xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water May 1984
Criteria and Standards Division
Washington DC 20460 EPA 440 /5 -84-0 I I
Environmental
Impact Statement
(EIS)
Final
Nome, Alaska
Dredged Material
Disposal Site Designation
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
FOR
NOME, ALASKA DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
MAY, 1984
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
SUMMARY SHEET
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR NOME, ALASKA
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES
( ) Draft
(x) Final
( ) Supplement to Draft
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION
1. Type of Action
(x) Administrative/Regulatory Action
( ) Legislative Action
2. Brief background description of action and purpose
The proposed action is the final designation of the Eastern Nome,
Alaska interim designated Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites. The
site will be used for the disposal of dredged material from the Nome,
Alaska area. The purpose of the action is to provide an
environmentally acceptable area for disposal of dredged materials, in
compliance with EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria.
iv
-------
3. Summary of major beneficial and adverse environmental and other impacts.
The principal beneficial effect is the provision of a designated
environmentally acceptable area for the disposal of dredged material.
Planning for dredged material disposal is enhanced since a permanently
designated ocean disposal site is available for comparison with other
dredged material disposal alternatives. An adverse environmental impact
will result from burial and loss of seme bottom organisms within the
sites. Burial of bottom organisms outside the site boundaries will not
occur. Other adverse environmental effects, such as mounding, changes
in sediment texture, and disturbance of demersal fish, will be
temporary, minor and restricted to the sites.
4. Major alternatives considered
The alternatives considered in the site evaluation studies and pre-
sented in this EIS were: (1) no action; (2) final designation of one or
both of the interim designated sites; and (3) relocation of the sites to
an alternate area.
5. Comments have been requested from the following:
Federal Agencies and Offices
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Marine Fisheries Service
Maritime Administration
Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
-------
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Bureau of Land Management
Geological Survey
Department of Transportation
Coast Guard
Water Resources Council
National Science Foundation
States and Municipalities
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Alaska Office of Management and Budget
Alaska Office of the Governor
Alaska State Clearing House
Bearing Straits Native Corporation
City of Nome
Private Organizations
American Littoral Society
Audubon Society
Center for Law and Social Policy
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
National Academy of Sciences
National Wildlife Federation
Sierra Club
Water Pollution Control Federation
Academic/Research Institutions
Port of Nome Project
University of Alaska, Fairbanks
U.S. Department of the Army, Coastal Engineering Research Center
VI
-------
6. The Final statement was officially filed with the Director, Office of
Environmental Review, EPA.
7. Comments on the Final EIS are due 30 days from the date of EPA's
publication of Notice of Availability in the Federal Register which is
expected to be MAY £5 M4 .
Conments should be addressed to:
John M. Hill
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585)
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Copies of the Final EIS may be obtained from:
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585)
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
401.M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
The Final statement may be reviewed at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency
Public Information Reference Unit, Room 204 (Rear)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
VI1
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers
319 S.W. Pine Street
Portland, Oregon 97208
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District
Library
898 Pouch
Anchorage, Alaska 99506
Kegoyah Kozga Public Library
P.O. Box 1168
Nome, Alaska 99762
Vlll
-------
SUMMARY
The proposed action is the final designation of the Eastern Nome,
Alaska interim designated Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites. This
Environmental Impact Statement presents a resume of the information
obtained during the site evaluation studies and the DEIS comment period.
PROPOSED ACTION
Two Nome, Alaska Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDS) presently
are interim designated and are more particularly described as:
Western ODMDS: A 0.30 nmi2 site adjacent to shore, west of the
entrance channel to Nome harbor, and with corner coordinates of 64°30'04"N,
165°25'52"W; 64°29'18"N, 165°26'04"W; 64°29'13"N, 165°25'22"W; and
64°29'54"N, 165°24'45"W.
Eastern ODMDS: A 0.37 nmi? site adjacent to shore, east of the
entrance channel to Nome harbor, and with corner coordinates of 64°29'54"N,
165°24'41"W; 64°29'07"N, 165024'25"W; 64°28'57"N, 165°23'29"W; and
64°29'45"N, 165°23'27"W.
The Eastern Nome, Alaska ODMDS, as delineated above, would have final
designation for the disposal of dredged material. The site may be used for
disposal of dredged material only after evaluation of each Federal project
or permit application has established that the disposal is within site
capacity and in compliance with the criteria and requirements of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Corps of Engineers (CE.)
regulations.
IX
-------
The two sites have been used for dredged material disposal since 1923.
This use has not resulted in adverse environmental effects outside the site
boundaries. Some minor adverse environmental effects within the sites,
principally temporary mounding, changes in sediment texture, and burial of
bottom organisms, have resulted from their past use.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Three alternates were considered; no action, permanent designation of
one or both of the existing sites, and relocation of the sites.
No-Action: If no action is taken, the interim designation of the ODMDS
would continue since there is no specific termination date. However,
approval of the sites was conditional, pending completion of any necessary
studies and evaluation of their suitability for continued use. The
environmental studies have been completed with the results presented in
EIS. Thus, in accordance with § 228.5(c) of the ODR, a decision regarding
the continued use of the site is required and no action is considered an
unacceptable alternative.
Final Designation of the Existing Sites; The existing sites presently
are interim designated. IJider this alternative, the sites would be given
final designation. The sites have been in use for dredged material
disposal for about 50 years. Based on examination of information during
the DEIS comment period it was determined that although both sites were
environmentally acceptable for continued use, the preferred alternative
would be to de-designate the western site and give final designation to the
eastern site.
Relocation of the Sites: Relocation of the sites to a near-shore
similar environment; a mid-depth area; and a deepwater area was considered.
An environmentally acceptable ODMDS could be located in each of these
areas. However, the alternate areas do not offer any environmental advant-
-------
ages over the existing sites. In addition, relocation to any of the alter-
nate areas would increase the dredged material disposal costs. Because of
the two foregoing factors, permanent designation of one or both of existing
sites was preferred to relocation of the sites.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The existing sites are located adjacent to shore in the high-energy area
of the shelf off Nome, Alaska, and in Norton Sound. .The Shelf bottom in
this area is irregular with holes, mounds, and bars, and slopes gradually
to depths of 20m to 30m in the Chivikov Basin.
Waters of Norton Sound are of high quality, exhibiting high dissolved
oxygen content and near neutral pH. Organic carbon and nutrients are
indicative of a highly productive area. Nearshore, the waters are
completely mixed throughout the year with surface ice forming in the
winter. Offshore, a two-layer system is present in the summer with cold,
saline water below 5 to 10m and warmer less saline water at the surface.
Varying thicknesses of Pleistocene to recent age sediments cover older
bedrock o.ffshore off Nome. In general, sediments near shore are coarse,
poorly sorted, and form an irregular belt which extends parallel to shore.
Strong currents remove fine sediments and tend to push them further from
shore.
Norton Sound contains a variety of biological life. Continental Slope
and open ocean areas of Southeastern Morton Sound support high populations
of North Pacific oceanic, interzonal copepods. Zooplankton communities of
nearshore coastal areas are composed of littoral and neritic forms adapted
to wide ranges of temperatures and salinities. Mollusks, arthropods, and
echinoderms appear to be the most abundant epifaunal invertebrates. The
eight most abundant demersal fish are reported to be saffron cod, starry
flounder, yellowfin sole, Alaska plaice, plain sculpin, toothed smelt,
arctic cod, and the shorthorn sculpin. Norton Sound supports a salmon and
herring fishery.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The disposal of dredged materials at the existing eastern site (proposed
to be permanently designated) will not effect human health, safety, and
welfare. There may be a slight change in water quality, and a turbidity
plume visible from shore during and in the immediate vicinity of the
disposal operations. The high-energy nature of the sites will result in a
return to ambient conditions shortly after the disposal operations.
While a minor mound may develop be-low a particular disposal, the mound
will be lowered and smoothed as the sediments are dispersed over the site
by wave and current actions. Any dispersion of sediments outside the
site's boundaries will be in extremely thin layers.
Some bottom dwelling organisms will be trapped under the dredged
material and be smothered. Others will be able to work their way to the
surface of the sediments and survive. Demersal fish, being more mobile,
will be able to escape the sediments as they reach the bottom. However, a
few may be pinned down and destroyed. Free swimming fish and aquatic
animals will be able to avoid or escape the decending plume of sediments.
Under the preferred alternative the western site will be de-designated,
which will avoid potential impacts on a bottom community that has been
relatively undisturbed from dumping activities for at least the past six
years.
XII
-------
CONTENTS
Chapter Title
SUMMARY SHEET iv
SUMMARY ix
1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act 1-3
Ocean Dumping Regulations and
Criteria 1-3
Corps of Engineers National
Purpose and Need 1-4
CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOCAL NEED 1-5
EPA's PURPOSE AND NEED 1-5
Site Study 1-5
Site Designation 1-6
2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-1
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2-2
DETAILED EVALUATION OF EXISTING SITES 2-2
SPECIFIC CRITERIA (40 CFR Part 228.6) . . . 2-2
(a)(l) Geographical position, depths of
bottom topography, and distance
from coast 2-3
(a)(2) Location in relation to breeding,
spawning, nursery, feeding, or
passage areas of living resources
in adult or juvenile phases. . . . 2-5
(a)(3) Location in relation to beaches
and other amenity areas 2-5
Xlll
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Chapter Title Page
(a)(4) Types and quantities of wastes
proposed to be disposed of, and
methods of release, including
methods of packing the wastes
if any 2-5
(a)(5) Feasibility of surveillance and
monitoring 2-7
(a)(6) Dispersal, horizontal transport
and vertical mixing characteris-
tics of the area, including pre-
vailing current direction and
velocity, if any 2-7
(a)(7) Existence and effects of current
and previous discharges and dump-
ing in the area (including cumu-
lative effects) 2-9
(a)(8) Interference with shipping, fish-
ing, recreation, mineral extrac-
tion, desalination, fish and shell-
fish culture, areas of special
scientific importance, and other
legitimate uses of the ocean . . . 2-9
(a)(9) The existing water guality and
ecology of the site as determined
by available data or by trend
assessment or baseline surveys . .2-11
xiv
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Chapter Title Page
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS 2-12
WATER COLUMN 2-12
Dissolved Oxygen 2-12
pH 2-12
Organic Carbon, Nutrients . . 2-12
Trace Metals 2-13
Petroleum and
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons . . 2-13
SEDIMENTS 2-13
Trace Metals 2-13
Total Organic Carbon 2-14
Petroleum and Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons 2-14
BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 2-14
PHYTOPLANKTON 2-14
ZOOPLANKTON 2-15
BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES 2-15
DEMERSAL FISH 2-16
(a)(10) Potentially for the Develop-
ment or recruitment of
nuisance species in the
disposal sites 2-16
(a)(11) Existence at or in close
proximity to the site of
any significant natural
or cultural features of
historical importance 2-16
xv
-------
CONENTS (Cont'd)
Chapter Title Page
GENERAL CRITERIA (40 CFR 228.5) 2-16
(a) 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 2-17
(b) Locations and boundaries of the
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 contaminat or ef-
fects before reaching any beach, shore-
line, marine sanctuary, or known
geographically limited fishery or
shellfishery 2-17
(c) If at anytime during or after dumping
disposal site evaluation studies, it is
determined that existing disposal sites
presently approved on an interim basis for
xvi
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Chapter Tltle
ocean dumping do not meet the
criteria for site selection set
forth in §228.5 - 228.6, the use
of such sites will be terminated
as soon as suitable alternative
disposal sites can be designated . . 2-19
(d) The sizes of ocean disposal sites
will be limited in order to loca-
lize the identification and con-
trol any immediate adverse impacts
and permit the implementation of
effective monitoring and surveil-
i
lance programs to prevent adverse
long-range impacts. The size con-
figuration, and.location of any dis-
posal site will be determined as
part of the disposal site^evalu-
ation or designation study 2-19
(e) EPA will, wherever feasible,
designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental
shelf and other such sites that
have been historially used 2-20
OTHER FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED 2-20
RELOCATION OF THE ODMDS TO AN
ALTERNATIVE OCEAN AREA 2-20
Near Shore Sites 2-21
Norton Sound Site 2-21
Deepwater Site 2-22
xvi
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Chapter Title
EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS 2-24
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES 2-26.
USE OF THE SITES 2-26
Permissible Material Loadings ...... 2-27
Dredged Material Quality 2-27
Disposal Methods 2-27
Disposal Schedule 2-27
Monitoring the Disposal Sites 2-28
3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3-1
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3-2
TEMPERATURE 3-2
WAVES 3-5
TIDES 3-6
Tidal Drift and Dispersion . 3-6
GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3-7
BATHYMETRY 3-7
SEDIMENTS 3-9
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3-10
WATER COLUMN 3-10
Dissolved Oxygen 3-10
pH 3-11
Organic Carbon 3-11
Nutrients 3-12
Trace Matals 3-12
Petroleum and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons . . 3-12
SEDIMENTS 3-12
Trace Metals 3-12
Total Organics Carbon 3-13
Petroluem and Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons 3-13
BIOLOGICAL CAHRACTERISTICS 3-13
XVlll
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Chapter Title Page
PLANKTON 3-14
Phytoplankton 3-14
Zooplankton 3-14
BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES 3-14
DEMERSAL FISH 3-15
FISHERIES 3-17
Salmon 3-17
Herring 3-19
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH
AND SAFETY 4-1
EFFECTS ON AESTHETICS 4-1
EFFECTS ON ECOSYSTEM 4-2
Physical/Chemical Effects . . . 4-2
Biological Effects 4-3
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES 4-3
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 4-4
5 COORDINATION 5-1
LIST OF COMMENTERS. 5-3
6 BIBLIOGRAPHY 6-1
7 APPENDIX A A-l
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ON THE DRAFT EIS A-l
xix
-------
FIGURES
Number
1-1
2-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
Number
2-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
5-1
Title
Nome, Alaska Dredged Materials
Disposal Sites 1-2
Pontential Natural Hazards of
Norton Sound 2-23
Nome, Alaska Nearshore
Bathymetry 3-4
Net Bathyme.tric Change Between
1900 and 1950 Near Nome, Alaska . . . 3-8
Mediam Grain Site Variations
of Surficial Sediments 3-10
Particle Size Distribution of
Surface Sediments Near Nome,
Alaska 3-11
TABLES
Title Page
Combined Volumes of Dredged Materials
Nome DMDS 2-6
Surveys Conducted in Norton Sound. . . 3-3
Epifaunal Invertebrate Species
Collected from Norton Sound in
Order of Decreasing Abundance .... 3-16
Composition by Biomass of the Dominant
Epifaunal Invertebrate Species Collected
in Norton Sound 3-18
Biomass of Demersal Fish Collected
in Norton Sound (September and
October 1976) 3-19
The 20 Most Abundant Demersal Fish
Species in Norton Sound 3-20
Commercial Salmon Catches in Norton
Sound (1962 to 1976, 1979) 3-21
Commercial Harvest of Pacific Herring
in Norton Sound 3-22
Coastal Zone Federal Consistency 5_2
Evaluation *
xx
-------
Chapter 1
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
The proposed action in this Environmental Impact Statment (EIS) is the
final designation of the Eastern Nome, Alaska Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site (ODMDS) and the dedesignation of the Western Nome, Alaska
ODMDS as shown in Figure 1-1 and more particularly described as:
Western ODMDS: A 0.30 nmi2 site adjacent to shore, west of the
entrance channel to Nome harbor, and with corner coordinates of 64°30'n4"N,
165°25'52"W; 64°29'18"N, 165°26'04"W; 64°29'13"N, 165°25'22"W; and
64029'54"N, 165°24'45"W.
Eastern ODMDS: A 0.37 nmi^ site adjacent to shore, east of the
entrance channel to Nome harbor, and with corner coordinates of 64°29'54"N,
165°24'41"W; 64°28'57"N, 165°23'29"W; 64°29'07"N, 165°24'25"W; and
64°29'45"N, 165°23'27"W.
The Eastern Nome, Alaska ODMDS1s, as delineated above, would be
designated for the disposal of dredged material. The site may be used for
disposal of dredged material only after evaluation of each Federal project
or permit application has established that the disposal is within site
capacity and in compliance with the criteria and requirements of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Corps of Engineers (CE)
regulations.
PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the proposed action is to provide the most
environmentally acceptable ocean location for the disposal of materials
dredged from the Nome, Alaska channel and harbor area. This EIS presents
the information utilized in evaluating suitability of the two Nome, Alaska
ODMDS1 s for final designation for continuing use and is based on one of a
series of disposal site environmental studies. The environmental studies
1-1
-------
I
ro
SOUNDINGS IH FEET ",
AT MEAN LOWER LOW WATER
Figure 1-1. Nome, Alaska Dredged Materials Disposal Sites
-------
and permanent designation process are being conducted in accordance with
the requirements of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (MPRSA) (86 Stat. 1052), as amended (33 U.S.C.A §1401, et. seq.)? the
EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR 220-229); and
applicable Federal environmental legislation.
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
The MPRSA was enacted in October 1972. Title I of the MPRSA, which is
the Act's primary regulatory section, authorizes the Administrator of EPA
(Section 102) and the Secretary of the Army acting through the CE (Section
103) to establish ocean disposal permit programs for nondredged and dredged
materials, respectively. Title I also requires EPA to establish criteria,
based on those factors listed in Section 102(a), for the review and evalua-
tion of permits under the EPA and CE permit program. In addition, Section
102(c) of Title I authorizes EPA, considering criteria established pursuant
to Section 102(a), to designate recommended ocean disposal sites or times
for dumping of nondredged and dredged material.
Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria
On 11 January 1977, EPA promulgated final Ocean Dumping Regulations and
Criteria to implement MPRSA. The Regulations set forth criteria and
procedures for the selection and designation of ocean disposal sites. In
addition, the regulations designated 129 ocean sites for the disposal of
dredged material to allow the CE 'to fully comply with the purpose and
procedural provisions of the MPRSA. These sites could be used for an
interim period by the CE, pending completion of site designation studies as
required by the regulations. Use of the interim-designated sites by the CE
would be dependent on compliance with the requirements and criteria
contained in EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria.
1-3
-------
Those sites given interim designation were selected by EPA in
consultation with the CE, with the size and location of each site based on
historic use. The interim designation would remain in force for a period
not to exceed 3 years from the date of the final promulgation of the
Regulations. However, due to the length of time required to complete the
necessary environmental studies and operating restraints of both a technical
and budgetary nature, environmental studies were not completed within the
approved 3-year period. As a result, the Regulations were amended in
January 1980 to extend the interim designation for some sites for a period
not to exceed 3 years, while the remaining sites' interim status was
extended indefinitely pending completion of studies and determination of the
need for continuing use.
Corps of Engineers National Purpose and Need
Section 103 of Title I requires the CE to consider in its evaluation of
Federal projects and 103 permit applications the effects of ocean disposal
of dredged material on human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine
environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities. As part of
this evaluation, consideration must be given to utilizing, to the extent
feasible, ocean disposal sites designated by the EPA pursuant to Section
102(c). Since 1977, the CE has used those ocean disposal sites designated
by EPA on an interim basis. Use of these interim designated sites for ocean
disposal has been an essential element in the CE's compliance with the
requirements of the MPRSA and its ability to carry out its statutory
responsibility for maintaining the nation's navigable waterways. To
continue to maintain the nation's waterways, the CE considers it essential
that environmentally acceptable ocean disposal sites be identified,
evaluated, and finally designated for continued use pursuant to section
102(c). These sites will be used after each proposed ocean disposal of
dredged material is reviewed and found in compliance with the criteria and
requirements of the MPRSA and appropriate EPA and CE regulations.
1-4
-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOCAL NEED
In order to maintain the Nome, Alaska harbor entrance channel and turning
basin, it is necessary to dredge about 12,000 to 20,000 yd3 of sediment
(sand and silt) each summer. An ODMDS is needed for the disposal of the
dredged material. No dredging occurs during the winter months (October
through early July), because of seasonal ice forming in the Snake River and
waters of Norton Sound. Nome harbor is closed to ship traffic during winter
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974). The annual quantities of dredged
material are expected to decline after construction of the City of Nome's
proposed breakwater/port facility.
EPA's PURPOSE AND NEED
As previously stated, the CE has indicated a need for locating and
designating environmentally acceptable ODMDS to carry out its
responsibilities under the MPRSA and other Federal statutes. Therefore, in
response to the CE's stated need, EPA, in cooperation with the CE, has
initiated the necessary studies pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR
228.4(e) to select, evaluate, and possibly designate the most suitable sites
for the ocean disposal of dredged material. This EIS has been prepared to
provide a resume of the information utilized and the evaluations made in the
selection of a Nome, Alaska interim designated ODMDS for permanent
designation. It is EPA's position that the site designation process,
including the disposal site evaluation studies and the development of this
EIS, fulfill all statutory requirements for the selection, evaluation, and
designation of the ODMDS's. It is not anticipated that the CE will conduct
any further environmental studies with respect to the selection and
permanent designation of a Nome, Alaska ODMDSs.
Site Study
In mid-1977, EPA initiated environmental studies on selected nondredged
material disposal sites. The CE, to assist EPA in its national program for
locating and designating suitable sites for the ocean disposal of dredged
1-5
-------
material, joined this effort in 1979 by providing contract funds. In
addition, the CE agreed to provide technical review and consultation.
An appraisal of the existing technical information and data revealed it
was sufficient for evaluation of the Nome, Alaska ODMDS and the adjacent
ocean areas. Consequently, a field survey of the sites and adjacent areas
was not planned or implemented. The site evaluations and this EIS were
based on the existing information and data.
Site Designation
In accordance with the EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria, the
site designation will be by promulgation through formal rulemaking. The
decision on the final designation of a Nome, Alaska ODMDS will be based on
appropriate Federal statutes, disposal site evaluation studies, supporting
documentation, and public comments on the Draft EIS, Final EIS, and the
public notice issued as part of the proposed rulemaking.
1-6
-------
Chapter 2
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action (chapter 1) is the final designation of an interim
designated Nome, Alaska Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDS). The
Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CR 220-229, amended December
19, 1980) approved certain ocean sites for disposal of dredged materials,
including the Nome, Alaska sites. Approval was on an interim basis
"pending completion of baseline or trend assessment surveys." The ODR
states in part "....§228.5(3) 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 citerial for
site selection set forth in §§228.5-228.6, the use of such sites will be
terminated as soon as suitable alternative disposal sites can be
designated "
This FEI'S presents the findings from site evaluation studies of the Nome
interim designated ODMDS and consideration of comments received on the
DEIS. Utilizing this information, three alternatives were considered.
These alternatives presented below include: (1) No Action; (2) Final
Designation for Continuing Use of one or both of the Interim Designated
Sites; and (3) Relocation of the ODMDS.
Non-Ocean disposal alternatives were not evaluated since the selection
and designation of an environmentally acceptable ocean disposal site is
independent of individual project requirements.
2-1
-------
This does not mean that land-based disposal or any other feasible
alternatives mentioned in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Ocean
Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR §227.15) are being permanently set
aside in favor of ocean disposal. The need for ocean disposal must be
evaluated for each Federal project or permit application. These
evaluations include the availability and environmental acceptability of
other feasible alternatives.
NO ACTION
The interim designation of the Nome ODMDs does not have a specific
termination date. If no action is taken, the interim designation of the
existing ODMDS would continue for an indefinite period. However, the
interim status provided in the ODR was not intended to remain indefinitely.
The sites were approved for disposal of dredged material pending completion
of any necesary studies and evaluation of their suitability for continued
use. The environmental evaluation of the sites has been completed and, in
accordance with §228.5(c), ODR a decision on its use is required. Thus,
the no action alternative is not considered to be an acceptable
alternative.
DETAILED EVALUATION OF SITES
The existing sites were evaluated to determine their suitability for
final designation. The "Specific Criteria for Site Selection" (§228.6) and
the "General Criteria for the Selection of Sites"(228.5) of the EPA Ocean
Dumping Regulation and Criteria were used in this evaluation.
SPECIFIC CRITERIA EVALUATION
«
Section 228.6, ODR, stipulates 11 specific factors for the selection of
disposal sites. These factors were applied to the Nome, Alaska ODMDSs with
the following results.
2-2
-------
(a)(l) Geographical position/ depths of water, bottom topography, and
distance fron coast;
There are two existing interim designated ODMDS in the Nome, Alaska
area. These are termed Western ODMDS and Eastern ODMDS (Figure 1-1).
Geographical Position
The Western ODMDS is located adjacent to and west of the entrance
channel to the Nome, Alaska harbor. It abuts the shore and extends seaward
covering an area of 0.30 nmi^. Its corner coordinates area: 64°30"04"N,
165°25'52"W; 64029'18"N, 165°26'04"W; 64029'13"N, 165°25'22"W; and
64°29'54"N, 165°24'45"W.
The Eastern ODMDS is located adjacent to and east of the entrance
Channel to the Nome, Alaska harbor. It abuts the shore and extends seaward
covering an area of 0.37 nmi^. it corner coordinates are: 64°29'54"N,
165024'41"W; 64°20'07"N, 165°24'25"W; 64028'57"N, 165°23'29"W and
64°29'45"N, 165°23'29"W;
Depth of Water
The Western ODMDS has a minimum water depth of about 1m along its
shoreline boundary, and increases gradually in depth with increasing
distance from shore to a maximum depth of llm at its southern boundary.
The Eastern ODMDS has a minimum water depth of about 1m along its
shoreline boundary, and increases gradually in depth with increasing
distance from shore to a maximum depth of 12m at its southern boundary.
2-3
-------
Bottom Topography
The bottom topography is similar for both of the sites. These sites
reflect the general topography offshore from Nome, Alaska.
The gradient of the shelf from the shoreline to a depth of 13m is 1:120;
the slope decreases to 1:400 from 13m to 18m; and exhibits a lower gradient
onwards to the center of Chirikov Basin. The nearshore topography (Figure
3-2) is typical of this type of coastline (i.e., an irregular bottom with
holes, mounds, and bars from the beach to depths of about 6m). Beyond 6m
the bathymetry is more regular, and only minor topographic features occur
to depth of about 13m; the shelf remains comparatively smooth to the center
of the Chirikov Basin (the central depression of Norton Sound).
In attempts to understand the nearshore processes, Tetra Tech (1980)
studied the stability of the offshore bathymetry by comparing the survey
charts of 1900 and 1950; and preparing a map of bathymetric net change
(Figure 3-2). The map shows that significant areas of accretion and
erosion occur in bands parallel to shore with the pattern extending seaward
nearly 2 nmi to depth of about 18m. The band close to the river mouth and
beach represents a zone of sediment deposition from river discharge. The
next band (about 610m wide) is erosional.. A zone of deposition occurs
further seaward.
Distance from Coast
The nearshore limits of the sites are determined by the boundary
coordinates. For practical purposes, the northern boundary of each of the
sites ajoins the shore or is in close proximity to it.
2-4
-------
(a)(2) Location In relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or
passage areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases;
The two Nome, Alaska ODMDSs are located in Norton Sound. The living
resources of the sites represent a small portion of the living resources of
the Sound. There are no unique breeding, spawning, nursery, or passage
areas of living resources in the sites (Department of Interior, 1982;
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1983). However, feeding grounds for
Grey Whales may reach to within 3,000 ft. of Nome's shoreline (National
Marine Fisheries Service, 1983). The dredging disposal volumes are
insignificant compared to the sediment transport that occurs annually;
13,000 and 650,000 yds^ respectively. This represents 2% of the annual
sediment transport in the area and therefore, if any impacts should occur,
they will be of very short duration and minor in nature.
(a)(3) Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas;
Both of the Nome, Alaska ODMDSs adjoin the shore at their Northern
boundary. Thus, they are in close proximity'to the beaches on either side
of the entrance channel to the Nome harbor. The sites are not located in
the near vicinity of other amenity areas.
(a)(4) Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of, and
proposed methods of release, including methods of packing the wastes, if
any;
The Nome, Alaska ODMDSs have been used annually since 1923 for the
disposal of dredged material resulting from the operation and maintenance
dredging of Nome harbor. It is expected this disposal of dredged material
will continue with dredged volumes estimated to be about 13,000 yd3
annually.
2-5
-------
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL VOLUMES
The two Nome ODMDS received dredged material from maintenance dredging
of Federal navigation projects maintained by the CE. Prior to 1979, the
harbor was dredged using government owned equipment. Dredging equipment
consisted of one 0.75 yd3 clamshell, two 62 yd3 hopper barges, and a
tugboat. A contractor 1.5 yd3 clamshell dredge with flat top barge has
been used from 1979 to present. Annual dredging of the harbor entrance
channel and turning basin occurs each summer, from June through September,
when 12,000 to 20,000 yd3 of sediments are dredged and deposited at the
two ODMPS. Due to the net eastern littoral drift, the eastern OHMDS is
used almost exclusively. The CE has indicated that the western site has
not been included in the past two (three-year) dredging contracts.
(Personal communication with Steve Boardman, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska, 1984.)
TABLE 2-1
COMBINED VOLUMES OF DREDGED MATERIALS, NOME DMDS
3
Date of Dredging Volumes (yd )
1964 through 1972
1973
1974
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981 and 1982
15,030*
14,350
13,510
60,000**
12,000
40,300**
12,120
9,330
13,000
17,647
13.OOP/year***
*Estimated average/year
**Emergency dredging as a result of storms
***Preliminary estimate
Source: Robbins, 1980
2-6
-------
DREDGED MATERIAL COMPONENTS
No grain size or chemical tests have been conducted on dredged
sediments. However, visual inspections indicate that sediments dredged
from the Nome Harbor turning basin consist of silt and sand, whereas
sediments from the entrance channel are predominantly sand (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1980). The dredged material is not packaged in any
way.
(a)(5) Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring;
Surveillance and monitoring of the sites can readily be accomplished
because of the proximity to shore and the shallow depths of the sites.
The amount of dredged material disposed annually is relatively small.
Much of the required surveillance information can be obtained through
review of operational reports and ship logs. These can be confirmed by
spot checks by shore observers, ship riders, or aerial observers.
The sites are easily reached within a minimum time. Jn''s« ^d the
shallow depths of the site, facilitates the collection of necessary bottom
and water volume samples for monitoring. Because of the shallow depths,
parts of the site may be observed at low tide.
(a)(6) Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing characteristics
of the area, including prevailing current direction and velocity, if any;
The two Nome ODMDS are located in Norton Sound. There is no evidence
that the physical characteristics of the sites differ from those of the
remainder of the Sound. Thus, the dispersal, horizontal transport and
vertical mixing characteristics of the sites and the prevailing current
direction and velocity at the sites is similar to those of the Sound as
described below.
The vertical stability of waters off Nome exhibits strong seasonal
temperature and salinity variations. During the winter a single mixed
layer exists. In summer a two-layer system is present with cold, saline
water below 5 to 10m depths, with warmer, less saline water on the surface.
The depth of the existing sites varies from 1m to 12m. Except for a small
portion of their outer limits in mid-summer, the sites are in a single
mixed zone.
2-7
-------
Waves of 0.61m to 1.52m in height ate likely to approach Nome from the
west, to south and southeast, 40% to 50% of the time (Tetra Tech, 1980).
Greater wave heights will occur curing local storms. The waves, both
prevailing and storm, will cause mixing and dispersion of the sediments at
the b*o ODMDSs.
Bottom circulation off Nome is caused by a combination of regional
currents, tidal currents, wave action, and motions from wind-driven and
storm surge. These currents, generally ranging from 8 cm/s to 70 cm/s will
result in mixing and dispersion of sediment at the existing sites.
The tide range averages 0.49m at Nome (NOAA, 1977), with maximum heights
of 0.73m; tidal currents reach bottom velocities of 25 cm/s (Cacchione and
Drake, 1979). The tidal currents, which are oscillatory in a generally
east-west direction, will result in mixing of the sediments at the Nome
sites.
Littoral Drift and Dispersion
The dredged material disposal sites at Nome extend into shallow water.
Side-dumping barges are used to transport the dredged material, and can
operate in water less than 3m deep (Tetra Tech, 1980). Consequently,
consideration of littoral drift is important in the dispersal of dredged
material at Nome. It is estimated that 650,000 yd-* of sediments are
transported annually at the site, of which a net easterly movement of
60,000 yd3 occurs (Tetra Tech, 1980). The estimated annual disposal
volume of 13,000 yd3 represents 2% of the material that is transported.
It can be concluded that littoral drift will be a primary force causing the
dispersion of dredged materials. As a result, the CE almost exclusively
uses the eastern ODMDS so as not to cause a back flow of sediments into the
channel. In fact the western site has not been included in the past two
(three-year) dredging contracts issued by the CE. In addition, it is
apparent that the channel refilling is almost entirely a result of the
enormous annual sediment transport.
2-8
-------
However, this may be mitigated in the future when the City of the Nome
completes their proposed 3,500-foot long breakwater/port facility.
Contraction of the facility may also have a negative effect, however, in
that the structure will likely prevent dredged material dumped in the
western site from being transported out of the area to the west. There
would be a resultant potential build up of material in the form of
accretion zones on both the east and west shoreward ends of the proposed
structure as the result of the change in littoral drift patterns.
(a)(7) Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and dumping
in the area (including cumulative effects);
The Nome ODMDS sites have been used for the disposal of dredged material
annually since 1923. While there have been no site specific surveys, there
have been no indications the disposal of dredged material over this period
of time have materially altered the characteristics of the sites.
(a)(8) Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral extraction,
desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas of special scientific
importance, and other legitimate uses of the ocean;
The two Nome ODMDS are outside the navigational channel into the Nome
harbor. While there is the need for navigational coordination during the
dredging and disposal operations, it is not expected these operations will
interfere with the shipping in the area. However, when the proposed
breakwater/port facility is completed these operations may pose a
navigational hazard within the western portion of the western dumping
site.
Ice forms in the sound in the winter months. The surface waters near
Nome during the summer range from about 10° to 15° with deeper layers in
the range of 3 to 5°C. This generally limits recreational activities to
fishing and boating. Except for some restriction to these activities in
the vicinity of dredging and disposal operations, there should be no
interference with recreational activities.
2-9
-------
There are no desalinization operations that would suffer interference
because of the dredged material disposal. There will not be any
interference with activities in areas of special scientific importance.
Fishing, and fish and shellfish culture, could be affected by disposal
of dredged material at the sites. It is expected that interference with
these activities, which are discussed below, will be minimal. The two
sites do not uniquely support fisheries, but commercial and subsistence
shell fisheries do exist at the ODMDS.
Salmon
The commercial salmon fishery season extends from June 15 to September
30. Norton Sound fisheries began in 1961, and the number of salmon
harvested have ranged from 40,524 to 350, 344 fish, with an average annual
catch of approximately 170,000 salmon. Two species of salmon, Oncorhynchus
keta (chum salmon) and jO. gorbuscha (pink salmon), comprised 65% and 25%,
respectively, of the total annual catch (Table 3-6) (Wolotira et al.,
1977).
The commercial salmon fishery season generally coincides with the
dredging season (June through September). There may be some interference
with the commercial salmon fishing by both the dredging and disposal
operations. Because of the relatively small area of the dredging and
disposal operations, any interference with the salmon fishing should be
minor. Any such interference can be minimized through close cooperation
between the dredging operators and the salmon fisherman.
Shellfish
During the winters of 1979 and 1980 there were considerable decreases in
the numbers of king crab caught by Nome residents. During the winter of
1978, 18,618 crabs were caughfin the subsistence fishing ground, whereas
in 1979 and 1980 only 224 and 213 crabs, respectively, were caught.
2-10
-------
Reasons for the absence of crabs in nearshore waters off Nome are
uncertain, but may be due to commercial fishery activities, environmental
factors, and/or dumping of sediments dredged from Nome Harbor in the
fishery grounds (Schwarz, 1981).
Since the existing sites have been in use since 1923 and were in use in
1978 (18,618 crabs caught), it does not appear disposal of dredged material
at the existing sites was the cause for the decrease in the crab catch.
Nevertheless, the effects of the disposal operations should be included in
^studies related to the decrease.
Herring
The commercial herring fishery in Norton Sound is manned by foreign
gillnet fleets (Japanese) and local fishermen. Herring roe is the main
harvested product. Commercial operations usually occur between May and
June, after winter ice breakup, when -herring are in spawning
concentrations. Historical herring catches are shown in Table 3-7
(Wolotira, et al., 1977; Schwarz, 1981).
The commercial herring fishing (May-June) generally precedes the
dredging season (June through September). Thus, any interence with the
herring fishing by the disposal at the existing sites should be minimal.
(a)(9) The existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined by
available data or by trend assessment or baseline surveys;
No site specific trend assessment or baseline surveys of the two Nome
ODMDS have been made. However, a number of studies in the general area
have been made for various purposes. It is believed the data collected in
these studies is generally reflective of the water quality and ecology of
the sites.
2-11
-------
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
WATER COLUMN
Dissolved Oxygen - The dissolved oxygen concentrations in the water of
northern Norton Sound have been reported to be uniformly high. The
existing sites are in a shallow area where normal and storm mixing ensures
similar dissolved oxygen levels in bottom and surface waters. A lowering
of D.O. as a result of dredging disposal activity could potentially occur
as a result of two processes: (1) Increase in phytoplankton as a result of
nutrient release, and (2) Increase in Biological Oxygen Demand due to
the introduction of organics. The oxygen sag caused by these processes
should be short termed due to the site being located in an area of high
mixing and high dissolved oxygen. Therefore, the affect should be easily
assimilated without significant adverse irpacts.
£H - The pH levels in Norton Sound have been reported to range between
7.4 and 8.1. There may be a slight depression of the pH in the immediate
vicinity of the dredged material disposal. This depression, if any, will
be of short duration.
Organic Carbon; Nutrients - The waters of Norton Sound are extremely
productive and support extensive phytoplankton growth throughout the
summer. Levels of dissolved organic carbon in seven samples collected near
Nome were reported to be uniform. It appears that nitrogen depletion in
the summer limits phytoplankton growth with phosphorus and silicic acid
being present in excess. Organic carbon and nutrient data are insufficient
to determine seasonality. However, the levels in winter are expected to be
relatively high due to resuspension from bottom sediments.
2-12
-------
The materials dredged are located in a high-energy area. It is not
expected that the transfer of the sediments to an adjacent high-energy area
will affect the organic carbon and nutrient levels of the Sound.
Trace Metals - It has been reported that total metal concentrations in
Norton Sound are similar to those occurring in other oceanic areas, with
levels of lead, cadmium, copper, and zinc being uniformly low. While the
movement of the sediment may result in some measureable increase in the
water column trace metals at the disposal sites, the concentrations should
quickly return to ambient conditions due to the high-energy nature of the
sites.
Petroleum and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons - Hydrocarbon levels in the
surface waters of Norton Sound have been reported to be low (generally less
than 1 ug/1). While no site specific measurements were made, it is
expected the concentration of petroleum hydrocarbon are consistent with
other areas of Norton Sound. The movement of the dredged material to the
adjacent disposal areas is not expected to have any affect on the
hydrocarbon levels of the area.
SEDIMENTS
The distribution of sediments off Nome, Alaska, is shown in Figure 3-3.
The material dredged from the turning basin results from alluvial
deposition from the Snake River. The material removed from the channel is
primarly a result of shore erosion. The two disposal sites have been used
for about 60 years; thus, the sediments in the disposal sites are probably
quite similar to the materials in the channel. Continued use of the
existing disposal sites is not expected to change this pattern.
Trace Metals - Levels of copper, cadmium, and zinc in sediments of
Norton Sound near Nome have been reported to show a relationship with clay
and organic carbon distributions in the sediments; in general, higher
2-13
-------
concentrations occurring in finer-grained sediments. The levels of copper
were reported to be similar to those found in the northeastern part of the
Gulf of Alaska, whereas cadmium and zinc levels were higher in the Nome
samples; lead was reported to be below detection limits in all Norton Sound
sediments.
Total Organic Carbon - It has been reported that the total organic
carbon content of Norton Sound sediments near Nome roughly parallels the
distribution of silt and clay with finer sediments containing higher levels
of organic carbon. It appears the local distribution of sedimentary
organic carbon is influenced by increasing amounts of finer sediments
offshore, and the inputs of fine-grained sediments in the runoff from the
Snake River.
Petroleum and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons - Concentrations of sedimentary
hydrocarbons primarily biogenic (terrigenous and marine) hydrocarbons, have
been reported to be low. While analyses of petroleum or chlorinated
hydrocarbons in the sediment were not reported, it is believed the
concentrations of these are low at present.
BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water column biota including phytoplankton, zooplankton, and nekton; and
benthic biota composed of infaunal and epifaunal organisms, including
demersal fish, could be affected by disposal of dredged material at the two
Nome, Alaska sites. The effects are expected to be minor and restricted to
the sites.
PHYTOPLANKTON
It has been reported that primary productivity and standing crop values
in shallow-nearshore waters off Nome were similar to values reported for
other Norton Sound Shelf waters. Except for some phytoplankton being
2-14
-------
trapped in the disposal plume as it decends, the phytoplankton of the area
should not be affected.
ZOOPLANKTON
Zooplankton communities of nearshore coastal areas are composed of
littoral and neritic forms adapted to wide ranges of temperatures and
salinity. There will be some entrapment of the zooplankton by the disposal
plume during its decent. This entrapment is expected to be minor and
restricted to the immediate vicinity of the disposal operation.
BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES
Site-specific studies have not been conducted at the sites; however, one
investigation (Feder and Mueller, 1974) evaluated the infaunal and sessile
epifaunal benthic species in the general vicinity of the DMDS. Benthic
invertebrates inhabiting the study area encompassed 10 phyla, with
echinoderms (sea stars, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, and brittle stars)
being most common and contributing the greatest biomass. Other common
invertebrate species were soft coral (Eunephthya rubinformia), clam
(Astarte boreal is), and several species of shrimp, including Pandalus
hypsinotus. In general, the species are typical of those occurring in
well-oxygenated, high-energy, sand-gravelly-rocky sedimentary regimes
(Feder and Mueller, 1974).
The disposed dredged material will cover portions of the bottoms of the
existing sites with layers of sediments of variable thickness. Some of the
benthic invertebrates, being mobile, will be able to escape from or through
these layers of sediments. Those that can not escape will probably be
destroyed. Such destruction will be restricted to the disposal sites since
the mixing in the high-energy environment will ensure that any sediments
leaving the sites settle in very thin layers. It is expected that
repopulation of the sites will occur between dredging cycles.
2-15
-------
DEMERSAL FISH
It has been reported that demersal fish in Norton Sound and adjacent
waters were represented by 14 families consisting of 51 species. Fish in
the study area are ranked in order of abundance in Table 3-5. The eight
most abundant were saffron cod, starry flounder, yellowfin sole, Alaska
plaice, plain sculpin, tooth smelt, artic cod, and shorthorn sculpin.
The demersal fish are mobile and most should be able to escape the
dredged material as it settles to the bottom. However, some will not
escape and will be destroyed. Any destruction that occurs will "be in the
immediate vicinity of the on-going disposal operation and restricted to a
small portion of the disposal sites total area.
(a)(10) Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance species
in the disposal sites;
There appears to be little if any potentiality for the development or
recruitment of nusiance species in the disposal sites. Use of the sites
for about 60 years has not indicated such development or recruitment.
(a)(11) Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any significant
natural or cultural features of historical importance;
There are no known significant natural or cultural features of
historical importance in close proximity to the two Nome ODMDS.
GENERAL CRITERIA EVALUATION
Section 228.5, Ocean Dumping Regulations (ORD), stipulates five general
criteria for the selection of disposal sites. These criteria were applied
to the Nome, Alaska, ODMDS with the following results.
2-16
-------
(a) 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, particu-
larly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and
regions of heavy commercial or recreational navigation;
The two Nome ODMDS are located in an area of exisitng subsistance
fisheries and Arctic Char/Dolly Varden fisheries (U.S. Department of
Interior, 1982). However, the areas of the sites, 0.30 nmi2 and 0.37
nmi2 respectively, represent only small areas in the much larger
fisheries of Norton Sound. In addition, the disposal activity occurs after
Salmon Smolts out-migrate in early Spring, and after the King Crab
population has moved out to deeper water (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1983).
With minimum coordination between the dredging and disposal operators and
the fishermen, it is expected that little if any interference with the
fisheries or shellfisheries activities will be caused, by the disposal
activities. The.sites are not located in regions of heavy commercial or
recreational navigation. Vessel activity can be expected to increase in
the future, if and when the City of Nome's proposed breakwater/port
facility is constructed.
(b) Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen that
temporary perturbations in water quality or other environmental condi-
tions during initial mixing caused by disposal operations anywhere
within the site can be expected to be reduced to normal ambient sea-
water levels or to undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects
before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary or known geo-
graphically limited fishery or shellfishery;
The None ODMDS are located in a high energy environment. It has been
estimated that littoral drift accounts for gross sand movement at a rate of
650,000 ydVyr. or a net easterly sand movement of 60,000 yd3/y:r«,
2-17
-------
(Tetra Tech, 1980). The dredged material disposal volume of 13,000
yd^/yr., represents 2% of the gross sand movement occurring as a result
of littoral activity. Therefore, because of being located in this type of
environment, the dredged material should be quickly mixed with the water
and sediments at the sites. This mixing should result in a return to
ambient conditions shortly after disposal operations. However, the
proximity of the ODMDS to the channel to be kept clear may generate some
concern of it being immediately refilled by the disposed of dredged
material. Refilling of the channel with dredged material can be expected
to occur primarily from material dumped in the western site. The level of
this concern is reduced when the yearly disposal volumes are again compared
against the estimated annual gross sand movement volumes. It is apparent
that the need for annual dredging of the channel is caused by the much
larger littoral activity.
It should also be stated that the city of Nome is planning to build a
3,600 - foot long causeway/breakwater and port. It is to be located along
the western edge of the western ODMDS. When completed, it will attenuate
the littoral drift to the extent that significantly less dredging will be
required to keep the channel open. Since the deeper draft vessels will no
longer use the harbor, but use the port facility, the frequency of dredging
will be further reduced. Therefore, any present minor impacts will be
mitigated upon the completion of the Nome breakwater/port.
The northern boundary of both sites is in close proximity to shore. It
is expected that some of the disposed materials will reach the beaches.
The sediment reaching the beaches will be a mixture of mostly background
materials and the dredged material. There is no evidence for past disposal
of dredged material to have resulted in any contamination of the beaches.
This is probably because the past dredged material has been generally
representative of alluvial sediments that have reached Norton Sound over
the centuries. Continued disposal of this type of material is not likely
to result in contaminated materials reaching the beaches. However, care
will need to be exercised in the future to ensure that the dredged
sediments are free from detrimental contaminants.
2-18
-------
The two sites are not located in a geographically limited fishery or
shellfishery.
(c) 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 - 228.6, the use of such sites will be
terminated as soon as suitable alternate sites can be designated;
The evaluations indicated that two existing sites meet the criteria of
§228.5 - 228.6 with one possible exception. Some of the dredged material,
mixed with the background sediments of the area will reach the beaches; see
(b) above. Deposition of the mixed material should not be detrimental and
!
may be environmentally advantageous from the beach nourishment standpoint.
Routine monitoring of the ODMDSs would reveal any changes that may
result in the sites not meeting the criteria. If so, studies can be
initiated.
(d) The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to localize
for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts and per-
mit 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 dis-
posal site evaluation or designation study; y
The two Nome ODMDS are small, being 0.30 nmi2 and 0.37 nmi2
respectively. These sizes and the present configurations lend themselves
quite readily to the establishment of a monitoring and surveillance
program.
2-19
-------
(e) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites beyond the
edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that have been
historically used;
The two None ODMDS have been annually used for the disposal of
dredged material since 1923. Thus, they are historically used sites.
OTHER FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
There are no special environmental aspects of the two Nome ODMDS that
are not covered by the Specific and General Criteria evaluation. However,
those criteria do not address the economic aspects of the sites.
The two ODMDS are located adjacent to the dredging site and therefore
represent the most economical ocean disposal sites. Movement of the sites
along the shore or further out to sea would increase the disposal costs.
For hypothetical purposes, a hauling cost of $0.10/yd^/nmi has been
assumed. Based on this figure and an average of 13,000 yds^ per year, it
is postulated that each nmi of additional hauling would add about $1,300 to
the annual disposal costs.
RELOCATION OF THE ODMDS TO AN ALTERNATE OCEAN AREA
s
The relocation of the ODMDS to an alternative ocean area was considered
during the site evaluation studies. It was determined that relocation
would not result in environmental advantages and would add to the cost of
dredged material disposal.
The two existing ODMDS are located adjacent to the dredging sites and
therefore represent the most economical ocean disposal sites. Movement of
the sites along the shore or further out to sea would increase the disposal
costs. Additional increases in costs would result from losses in dredging
equipment utilization time.
2-20
-------
Near Shore Sites
Relocation of the sites eastward or westward along the shore would place
the sites in locations practically identical to the present locations. The
environmental aspects of disposal at the relocated sites would be quite
similar to that at the existing sites. Hauling cost increases would be
proportional to the number of nmi the sites were moved. Because the
environmental aspects of disposal would remain the same while the disposal
costs increased, relocation of the sites along the shore was eliminated.
Norton Sound Site
The relocation of the sites to a site in Norton Sound was considered.
Such a site could be placed at a number of locations remote from shore;
however, because of its depths (20 to 30m), the Chirikov Basin was
considered as a possible location (Figure 3-1).
While a site in the Chirikov Basin would be periodically more stable
than the existing sites, it would still exhibit some dynamic
characteristics. There exists a two-layer system in the basin during the
summer when dredged material is disposed of. The strong surface currents
will cause the fine fraction of the material to be dispersed over large
areas. The coarser material would reach the bottom, and gradual dispersion
would result under normal conditions due to prevailing relatively low
velocity bottom currents. However, during storm events, resuspension and
wide dispersion of the bottom sediments would occur. Current scour
depressions as deep as 2 meters can result from storm related water
2-21
-------
movement near the seabed (Larsen, et. al., 1980). Figure 2-1 shews the
Chirikov Basin to be located in a zone of high velocity bottom storm
currents.
It is questionable whether the site would be found more desirable
environmentally. Significant faunal activity occurs in this part of Norton
Sound during periods of the disposal operations. Grey Whales, an
endangered species are known to move through this area during the summer
months (Department of the Interior, 1982). This Whale feeds on Benthic
Invertebrates at depths normally between 30-70 feet. The disposal
activity, although minor, could cause low level disruptions of the Whale's
summer feeding and migration.
Therefore, a site in the Chirikov Basin was eliminated. The dredging
and disposal costs would be increased and the environmental impacts,
although of a minor nature, would cause this mid-shelf site to be a less
desirable alternative.
Deepwater Site
Disposal of the dredged material off the continental shelf in
deepwater would .involve an extremely long haul through open water.
In addition, the Bearing Sea is a major Grey Whale feeding area during
the summer months of June-September (U.S. Department of Interior, 1982).
This period corresponds to the times in which ocean disposal would take
place. Although, the volume of disposal material is minor, it could
produce some low level impacts on this endangered species.
Because of the material increases in costs, safety risks, and
environmental considerations, location of a site off the continental shelf
can not be justified. Therefore, a site off the continental shelf was
eliminated.
2-22
-------
POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
INTENSE ICE GOUGING
BIOGENIC GAS CRATERING
INTENSE CURRENT ACTIVITY
INTENSE STORM SURGE ACTIVITY
NEARSURFACE FAULTS
SEA FLOOR SCARP
THERMOGENIC GAS SEEP
Source : Thor And Nelson, 1979
Figure 2-1 POTENTIAL NATURAL HAZARDS OF NORTON SOUND
-------
EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS
Based on the site evaluation studies and conroents received during the
DEIS review period, the following conclusions were reached:
o The two existing None, Alaska ODMDS meet the General Criteria for
(ORD §§228.5) for ocean disposal site selection with one exception.
Some of the disposed dredged material may reach the beaches of the
area. However, this exception is considered to be minor and the
material reaching the beaches (large sand content) may be beneficial
from a beach nourishment standpoint.
o Alternative sites have not been historically used and with the
exception of a deepwater site are not off the continental shelf.
o The two existing Nome, Alaska ODMDSs meet the specific criteria (ODR
§§228.6) for ocean disposal site selection. The alternative sites,
while not evaluated in detail, would probably meet the specific
criteria.
o The two existing Nome, Alaska ODMDSs have been historically used.
This use since 1923 has not resulted in unacceptable environmental
effects. Alternative sites have not been historically used; thus,
the effects of dredged material disposal at alternate sites can only
be postulated.
o The two Nome, Alaska sites are economically acceptable sites. Use of
alternate sites would increase the dredging and disposal costs.
These increased costs would be determined by the increased distance
between the dredging area and the disposal sites.
o Surveillance and monitoring of the two existing Nome, Alaska ODMDS
can be easily and economically accomplished. Except for near-shore
alternative sites, surveillance and monitoring of alternative sites
would be more complicated and costly.
2-24
-------
o Because of prevailing west to east littoral drift patterns, there
has been little use of the western ODMDS. The CE has not included
the western site in the past two (three-year) dredging contracts.
o Because of the proximity of the ODMDS's to the channel, there is some
concern of its being refilled by the dumped dredged material. The
most likely situation to produce channel refilling from material just
dredged is when the western site is used. Dumping in the western
site would occur only during the few short periods of time when the
normal west 'to east littoral drift pattern is reversed, and an east
to west current predominates. Since these annomulous currents are of
such short duration, it can be expected that at least some of the
material dumped in the western site would be transported back into
the channel upon return of the normal current pattern. Mitigation of
this potential problem could be achieved by cessation of dumping
activities during these short periods. If some unusual situation
demanded that dumping continue during such occasions, the problem
could also be mitigated to some extent by dumping in the eastern
portion of the eastern site. Avoiding use of the western site would
also preclude impacts on a bottom community that has been relatively
undisturbed from dumping activities for at least the past six years.
Availability of a potential control site such as this may be
beneficial in any future monitoring efforts.
o If and when the City of Nome's proposed port facility is constructed,
it will cause significant changes in the littoral drift patterns.
Although the precise impact is not known, it is clear that accretion
zones, will develop on both the east and west shoreward ends of the
causeway. Since the structure will prevent dredged material dumped
in the western site from being transported out to the west, there
will be a build-up of this material over time.
o Construction of a port facility will have a positive effect on
dredging operations in that the need for dredging will be reduced
since deeper draft vessels will use the new harbor. By changing the
2-25
-------
littoral drift patterns, the structure will also reduce the amount of
sediment deposited in the entrance channel from the normal west to
east transport.
o The conduct of dredge spoil disposal operation will create a
potential nagivational hazard in the western portion of the western
disposal site whenever the proposed new port facility is put into
operation.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
Based on the environmental evaluations, the preferred alternative is the
de-designation of the western site and the final designation for continuing
use of the eastern Nome, Alaska ODMDS, described as follows:
- Western ODMDS, boundary corner coordinates
64°30'04"N, 165°25'52"W;
64°29'18"N, 165°26'04"W;
64°29'13"N, 165°25'22"W; and
64029'54"N, 165°24'45"W.
- Eastern ODMDS, boundary corner coordinates
64029'54"N, 165° 24'41 "W;
64°29'07"N, 165°24'25"W?
64°28'57"N, 165°23'29"W; and
64°29'45"N, 165°23'27"W;
USE OF THE SITE
All future uses of the Nome, Alaska ODMDS for dredged material disposal
must comply with the EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria; and be
within site capacity.
2-26
-------
Permissible Material Loadings
The average annual disposal of dredged material (12,000 to 20,000
yds-*) is considered to be within the site capacity. One tune disposals
of up to 60,000 yd-3 also are considered to be within site capacity.
Disposal of dredged material that would routinely exceed the annual average
rate or exceed a one-time disposal of 60,000 yd-* must be evaluated to
ensure the disposals are within site capacity.
Dredged Material Quality
Dredged material proposed for disposal under each Federal project or
permit application must be evaluated to ensure its quality is in compliance
with EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria.
Disposal Methods
In the past, hopper barges have been used to transport the dredged
material to the disposal sites; and disposal accomplished by release from
the barges. This method of disposal is acceptable for continued use.
Other means of transport and release will be acceptable providing they do
not result in material changes in the dredged material settling mechanics
or excessive plumes.
Disposal Schedule
The present disposal schedule (June through September) is acceptable.
Extensions of this schedule will be acceptable providing evaluations show
that there will not be interference with other uses of 'the waters of the
area, particularly fishing uses.
Winter disposals, particularly under icing conditions, must be
thoroughly evaluated prior to implementation.
2-27
-------
Monitoring the Disposal Sites
The CE District Engineer and/or the EPA Regional Administrator should
established a routine surveillance and monitoring program for the site as
early as is practical. Because of the nature of the site, no particular
parameters or schedule is recommended. However, it is recommended that
periodic checks of possible dispersion of the sediments and effects on
benthic organisms and demersal fish outside the sites' boundaries be made.
2-28
-------
Chapter 3
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
None is located on the west coast of Alaska and on the southside of the
Seward Peninsula at the mouth of the Snake River. To the west is the
Bering Sea. Adjacent to Nome and to the southeast is Norton Sound. The
Penny River discharges to Norton Sound/Bering Sea northwest of Nome and the
None River discharges to Norton Sound to the southeast.
Two Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (Western and Eastern) near
Nome, Alaska were established in 1923 by the CE for disposal of sediments
dredged from the Nome Harbor entrance channel and turning basin. The
Western ODMDS is adjacent to shore, west of the entrance channel, with
corner coordinates at 64°30'04"N, 165°25'52"W; 64°29'18"N, 165°20'04"W;
64°29'13"N, 165°25'22"W; and 6.4029'54"N, 165°24'45"W, and has an area of
0.30 nmi2. The minimal water depth is about 1m along the shoreline
boundary, and increases gradually with increasing distance from shore to a
maximum of llm at the southern boundary.
The Eastern ODMDS is adjacent to shore, east of the entrance channel,
with an area of 0.37 nmi2. The corner coordinates of the DMDS are
64°29'54"N, 165°24'41"W; 64°29'45"N, 165°23'27"W; 64°28'57"N, 165°23'29"W;
and 64°29'07"N, 165°24'25"W. Depths range from 1m the shoreline boundary,
to 12m at the southernmost border.
The net littoral transport is from west to east; therefore, most
material dredged from the harbor is disposed in the eastern ODMDS,
minimizing sediment transport across the entrance channel. Dredged
material disposal volumes range from 12,000 to 20,000 yd3 annually.
3-1
-------
Numerous baseline surveys have been sponsored by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to evaluate the environmental effects of proposed oil and
gas developments in Norton sound. Table 3-1 summarizes the oceanographic
surveys in Norton Sound (offshore Nome) from 1973 to 1979.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Physical oceanographic parameters determine the extent of mixing and
sediment transport, and affect the chemical environment at a ODMDS. Strong
temperature or salinity gradients inhibit mixing of surface and bottom
waters. Waves aid mixing and resuspend bottom sediments, thereby affecting
the turbidity of the water, and contribute to sediment transport. Currents
(particularly bottom currents) determine the direction and extent of
sediment transport inside and outside the ODMDS. Tidal currents may
contribute to the transport of dumped material, but usually do not add net
directional effects.
The gradient of the Shelf from the shoreline to a depth of 13m is 1:120;
the slope decreases to 1:400 from 13m to 18m, and exhibits a lower gradient
onwards to the center of Chirikov Basin. The nearshore bathymetry (Figure
3-1) is typical of this type of coastline (i.e., an irregular bottom with
holes, mounds, and bars from the beach to depths of about 6m). Beyond 6m
the bathmetry is more regular, and only minor topographic features occur
down to depths of about 13m; the Shelf remains comparatively smooth to the
center of the Chirikov Basin (the central depression of Norton Sound).
TEMPERATURE
The vertical stability of waters off Nome exhibits strong seasonal
variations. During winter a single mixed layer exists with a temperature
near 0°C and salinity of 30°/oo or higher (Schumacher et al., 1978;
Cacchione and Drake, 1979). In summer a two-layer system is present with
3-2
-------
TABLE 3-1
SURVEYS CONDUCTED IN NORTON SOUND
Survey Dace
July 1973
July and August
1976
March, April,
August 1976
September to
October 1976
September to
October 1976
March 1976 to
September 1977
1976 to 1978
September :o
October 1976,
July 1977,
February to
March 1978
April 1977 to
March 1978
September 1976
Participants
Inst. of Mar. Sci.
Univ. of Alaska
Insc. of Mar. Sci.
Univ. of Alaska
Inst. of Mar. Sci.
Univ. of Alaska
NOAA/NMFS
Inst. of Mar. Sci.
Univ. of Alaska
Alaska Dept . of
Fish and Came
U.S. Geological
Survey
U.S. Geological
Survey
Dept. of Oceanogr.
Univ. of Washington
Univ. of Alaska
Sponsors
American Smelting
and Refining
Company
BLM/OCS
BLM/OCS
BLM/OCS
BLM/OCS
BLM/OCS-
L'SCS/ BUM
USCS/NOAA
3LM
BLM
Purpose
Collect baseline daca to define
the sedimentary, biological, and
physical-chemical environment
in the vicinity of Nome.
Describe the composition and spatial
and temporal distribution of
summer zooplankton community along
the eastern coast of Norton Sound.
Collect baseline data on zooplan*-
ton and micronekton populations
in a wide variety of habitats in the
Norton Sound and southeastern
Chukchi Sea.
Baseline study to describe the
composition, distribution, and
apparent abundance of demersal
fish, shellfish, and pelagic
fish resources of the Norton
Sound and Chukchi Sea.
Collect baseline information
on the composition and distribution
of the epifaunal invertebrates
of Norton Sound, southeastern
(I) Evaluate the subsystem use of
Pacific herring fishery resources
to coastal residence in Norton
Sound and Kotzebue Sound.
resources in the nearshore
coastal waters of Norton Sound.
Describes the scour depressions
in Norton Sound and their
correlation with occurrences
of strong currents, ice ^jr^-
furrows, major topographic
snoals, and substrates ot verv
fine sand to coarse silt.
Investigate sediment dynamics
in Norton Sound to define the
principal pathways and mechanisms
of bottom and suspended materials
transport .
Collect data :o describe che
velocity field, improve under-
standing of mixing processes,
and the relative importance of
various driving mechanisms which
cause and influence vater motion.
Baseline survey of heavy metal
concentrations in the water
and surface sedixents in Norton
Sound and adjacent waters.
Soui-ci1
Koud et al .
1974
NeimarK., 1979
Cooney . 1977
Wolot ir.i
-;: al., 1S77
F ede r e t i i - ,
Iy77
Sarccr.. .->7S
Larson «*c .* i . .
1
Caccn ion- ind
D r a K e , .'}'^
Schuraacher
ec ai., 19*8
3urr*U, 1977
Abbreviat ions
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service
SLM - Bureau of Land Management
DCS - Outer Continental Shelf
L'SCS - United Stated Geological Survey
3-3
-------
CJ
.p-
SEWARD PENINSULA
64'30'N
165'30'
ItS'OO'W
'Figure 3-1.
Source:
Nonin, Alaska Nearshore Bathymetry
Tetra Tech, 1980; Shanna, 1974
-------
cold, saline water on the surface. Temperatures of surface waters near
Nome during the summer of 1977 were 10 to 15°C, with salinities of 20°/oo
to 30°/co (Schumacher et al., 1978). The deeper layer was 3 to 5°C, with
salinities greater than 30°/oo.
WAVES
Waves likely to affect the coastal area at Nome were evaluated in the
"Port Feasibility Study" (Tetra Tech, 1980). Effective fetch is limited to
less than 250 nmi, therefore large waves are unlikely. The 1970 U.S. Navy
"Summary of Synoptic Meteorological Observations" and the NOAA 1974
"Climatic Atlas" suggest that waves of 0.61m to 1.52m in height are likely
to approach None from west, to south, and southeast, 40% to 50% of the
time. During local storms waves up to 2m heights and 11-second periods
were observed (Cacchione and Drake, 1979). In a recent hindcast of the
November, 1974 storm, based on synopic weather data, a maximum significant
wave height of 17.8 ft. with a 12-15 second period was predicted (Resio,
1982).
Bottom circulation off Nome is caused by a combination of regional
currents, tidal currents, wave action, and (occasionally) motions from
wind-driven and storm surge. Regional currents are commonly toward the
west, resulting from a counterclockwise gyre in western Norton Sound. The
speed of this prevailing flow is relatively low compared to other water
motions, and a measurement of about 50 km south of Nome showed a speed of 8
cm/s (Schumacher et al., 1978). The wave-created littoral currents at Nome
are variable, with a net motion toward the east (Tetra Tech, 1980; Nebert
1974). Storms in Norton Sound add wave motions and wind-driven currents to
the normal tidal oscillations. Scour depressions and sediment
distributions suggest strong bottom currents (Larsen et al., 1979).
Measurements near the bottom during a summer storm south of Nome recorded
peak velocities of 70 cm/s (Cacchione and Drake, 1979). During calm
weather, tidal currents dominate circulation.
3-5
-------
In additon to normal conditions, severe storms occasionally produce
large storm surges and current flows. Increases in water level of 8m have
been measured, and significant sediment accretion and erosion indicates
high-water velocities. Events of this nature were recorded in 1900, 1946,
and 1974 (Tetra Tech, 1980).
TIDES
The tidal range averages 0.49m at Nome, with maximum heights of 0.73m;
tidal currents reach bottom velocities of 25 cm/s (Cacchione and Drake,
1979). Tidal currents are oscillatory in an east-west direction. When ice
covers all or part of Norton Sound during winter, high concentrations of
suspended sediments persist, which imply that tidal flows alone are strong
enough to resuspend fine particles (Cacchione and Drake, 1978). It is
possible that ice sheets may intensify the tidal flows beneath the ice
(Cacchione and Drake, 1979).
Tidal Drift and Dispersion
The dredged material disposal sites at None extend into shallow water
and are completely within the region of active wave induced sediment trans-
port. Side-dumping barges are used to transport the dredged material, and
can operate in water less than 3 m deep (Tetra Tech, 1980). Consequently,
consideration of littoral drift is important in the dispersal of dredged
material at None. Littoral drift is eastward; thus, sediment accreation
occurs on the west side of Nome River jetties and erosion exists on that
east side.
In additon to littoral drift, there is a strong indication that random
dispersal takes place 'in the' littoral zone during storms. According to
Sharma (1974) mass movement of sediment and active reworking results from
storm waves. Thus, it is almost certain that dredged material deposited in
the nearshore portions of the disposal sites will be transported on beaches
in the area, at the immediate shore and to the east. It is estimated that
3-6
-------
650,000 yd-3 of sediments are transported at the site, of which a net
easterly movement of 60,000 yd^ occurs (Tetra Tech, 1980).
Construction of the City of Nome's proposed breakwater/port facility is
expected to significantly alter the littoral drift patterns. . The effect
will create a build up of dredged material dumped in the western site, and
a reduction of material deposited in the entrance channel from the normal
west to east transport.
GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Geological information relevant to a ODMDS include bathymetry, bottom
and sediment characteristics, and dredged material characteristics.
Bathymetry provides information on bottom stability, persistence of
sediment mounds, and shoaling. The characters of the bottom and sediments
strongly determine grain size distribution between background ODMDS
sediments, and dredged material may be used as a tracer to determine its
own area of influence. Changes in ODMDS sediment grain size caused by
disposal might produce changes in the sediment chemical characteristics and
in the composition of the benthic biotic.
The Nome coastal topography consists of a low relief plain, backed by
steep coastal hills. The sea floor slopes gently southwestward from the
beach, forming a broad basin (Chirikov Basin) with water depths to 37m.
BATHYMETRY
In attempts to understand the nearshore processes, Tetra Tech (1980)
studied the stability of the offshore bathymetry by comparing the survey
charts of 1900 and 1950, and preparing a map of bathymetric net change
(Figure 3-2). The map shows that significant areas of accreation and
erosion (both up to 2m) occur in bands parallel to shore; the pattern
extended seaward nearly 2 nmi, to depths of about 18m. The band close to
the river mouth and beach represents a zone of sediment deposition from
river discharge. The next band (610m wide) is erosional. A zone of
deposition occurs further seaward.
3-7
-------
UJ
I
OO
CONTOURS IN FEET
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT ACCRETION
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT EROSION
Nautical Miles
3-2. Net Bathymel.ric Change Between 1900 and 1950 Hear Nome, Alaska
Source: Tetra Tech, 1980
-------
SEDIMENTS
Varying thicknesses of Pleistocene to Recent Age sediments cover older
bedrock offshore of Nome. At least six changes of sea level have resulted
from Marine transgressions-regressions caused by glaciation (U.S. Bureau of
Mine, 1969). Nelson and Hopkins (1972) indicated that glaciers extended
approximately 3 to 4 nmi beyond the existing shoreline, and are the sources
for glacial drifts on the Nome coastal plain and for the sediments
occurring immediately offshore. Further offshore there is a complex
relationship between glacial deposits and marine silt and clay, probably
from the Yukon River Delta (Figure 1-2), in the mid-south shore of Norton
Sound.
Larsen et al., (1979) described the area east and seaward of Nome as
fine-grained sand, with a marked change to a mixture of fine- and medium-
grained sand occurring to the west. Sediment in the Chirikov Basin south-
east of Nome consists typically of coarser sediments; sediments from Seward
Peninsula sources are 65% to 78% sand, 20% to 30% silt, and less than 8%
clay.
Sharma (1974) conducted a detailed study of the sea floor from Nome
River to Cripple River (Figure 3-4), and from the shore to a depth of 29m.
In general, sediments near the beach are coarse, poorly sorted, and form an
irregular belt which extends parallel to shore (Figure 3-3). Particle size
distributions suggest that there are three types of surface sediments:
relict gravel, muddy sand, and a mixture of gravel, which have been
reworked by transgressions and regressions, and from which fine (clay and
silt) sediments have been winnowed. Strong currents remove the fine
sediments and prevent deposition of contemporary sediments. The nearshore
relict gravel grades offshore into sand and muddy sands. Sands are
prevalent near the river mouths, and as bars along the beaches. The mixed
sediments are derived from relict gravel and Holocene sands.
3-9
-------
, PENNY R/V£R
165'45'
163'35'
165-25'W
GRAVEL
VERY COARSE SAND
COARSE SAND
MEDIUM SAND
FINE SAND
GRAIN SIZES
2 = 4.00 mm
-lib = 2.00 mm
0'!' = 1.00 mm
1 = O.SO mm
2'b = 0.2S mm
3
-------
ALASKA
NOME R/VER
Medium sand in zone of
effective longshore drift
Relict sandy beach gravel
~j and local patches of
-1 recently deposited sand and silt
Recently deposited marine muddy
sand generally containing abundant
ice-rafted and relict gravel debris
: i
Relict gravel and local patches
of recently deposited sand and
mud resting on gravel drift
Thin relict gravel resting on
Nome River outwash
Bedrock locally covered
by patches of relict gravel
64"30'
04'25'N
165-45'
165'35'
165-25'
165'15'W
Figure 3-4. Particle Size Distribution of Surface
Sediments Near Nome, Alaska
Source: Sharma, 1974
£H - Hood and Burrell (1974) reported that levels of pH is Norton Sound
ranged from 7.7 to 8.1, well within the normal summer limits found in other
coastal areas at northern latitudes.
Organic Carbon - Levels of dissolved organic carbon in seven water
samples collected near Nome were uniform, ranging from 2.90 to 2.68 mg
C/liter (Hood and Burrell, 1974'). Particulate organic matter in the same
samples was much lower, and ranged from 0.090 to 0.197 mg C/liter.
Concentrations were higher in Norton Sound than those in the southern
Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea, but well within the range of other oceanic
waters. Organic carbon data are insufficient to determine seasonality.
3-11
-------
Nutrients - The waters of Norton Sound are extremely productive and
support an extensive phytoplankton growth throughout the summer. Sources
of nutrients include freshwater runoff and coastal upwelling (Boisseau and
Georing, 1974). Nitrogen depletion in the summer appears to limit
phytoplankton growth in Norton Sound. Phosphorus and silicic acid are
present in excess (ibid.). Nutrient concentrations have not been measured
during the winter; however, levels are expected to be high due to nutrient
release from bottom sediments.
Trace Metals - Total metal concentrations (dissolved and particulate) in
Norton Sound are similar to those occurring in other oceanic areas. Levels
of lead, cadmium, copper, and zinc are uniformly low (Hood and Burrell,
1974), and are typical of areas removed from known sources of pollution.
The seasonality of trace metal levels in Norton Sound has not been
determined. However depletion of trace metals in nearshore waters during
the summer might be expected due to the increased runoff from the Snake and
Nome Rivers, and to the elevated levels of suspended matter which may act
as metal scavengers.
Petroleum and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons - Detailed analyses of
hydrocarbons in surface waters of Norton Sound revealed low levels
(generally less than 1 ug/kg), primarily of biogenic (terrigenous and
marine) hydrocarbons (Shaw, 1977). Petroleum hydrocarbons have not been
measured, but are expected to be quite low, because the area is remote from
known sources of pollution.
SEDIMENTS
Trace Metals - Sediments of Norton Sound near Nome have been analyzed
for copper, cadmium, lead, and zinc (Sharma, 1974). Levels of. copper,
cadmium, and zinc show relationships with clay and organic carbon
distributions in the sediments; in general, higher concentrations occur in
finer-grained sediments. Copper varies from 7 to 32 ppm, cadmium from 1.0
to 10.5 ppm, and zinc from 37 to 400 ppm. The levels for copper were
3-12
-------
siirilar to those found in the northeastern part of the Gulf of Alaska,
whereas cadmium and zinc levels were higher in the Nome samples (Burrell,
1977). Lead was below detection limits in all Norton Sound sediments.
Total Organic Carbon - The total organic carbon (TOC) content of Norton
Sound sediments near Nome roughly parallels the distribution of silt and
clay with finer-textured sediments containing higher levels of organic
carbon (Sharma, 1974). The local distribution of sedimentary TOC is
influenced by two factors: the increasing amounts of finer sediments
offshore, and the inputs of fine-grained sediments in freshwater runoff
from the Snake River. Thus, TOC levels generally increase with increasing
distance from shore, although an area of relatively high TOC exists
downstream from the mouth of Nome River. TOC levels in all sediments
analyzed generally are low, ranging from 0.356% to 1.568% (Sharma, 1974).
Petroleum and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons - Sediments have not been
analyzed for petroleum or chlorinated hydrocarbons. Detailed analyses of
sedimentary hydrocarbons in other areas of Norton Sound revealed low
concentrations, primarily of biogenic (terrigenous and marine) hydrocarbons
(Kaplan et al., 1978). Levels and speciation of hydrocarbons in site
sediments are expected to be similar.
BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Biota in the water and benthic environments of Norton Sound (and in the
vicinity of the two sites) are described in this subsection. Water column
biota include phytopiankton, zooplankton, and nekton; benthic biota are
composed of infaunal and epifaunal organisms, including demersal fish.
Benthic biota, especially the infauna, are generally sessile and cannot
readily emigrate from an area of disturbance. The infauna, therefore, can
be important indicators of environmental, conditions. Plankton comprise the
primary base for many marine food webs, but plankton and nekton are
generally not adversely affected by dredged material disposal.
3-13
-------
PLANKTON
Phytoplankton
Boissaeu and Goering (1974) studied the standing crop and primary
productivity in shallow-nearshore waters off Nome during July 1973.
Surface chlorophyll _a values ranged from 0.81 to 1.38 mg/m3. Primary
productivity in surface waters showed a distribution similar to that of
chlorophyll _a. The average surface value was 5.36 mgC/m3/hr. Primary
productivity and standing crop values each were similar to values reported
for other Norton Sound Shelf waters (McRoy et al., 1972).
Zoo plank ton
Continental Slope and open ocean areas of southeastern Norton Sound
support high populations of North Pacific oceanic, interzonal copepods.
Dominant species include Gal an us plumchrus, £. cristatus, and Eucalanus
bungii bungii (Cooney, 1977, Motoda and Minoda, 1974).
Zooplankton communities of nearshore coastal areas are composed of
littoral and neritic forms adaped to wide ranges of temperatures and^
salinities. The copepod, Acartia clausi, and cladocerans, Pod on sp. and
Evadne sp., dominate, both in frequency of occurence and numbers (Neimark
1979, Cooney 1977). These species are endemic to the highly variable
environment. Species diversity in the coastal zone community is low, due
to long-term seasonal, and to short-term physical variations (e.g.,
storms).
BENTH 1C INVERTEBRATES
Site-specific studies have not been conducted at the sites; however, one
investigation (Feder and Mueller, 1974) evaluated the infaunal and sessile
epifaunal benthic species in the general vicinity of the ODMDS. Benthic
invertebrates inhabiting the study area were represented by 10 phyla, with
echinoderms (sea stars, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, and brittle stars)
3-14
-------
being most common and contributing the greatest biomass. Other common
invertebrate species were soft coral (Eunephthya rubiformia), clam (Astarte
boreal is), and several species of shrimp, including Pandalus hypsinotus.
In general, the species are typical of those occurring in well oxygenated,
high-energy, sand-gravelly-rocky sedimentary regimes (Feder and Mueller,
1974).
Before the advent of oil and gas developments in Norton Sound and
adjacent waters, qualitative baseline benthic invertebrate studies were
conducted under the sponsorship of BLM (Feder and Jewett, 1977). Epifaunal
invertebrates in Norton Sound were represented by 13 phyla, 26 classes, and
186 species; of these, mollusks, arthropods, and echinoderms were most
abundant, with 74, 45, and 27 species, respectively (Table 3-2). The same
three phyla also dominated the invertebrate biomass, but in reverse order:
echinoderms, arthropods, and mollusks contributed 80.3%, 9.6%, and 4.4%,
respectively, of the total biomass (Table 3-3). The majority of the
species identified are associated with the Boreal .Pacific region.
DEMERSAL FISH
Wolotira et al., (1977) studied the distribution and abundance of
demersal fish in Norton Sound and adjacent waters. Demersal fish were
representated by 14 families consisting of 51 species. Gadidae,
Pleuronectidae, and Cottidae were the dominant families, representing
approximately 95% (19,228 metric tons) of the total fish biomass (Table
3-4). Fish in the study area are ranked in order of abundance in Table
3-5. The eight most abundant species were the saffron cod (Eleginus
graci 1 is), starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus, yellowfin sole (Limanda
aspera), Alaska plaice (Pleuronectes quadrituberculatus), plain sculpin
(Myoxocephalus jaok), toothed smelt -(Osmerus mordax dentex), arctic cod
(Boroeogadus saida), and the shorthorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus scorpius
groenlandicus). The saffron cod was the only fish present at all sampling
stations. Most of the dominant fish species were found in highest relative
abundance where bottom waters were warmer than 4° and shallower than 30m.
3-15
-------
TABLE 3-2
EPIFAUNAL INVERTEBRATE SPECIES COLLECTED FROM NORTON SOUND
IN ORDER OF DECREASING ABUNDANCE
Phylum
Mollusca
Arthropoda
Echinodermata
Annelida
Chordaca
Ectoprocta
Cnidaria
Class
Polyplacophora
Pelecypoda
Gastropoda
Cephalopoda
Totals
Pycnogonida
Crustacea
Totals
Asteroidea
Echinoidea
Ophiuroidea
Holothuroidea
Totals
Polychaeta
Hirudinea
Totals
Ascidiacea
Thaliacea
Totals
Cheilostomata
Cyclostomata
Ctenostoraata
Totals
Hydrozoa
Scyphozoa
Anthozoa
Totals
No. of
Species
3
27
43
1
74
1
44
45
14
2
8
J_
27
10
1
11
9
1
10
2
2
J5_
9
1
1
3_
5
Percent of
Species
1.61
14.52
23.12
0.54
39.79
0.54
23.12
23.66
7.53
1.03
4.30
1.61
14.52
5.38
0.54
5.92
4.84
0.54
5.38
1.08
1.08
2.69
4.85
0.5'4
0.54
1.61
2.69
3-16
-------
TABLE 3-2. (continued)
Phylum
Porifera
Rhynchocoela
Sipunculida
Echiura
Priapulida
Brachiopoda
Class
Demospongia
Unidentified
Echiuridea
Articulata
No. of
Species
2
1
1
1
1
1
Percent of
Species
1.08
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
Grand Totals 188
100.59
Sources: Feder and Jewett, 1977; Feder and. Mueller, 1974
This is supportive of other finfish studies conducted in Norton Sound
(Barton, 1978).
FISHERIES
The two sites support no know finfisheries, but commercial and
subsistence shellfisheries exist at the OCMDS.
Salmon
The conmercial salmon fishery season extends from June 15 to September
30. Norton Sound fisheries began in 1961, and the number of salmon
harvested have ranged from 30,524 to 350,344 fish,'with an average annual
catch of approximately 170,000 salmon. Two species of salmon, Oncorhynchus
keta (chum salmon) and 0. qorbuscha (pink salmon), comprised 65% and 29%,
respectively, of the total annual catch Table 3-6 (Vtolotira et al., 1977).
3-17
-------
TABLE 3-3 *
COMPOSITION BY BIOMASS OF THE DOMINANT
EPIFAUNAL INVERTEBRATE SPECIES COLLECTED IN NORTON SOUND
(grams)
Phylum
Echinodennata
Arthropoda
Mollusca
Percent of
All Phyla
(Total Species)
80.3
9.6
4.4
Dominant Species
Asterias amurensis
Gorgonocephalus caryi
Lethasterias nanimensis
Evasterias echinosoma
Leptasterias polaris acervata
Strongy locentrotus droebachiensis
Paralithodes camtschat ica
Hyas coarctatus alutaceus
Pagurus tr igonocheirus
Telmessus cheiragonus
Pagurus capillatus
Argis lar
Totals "...
Neptunea heros
Neptunea ventricosa
Beringius beringi
Serripes groenland icus
Totals .
. Common Name
Sea star
Basket star
Sea star
Sea star
Sea star
Sea urchin
Red King crab
Spider crab
Hermit crab
Crab
Hermit crab
(Crangonid) Shrimp
Gastropod
Gastropod
Gastropod
Greenland cockle
Percent of
Phylum
(Dominant
Species)
68.29
8.76
7.06
4.93
4.23
4.17
97.44
41.90
10.53
10.02
8.62
6.14
5.66
82.87
69.57
11.17
6.00
5.43
92.17
Percent of
All Phyla
(Dominant
Species)
54.83
7.03
5.66
3.95
3.39
3.34
78.20
4.01
1.01
0.96
0.83
0.59
0.54
7.94
3.01
0.48
0.26
0.24
3.99
CO
Source: Feder and Jewett, 1977
-------
TABLE 3-4
BIOMASS OF DEMERSAL FISH COLLECTED
IN NORTON SOUND BY MAJOR TAXONOMIC GROUPS
(September and October 1976)
Family
Gadidae
Pleuronectidae
Cottidae
Clupeidae
Osmeridae
Zoarcidae
Cyclopteridae
Stichaeidae
Agonidae
Other Fish
Common Name
Cod
Flatfish
Sculpins
Herring
Smelt
Eelpouts
Snailf ish
Pricklebacks
Poachers
Totals
Biomass
(metric tons)
12,544
5,328
1,346
181
368
186
.10
130 .
78
50
20,221
Percentages of
Taxa Biomass
62.0
26.3
6.7
0.9
1.8
0.9
<0.1
0.6
0.4
0.2
100.0
Source: Wolotira et al., 1977
Herring
The cameraial herring fishery in Norton Sound is manned by foreign
gillnet fleets (Japanese) and local fisherman. Herring roe is the main
harvested product. Conmercial operations usually occur between May and
June, after winter ice breakup, whereas herring are in spawning
concentrations. Historical herring catches are shown in Table 3-7
(Vvblotira et al., 1977).
3-19
-------
TABLE 3-5
THE 20 MOST ABUNDANT DEMERSAL FISH
SPECIES IN NORTON SOUND
(September and October 1976)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Species
Eleginua gracilis
Placichchya atellatus
Limanda aapera
Pleuronecces app
Myoxocephalus jack
Oamerua mordax den tax
Boreogadus aaida
Myoxocephalus scorpius
groenlandicus
Clupea harengus pallasi '
Gymnocanchus Cricuspis
Myoxocephalus quadricornis
Enophrys diceraus
Lycodes Curneri
Limanda proboscidea
Lumpenus fabric ii
Agonus acipenaerinus
Lycodes palearia
Liopsecta glacialis
Megalocotcus placycephalus
Acantholumpenus mackayi
Common Name
Saffron cod
Starry flounder
Yellowfin sole
Alaska plaice
Plain sculpin
Toothed smelt
Arctic cod
Shorthorn sculpin
Pacific herring
Arctic staghorn sculpin
Fourhorn sculpin
Antlered sculpin
Polar eelpout
Longhead dab
Slender eelblenny
Sturgeon poacher
Wattled eelpouC
Arctic flounder
Belligerent sculpin
Pighead prickleback
Totals
CPUE*
(kg/km)1
6.56
1.83
0.59
0.35
0.29
0.20
0.17
0.17
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
10.84
Percentage.
of Fish CPUE''
60.5
16.9
5.4
3.2
2.7
1.8
1.6
1.6
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
100.0
*CPUE " Catch per unit effort " kg/km trawled
1 overall catch per unit effort
2 percentage of catch per unit effort, total fish
Source: Wolotira Jr. et al., 1977
3-20
-------
TABLE 3-6
COMMERCIAL SALMON CATCHES IN NORTON SOUND
(1962 to 1976, 1979)
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1979
Total Fish
King
7,286
6,613
2,018
1,449
1,553
1,804
1,045
2,392
1,853
2,593
2,885
1,918
2,951
2,321
2,206
10,706
Red
18
71
126
30
14
11
Coho
9,156
16,765
98
2,030
5,755
2,379
6,885
6,836
4,423
3,127
450
9,282
2,092
6,218
6,709
31,438
Pink
33,187
55,625
13,567
220
12,778
28,879.
71,179
89,949
64,908
4,895
45,143
46,499
148,519
32,820
87,889
167,411
Chum
182,784
154,789
148,862
36,795
80,245
41,756
45,390
82,795
107,034
131,362
101,235
119,098
162,267
216,443
96,102
140,789
Catch
Area
Total
232,431
233,863
164,671
40,524
100,345
74,818
. 124,499
'181,972
178,218
141,977
149,713
176,797
315,829
257,802
192,917
350,344
Sources: Wolotira et al., 1977; Schwarz, 1981.
3-21
-------
TABLE 3-7
COMMERCIAL HARVEST OF PACIFIC HERRING IN NORTON SOUND
(metric tons)
Year
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1979
Local
Inhabitants
0
0
7.3
17.7
15.3
32.3
3.1
2.0
7.7
4.0
Japanese
Fleets
125
1,270
54
621
11
25
720
5
NA
1,168
Total
125
1270
61.3
638.7
26.3
57.3
723.1
7.0
7.7
1,172
NA » not available
Sources: Wolotira, et al., 1977;
Schwarz, 1981
During the winters of 1979 and 1980 there were considerable decreases in
the numbers of king crab caught by None residents. Daring the winter of
1978, 18,618 crabs were caught in the subsistence fishing ground, whereas
in 1979 and 1980 only 224 and 213 crabs, respectively, were caught.
Reasons for the absence of crabs in nearshore waters off Nome are
uncertain, but may be due to commercial fishery activities, environmental
factors, and/or dumping of sediments dredged from Nome Harbor in the
fishery grounds (Schwarz, 1981).
3-22
-------
Chapter 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The two None, Alaska interim designated sites have been used for
disposal of dredged material for about 60 years. This past use has
resulted in only minor temporary environmental effects within the site
boundaries with no evidence of any environmental effects outside the site
boundaries. It is expected continued use of the sites will result in the
same pattern of environmental consequences.
EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Both the principal dredging area and the disposal sites are located in a
high-energy area. Any materials reaching the dredging area are subjected
to mixing and dilution. Transfer of the dredged material to the adjacent
disposal sites results in further mixing and dilution. This mixing and
dilution reduces dredged material constituents to an extremely low level,
negating the possibility of any harmful material being bioaccumulated in
the human food chain to the point of affecting human health.
Minor navigational interferences may result from the dredging and
disposal operations. Communication between the dredging/disposal
operations and other users of the waters will prevent navigational hazards
from developing. When the City of Nome's proposed breakwater/port facility
is completed, dredging and disposal operations may pose a navigational
hazard in the western portion of the western dumping site.
EFFECTS ON AESTHETICS
The plume from the disposal of the dredged material will result in
turbidity which will be visible from shore. The turbidity will be
transient with a return to ambient conditions within a short time.
4-1
-------
EFFECTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM
Because of the relatively small amount of dredged material disposed of
annually in relation to the sites' sizes, the effects are expected to be
minimal within the sites and non-existant outside the site boundaries. The
sites have been used since 1923 without reported effects on the ecosystem.
Physical/Chemical Effects
There may be a slight reduction in the pH and the dissolved oxygen
concentration in the waters in the immediate vicinity of the dredged
material release. This reduction will be short-lived with a quick return
to ambient conditions due to the mixing experienced in a high-energy
environment.
Turbidity near the disposal operations will be increased due to the
fines in the disposal plume created by the settling solids. The turbidity
will decrease with increasing distance from the disposal as the fines
settle, are mixed with, and diluted into the waters of the sites. It is
not expected turbidity resulting from the disposal operation will be
distinguishable outside the sites from that naturally occurring in the
area.
The waters surrounding the sediment particles may be enriched with
nutrients and other elemental/compounds. This water may be released during
the disposal operations. However, any release of materials from the
settling particles will be quickly assimilated into waters of the sites.
Mounding at. the sites is not expected. While there might be a slight
buildup in a particular area of the sites immediately following the dredged
material release, the material will be dispersed over the sites' area by
the prevailing and tidal currents, waves, and storms. Any dispersion
outside the sites' boundaries will be in extremely thin layers. This
situation will change, however, with construction of the City of Nome's
4-2
-------
proposed breakwater/port facility. This structure is expected to
significantly alter the littoral drift patterns. The effect will create a
build up of dredged material dumped in the western site, and a reduction of
material deposited in the entrance channel from the normal west to east
transport.
Biological Effects
Some bottom dwelling organisms will be trapped in the immediate vicinity
of the dredged material disposal and smothered. Others will be able to
work their way through or away from the initial impact area and survive.
Based on experience at other dredged material disposal sites, recolonization
of the impact area should occur between dredging cycles. No effects on
bottom organisms is expected to occur outside the site boundaries.
Demersal fish, being more mobile than other bottom dwellers, will be
able to escape the decending sediments. However, a very few may be pinned
down and destroyed.
Free swimming fish and aquatic animals will not be affected by the
materials that settle on the bottom. They should be able to avoid the
decending plume. Except for the minor need to avoid the plume, " the free
swimmers will not be affected by the dredged material disposal at the
sites.
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE
ENVIRDNMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES
The only unavoidable adverse environmental effect associated with
disposal of dredged material is the burial and possible distraction of some
of the bottom organsism within the site. At any one time, the burial
will be in the immediate vicinity of the disposal operation. Because of the
dispersion characteristics of high-energy sites any sediment leaving the
sites will settle in such thin layers that burial of bottom organisms will
not occur.
4-3
-------
Experience of other dredged material sites has shown that recolonization of
bottom organisms occur between dredged material disposal cycles. This tends
to mitigate the adverse environmental effects within the sites resulting
from the burial of the bottom organisms. While there may be some decrease
in the abundance of organisms within the sites, the species diversity within
the sites should remain similar to that outside the sites.
IRREVERSIBLE OR
IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources because of
dredged material disposal at the Nome, Alaska ODMDS's are expected to
minimal and are:
o Loss of energy required to transport the dredged material from the
dredging area to the disposal sites
o Loss of economic resources due to costs of the disposal operation.
o Loss of some bottom organisms within the sites due to burial.
4-4
-------
Chapter 5
COORDINATION
The Draft EIS was prepared by William C. Shilling, P.E., Chief, and
David M. Lee, Environmental Engineer of the Ocean Dumping EIS Task Force.
It was based on information collected and summarized for EPA under contract
by Interstate Electronics Corporation. The major portion of . the
information is reproduced in the EIS as Chapter 3. Support during the
preparation of the Draft was provided by Edith R. Young and in the Final by
Bonita Judon. The Preliminary Draft EIS underwent internal review by EPA
and the Corps of Engineers. Revisions incorporated in this Final EIS were
prepared by John M. Hill, of the Ocean Dumping EIS Task Force.
Endangered Species Act of 1973
Section 7 Coordination
Formal coordination has been initiated by letter to the Washington, D.C.
National Marine Fisheries Service Office, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Office, and will be completed before final site designation. EPA
finds no adverse effects on endangered or threatened species.
Coastal Zone Management Act
Federal Consistency Evaluation
The State of Alaska has been contacted and requested to provide this
office with the elements of their State Coastal Zone Management Plan which
are applicable to the Nome site designation EIS consistency evaluation.
They have responded with three program standards which are part of the
basis for project review in Nome. An evaluation of how the proposed action
pertains to these standards can be found in Table 5-1. Coordination with
the State will be completed before final site designation.
5-1
-------
TABLE 5-1
Consistency Evaluation
.Alaska Coastal
Management Program Standard
Evaluation
6AAC 80.040 Coastal Development: Development of Alaska's coastal resources will be
enhanced by designation of an Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site (ODMDS). Site Designation
limits the effects of dredged material disposal to
one ocean location (that has been historically
used), while facilitating maintenance of the
channel and harbor for shipping uses. The disposal
of dredged materials will comply with the criteria
and requirements of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(CE) regulations.
6AAC. 80.130 Habitats:
6AAC 80.140 Air, Land, and
the Water Quality:
The biological implications of the action .were
"considered in the EIS evaluation [General Criteria
228.5(b); specific criteria 228.6(a)(8),(10),(11)]
The preferred alternative in the FEIS is for one of
/
the two Nome ODMDS to be designated for disposal of
dredged material and the other to be de-designated.
The site may be used for disposal of dredged
material only after evaluation of each Federal
project or permit application has established that
the disposal is within site capacity and in
compliance with the criteria and requirements of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE) regulations. In
addition, it is expected that each Federal project
and disposal activity will comply with the
regulations and procedures of the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation with respect to air,
land, and water quality.
5-2
-------
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS
The following persons submitted written comments on the Draft
EIS. Their letters and responses can be located in Appendix A.
Letter
Number Commenter
1 Frank S. Lisella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Center for Environmental Health
Department of Health and Human Services
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
2 Robert L. Grogan
Associate Director
Office of Management and Budget
Division of Governmental Coordination
Office of the Governor
State of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska 99811
3 Paul Gates
Regional Environmental Officer
Office of the Secretary
United States Department of the Interior
P. 0. Box 120
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
4 Joyce M. Wood
Chief, Ecology and Conservation Division
Office of the Administrator
National Oceanic and Atmosperic
Administration
United States Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230
5-3
-------
Chapter 6
REFERENCES
Barton, L.H. 1978. Finfish resource surveys in Norton Sound and Kotzebue Sound.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Research Unit No. 19. 202 pp.
Boisseau, D. and J.J. Goering. 1974. Productivity and nutrient cycling. In:
D.W. Hood, V. Fisher, D. Nebert, H.M. Feder, G.J. Mueller, D.C. Burrell,
D. Boisseau, J.J. Goering, G.D. Sharma, D.T. Kresge, and S.R. Fison (eds).
Environmental Study of the Marine Environment Near Nome, Alaska. R-74-3.
Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. of Alaska, pp. 99-110.
Burrell, D.C. 1977. Natural distribution of trace heavy metals and environment
background in Alaskan Shelf and estuarine areas. In: Environmental Assess-
ment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf. Annual Report 13. pp. 290-506.
Cacchione, D.A. and D.E. Drake. 1978. Bottom and near-bottom sediment dynamics:
A. Norton Basin, B. Lower Cook Inlet, C. Northern Bering Sea; Research Unit
430. In: Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf,
Quarterly Rpt, April-June, pp. 571-576.
1979. Sediment transport in Norton Sound, Alaska. U.S. Dept. of Int.
Geological Survey Open File Report 79-1555. 87 pp.
Cooney, R.T. 1977. Zooplankton and micronekton studies in the Bering-Chukchi/
Beaufort Seas. Research Unit 426. In: Environmental Assessment of the
Alaskan Continental Shelf, Annual Report Number 10. pp. 275-363.
Feder, H.M. and G.J. Muller. 1974. Biological studies. In: D.W. Hood, V.
Fisher, D. Neber, H.M. Feder, G.J. Mueller, D.C. Burreli, D. Boisseau, J.J.
Goering, G.D. Sharma, D.T. Kresge, and S.R. Fison (eds). Environmental
Study of the Marine Environment near Nome, Alaska. R-74-3, Inst. Mar. Sci.,
Univ. of Alaska, pp. 31-86.
Feder, H.M. and S.C. Jewett. 1977. Trawl survey of the epifaunal invertebrates
of Norton Sound, Southeastern Chukchi Sea, and Kotzebue Sound. Research
Unit 502. In: Environmental Assessment of the Alaska Continental Shelf.
Annual Report 1. pp. 338-486.
Hood, D.W. and D.C. Burrell. 1974. Chemical oceanography. In: D.W. Hood, V.
Fisher, D. Nebert, H.M. Federa, G.J. Mueller, D.C. Burrell, D. Boisseau,
J.J. Goering, G.D. Sharma, D.T. Kresge., and S.R. Fison (eds). Environmental
Study of the Marine Environment Near Nome, Alaska. R-74-3, Inst. Mar. Sci.,
Univ. of Alaska, pp. 87-98.
Hood, D.W., V. Fisher, D. Nebert, H.M. Feder, G.J. Mueller, D.C. Burrell, D.
Boisseau, J.J. Goering, G.D. Sharma, D.T. Kresge, and S.R. Fison. 1974.
Environmental study of the marine" environment near Nome, Alaska. R-74-3.
Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. of Alaska. 265 pp.
6-1
-------
REFERENCES (Cont'd)
Kaplan, I.R., S. Brenner, M. Venkateson, and J. Bonilla. 1978. Characterization
of organic matter in sediments from Norton Sound, Kodiak Shelf and Beaufort
Sea. In: Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf,
Quarterly Report, April - June. pp. 611-727.
Larsen, M.C., H. Nelson, and D. Thor. 1979. Geologic implications and potential
hazards of scour depressions on Bering Shelf, Alaska. Environmental
Geology. Vol. 3, No. 1. pp. 39-47.
Larsen M.C., C.H. Nelson, and D.R. Thor. 1980. "Geological, Geochemical and
Geotechnical Observations on the Bering Shelf, Alaska. USGS. Open File
Report 80-979.
McRoy, C.P., J.J. Goering, and W.E. Sheels. 1972. Study of primary productivity
in the eastern Bering Sea. In: Biological Oceanography of the Northern
North Pacific Ocean. Takenoxiti, A.Y. (ed), Tokay and demistsu shoten.
199-216 pp.
Motoda, S. and T. Minoda. 1974. Plankton of the Bering Sea. In: Oceanography
of the Bering Sea with emphasis on renewable resources. Int. Symp. for
Bering Sea Study. D.W. Hood and E.J. Kelly (eds). Inst. of Mar. Sci.,
University of Alaska, pp. 207-242.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1983. Personal communication with Ron
Morris, Field Supervisor. Western Alaska Field Office.
Nebert, D. 1974. Physical oceanography of Norton Sound. In: D.W. Hood,
V. Fisher, D. Nebert, H.M. Feder, G.J. Mueller, D.C. Burrell, D. Boisseau,
J.J. Goering, G.D. Sharma, D.T. Kresge, and S.R. Fison (eds.).
Environmental Study of the Marine Environment Near Nome, Alaska. R-74-3,
Inst. Mar. Sci, Univ. of Alaska, pp. 87-98.
Neimark, L.M. 1979. Zooplankton ecology of Norton Sound, Alaska. Master
Thesis, Univ. of Alaska. 93 pp.
Nelson, C.H. and D.M. Hopkins. 1972. Sedimentary process and distribution of
gold in the northern Bering Sea. U.S. Geol. Survey, Professional .Paper 689.
27 pp.
Resio, D. 1982. Hindcast Analysis of the November 1974 Storm at Nome, Alaska,
Report to TAMS.
Robbins, D.L. Chief, Construction Operations Division, Alaska District, Corps of
Engineers. 1980. Letter to IEC dated 17 November 1980. Dredging history
and resources for Nome Harbor. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska
District, Anchorage, Alaska.
Schumacher, J.D., R.D. Muench, T.H. Kinder, L.K. Coachman, R.L. Charnell, K.
Aagaard. 1978. Norton Sound/Chukchi Sea oceanographic processes (N-COP).
In: Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf. Annual
Report 10. pp. 860-928.
6-2 N
-------
REFERENCES (Cont'd)
Schwartz, L. 1981. Letter to IEC dated 11 February 1981. State of Alaska,
Department of Fish and Game, Nome, Alaska.
Sharroa, G.D. 1974. Geological oceanography near Nome. D.W. Hood, V. Fisher,
D. Nebert, H.M. Feder, G.J. Mueller, D. Burrell, D. Boisseau, J.J. Goering;
G.D. Sharma, D.T. Kresge and S.R. Fison (eds.). In: Environmental Study of
the Marine Environment Near Nome, Alaska. R-74-3, Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. of
Alaska, pp. 111-142.
Shaw, D.G. 1977. Hydrocarbons: natural distribution and dynamics on the
Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf. In: Environmental assessment of the
Alaskan Continental Shelf. Annual Report 13. pp. 507-727.
Tetra Tech. 1980. Phase A feasibility study of Port of Nome, Alaska. Prepared
for the city of Nome, Alaska. Report TC-3373. 166 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1974. Final environmental impact statement.
Operations and Maintenance of the Nome Harbor and Seawall. Nome, Alaska.
Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. 42 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1980. Personal communication with C. Spahr.
Alaska District. Anchorage Alaska.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1983. Personal communication with Richard J.
Gutleber, Biologist, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1969. Sample drilling seafloor heavy metals placer
deposits off Alaska's Nome Beach. The Bureau of Mines 1967 Offshore
Campaign. Final Draft. Maine Minerals Technology Center, Bureau of Mines,
U.S. Dept. of Interior. 51 pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and
U.S. Department of Interior (Bureau of Land Management). 1977.
Environmental assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf. Vol. XIII.
Contaminant baselines. 857 pp.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1982. Norton Sound: Final environmental impact
statement OCS proposed oil and gas lease sale 57. Bureau of. Land
Management. Washington, D.C.
Wolotira, R.J., T.M. Sample, and M. Morin. 1977. Demersal fish and shellfish
resources of Norton Sound, the southeastern Chukchi Sea, and adjacent waters
in the baseline year 1976. NOAA/NMFS. Northwest Fish. Ctr., Seattle, V&.
pp. 292.
6-3
-------
APPENDIX A
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ON THE DRAFT BIS
The Draft EIS (DEIS) was issued on November 25, 1983. The public
was encouraged to submit written comments. This appendix contains
copies of written comments received by EPA ori the DEIS and the Agency
response to these comments. The written comments are keyed to the
responses by notations in the margins of the letters. The EPA sincerely
thanks all those who commented on the DEIS.
A-l
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service
Centers for Disease Control
Atlanta GA 30333
December 16, 1983
Mr. John M. Hill
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585)
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460
1_1 We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for Nome, Alaska, Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation. We are
responding on behalf of the U.S. Public Health Service.
1-2 The two existing Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDS) proposed for
final designation meet the specific and general criteria for ocean disposal
site selection with one major exception. Some of the disposed dredged
material may reach the beaches of the area. We have concerns about this
possibility, since both existing sites abut the shoreline immediately in front
of the village of Nome, Alaska. Based on site evaluation studies, this
problem was considered by EPA to be minor because the material reaching the
beaches (high sand content) may be beneficial for beach nourishment. However,
it was stated that a field survey of the sites and adjacent areas was not
planned or implemented because existing technical information was determined
to be sufficient for appraisal purposes.
1_3 It was also noted that the DEIS did not address public opinions regarding this
upcoming decision. The final EIS should clarify the potential impacts these
sites may have upon the residents, including aesthetics, convenience of
subsistence fishing, and possible distraction of tourist visits. Since the
two sites represent small areas (0.30 nmi^ and 0.37 nmi^) in the much
larger fisheries of Norton Sound, the turbidity caused by dumping, the
unnecessary beach nourishment along the beach in front of the village, and
barge movement in close proximity to local residents and fishermen could have
negative impacts upon the livelihood of residents.
1-4 Although these two ODMDS sites have been used for about 60 years without
serious impacts, we are concerned with the future use of these sites in such
close proximity to Nome. Therefore, we believe further investigation of our
concerns in preparing the final EIS would be in the best interest of local
residents.
1_5 It is stated on page 2-7 that chemical tests have not been conducted on
dredged sediments. We recommend that dredged material components be
appropriately characterized before making a final decision on ODMDS
designation of the proposed sites.
A-2
-------
Page 2 - Mr. John M. Hill
We appreciate the opportunity to review this DEIS. We would appreciate
receiving a copy of the final document when it becomes available. If you
should have questions regarding our comments, please contact Mr. Ken Holt of
our staff at (404) 452-4161 or FTS 236-4161.
Sincerely yours,
Frank S. Lisella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Center for Environmental Health
A-3
-------
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
/
PHONE. (907) 465-3*62
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
DIVISION OF GOVERMENTAL COORDINATION
January 5, 1984
John M. Hill
Criteria and Standards Division
(WH-585)
Office of Water Regulations and
Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Hill:
SUBJECT: NOME DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL DRAFT EIS
STATE I.D. NO. AK831129-43
2-1 The Division of Governmental Coordination has completed
review of your consistency determination and the supporting
information on the above proposal pursuant to Section 307 (c)
of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act as per 15 CFR 930,
Subpart C.
As currently planned, we agree that the project is consis-
tent to the maximum extent practicable with the Standards
of the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP).
If changes to the original proposal are made during its
implementation, you are required to contact this office to
determine if a review of the revision is necessary.
2-2 The DEIS does not address the impacts of dredged material
disposals in relation to a major causeway and port facili-
ty which is presently in the permit process. A comprehen-
sive review of this proposal is not possible without this
information and the EIS will require major revision.
2-3 The EIS must also include a consistency determination as
required by Section 307 (c) (3) of the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act as per 15 CFR 930 Subpart C before a final
consistency determination can be issued.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Dorothy
Douglas at 465-3562.
A-4
01-A35LH
-------
John M. Hill
-2-
January 5, 1984
Thank you for your cooperation with the Alaska Coastal
Management Program.
Sincerely,
sn/1413
Robert L. Grogan
Associate Director
A-5
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
P. O. Box 120
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
ER 83/1463
January 9, 1984
Celenel Neil E. Soling! Jr.
, -"Biotrioti Engineer; Alaoka Dictriot
V Goppo -of Enginoogo
Paueh 898
Anchorage, Alacko - 99506
>A ft. . A i II .'
Goluuul Saliu&i
Dear
In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Nome Alaska Dredge Material Disposal Site Designation,
Western Alaska OCS. We have no comments to offer on the draft statement.
Sincerely,
?aul Gate
Regional Environmental Officer
M. hi
ILL
40 ' M Sr,
A-6
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
War,tniH|l.(in. [ill POPIIII
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
January Ifi, 1984
4-1
John M. Hill
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585)
Office of VJater Regulations and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Hill:
This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement on the
Nome, Alaska Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation. Enclosed are comments
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide comments which we hope
will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving four copies of
the final environmental impact statement.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
JMW:dma
Joyce 1M. Wood
thief, Ecology and Conservation Division
A-7
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
Washington, D.C. 20230
January 13, J.984
N/ORM1:BR
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PP2 - Joyce Wood,'
N - Paul M. Wolf
DEIS 8311.16 - No me/,7 Alaska Dredged Material Disposal
Site Designation (
The subject DEIS has been reviewed within the areas of the
National Ocean Service's (NOS) responsibility and expertise, and
in terms of the impact of the proposed action on NOS activities
and projects. My staff has contacted the 01ficc of the Governor,
Office of Management and Budget in Alaska, which has advised us
that they will comment directly to EPA.
A-8
-------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
1-1 EPA appreciates the review and comments provided by the Department
of Health and Human Services
1-2 Although some dredged material may reach beaches in the Nome area,
the Agency does not consider such deposition to be detrimental.
Routine site monitoring would reveal any adverse changes, and would
initiate oppropriate evaluation studies.
1-3 No significant public concerns have been expressed in relation to
the past disposal actions, nor have there been any expressed in
response to the DEIS. There are no significant impacts projected
for future dredging and disposal actions that would adversely effect
residents in the Nome area. If the City of Nome's proposed
breakwater/port facility is completed there should actually be
reduction in the level of dredging and disposal activities. See
also the answer to the proceeding comment.
1-4 See the two preceeding responses.
1-5 Any dredged material disposed of at the site must meet the
requirements of Section 227.13 of EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations,
40 CR 227. Disposal cannot take place until the Corps of Engineers
issues a permit following its regulatory procedures under Section
103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
("MPRSA"), 33 U.S.C. §1403.
2-1 EPA appreciates receiving the State of Alaska's preliminary review
of facts contained in the EIS relating to coastal zone consistency.
The Agency will communicate directly with the State regarding its
evaluation of the impact of the proposed action on the Alaska
Coastal Management Program (ACMP)
A-9
-------
COMMENTS (Cont'd)
2-2 Information in the DEIS relating to the City of Nome's proposed port
facility has been modified in the Final as the result of
conversations with the City of Nome, the Corps of Engineers, and
project personnel of TAMS, the design engineering firm hired by the
City.
2-3 See comment 2-2, above.
3-1 EPA appreciates the Department of the Interior's review of the DEIS.
4-1 EPA appreciates the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's review of the DEIS.
A-10
------- |