based on side scan sonar
and photographic surveys.
Protecting Honda jnd Your Quality of Life
-------
Kolb
,age Two
October 6, 1987
The consistency determination, section G, states that monitoring
surveys have been conducted recently and will continue. If
monitoring has been done in the past, particularly in conjunction
with the most recent dump, these reports should be provided for
review along with a thorough description of the site management
plan.
We have requested a meeting with EPA to resolve these issues
prior to finalization of the EIS. The data and information
presented in the draft EIS are insufficient for an evaluation of
the designation's consistency with Chapter 403, Florida
Statutes. We reiterate our request that EPA provide complete
survey information as discussed here and in our September 25
letter, as well as a thorough response to the questions and
comments posed in those remarks. Upon receipt of the necessary
information we will complete our federal consistency review.
Failure to supply requested information can result in a finding
of inconsistency as specified in 15 CFR 930.42(b).
Sincerely,
pviiir •-=•*%. *— v\-'-^"^i~-_
-S
Randall L. Armstrong, Director
Division of Environmental
Permitting
RLA/lgb
cc: Lynn Griffin
Dave Worley
-------
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Jim Smith
Secretary of State
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES, t
R.A. Gray Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
(904) 488-1480
August 24, 1987
Mr. Walt Kolb
Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
In Reply Refer to:
Louis D. Tesar
Historic Preservation Supv.
(904) 487-2333
Project File No. 870785
RE: August 4, 1987 memorandum and attachments
Cultural Resource Assessment Request
SAI No. FL87073101147E, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Designation of a Canaveral Harbor, Florida, Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site, Brevard County, Florida
Dear Mr. Kolb:
In accordance with the procedures contained in 36 C.F.R., Part 800
("Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties"),
we have reviewed the above referenced project for possible impact to
archaeological and historical sites and properties listed, or eligible
for listing in the National Register £f Historic Places. The
authorities for these procedures are the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665) as amended by P.L. 91-243, P.L. 93-54,
P.L. 94-422, P.L. 94-458 and P.L. 96-515, and Presidential Executive
Order 11593 ("Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment").
The project location and nature of the materials to be disposed are
such that it is the opinion of this agency that they will have no effect
on any sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. The project is therefore consistent with the historic
preservation aspects of Florida lavs and regulations.
If you have any questions concerning our comments, please do not
hesitate to contact us. Your interest and cooperation in helping to
protect Florida's archaeological and historical resources are
appreciated.
(40
Sincerely,
GWP/efk
George W.^Percy
State Historic
Preservation Officer
Archaeological Research
(904) 407-2299
Florida Folldife Programs
(904) 397-2192
Historic Preservation
(904) 487-1333
Museum of Florida History
(904) 488-1484
-------
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING
2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 323994400
BOB MARTINEZ
GOVERNOR
DALE TWACHTMANN
SECRETARY
October 6, 1987
Mr. Walt Kolb
Senior Governmental Analyst
Office of Planning and Budgeting
Office of the Governor
421 Carlton Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Dear Walt:
Re:
Harbor ODMDSftJesignaition
We have previously reviewed the draft environmental impact
statement for the referenced designation and wish to incorporate
our September 25 comments as a part of this response. The
following comments respond to the Environmental Protection
Agency's federal consistency determination submitted under the
requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Our DEIS comments identified deficiencies in the scientific
surveys of the proposed site, specifically side scan sonar and
photodocumentation. The impacts evaluations did not provide a
dispersion analysis of the probable area of impact. Sediment
quality data and information on historical and projected use are
not provided. The DEIS also does not detail a site management
plan.
Because of these deficiencies, EPA does not have sufficient data
and information on which to base a sound designation decision.
The conclusions summarized in its consistency determination
should be based on scientific evidence rather than assumption.
For instance, sections A and G do not reconcile the conclusion
that the site is dispersive with the bathymetric evidence of a
persistent mound in the interim site and with the speculation
that resuspension of previously dumped material is responsible
for locally turbid conditions. Similarly, the statement in
section F that "no natural hardbottom areas are known to occur in
proximity to the proposed site" is not based on side scan sonar
and photographic surveys.
Protecting Florida and Your Quality of Life
-------
Mr. Walt Kolb
Page- Two
October 6, 1987
The consistency determination, section G, states that monitoring
surveys have been conducted recently and will continue. If
monitoring has been done in the past, particularly in conjunction
with the most recent dump, these reports should be provided for
review-along with a thorough description of the site management
plan.
We have requested a meeting with EPA to resolve these issues
prior to finalization of the EIS. The data and information
presented in the draft EIS are insufficient for an evaluation of
the designation's consistency with Chapter 403, Florida
Statutes. We reiterate our request that EPA provide complete
survey information as discussed here and in our September 25
letter, as well as a thorough response to the questions and
comments posed in those remarks. Upon receipt of the necessary
information we will complete our federal consistency review.
Failure to supply requested information can result in a finding
of inconsistency as specified in 15 CFR 930»42(b).
Sincerely,
Randall L. Armstrong, Director
Division of Environmental
Permitting
RLA/lgb
cc: Lynn Griffin
Dave Worley
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
BOSMABTINtZ
TWIN TOWCBS OFf>ct BUILDING ISH//!! ~L 7al GOVERNOR
2«00 BLA.B STONE SOAQ V* W«U^ W&tSW'*/ OAtE TWACHTMANN
TALLAHASSEE riOBIO* JJWi-OO \^Bfl5LTT^/ SECRETARY
October 6, 1987
Sally Turner, Chief
Marine Protection Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Ms. Turner:
RE: Federal-'Consistency Determination; CanSViral
Harbor ODMDS Designation
This department, functioning as the lead coastal management agency,
pursuant to section 306(c)(5) of the Coastal Zone Management Act,
(16 O.S.C. 1455(c){5)), and section 380.22, Florida Statutes, hereby
requests an extension of time within which to respond to the
consistency determination for this project. According to the
provisions of 15 C.F.R. 930.4Kb), we are seeking to extend the
state consistency review period deadline fifteen days, from October
11, 1987, to October 26, 1987.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Randall L. Armstrong, Director ^^
Division of Environmental Permitting
RLA/cgm
cc: Walt Kolb
Lynn F. Griffin
Clare E. Gray
Thomas G. Tomasello
Protecting Florida and Your Quality of Life
-------
-------
STATE OP FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
GOVEHNQH
TWIN TOwE»S OFFICE BUILDING "^ " "
2600 BtAlB STONE »O*O V»HftjflM/1., tfMjtt*'*/ OALE TWACHTMANN
TAUi.AnASSE£ FLORIDA 12J99-2«00 \ ^feWflZSJ™" / SECRETARY
October 26, 1987
Sally Turner, Chief
Marine Protection Section
Environmental protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland St, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Turner:
RE: "Federal 'Consistency ^Determination;,
ODMDS" Designation
The Department, functioning as Florida's lead coastal management
agency pursuant to section 306(c)(5) of the coastal Zone Management
Act (16 U.S.C. 1455(c)(5)) and section 380.22, Florida Statutes,
hereby notifies you that the above referenced project is not
consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) at
this time. This determination of inconsistency is based on a review
of the NEPA documents and comments by both the Departments of
Environmental Regulation (DER) and Natural Resources (DNR). The
comments are enclosed for your information and are summarized
below. The state position on consistency of the proposed site
designation is based on analysis of the activity vis-a-vis
enforceable state laws and rules included in the federally approved
coastal management program.
@
The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to designate a 4
permanent dumpsite 5.5 miles east of cocoa Beach, Brevard County.
Approximately one-fourth of the proposed site has been used
previously under an interim dumpsite designation. The site is
Protecting Florida and Your Quality of Life
-------
Page two
proposed for the disposal of mainenance dredged material from the
Port Canaveral entrance channel and turning basins. The commenting
agencies raise both general and specific issues concerning the
consistency of this project with the FCMP.
The fundamental issue of need for an ocean disposal site is not
addressed in the" BIS. The Marine Protection/ Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) states that the initial criterion to be
considered in site designation is whether there is a need for
dumping.. Such an evaluation is critical to consideration of this
site because of its location. Florida is clearly on record as
opposed to disposal in shallow, nearshore waters of either inferior,
contaminated material or of sand suitable for beach nourishment.
Ocean disposal, especially in nearshore areas, should be considered
only when dredged material cannot be recycled, or disposed of on land
(beach nourishment). Instead, the^DlBIS ••Bi^^'s^fclfeV'aahd 'disposal is
only^cpnsidered .;for material>';unsuitable^for^ocean -disposal}.
Florida"'sT"positlbn*'h¥s""consistently"'been'"tnVt"'Aif "material is of
beach quality, then it is suitable for beach nourishment. If
inferior material is construction grade, it could be stored
temporarily in available land disposal sites and sold for fill.
This would allow for recycling of material, preclude unnecessary
borrow pit construction and would be a more conservation oriented
approach to management of coastal land and water resources. Florida
believes that ocean disposal should be considered only as a last
resort when material is unsuitable for recycling to other beneficial
uses. Disposal sites, especially those close to shore, operate as
disincentives to alternative disposal methods since ocean dumping is
always easier and cheaper. Accordingly, the state does not agree
with either designation of new or permanent ocean disposal sites or
expansion of existing ones if more appropriate disposal options are
available. Florida believes that it is critical to conserve its
land and water resources and to manage them in consideration of the
long term needs of the area's ecological system.
Scientific investigations of this site are inadequate in several
respects, and are detailed in DER's comment letters dated September
25, and October 6, 1987, enclosed. The state is concerned that site
designation surveys continue to lack careful, in-depth study
sufficient to support designation decisions, in our coordination
with EPA on the Pensacola deepwater site designation, an attempt was
made to develop a systematic and thorough sampling protocol which we
hoped would serve as a model foe subsequent site evaluations, it is
essential to standardize the design arid implementation of candidate
site surveys, and we request that EPA explain why this designation
study did not follow the Pensacola model. The information not
contained in the DEIS as noted in DER's letter should be furnished
to the state as soon as practicable.
-------
page three
DNR indicates that the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund (Trustees) has authority over material dredged from
sovereignty submerged lands which may be disposed of in this
proposed site. Section 161.042, Florida Statutes, (F.S.) is a
mandatory and enforceable policy of Florida's federally approved
coastal management program. That provision states that the
Trustees, through DNR's Division of Beaches and Shores, are
authorized to direct that sediment dredged from coastal barrier
inlets be used for beach nourishment. This DNR policy has been well
enunciated to both EPA and the Corps for many years.
Canaveral Harbor and the entrance channel were constructed between
1950 and 1954. Following construction of the project, erosion rates
increased for the first couple of miles south of the area, in 1975,
approximately 2,3 million cubic yards were placed on the beach by
the Navy/corps, but the beach continues to experience erosion and is
in need of ongoing renourishment. The corps plans to construct a
fixed sand bypassing plant north of the Canaveral inlet to transfer
sand to beaches south of the inlet, but this will only partially
mitigate inlet-induced erosion. As stated before, disposal sites,
especially those close to shore, operate as disincentives to
alternative disposal methods since ocean dumping is always easier
and cheaper in the short term, but this is a waste of a valuable
state resource which the state is attempting to prevent. Please
refer to DNR's letter and'attachments (enclosed) for specific
references to inadequacies in the information provided for
consistency review.
The consistency determination provided to the state for review
analyzes the effect of the site designation on various statutes in
the FCMP. Regarding Chapter 161, F.S., Beach and Shore
Preservation, EPA states: "The distance of the site to the nearest
beach is great enough so that impacts to the beach resulting from
the use of the site are not anticipated." This completely
misapprehends the purpose and intent of the chapter. EPA completely
fails to consider the adverse impact to Florida's coastal zone
associated with removal of the material from the active sand
transport system. Chapter 161, F.S., was enacted in part to prevent
land-based construction from destroying the dune systems and the
natural functions of sandy beaches. More importantly, the statute
recognizes the dynamic character of sandy beaches and barrier
islands and the importance of keeping beach sand in the littoral
system by placing compatible material dredged from inlets on the
downdrift beaches. We cannot continue to deal with coastal
activities piecemeal. Designation of nearshore disposal sites
discourages rational shoreline management, particularly when no
consideration is given to alternatives such as upland disposal which
keep the resource in the littoral transport system.
-------
Page four
As to consistency with chapters 370 and 403, F.S., the state finds
that the site study described in the EIS is inadequate and
insufficient to reach the conclusions drawn by EPA. Please refer
again to the specific comments in the enclosed letters, particularly
the letter from DER dated October 6, 1987.
In sum, the Florida DNR finds the proposed Canaveral Harbor ODMDS
designation inconsistent with its authorities in the FCMP,
specifically section 161.042, F.S.
Further, the DER has indicated that there is not adequate data or
information in either the consistency determination or the DEIS upon
which EPA can base a sound decision regarding designation.
Conclusions summarized in its consistency determination should be
based on scientific evidence rather than assumptions. Sections A
and G do not lead to the conclusion that the site is dispersive when
there is evidence of a persistent mound in the interim site, or that
resuspension of previously dumped material is responsible for
locally turbid conditions, for example. If monitoring has been done
in the past, particularly for the most recent dump, these reports
should be provided for review also. Finally, there should be a site
management plan and a thorough description of it.
In sum, DER does not have adequate information to enable it to make
a determination whether the designation is consistent with its
authorities in the FCMP, This letter should be considered as a
request for additional information. As you know, failure to provide
the state with adequate information upon which to base its
consistency decision may lead to a finding of inconsistency pursuant
to 15 C.F.R. 930.39U).
Measures which may be taken to render this activity consistent with
the FCMP include consideration of alternatives to ocean dumping such
as upland disposal (beach nourishment) for suitable material.
Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, mediation (15
C.F.R. 930, subpart G) by the Secretary of Commerce may be sought
for serious disagreements between a state and a federal agency
taking direct action governed by 15 C.F.R. 930, subpart C.
We welcome the possibility of working further with EPA to resolve
these differences. The Governor's Office is available to mediate
the concerns of state agencies with the EPA. If you have questions
or wish consultation, please contact Clare E. Gray at (904)
488-8114. A copy of this letter has been provided to the Assistant
^ ^.
58
-------
page five
Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
Dale Twachtmann
Secretary
DT/ceg
Enclosures
cc:
Peter L. Tweedt, NOAA/OCRM
Ralph C. Schunk
Hon. Lawton Chiles
Hon. D. Robert Graham
Hon. Bill Nelson
Florida cabinet
Tom Gardner
Thomas G. Tomasello
Kirby Green
Andrew S. Grayson
Hark Leadon
Lynn P. Griffin
Alex Alexander
Randall L. Armstrong
Dave Worley
Daniel H. Thompson
Clare E. Gray
Walt Kolb
David C. Slade
Dave Johnson
-------
-------
RESPONSES TO THE STATE OP FLORIDA COMMENT LETTERS
***
STATE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
Office of the Governor Letter (October 6, 1987) With
Attachments
1. No response necessary. Thank you for your timely and thorough
comments. Your comments are addressed below.
2. The DEIS incorrectly indicates that the Canaveral Harbor Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) is approved on an
interim basis and that such approval will expire. Instead, as
corrected in Section 1.01 of the FEIS, the status of this
disposal site is "interim-indefinite."
3. We commend the efforts of the State of Florida for their
coordination with EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) regarding the Pensacola (offshore) ODMDS Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). This protocol was not totally applied
to the Canaveral Harbor site since most field studies had
already been completed and revisiting sites is difficult and
expensive from a logistics and economics perspective.
However, EPA agrees with several of the State's comments
relative to site surveys and data interpretation. Survey
methodologies are evolving for new sites and State
suggestions/recommendations are being considered.
Nevertheless, since the writing of the Draft EIS (DEIS), EPA
has conducted several additional site surveys (sediment
mapping, side scan sonar, investigation of the charted fish
haven west of the site, and some bottom video photography; see
Appendices F and 6) and is conducting a benthic monitoring
study concurrent with the ODMDS designation process.
4. EPA believes that the State's concern for loss of beach-
compatible sand and use of the ODMDS should be addressed at
the project-specific EIS or Environmental Assessment (EA)
stage. EPA's designation of an ODMDS does not, by itself,
authorize any dredging project or on-site ODMDS disposal.
Such a designation also does not indicate EPA's approval of
dredging projects that may use the ODMDS. It does, however,
provide a potential option for suitable dredged material
disposal. The COE and EPA evaluate all dredged material
disposal projects in accordance with the EPA criteria (40 CFR
220-229), the COE regulations (33 CFR 209.120 and 209.145),
and any State comments concerning consistency with a State
Coastal Zone Management Program.
-------
EPA understands the importance and value of utilizing
beach-compatible material where feasible and appropriate, and
supports (subject to EPA EIS review, i.e., per Section 309 of
the Clean Air Act and per Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA) the
examination of this alternative for disposal of appropriate
sized sediments, when and where practical.
5. The State's comments attached to this October 6 letter are
addressed herein. As stated in Response #3, additional
studies have been conducted to further describe the ODMDS
area.
6. On December 7-8, 1987, EPA, the Jacksonville District and the
State of Florida (Department of Natural Resources, Department
of Environmental Regulation and Office of the Governor) met in
Tallahassee, Florida to update various ODMDS projects. The
present Canaveral Harbor ODMDS was part of that discussion,
which included a brief review of portions of the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation DEIS comment letter
dated September 25, 1987. References to the Canaveral site
were also made in a subsequent meeting on December 6, 1988.
Additional coordination prior to FEIS publication was achieved
through a meeting with the State in Tallahassee, Florida on
May 3, 1990.
Attachment li State of Florida Department of Commerce Letter
(August 25.1987)
7. No response necessary. However, it should be noted that
disposal of dredged material is not limited to COE dredging
since this ODMDS would also be available for other federal
dredging projects and private projects if compliance with all
appropriate regulations is achieved.
Attachment 2: State of Florida^Department of Environmental
Regulation Letter (September 25. 1987^
8. The western boundary of the re-configured Canaveral Harbor
ODMDS is 3.5 nautical miles offshore Cocoa Beach, Florida.
9. Please refer to Response #4. An ODMDS provides an ocean
disposal option. Other options such as beach nourishment or
upland disposal may also be available in the area. Selection
of the appropriate option for a given proposed project should
-------
-3-
be addressed in the project-specific EIS or EA. EISs for dredging
projects are reviewed by EPA so that disposal options are
considered on a project-by-project basis. Even though this is the
case, EPA agrees with the State of Florida that non-ocean
alternatives (upland and nearshore options) should be addressed in
the FEIS and revisions have been made in the FEIS (see Summary
Sheet and Section 3.00). Reference to the beach nourishment
option is also made in the Canaveral Harbor Site Management and
Monitoring Plan (SMMP) presented in Appendix H.
10. A record of previous COE dredged material has been added to the
Final EIS (FEIS) in Table 3. This table provides the date and
volume of previous new work and maintenance work disposal
actions. The sediment quality of such disposal was not readily
accessible or available and was not included. However, all
dredged material deposited at the ODMDS must comply with EPA
quality criteria for ocean disposal permits. Present CE dredging
projections call for approximately 4,000,000 cubic yards of
material to be dredged over the five year period following
designation. Included in this total is an estimated 1.2 million
cubic yards of new work which the Port Authority proposes for
1992-93. It should be noted that disposal of dredged material is
not limited to CE dredging since the ODMDS would also be available
for other federal and private dredging projects if compliance with
all appropriate regulations is achieved.
11. As indicated in Appendix A of the FEIS, a video survey was
attempted on July 2, 1985 by a CE contractor. Visibility was less
than one foot due to turbidity. Less visibility was realized on
September 27-28 and October 2-4, 1985, when the site was revisited
by the contractor. Consequently, no video surveys were recorded.
EPA attempted a follow-up video survey from its OSV Peter W.
Anderson vessel on May 24, 1988, and also encountered turbid
conditions. A second attempt in mid-July 1988 was more successful
and some video data were recorded. Because conditions remained
generally turbid, however, a side scan sonar survey was
conducted. In April 1989, an additional survey was conducted by
EPA. Results are presented in Appendix 6 of the FEIS. A SCUBA
investigation of a charted fish haven located west of the ODMDS
was unsuccessful due to turbidity (see Appendix G). Based on the
video and side scan information, however, EPA is now reasonably
confident that no significant live/hard bottom areas exist in the
ODMDS area surveyed and that site designation would not be
precluded due to significant live/hard bottom areas. In addition,
it would seem that such turbid conditions would limit the presence
of many live/hard bottom species at the ODMDS.
12. COE bathymetry data of the ODMDS are provided in the DEIS and
the FEIS (see Appendix A). Although no dispersion modelling was
conducted for the Canaveral Harbor candidate ODMDS, EPA provided
sediment mapping surveys (see Appendix F) to map the migration
pattern of the disposed material.
-------
-4-
13. Coordination between EPA and the State of Florida has increased
significantly in recent years. The additional surveys at
Canaveral were in part due to such coordination. However,
coordination regarding ODMDS characterization is most productive
for new sites (such as the mentioned Fensacola (offshore) ODMDS),
as opposed to interim sites being permanently designated, since
most field surveys have already been completed for interim
ODMDSs. Nevertheless, since the writing of the DEIS, EPA has
conducted several additional site surveys (sediment mapping, side
scan sonar, investigation of the charted fish haven west of the
site, and some bottom video photography; see Appendices F and 6)
and is also conducting a benthic study concurrent with the ODMDS
designation process.
14. Please refer to Response #2.
15. Please refer to Response #13.
16. Please refer to Response #4 and 9. Specifically, the Summary
Sheet and Section 3.00 of the FEIS has been revised since the DEIS
to better address non-ocean (upland and nearshore) disposal
alternatives.
17. As described in Appendix A, sampling stations were located
both inside and outside of the DEIS configuration of the
candidate ODMDS. This is still true after the candidate site
was re-configured in the FEIS to completely encompass the interim
site (as depicted in the FEIS). However, relative to the
candidate site depicted in the DEIS, the northwestern outside
station (#9) is now located within the re-configured candidate
ODMDS and the two southeastern inside stations (#2 and #3) are
now located outside the candidate site. In addition, EPA
conducted sediment mapping in mid-July 1988 and April 1989 and
also investigated the charted fish haven west of the ODMDS with
side scan sonar (see Appendix F and G) and is also conducting a
benthic monitoring study concurrent with the ODMDS designation
process.
18. Sediment mapping information is presented in Appendix F of the
FEIS.
19. Please refer to Response #10 relative to previous COE disposal
actions at the interim ODMDS (see Table 3 and Appendix H of
FEIS). With regard to monitoring surveys (other than COE
bathymetry surveys), the sediment mapping conducted by EPA will
serve as a baseline for potential future EPA monitoring surveys.
The SMMP for the Canaveral Harbor ODMDS is also provided in
Appendix H. This SMMP is intended to be flexible and may be
changed for cause by the responsible agency due to factors such
as the results of site monitoring. EPA monitoring surveys are
dependent upon coordination between the COE, State of Florida,
EPA and other potential users, as well as funding and EPA's
-------
-5-
prioritizing of monitoring needs relative to all ODMDSs in the
southeast (Region IV).
20. Corrections have been made in Section 5.09 of the FEIS.
\
21. Electronic verification of dump scow dumping locations by the
dredging contractor is part of the Canaveral Harbor SMMP (see
Appendix H). This will help ensure on-site disposal.
22. A detailed description of the field and laboratory methods used at
the candidate Canaveral ODHDS are presented in Appendix A.
Current measurements were taken at five feet above the bottom to
establish the potential for movement of discharged material at or
near the bottom. Comparison of measured currents with historic
data is addressed in appendix A.
23. The fine macrofaunal replicates collected for analysis do not
represent sampling to species saturation.
24. Please refer to Response #6.
Attachment 3; State of Florida Department of Natural Resources Letter
(September 29. 19871
25. No response necessary. Thank you for your comments.
26. Please refer to Response #4. EPA agrees that nourishment of
beaches is an important consideration to be investigated in
conjunction with dredging activities. Beach nourishment should
be\ thoroughly evaluated as an alternative for the disposal of
suitable dredged material. The State of Florida is free to pursue
the beach nourishment option with the permitting agency despite
the proposed permanent designation of the ODMDS. Site designation
of an ODMDS does not preclude use of other disposal options
feasible in the area.
27. EPA has determined that the designation of the Canaveral Harbor
ODMDS on a permanent basis is consistent with the Florida
Coastal Management Program to the maximum extent practicable.
Per EPA/Region IV policy, we have prepared a CZM Consistency
Evaluation and have provided it to the State (August of 1987). A
copy with a (new) Preface is also presented in Appendix I of the
FEIS.
28. Please refer to Responses #4, 9 and 26. Designation of an ODMDS
does not abridge the statutory authorities referenced in the State
of Florida letter.
29. Please refer to Responses #4, 9, 26 and 28. Since only one ODMDS
is planned for the area, grain size was not restricted by EPA for
ODMDS designation.
Attachment 4: State of Florida Department of Natural Resources
Memorandum (September 23. 1987)
30. Please refer to Response #27.
-------
-6-
31. Please refer to Responses #4, 9, 26, 28 and 29. Additional
information summarizing upland and nearshore alternatives has been
provided in the FEIS (see Summary Sheet and Section 3.00; Section
2.04 of the DEIS has been rewritten as Section 3.03 in the FEIS).
Reference to beach nourishment is also made in the Canaveral
Harbor SMMP (see Appendix H).
32. Please refer to Responses #4, 9, 26, 28, 29 and 31.
33. Please refer to Responses #4, 9, 26, 28, 29 and 31. The
designation process applies only to the establishment of a
viable offshore dredged material disposal site, not to specific
dredging activities. The designation process designates an
environmentally acceptable ocean site (ODMDS) for the disposal
of suitable dredged material for which an ocean disposal need
has been established. The State is free to pursue the use of
potential beach-compatible dredged material from the greater
Canaveral area with the permitting agency for use as beach
nourishment material.
34. Please refer to Responses #4, 9, 26, 28, 29, 31 and 33 (Note: For
general reference, EPA/Region IV would be interested in receiving
detailed information regarding erosion causes and rates.).
35. Please refer to Responses #4, 9, 26, 28, 29, 31 and 33.
36. Please refer to Responses #4, 9, 26, 28, 29, 31 and 33.
37. In general, the grain sizes of the dredged material for potential
disposal at the Canaveral Harbor candidate ODMDS are expected to
be from, but not limited to, COE maintenance work which will
primarily be fine-grained disposal material. Disposal of coarser
material is also possible. The Canaveral Harbor SMMP presents a
table for the projected disposals at the candidate site (see
Appendix H).
38. Please refer to Responses #4, 9, and 26 through 37.
Attachment 4a and 4b: EPA Cover Letter and Florida Coastal Management
Program Consistency Evaluation (August 1987)
39. No response necessary, i.e., the attachments are an EPA/Region IV
letter and the EPA Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP)
Consistency Evaluation (see Appendix I for a new Preface to the
Consistency Evaluation).
-------
-7-
arida Department of State. Division of Historical
Resources (August 24. 1987)
40. No response necessary. Thank you for your cultural resource
assessment. EPA assumes that the slight re-configuration of the
candidate ODMDS since the DEIS review will not alter this
assessment.
STATE COMMENTS ON THE FEDERAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
Florida Department of EnvironmentalRegulation Content Letter Dated
October 6. 1987
41. The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) comments dated
September 25, 1987, which the State wishes to incorporate in the
present letter, have been previously addressed (refer to Responses
#8-24).
42. Additional studies have been conducted since the writing of the
DEIS: side scan sonar, investigation of the charted fish haven
west of the site, sediment mapping, and some ODMDS bottom video
photography (also refer to Responses #3, 11, 13 and 17 and
Appendices F and G). Also please refer to Response #10 and FEIS
Table 3 for a record of previous COE disposals and the Canaveral
Harbor SMMP (see Appendix H) for projected ODMDS use information.
Response #19 provides comments on the SMMP.
43. Please refer to Responses #22 and #42. Also, relative to site
dispersion, results of the EPA sediment surveys (see Appendix F)
indicate a possible westward migration of disposal material.
Additional sediment mapping activities conducted by EPA in June
1990 are expected to provide additional information regarding the
parameters of sediment movement in the area of the candidate site.
44. The Canaveral Harbor SMMP is provided in Appendix H of this FEIS.
Bathymetric monotoring procedures are also outlined in this
Appendix. Also, refer to Appendices F and G describing recent
EPA monitoring surveys and Appendix A for COE bathymetry data.
In addition, EPA is conducting a benthic monitoring study
concurrent with the ODMDS designation process.
45. The Canaveral Harbor ODMDS has been discussed at meetings attended
by the State of Florida, COE and EPA (refer to Response #6).
46. No response necessary. Thank you for your comments.
-------
-8-
47. As indicated in Response #27, EPA has determined that
designation of the Canaveral Harbor ODMDS on a permanent
basis is consistent with the Florida Coastal Management
Program (FCMP) to the maximum extent practicable.
EPA/Region IV has prepared a CZM Consistency Evaluation and
has provided it to the State (August of 1987). A copy with
a (new) Preface is also presented as Appendix I in this
FEIS.
48. Please refer to Response #8.
49. Please refer to Response #4. EPA believes that the need for
the ocean disposal option or another disposal option should
be addressed at the dredging project EIA or EA stage. EPA
also believes that the need for an ODMDS should be addressed
in an ODMDS EIS. Need for a permanent ODMDS offshore
Canaveral Harbor is addressed in the Summary Sheet and
Sections 2.00 and 3.00 of the FEIS. EPA's proposed
permanent designation of the Canaveral ODMDS would not
preclude use of the beach nourishment option. The State of
Florida is free to pursue such an option with the permitting
agency.
50. Please refer to Response #49. Non-ocean and ocean disposal
are both disposal alternative for dredged material. EPA
believes that selection of the appropriate option should
occur at the project EIS or EA stage, and that non-ocean
alternatives should also be addressed in the ODMDS EIS.
Section 3.00 on alternatives has been revised and broadened
in the FEIS to include various non-ocean alternatives,
including beach nourishment. EPA's proposed permanent
designation of the Canaveral Harbor candidate ODMDS does not
preclude the upland disposal option and selection of the
upland disposal option for a given proposed dredging project
does not preclude designation of the ODMDS, if a need for
the ODMDS is justified by a previous dredging project.
Also, the phrase "unsuitable ocean disposal" refers to
unacceptable toxicity/bioaccumulation levels of dredged
material that would make it unsuitable for ocean disposal
(without restriction) but still potentially available for
upland disposal.
51. The DER letters dated September 25, 1987 and October 6, 1987
referenced as being enclosed in the DER letter dated October
26, 1987, addressed in Responses #8-24 and 41-45. Please
also refer to Response #3 and Appendices F and G regarding
additional studies since the writing of the DEIS. Also, EPA
is conducting a benthic monitoring study concurrent with the
ODMDS designation process.
52. EPA's proposed permanent designation of the candidate ODMDS
does not preclude other disposal options feasible in the
area. Please refer to Responses #4, 9, 16, 26, 49 and 50.
-------
-9-
53. It is unclear as to which Florida Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) letter and attachments is referenced as being enclosed in
the DER letter dated October 26, 1987. Such letters were not
duplicated here. However, DNR letters dated September 23,
1987 (memorandum which enclosed a copy of the EPA CZM Consistency
Evaluation and EPA cover letter) and a DNR letter dated
September 29, 1987 were duplicated and responses provided as
Responses #25-39. These DNR letters were enclosed in the letter
from the Florida Office of the Governor dated October 6, 1987.
Should these not be the letters referenced, reissuance of
appropriate letters to EPA/Region IV in Atlanta, Georgia is
requested. Please also refer to Response #52 relative to disposal
options.
54. The statement referenced in the letter from Chapter 161 of the CZM
Consistency Evaluation ("The distance of the site to the nearest
beach is great enough so that impacts to the beach resulting from
the use of the site are not anticipated") refers to impacts of
site use. The source of the disposal material or alternative
disposal options is a related but different issue. Again, EPA
believes that selection of the appropriate disposal option should
occur at the project-specific stage and be addressed in the ODMDS
EIS. EPA's proposed permanent designation of the candidate ODMDS
does not preclude other disposal options feasible in the area.
55. Please refer to Response #51.
56. Please refer to Responses #27 or 47.
57. Additional studies have been conducted since the writing of the
DEIS. Please refer to Responses #3, 11, 13, 17, 42, 43 and 51.
The CZM Consistency Evaluation should be reviewed in light of
these studies (see new Preface to Appendix I).
58. Please refer to Responses #6 and 57.
59. Please refer to Responses #4, 9, 26, 31, 33, 49 and 50.
60. Please refer to Response #6.
-------
-------
x~»
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS /
OFFICE OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, 2575 North Courtmav Parkway. MUrritt (.land. Florida 32953
Ttl«pnon«: (305) 483-9515 Sun Com: 367-1515
August 12, 1987
U.S. Army Engineer District
Jacksonville
P.O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019
Attention: CESAJ-PD-ES
Gentleman:
This office appreciates the opportunity to review the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Designation of 3 Canaveral
Harborr Florida Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site. At this
point the only comments we have relate to commercial fisheries in
the area.
Our office is working with the Organiz d Fishermen of
Florida (OFF) on delineating important fishing areas off
Brevard's coast. These may extend beyond the areas noted in
Figure H-2 of the DEIS. The Corps should perhaps solicit input
from OFF to ensure completeness of the map. Also, this office is
working with a number of interested parti on locating
additional artifical reefs off the coast, however, it is not
anticipated that the candidate site and disposal activities will
interfere with these preliminary plans.
Finally, a point of curiosity. It is not noted in the DEIS
or the attached letter as to the puropse of deepening the inner /?
reach channel or middle basin to 42 feet. Surely maintenance
dredging to the 35 foot depth is adequate to accommodate the
shipping activity in the Port. Why is the additional depth
required?
CHARLESJ. ROBERTS ROGER W. OOBSON ANDREA DEHATANY SUE SCHMITT THAD ALTMAN W. E. CURPHEY R. C. WINSTEAD. JR
OmriCI 1 District 2 Outfit! 3 Dinner 4 Oitrrie: 5 County Attorney C'M-
Chairman Vic* Chairman
GREGORY L. KELLER. County Adrmmttrator
-------
U.S. Army Engineer District
August 13, 1987
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIS.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
C .
Deborah Lugar (J
Section Supervisor
DL/cb
cc: Sally Turner, Chief
Marine Protection Section, EPA
-------
RESPONSES TO THE LOCAL AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS
***
BREVARD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
(August 12. 1987 Letter)
1. Thank you for your comments. EPA has included the Organized
Fishermen of Florida (Bokeelia, FL) on its FEIS mailing list.
We have also included the Florida Sport Fishing Association
(Cape Canaveral, FL), the Southeastern Fisheries Association
(Pensacola, FL), the International Women's Fishing
Association (Palm Beach, FL), South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Charleston, SC), Florida Marine Fisheries
Commission (Tallahassee, FL), National Marine Fisheries
Service (St. Petersburg and Miami, FL), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Vero Beach and Jacksonville, FL) and the
Department of Interior (Washington, D.C.). Coordination
concerning the completeness of Figure 4-2 of the DEIS has
occurred.
2. The Jacksonville District COE has provided a response in a
letter dated August 24, 1987. A more specific answer may be
available from the project officer of the dredging project.
The CE response is as follows:
"The deepening of the inner reach channel or middle
basin is not discussed in the Draft EIS, because as
stated in paragraph 2.03 'The purpose of the proposed
action is to provide an environmentally acceptable
location for the disposal from the Canaveral Harbor
area. The site designation process neither authorizes
any dredging project nor permits disposal of any dredged
material. The need for ocean disposal is determined on
a case-by-case basis as a part of the process of issuing
permits for ocean disposal.'"
"The proposed increase in depths for the inner channel
and middle basin for Canaveral Harbor were investigated
by the Corps of Engineers at the request of the
Canaveral Port Authority, the local sponsors of the
proposed harbor deepening project, to increase
navigational safety and promote port efficiency by
allowing larger vessels with deeper drafts to safely
negotiate the harbor."
-------
------- |