United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Oil and Special Materials
Control Division
Marine Protection Branch
Washington DC 20460
September 1980
Environmental
Impact Statement
(EIS) for Hawaii
Dredged Material
Disposal Sites
Designation
South O«hu
- PROPOSED SITE
NAUTICAL MILES
Final
KILOMETERS
-------
tes
&EFA
environmental Protection
Agency
Oil and Special Materials
Control Division
Marine Protection Branch
Washington DC 20460
September 1980
Water
Environmental
Impact Statement
(EIS) for Hawaii
Dredged Material
Disposal Sites
Designation
Final
160'W
1S9'
158'
157'
156'
155'
22'N
19'
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
THE DESIGNATION OF FIVE HAWAIIAN
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES
Prepared by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oil and Special Materials Control Division
Marine Protection Branch
Washington, D.C. 20460
111
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
MARINE PROTECTION BRANCH
(X) Administrative/Regulatory action
( ) Legislative action
The 30-day comment period on the Final EIS ends on 10 November 1980.
Comments should be addressed to:
Mr. T.A. Wastler
Chief, Marine Protection Branch (WH-548)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Copies of the Final EIS may be obtained from:
Environmental Protection Agency
Marine Protection Branch (WH-548)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific Islands Contact Office
P.O. Box 50003
300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 1302
Honolulu, Hawaii 96850
Telephone - 808/546-8910
-------
The Final EIS may be reviewed at the following locations
Environmental Protection Agency
Public Information Reference Unit, Room 2404 (rear)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, B.C.
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX, Library
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, California
Approved By:
T. A. Wastler Date
Project Officer
VI
-------
SUMMARY
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) considers the
designations of five deep-ocean sites in the Hawaiian Islands
for the continued disposal of dredged material. The proposed
sites for designation are: South Oahu (Oahu), Port Allen
(Kauai), Nawiliwili (Kauai), Hilo (Hawaii), and Kahului
(Maui). By a thorough evaluation of the proposed action, the
alternatives, and environmental consequences of the proposed
action, the EIS tentatively concludes that there are few
significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects which
are irreversible or require an irretrievable commitment of
resources. The EIS documents the decision-making process and
supports the tentative decision to designate the proposed
sites. ~~\
ORGANIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The Summary highlights all EIS chapters included herein, and explains major
points of the document. The text contains reduced technical information, with
brief chapter descriptions at the beginning of each chapter. Appendices
contain supplemental technical data and information.
Chapter 1 specifies the purpose of and need for the proposed action,
followed by background information relevant to ocean disposal of dredged
materials. Legal framework is included, by which the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) selects, designates, and manages disposal sites, and by which the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE) grants permits for the ocean disposal of
dredged materials.
Chapter 2 presents alternatives to designating the proposed sites,
describes procedures by which alternatives were chosen and evaluated, then
compares the merits and deficiencies of each alternative site with those of
proposed sites.
Chapter 3 describes the environment of the proposed sites, with histories
of dredged material disposal at the proposed sites.
Chapter 4 analyzes environmental consequences of implementing the proposed
action.
VII
-------
Chapter 5 lists the EIS authors and commenters on the Draft EIS, ^
Chapter 6 contains a glossary, a list of abbreviations, and a list °
references cited.
Several appendices are included: Appendix A is a compendium of site-
specific technical environmental data. Appendix B presents an overview of
dredged material disposal practices. Appendix C contains supplemental data
and text to support the discussions in Chapter 4 on the environmental
consequences of implementation of the proposed action. Appendix D describes
the future data requirements based upon environmental studies. Appendix E
presents the Ocean Dumping Regulations applicable to dredged material
disposal, and Appendix F contains the public comments received on the Draft
blS and the resultant responses.
PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action discussed in this EIS considers the designations of
five deep-ocean sites for the continuing disposal of maintenance dredged
materials. The action, as proposed, fulfills the need for an ocean location
which will (1) provide for expedient disposal of dredged materials resulting
from the maintenance dredging of six harbors in Hawaii approximately every 5
or 1U years (more often at Pearl Harbor), and (2) experience no significant
adverse impacts from dredged material disposal. The proposed action does not
exempt the use of these sites from additional environmental review nor does it
exempt the dredged material from compliance with the Ocean Dumping Regulations
ana Criteria prior to disposal at a designated site.
The proposed action amends the 1977 interim designation of the EPA Ocean
Dumping Regulations and Criteria by altering the locations of three sites
(South Oahu, Nawiliwili, and Port Allen), adding two new sites (Kahului and
ttiloj, and making final designations of all five sites. Each proposed site
received dredged material during the 1977-1978 dredging cycle. The proposed
South Oanu Site merges two sites used in 1977-1978- by the CE and the
Department of Navy.
Vlll
-------
MAJOR ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The major alternatives to designating the proposed sites are (1) no action,
thereby forcing the use of other disposal methods (primarily land-based) or
forcing the cessation of dredging because interim site designation expires
before the next scheduled dredging cycle, and (2) use of alternative sites
previously studied or used before the 1977-1978 dredging cycle.
Fourteen sites were considered before selecting the five proposed sites for
designation. The sites were evaluated primarily for environmental accept-
ability because monitoring and surveillance requirements and associated
economic burdens are essentially the same for the proposed and alternative
sites. Each alternative site was eliminated because various site features had
higher potentials for adverse environmental effects. Additional data,
obtained before and after the previous disposal cycles at the proposed sites,
further substantiated the final selections.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The center of the proposed South Oahu Site is 3.3 nmi (6.1 km) offshore, on
the shelf-slope junction. The proposed site is 1.1 by 1.4 nmi (2.0 by 2.6
km), and is oceanic in nature; it is deep (400 to 475 m), and biota are low in
abundance compared to those inshore. The bottom terrain is a vast sloping
plain, dropping approximately 75 m in 2,000 m across the proposed site, and
sediment composition is primarily silty sand. The proposed site now
incorporates two sites: the former Pearl Harbor and former Honolulu Sites.
Dredged materials to be dumped at the proposed South Oahu Site originate from
Honolulu Harbor approximately every five years, and from Pearl Harbor as
needed. The proposed site is foreseen as receiving the greatest portion of
all Hawaiian dredged material.
There are two proposed sites off Kauai: the Nawiliwili and Port Allen
Sites. The proposed Nawiliwili Site is 4.0 nmi (7.4 km) offshore, in deep
waters ranging from 840 to 1,120 m. The bottom is primarily silty sand. This
site is expected to receive dredged material approximately every five years,
IX
-------
with an estimated quantity (in 1986) of 80,000 yd3. The proposed Port Allen
Site receives dredged material from Port Allen Harbor approximately every five
years with an estimated volume of 200,000 yd3 to be dumped in 1986. The
center of this proposed site is 3.8 nmi (7.0 km) offshore, and 1,460 to
1,610 m deep, with a silty clay bottom. The proposed Kauai Sites are oceanic,
with a lower biomass than that found inshore. The seaward slope at each site
is quite steep.
The proposed Kahului Site is 5.6 nmi (10.4 km) off the Maui coast, in
depths ranging from 345 to 365 m. Sediments at the proposed site are
primarily silty clay. Dredging operations in Kahului Harbor occur
approximately every ten years, with an estimated volume of 40,000 yd to be
dumped in 1986.
The proposed Hilo Site is projected to receive dredged material from Hilo
Harbor approximately every ten years; the quantity to be dumped in 1986 is
approximately 100,000 yd . The proposed site is 4.5 nmi (8.3 km) offshore,
over a silty clay bottom; water depths are 330 to 340 m.
The proposed Nawiliwili, Port Allen, Kahului, and Hilo Sites are circular,
with radii of 920 m (1,000 yd).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Environmental consequences of deep-ocean disposal of dredged material are
minimal. The proposed disposal sites can receive dredged materials without
jeopardizing the life support systems of marine biota due to the extent of
dilution which occurs (approximately 1:1,000,000). Flora and fauna, while
sensitive to outside influences, are low in abundance in the deep ocean. The
deep oceans do not produce significant quantities of food for man, and
generally do not support as much biota as the inshore shallow water
environments. This is particularly true of Hawaii's proposed deep subtropical
disposal sites.
-------
The sites proposed for designation were selected in preference to
alternative sites because of their environmental acceptabilities. However,
differences between proposed and alternative sites were not significant;
dredged material disposal at the alternative sites would not present major
environmental impacts.
Since there are no significant differences between the proposed and
alternative sites, environmental consequences are discussed primarily for the
proposed South Oahu Site. However, factors used in the selection of proposed
versus alternative sites are nevertheless described for each proposed site.
Environmental consequences of dredged material disposal at the proposed sites
were assessed on the bases of past studies by the CE and the Department of the
Navy. The proposed sites are identified as the best of all assessed
alternatives for the following reasons:
• The depths of waters and physical environments of the proposed sites
provide dilution and transport alongshore or offshore.
• The proposed sites are not near any existing commercial fisheries or
resources. Three of the proposed sites have water depths within the
range of commercially valuable shrimp. However, shrimp are not
present in commercially valuable concentrations, thus no commercial
shrimp fishing is practiced. Dredged material disposal will not
endanger fisheries, other existing commercial resources, or human
health by contaminating edible fish and/or shellfish.
• The proposed sites are not in any prohibited or limited usage zones.
• The reduced biological productivity typical of the proposed sites on
the slope (compared to the shallower shelf) makes dredged material
disposal less likely to affect indigenous organisms.
XI
-------
• Extensive data exist for predicting and monitoring effects of future
dredged material disposal at the proposed sites. Since 1972,
Federal agencies, academic institutions, and commercial firms have
studied the proposed and alternative sites and the consequences of
past disposal activities.
• The dredged materials comply with the interim criteria in effect
prior to the EPA/CE bioassay procedures manual (1977) for minimizing
environmental impacts.
An adverse impact of disposal is periodic smothering of some benthic fauna
within the proposed sites; however, the biota have been shown to repopulate
the area shortly after disposal. Other negative consequences of disposal
operations are:
• Short-term local increases of suspended particulate matter.
• Possible modification of the normal sediment size distribution by
dumping dredged materials of dissimilar sizes.
CONCLUSIONS
After carefully evaluating all reasonable alternatives and environmental
consequences of dredged material disposal, EPA proposes to designate the five
proposed sites for continued disposal of maintenance dredged material.
However, dredged materials must comply with Ocean Dumping Regulations and
Criteria which are specifically applicable to dredged materials. Efforts will
be made during advanced planning to schedule disposal to avoid periods when
the disposal sites are visited by humpback whales or migrating and spawning
fish, until additional pertinent data are available.
XII
-------
CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page
ADDRESSES FOR COMMENTS v
SUMMARY vii
1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
INTRODUCTION 1-1
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND CONTROL PROGRAMS 1-3
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act .... 1-5
Federal Control Programs 1-5
INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 1-12
2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-1
THE PROPOSED SITES 2-2
Proposed South Oahu Site 2-2
Proposed Nawiliwili Sites and Port Allen 2-4
Proposed Kahului Site 2-4
Proposed Hilo Site 2-8
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2-8
CONTINUED USE OF THE PROPOSED SITES IN RELATION TO
ALTERNATIVE SITES 2-11
Environmental Acceptability 2-11
Monitoring, Surveillance, and Economic Considerations . . 2-15
DETAILED BASIS FOR SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED SITES 2-16
"Geographical Position, Depth of Water,
Bottom Topography and Distance from Coast" 2-16
"Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery,
Feeding, or Passage Areas of Living Resources in
Adult or Juvenile Phases" 2-19
"Location in Relation to Beaches and Other
Amenity Areas" 2-19
"Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed to be
Disposed of, and Proposed Methods of Release,
Including Methods of Packing the Waste, If Any" 2-19
"Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring" 2-20
"Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing
Characteristics of the Area, Including Prevailing
Current Direction and Velocity" 2-20
"Existence and Effects of Current and Previous
Discharges and Dumping in the Area (Including
Cumulative Effects)" .... 2-21
"Interference With Shipping, Fishing, Recreation,
Mineral Extraction, Desalination, Fish and Shellfish
Culture, Areas of Special Scientific Importance and
Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean" 2-21
"The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Site
as Determined by Available Data or by Trend
Assessment or Baseline Surveys" 2-22
Xlll
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Title Pfl£
"Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of
Nuisance Species in the Disposal Site" . . .
"Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site
of Any Significant Natural or Cultural Features
of Historical Importance"
PROPOSED USE OF THE SITES 2~22
Recommended Environmental Studies 2-23
Types of Material oloA
Permissible Material Loadings 2~2^
Dredging and Disposal Operations " 2-25
Disposal Schedules 2~26
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
OCEANOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED SITES 3-1
Geological Conditions 3-2
Physical Conditions 3-5
Chemical Conditions 3-8
Biological Conditions 3-13
Threatened and Endangered Species 3-20
RECREATIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND AESTHETIC CHARACTERISTICS .... 3-22
Tourism 3-22
National Defense 3-23
Fisheries 3-25
Navigation 3-29
INPUTS AT THE PROPOSED SITES OTHER THAN DREDGED MATERIAL . . . 3-30
Previous Dredging Activities 3-30
Other Waste Inputs 3-30
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
EFFECTS ON RECREATIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND AESTHETIC VALUES ... 4-2
Recreational and Economic Values 4-2
Aesthetic Values 4-5
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 4-6
Effects on Water Column 4-7
Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species 4-14
Effects on Benthos 4-15
IMPACTS ON OTHER OCEAN USES '. 4-19
Scientific Uses 4-19
Preservation Areas 4-19
Industrial Use Areas 4-20
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) 4-20
Ocean Incineration 4-21
Deep-Ocean Mining 4-21
Sand Mining 4-21
Coral Harvesting 4-21
xiv
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Title Page
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND
MITIGATING MEASURES 4-21
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE AND LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY 4-23
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENT 4-24
5 COORDINATION 5-1
PREPARERS OF THE EIS 5-1
COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT EIS 5-3
6 GLOSSARY, ABBREVIATIONS, AND REFERENCES 6-1
GLOSSARY 6-1
ABBREVIATIONS 6-12
REFERENCES 6-14
APPENDICES
A GENERIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS A-l
B DREDGED MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION B-l
C IMPACT EVALUATION C-l
D SUGGESTED ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES D-l
E FEDERAL OCEAN DUMPING REGULATIONS E-l
F COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS . . . . F-l
xv
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
FIGURES
Number
Title
South Oahu
Nawiliwili
Port Allen
Kahului . .
Hilo . . .
1-1 Proposed Dredged Material Disposal Sites . . .
1-2 Dredged Material Permit Cycle - Non-CE Permits
2-1 Proposed and Alternative Sites
2-2 Proposed and Alternative Sites
2-3 Proposed and Alternative Sites
2-4 Proposed and Alternative Sites
2-5 Proposed and Alternative Sites
2-6 Depth Profiles of the Proposed Sites
3-1 Typical Hawaiian Marine Open Coast Habitats and
Associated Fish Fauna •
3-2 Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Distribution in Hawaii .
3-3 Restricted Zones in Mamala Bay
3-4 State Fish and Game Catch Areas in Vicinity of the Proposed Sites
3-5 1977-1978 Dredged Material Source Breakdown
4-1 Dredged Material Release Scenario
4-2 Depository Patterns of a Single Discharge
1-2
1-8
2-3
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-9
2-18
3-16
3-21
3-24
3-26
3-32
4-8
4-9
xvi
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
TABLES
Number Title Page
1-1 Responsibilities of Federal Departments and Agencies
for Regulating Ocean Disposal Under MPRSA 1-6
2-1 Projected Volumes and Dredging Schedules 2-25
3-1 Proposed Site Depths, Offshore Distances, and Sediment
Characteristics 3-3
3-2 Mean Percentages of Carbonate and Basalt Composition at the
Proposed Sites 3-4
3-3 Sediment Median Diameters at the Proposed Sites 3-4
3-4 Partial List of Hurricanes 3-6
3-5 Major Water Masses of the North Pacific 3-7
3-6 Sediment Trace Metal Concentrations at the Proposed Sites 3-11
3-7 Trace Metal Concentrations in Shrimp (Heterocarpus ensifer)
Collected at the Proposed South Oahu Site 3-12
3-8 Trace Metal Concentrations in Zooplankton Collected at the
Proposed South Oahu Site 3-13
3-9 Common Hawaiian Marine Mammals 3-16
3-10 Benthic Organisms Collected at the Proposed Sites 3-17
3-11 Parameters for Shrimp (Heterocarpus ensifer) Caught at the
Proposed Sites 3-20
3-12 Ranking of Recreational Activities near the Proposed Sites .... 3-23
3-13 Fishery Statistics for 1975-1976 in the Vicinity of the
Proposed Sites 3-27
3-14 Dredging Operation Characteristics 3-31
3-15 Point Source Summary for Pearl Harbor and Mamala Bay 3-33
4-1 Trace Metal Concentration Increases After One Dump
of Dredged Material 4-13
4-2 Grain-Size Distribution Comparisons of Sediments at the
Proposed Sites and Dredged Material to be Dumped 4-17
5-1 List of Preparers 5-1
NOTE: Each appendix is preceded by its own Table of Contents
xvn
-------
Chapter 1
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
Shipping is Hawaii's lifeline to the mainland and provides
several million tons of goods annually to the State. To
maintain the operating depths of six harbors throughout the
State, dredging is required in approximate 5- to 10-year
cycles (more often at Pearl Harbor). Ocean disposal is the
most viable means for disposal of the dredged material. The
five sites proposed for designation provide Hawaii with
effective areas for dredged material disposal at minimal cost
and environmental risks. This chapter provides (1) the
background information defining the proposed action in view
of the need for dredged material disposal, and (2) the legal
regime for establishing options.
INTRODUCTION
The proposed action presented in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
considers the designation of five deep-ocean sites for the continued disposal
of dredged material resulting from maintenance dredging of six harbors
(Honolulu, Pearl, Nawiliwili, Port Allen, Hilo, and Kahului Harbors). The
five proposed sites (Figure 1-1) are adjacent to the named harbors, with two
sites off Kauai (Nawiliwili and Port Allen), and one each off Oahu (South
Oahu), Maui (Kahului), and Hawaii (Hilo).
This EIS documents the decision-making process leading to the tentative
decision on site designation only. Dumping of dredged material will be
carried out on a case-by-case basis; all dredged material will be evaluated in
accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (CE) procedures to determine if it meets the Final Ocean Dumping
Regulations and Criteria. The purpose and need for this action are as
follows:
• Maintenance dredging is required regularly for Pearl Harbor,
approximately every 5 years for Honolulu, Nawiliwili, and Port Allen
Harbors, and approximately every 10 years for Hilo and Kahului
Harbors to maintain sufficient operating depths for ship traffic.
1-1
-------
160°W
159°
158°
157C
156°
Nawiliwili
Port Allen
MOLOKAI
South Oahu
Kahului
155°
22°N
2V
LANAI
Kilometers
100
Nautical Miles
200
50
= PROPOSED SITE
100
20°
19°
Figure 1-1. Proposed Dredged Material Disposal Sites
-------
• Maintaining operating depths is critical to keeping the harbors open
and sustaining the State's economy. Shipping is Hawaii's lifeline
to the mainland, with over 8 million tons of cargo imported
annually. Alternatives which eliminate dredging or ocean disposal
(no action), or make disposal too costly, or involve too great a
public health risk (e.g., landfills) are unacceptable.
• The U.S. Army Engineer District published an EIS (1975) entitled
Harbor Maintenance Dredging in the State of Hawaii which concludes
that ocean disposal of dredged material is the best method at least
cost, and presents the lowest risks to public health compared to
land disposal, improved land management techniques, or shallow-water
disposal .
• The EPA designated the Honolulu, Nawiliwili, and Port Allen Harbor
Disposal Sites in 1973 as interim ocean locations to dispose of
dredged materials in compliance with the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA, PL #92-532, as
amended). The proposed action amends the interim designation by
adding two sites (Kahului and Hilo), altering the locations of three
sites (South Oahu, Nawiliwili, and Port Allen), and making final
designation of the five sites.
The following sections present information on Federal legip^ tion, control
programs, and international considerations which govern or affect dredged
material ocean disposal.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
Despite legislation dating back almost 100 years for controlling disposal
into rivers, harbors, and coastal waters, ocean disposal of dredged and other
materials was not specifically regulated in the United States until passage,
in October 1972, of the MPRSA.
1-3
-------
Prior to the enactment of MPRSA, there was very little regulation of ocean
waste disposal. Limited regulation was primarily provided by the Supervisors'
Act of 1888, which empowered the Secretary of the Army to prohibit disposal of
wastes, except flows from streets and sewers, into the harbors of New York,
Hampton Roads, and Baltimore. The Refuse Act of 1899 further prohibited
disposing into waters materials which would impede safe navigation. Under
these acts, selection of disposal locations by the CE and the issuance of
permits for ocean disposal were based primarily on transportation and
navigation factors rather than on environmental concerns.
A growing concern about the environmental effects of dredged material
disposal and water resource projects led to the passage of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act in 1958. Although this law initially referred to
inland tidal waters, it emphasized consideration of the effects of dredged
material disposal on commercially important marine species, and was the first
step towards concern for ocean areas. After the passage of this law, the CE
(backed by judicial decisions) was able to refuse permits if the dredging or
filling of a bay or estuary would result in significant, unavoidable damage to
the marine ecosystem.
Passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969 reflected
the public's concern over the environmental effects of man's activities.
Subsequently, particular attention was drawn to the effects of dredged
materials by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970 (PL 91-611). This act
initiated a comprehensive nationwide study of dredged material disposal
problems. Thus, the CE established the Dredged Material Research Program
(DMRP) in 1973. The DMRP was a 5-year research effort, initiated in March
1973, (1) to understand why and under what conditions dredged material
disposal might result in adverse environmental impacts, and (2) to develop
procedures and disposal options to minimize adverse impacts (CE, 1977).
Two important legislative acts were passed in 1972, that specifically
addressed the control of waste disposal in aquatic and marine environments:
(1) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (FWPCAA), later amended
by the Clean Water Act of 1977, and (2) the MPRSA. The FWPCAA, together with
the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, set up specific water quality
1-4
-------
criteria to be used as guidelines in controlling waste discharges from point
sources into marine and aquatic environments. The application of these
criteria to dredged material disposal was limited to those situations where
fixed pipelines were used for transport and the dredged material entered the
environment at discrete points.
A summary of MPRSA, outlining the purpose and intent of the Act follows.
The Federal control programs initiated in response to MPRSA by EPA and the CE
are described in greater detail as they govern ocean disposal.
Effective international action and cooperation in protecting the marine
environment was accomplished through the Convention on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (hereafter "the
Convention" or "the Ocean Dumping Convention"), discussed below.
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT
MPRSA regulates the transport and ultimate disposal of waste materials in
the ocean. This EIS is concerned only with Title I of the Act. Title I, the
primary regulatory vehicle of the Act, establishes the permit program for the
disposal of dredged and non-dredged materials, mandates determination of
impacts, and provides for enforcement of permit conditions.
MPRSA has been amended several times since its enactment in 1972, and most
of the amendments are concerned with granting annual appropriations for
administration of MPRSA. Passage of an amendment in March 1974 (PL #93-254),
>
brought the Act into full compliance with the Convention.
FEDERAL CONTROL PROGRAMS
Several Federal departments and agencies participate in MPRSA regulations,
with the lead responsibility given to EPA (Table 1-1). In October 1973, EPA
implemented its responsibility for regulating ocean dumping under MPRSA by
issuing the Final Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (hereafter the
Regulations or Ocean Dumping Regulations), revised in January 1977 (40 CFR
Parts 220 to 229). These regulations establish procedures and criteria for
review of ocean disposal permit applications (Part 227), assessment of impacts
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-1
RESPONSIBILITIES OF FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
FOR REGULATING OCEAN DISPOSAL UNDER MPRSA
Department/Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Transportation
Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of State
Responsibility
Issuance of waste disposal permits,
other than for dredged material
Establishment of criteria for
regulating waste disposal
Enforcement actions
Site designation and man*>Cement
Overall ocean disposal program
management
Issuance of dredged material
disposal permits
Recommending disposal site locations
Surveillance
Enforcement support
Issuance of regulations for disposal
vessels
Review of permit applications
Research on alternative ocean
disposal techniques
Long-term monitoring and research
Comprehensive ocean dumping impact and
short-term effect studies
Marine Sanctuary designation
Court actions
International agreements
1-6
-------
of ocean disposal and alternative disposal methods, enforcement of permits,
and designation and management ocean disposal sites (Part 228). Each of these
issues is described briefly in the following sections.
THE PERMIT PROGRAM
The Ocean Dumping Regulations are specific about the procedures used to
evaluate permit applications, and to grant or deny a permit. EPA and the CE
evaluate permit applications principally to determine (1) whether there is a
demonstrated need for ocean disposal, and that no other reasonable alter-
natives exist, and (2) compliance with the environmental impact criteria (40
CFR Part 227, Subpart B). Under Section 103 of the MPRSA, the Secretary of
the Array is given the authority, with certain restrictions, to issue permits
for the transportation of dredged material for ocean disposal associated with
non-CE projects. The Secretary of the Army issues these permits after
determining compliance of the material with EPA's environmental impact
criteria (40 CFR Part 227, Subpart B), pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA,
and subject to EPA's concurrence (Figure 1-2). The CE is responsible for
evaluating disposal applications and granting permits to dumpers of dredged
materials; however, dredged material disposal sites are designated and managed
by EPA Administrator or his designee.
For CE projects involving dredged material disposal, Section 103(e) of
MPRSA provides that "the Secretary of the Army may, in lieu of the permit
procedure, issue regulations which will require the application (to such
projects) of the same criteria, other factors to be evaluated, the same
procedures, and the same requirements which apply to the issuance of
permits..." for non-CE dredging projects involving disposal of dredged
material. Maintenance dredging of CE projects in the Hawaiian Islands are
conducted by the CE, and disposal of the dredged material at the interim
designated sites does not require a permit. The Department of the Navy
maintains Pearl Harbor and applies to the CE for a permit to dump. The
Secretary of the Army has applied the criteria outlined in MPRSA and the
Regulations in his determination to allow continued use of the proposed sites
exclusively for the disposal of material dredged from the six Hawaiian
harbors.
1-7
-------
APPLICATION
TO CORPS OF
ENGINEERS
DISTRICT ENGINEER
NOTIFIES REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR
WITH APPROPRIATE
INFORMATION
APPROPRIATE
INFORMATION
SITE LOCATION
PREVIOUS DESIGNATIONS
FOR USE
HISTORICAL USE OF THE SITE
DOCUMENTED EFFECTS OF
PREVIOUS DUMPING
LENGTH OF TIME FOR
CONTINUED DISPOSAL
CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPO-
SITION OF DREDGED MATERIAL
EXISTENCE OF, OR NEED FOR.
EIS
REVIEW BY
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
(30-45 DAYS)
NOTIFIES DISTRICT ENGINEER
OF NONCOMPLIANCE OF
SITE WITH CRITERIA
DISTRICT ENGINEER MAY
EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES
FEASIBLE
ALTERNATIVE
AVAILABLE
NOTIFIES DISTRICT ENGINEER
OF COMPLIANCE OF
SITE WITH CRITERIA
T
NO FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE
AVAILABLE; INFORMS REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF
OF ENGINEERS
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
CONSIDERS ALTERNATIVES
*
NO FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE;
REQUESTS WAIVER
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE EPA
CONSIDERS WAIVER
* t
GRANTS
WAIVER
REFUSES
WAIVER
f
SECRETARY OF ARMY
SEEKS WAIVER
FROM ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE EPA
PERMIT GRANTED
PERMIT NOT GRANTED
Figure 1-2. Dredged Material Permit Cycle - Non-CE Permits (40 CFR Part 225)
1-8
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CRITERIA
The ocean disposal of dredged materials from both Federal and non-Federal
projects must not unduly degrade or endanger the marine environment. The
disposal operation must present no unacceptable adverse human health effects
and no significant damage to the marine environment. Also, there are to be no
persistent or permanent effects from dumping the approved quantities, and
there are to be no site-use conflicts.
To ensure that ocean dumping will not unduly degrade or endanger public
health and the marine environment, Title I restricts the dumping of some
materials. These restrictions apply to all materials for ocean disposal:
• Prohibited materials: High-level radioactive wastes; materials
produced or used for radiological, chemical, or biological warfare;
materials insufficiently described; and persistent floatable
materials which interfere with other uses of the ocean.
• Materials present as trace contaminants only: Organohalogens,
mercury and mercury compounds, cadmium and cadmium compounds, oil,
and known or suspected carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens.
Dredged material is environmentally acceptable for ocean disposal without
further testing if it satisfies any one of the following criteria:
• "Dredged material is composed predominantly of sand, gravel,
rock, or any other naturally occurring bottom material with
particle sizes larger than silt, and the material is found
in areas of high current or wave energy..."
• "Dredged material is for beach nourishment or restor-
ation. .."
1-9
-------
• "When...the material proposed for dumping is substantially
the same as the substrate at the proposed disposal site...
and...the [proposed dredging] site...is far removed from
known...historical sources of pollution so as to provide
reasonable assurance that such material has not been
contaminated..." (40 CFR Section 227.13[bJ)
When the dredged material does not meet one of the above criteria, the
permit applicant must demonstrate that trace contaminants in the liquid,
suspended-particulate, and solid phases meet the following criteria:
• Dredged material is non-toxic and non-bioaccumulative upon disposal
and thereafter, or
• Dredged material will be rapidly rendered non-toxic and non-
bioaccumulative upon disposal and thereafter, and the contaminants
so rendered will not make edible marine organisms unpalatable and
will not endanger human health or that of domestic animals.
It the permit applicant cannot demonstrate that the dredged material meets
the above criteria, then further testing of the liquid, suspended-particulate,
and solid phases is required to verify that:
• Trace contaminants in the liquid fraction do not exceed the Water
Quality Criteria (EPA, 1976). For those trace contaminants which do
not comply with Water Quality Criteria (i.e., certain organo-
halogens) further testing (bioassay) is required to verify that such
compounds are not present in concentrations great enough to cause
significant undesirable effects, due either to chronic toxicity or
to bioaccumulation in marine organisms.
• Major constituents in the liquid fraction do not exceed the Water
Quality Criteria (EPA, 1976). When some major constituents do not
comply with Wa^er Quality Criteria, or there is reason to suspect
synergistic effects of certain contaminants, further testing
1-10
-------
(bioassay) is required to verify that the dredged material can be
discharged without exceeding the limiting permissible concentration
as defined is 40 CFR Section 227.27.
• Bioassays on suspended particulate or solid fractions do not
indicate occurrences of significant mortality or significant adverse
sublethal effects, including bioaccumulation, due to dumping of
dredged material.
Permit Enforcement
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has responsibility for surveillance of ocean
dumping to ensure that no dumping violations occur. At the request of EPA,
the Department of Justice initiates relief actions in court for violations of
the terms of MPRSA. When necessary, injunctions to cease dumping are issued.
Civil and criminal fines, plus jail sentences, may be levied.
OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
By means of this and other EIS's, EPA is conducting intensive studies of
various dump sites in order to determine their acceptability. The agency has
designated for use a number of existing dump sites on an interim basis until
studies are complete and formal designations or terminations of the sites are
decided (see 40 CFR Section 228.12, as amended January 16, 1980, 45 CFR
3053-3055). The Hawaiian dredged material disposal sites are covered by
interim designations.
Under Section 102(c) of the MPRSA, EPA is authorized to designate sites and
times for ocean disposal of acceptable materials. Therefore, EPA established
criteria for site designation in the Regulations. These include general and
specific criteria for site selection and procedures for designating the sites
for disposal. Specific criteria for site selection relate more closely to
conditions at the proposed sites by treating the general criteria in detail.
If it appears that a proposed site can satisfy the general criteria, then the
specific criteria for site selection will be considered. These criteria for
site selection are detailed in Chapter 2.
1-11
-------
Once designated, the site must be monitored for adverse disposal impacts.
For the Hawaiian dredged material disposal sites, monitoring will be funded
and administered by the Pacific Ocean Division of the CE. The following types
of effects are monitored to determine to what extent the marine environment
has been affected by dredged material disposed at the site:
(1) Movement of materials into estuaries or marine sanctuaries, or onto
oceanfront beaches, or shorelines.
(2) Movement of materials toward productive fishery or shell fishery
areas.
(3) Absence from the disposal site of pollution-sensitive biota
characteristic of the general area.
(4) Progressive, non-seasonal changes in water quality or sediment
composition at the disposal site, when these changes are attrib-
utable to materials disposed of at the site.
(5) Progressive, non-seasonal changes in composition or numbers of
pelagic, demersal, or benthic biota at or near the disposal site,
when these changes can be attributed to the effects of materials
disposed of at the site.
(6) Accumulation of material constituents (including without limitation,
human pathogens) in marine biota at or near the site. (40 CFR)
INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The principal international agreement governing ocean dumping is the
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter (Ocean Dumping Convention), which became effective in August
1975, upon ratification by 15 contracting countries including the United
States. Designed to control dumping of wastes in the ocean, the Convention
specifies that contracting nations will regulate disposal in the marine
environment within their jurisdiction, disallowing all disposal without
permits. Certain other hazardous materials are prohibited (e.g., biological
and chemical warfare agents and high-level radioactive matter). Certain other
materials (e.g., cadmium, mercury, organohalogens and their compounds, oil,
and persistent, synthetic materials that float) are also prohibited, except
when present as trace contaminants. Other materials - arsenic, lead, copper,
1-12
-------
zinc, cyanides, fluorides, organosilicon, and pesticides - while not
prohibited from ocean disposal, require special care. Permits are required
for ocean disposal of materials not specifically prohibited. The nature and
quantities of all waste material, and the circumstances of disposal, must be
periodically reported to the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
Organization (IMCO) which is responsible for administration of the Convention.
1-13
-------
Chapter 2
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
Maintenance dredging in the Hawaiian Islands is performed
approximately every 5 to 10 years (or as needed for Pearl
Harbor) to maintain the operating depths of several harbors.
Harbor depths are reduced as a result of the buildup of
materials washed into harbors from surface water runoff and
streams. Ocean disposal of dredged materials from six
deep-draft harbors should continue as the most practical
method of disposal. The proposed sites are selected for
designation on the basis of their environmental acceptability
over the alternative sites.
The Hawaiian Islands are uniquely located. The absence of continental
shelves and slopes causes deep ocean water close to shore, thus providing
optimal locations for dredged material disposal. The sites proposed for
designation were selected for their environmental acceptability, as determined
from previous environmental studies conducted at the sites by the CE and
Department of the Navy, in consultation with EPA (Chave and Miller, 1977a,b,
1978; Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977; Tetra Tech, 1977; Goeggel, 1978;
USAED, 1975).
Tne proposed and alternative sites which were studied are near the dredging
operations and are similar; environmentally acceptable areas. The selection
of the sites for designation over alternative sites was based on site
characteristics (e.g., water depth, location, topography, biological diversity
or other factors) and comparative evaluation of all alternatives leading to
and resulting in the least environmental impact.
Normally, the discussion of each alternative to the proposed site would
rely on information presented in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) and
Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences). However, the differences between
proposed and alternative sites are minor and do not allow for clear bases of
choice among the options based on site characteristics. Except at Alternative
2-1
-------
Site 9A, which was rejected for environmental reasons during early studies,
dredged material disposal is not expected to produce significant adverse
environmental impacts. The proposed and alternative sites are near each
other, therefore the comparison of economic factors between sites are minimal.
The alternatives considered in this EIS include:
• No action (includes land disposal)
• Designation of the proposed sites
• Designation of the alternative sites
THE PROPOSED SITES
The proposed sites are in subtropical waters 330 m (Hilo Site) to 1,610 m
(Port Allen Site) deep. The sites are on the shelf-slope junction in
predictable current regimes, with the predominant net flows directed offshore
or alongshore. They range in distance from 3.3 nmi (6.1 km), South Oahu Site,
to 5.6 nmi (10.4 km), Kahului Site, offshore. The biological communities at
the proposed sites are predominantly oceanic in nature, and biomass is low
compared to shallow neritic or coastal ecosystems.
PROPOSED SOUTH OAHU SITE
The center of the proposed South Oahu Site is 3.3 nmi (6.1 km) offshore,
with a mean water depth of 450 m and a smooth bottom covered with sand-sized
calcareous sediment. Current velocities are generally between 8 and
15 cm/sec, with the predominant flow directionally variable. The proposed
South Oahu Site is intended to receive dredged material from Pearl Harbor when
needed, and from Honolulu Harbor approximately every 5 years.
In considering the proposed South Oahu Site for designation, four
alternative sites (Figure 2-1) were evaluated:
• Former Honolulu Harbor CE Site No. 3 (used in 1977 and located
3.9 nmi [7.3 km] seaward of Honolulu Harbor entrance).
2-2
-------
I
U>
FORMER
PEARL HARBOR
SITE
Figure 2-1. Proposed and Alternative Sites - South Oahu
-------
• Former Pearl Harbor Site (used in 1977 and located 2.7 nmi [5 km]
south of Pearl Harbor).
• 1972 Disposal Site (active in 1972 and located 3.4 nmi [6.3 km]
seaward of Honolulu Harbor) which was previously designated as an
interim site in 1977.
• CE Site No. 3A (5.6 nmi [10.4 km] from Honolulu Harbor entrance).
PROPOSED NAWILIWILI AND PORT ALLEN SITES
Two proposed sites are off the coast of Kauai. It is intended that dredged
materials from Nawiliwili Harbor be disposed of at the proposed Nawiliwili
Site (4.0 nmi [7.4 km] offshore) approximately every 5 years. Site depths
range from 840 to 1,120 m, and southerly surface current velocities range from
20 to 30 cm/sec. The bottom is ;composed of silty sand. The proposed Port
Allen Site, 3.8 nmi (7 km) offshore, is intended to receive dredged material
from Port Allen Harbor approximately every 5 years. The site has water depths
ranging from 1,460 to 1,610 m, and northwesterly current velocities of 5 to
50 cm/sec. The bottom is primarily silty clay.
Two alternative sites (one each) are considered in designating the proposed
Nawiliwili and Port Allen Sites: Site 1A and Site 2A, respectively. Both of
the proposed sites off Kauai and their alternative sites are shown in Figures
2-2 and 2-3.
PROPOSED KAHULUI SITE
The proposed Kahului Site 7A is 5.6 nmi (10.4 km) off the Maui coast, in
water depths -of 345 to 365 m. The site has strong westerly currents with
velocities from 50 to 110 cm/sec, and a silty clay bottom. The proposed site
is intended to receive dredged material from Kahului Harbor approximately
every 10 years. There is one alternative site (Site 7). Both sites are
illustrated in Figure 2-4.
2-4
-------
22'
20'
18'
159°16'
KAUAI
22°
00'
KILOMETERS
/ 0 2 4
NAUTICAL MILES
PROPOSED
SITE
58'
56'
21°
54'
Figure 2-2. Proposed and Alternative Sites - Nawiliwili
2-5
-------
159°32'
NAUTICAL MILES
I I
1 2
KILOMETERS
\.
2) PROPOSED SITE
2V
50'
Figure 2-3. Proposed and Alternative Sites - Port Allen
2-6
-------
40'
35'
30'
25'
156° 20'
08'
X ^ •*_ - ** ~~ «.
S N^
)7A
/ ~~ ^ s — —
. o ...
^x ff'
**» *. - " ~"~ *""""*-. -•"
x«l. ^ ""'*"* """"
04'
21°
00'
Figure 2-4. Proposed and Alternative Sites - Kahului
2-7
-------
PROPOSED HILO SITE
The proposed Hilo Site 9 is intended to receive dredged material
approximately every 10 years from Hilo Harbor. The site is 4.5 nmi (8.3 km)
off the island of Hawaii, in depths ranging from 330 to 340 m, with surface
currents ranging in velocity from 15 to 36 cm/sec, predominantly north-
westerly. The bottom sediment is silty clay. Site 9 and the two alternative
sites, 9A and 9B are shown in Figure 2-5.
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The no-action alternative would result in no designation of deep-ocean
sites and would lead to the expiration of interim designation for three sites
(South Oahu, Nawiliwili, and Port Allen) before the next dredging cycle, and
postpone or cancel the selection of five disposal sites (South Oahu, Port
Allen, Nawiliwili, Kahului, and Hilo). This alternative would require
disposal of dredged material by means other than deep-ocean disposal. If
other disposal alternatives are unfeasible because of prohibitive costs or
public health risks, dredging operations would terminate. The no-action
alternative would be pursued under either of two conditions: (1) evidence
that ocean disposal at any location would cause such severe environmental
consequences that ocean disposal is totally precluded, (2) existence of
technologically, environmentally, and economically feasible land-based
disposal methods. Shallow-water or nearshore disposal (as an alternative to
deep-ocean disposal) is not environmentally feasible in Hawaii.
The purpose and need for ocean disposal of dredged material was presented
in Chapter 1. The feasibility of using land-based alternatives for disposal
of dredged material in Hawaii is discussed in detail in the 1975 Corps of
Engineers document, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT-HARBOR MAINTENANCE DREDGING
IN THE STATE OF HAWAII. This document states:
The immediate available use for dredged spoil is cover
material for sanitary landfills...The dewatering
requirement necessitates the use of a retention pond
structure and a considerable length of time for de-
2-8
-------
10'
155W
154°50'
70fi
58'
O
PROPOSED SITE
MO9A
\ \
\ \
KILOMETERS
HAWAII
o
8
\ NAUTICAL MILES
\ | . .. ..
\ 0 2 4
54'
50'
46'
19°
42'
Figure 2-5. Proposed and Alternative Sites - Hilo
2-9
-------
watering. . .At present, the cost of land acquisition, the
retention pond, and post-dredging operations, discourages
the consideration of land disposal^(emphasisadded).The
necessary drying time, and time required to locate users
and remove the spoil from the retention area, would prolong
the commitment of land resources for spoil retention
utilization. Aesthetic degradation, and destruction of
vegetation and habitats for retention pond construction
could be irrevocable and irretrievable, and the presence of
clay material at the retention area could cause unforeseen
engineering and construction difficulties in the future.
The chemical characteristics of the dredge spoil introduces
the possibility of leachates contaminating ground water
resources The impact of possible contamination of water
supplies for human consumption makes the use of dredge
spoil for landfill undesirable.
The future availability of [land-based] dredged spoil
disposal sites is not guaranteed. As land development
utilizes parcels around the harbor, the ability to obtain
parcels for the construction of retention and drying ponds
would decrease. As sanitary landfills are filled and
locations changed, the utilization of spoil for cover may
decrease. Technological changes may be able to find some
other uses for the spoil material; however, the continued
land availability to support land disposal operations will
decrease.
It should be stated further that the subject of land-based disposal or any
other feasible alternatives mentioned in the Ocean Dumping Regulations and
Criteria (40 CFR 227.15) is not being permanently set aside in favor of ocean
disposal. The need for ocean dumping must be demonstrated each time an
application for ocean disposal is made. At that time, the availability of
other feasible alternatives must be assessed. Because of the small volume or
type of dredged material, land-based disposal and other alternatives have been
adopted for the other federally maintained harbors in Hawaii, precluding the
need for ocean disposal. All of these other harbors, except Kawaihae Deep
Draft Harbor, are shallow draft, small-boat harbors.
Field studies conducted at the proposed sites before, during, and after
disposal documented the effects at the proposed sites to be short-term and
minor (R.M. Towill Corp., 1972; Tetra Tech, 1977; Goeggel, 1978; Chave and
hiller, 1977b, 1978). The denser dredged materials settle rapidly to the
bottom, while finer silts and sands are quickly dispersed by currents directed
2-10
-------
alongshore or offshore, eventually settling to the ocean floor. Subsequently,
the only significant potential environmental consequence of dredged material
disposal at the proposed deep ocean disposal sites is the smothering of a
portion of the benthic community. However, recolonization by benthos was
determined to be rapid and substantial, based on post-disposal observations
(Chave and Miller, 1978; Goeggel, 1978). In summary, the no-action conditions
previously stated are not pertinent to the proposed and alternative sites.
CONTINUED USE OF THE PROPOSED SITES
IN RELATION TO ALTERNATIVE SITES
The proposed action is to designate for continuing use five deep-ocean
dredged material disposal sites. This section presents a summary of projected
impacts of the proposed action, forming the basis of comparison with the
alternative sites.
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY
PROPOSED SOUTH OAHU SITE
In 1976 and 1977, the CE studied Sites 3 and 3A (Figure 2-1) to select a
site beyond the 200-fathom (365 m) contour. At that time, deepwater sites
were required for evaluation to avoid damage to potential bottom fishing
resources that the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and State Division of Fish and Game generally consider to be
present within the 200-fathom isobath (Maragos, 1979). When this generali-
zation was made, bottom fisheries information at the study sites had not been
collected and the presence or absence of bottom fishing resources was not
documented.
The historical Honolulu Site is shallower than either Site 3 or Site 3A
(Figure 2-1). After the pre-disposal survey at Sites 3 and 3A, the CE
relocated disposal operations to Site 3. This decision is relevant to the
discussion of site selection because the historical Honolulu and .the former
2-11
-------
Pearl Harbor Sites (inside the 200-fathom contour) are not viable alternative
sites (Chave and Miller 1977a,b and 1978; R.M. Towill Corp., 1972).
Therefore, the only two viable alternatives remaining for comparison are the
proposed site and Site 3, both located seaward of the 200-fathom contour.
The environmental conditions at both sites are essentially identical.
Considering the volumes to be dumped from both harbors, the size of Site 3 is
not sufficient to accommodate the estimated amount of future dredged material
for both Pearl and Honolulu harbors. In addition, the proposed South Oahu
bite is, on the average, 25 m deeper than Site 3 and would further ensure
sufficient dispersion of the dredged material. On this basis, the proposed
South Oahu Site is the most feasible alternative.
The proposed South Oahu Site which overlaps half of Site 3 and a portion of
the former Pearl Harbor Site, merely represents an expansion of this site
where no adverse environmental impacts have occurred.
PROPOSED NAWILIWILI SITE
Sites 1 and 1A (Figure 2-2) were considered by Neighbor Island Consultants
(1977) for disposal of dredged material from Nawiliwili Harbor before the 1977
dredging operations. Site 1A was used for dredged material disposal in 1972.
The proposed site (Site 1) is preferable to Site 1A for several reasons:
• The proposed site is deeper (840 to 1,120 m) than Site 1A (380 to
580 m).
• The proposed site is 1.5 nmi (2.7 km) farther from Nawiliwili Harbor
than Site 1A.
• Bottom photographs of Site 1A (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977)
indicated the presence of strong bottom current action, whereas
bottom photographs at the proposed site showed only moderate bottom
current activity.
2-12
-------
• Grain-size distribution at Site 1A is more variable than at the
proposed site, indicating that the proposed site is a more stable
depositional site (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977).
3
• Site 1A has a higher standing crop of micromollusks (3.6 shells/cm )
than does the proposed site (1.2 shells/cm ; Neighbor Island
Consultants, 1977).
• Site 1A has 65% more diversity in polychaete species distribution
than does the proposed site.
PROPOSED PORT ALLEN SITE
The proposed Port Allen Site (Site 2) is 3.8 nmi (7.0 km) from Port Allen
Harbor and was used for dredged material disposal in 1972 and 1977; however,
another site was considered as an alternative (Site 2A, 1.7 nmi [3.1 km] from
Port Allen Harbor) in 1977 (Figure 2-3). The proposed site is preferred over
Site 2A for designation for the following reasons:
• Video imagery taken by Neighbor Island Consultants (1977) showed
that Site 2A has irregular topography with ledges and silty areas;
the presence of shrimps, lobsters, octocorals, and holothurians was
also noted.
• Trawls at Site 2A produced samples of gold coral.
• Site 2A (190 to 500 m depth) encompasses the depth ranges of both
species of commercially valuable shrimp (Heterocarpus ensifer and H.
laevigatus), whereas the proposed site (1,460 to 1,610 m) is beyond
the depth range of these shrimp.
• Site 2A is biologically richer than the proposed site.
2-13
-------
PROPOSED KAHULUI SITE
Two sites (Site 7 and Site 7A) were considered for dredged material
disposal off Kahului before the 1977 dredging operations (Figure 2-4). The
proposed site (Site 7A) is 11.8 nmi (21.8 km) from Kahului Harbor and was used
for disposal in 1977. The proposed site is preferred over Site 7 for several
reasons:
• Benthic samples showed Site 7 to be over 25% more diverse in
polychaete species than the proposed site.
« The proposed site is deeper (345 to 365 m) than Site 7 (209 to
238 m), and bottom photography (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977)
showed it to have a relatively smooth bottom, whereas Site 7 showed
large rocks and outcrops in the southwest quadrant of the site.
• Demersal bottom samples showed fewer of the commercially valuable
shrimp, Penaeus marginatus at the proposed site than at Site 7.
PROPOSED HILO SITE
Sites 9, 9A, and 9B (Figure 2-5) were considered for dredged material
disposal in the Hilo Harbor area before the 1977 dredging operations. Site 9A
was dropped from consideration during early studies since (1) the western edge
of the site is on a very steep cliff and in an area of strong upwelling, and
(2) the majority of the commercial fishing in the Hilo area is along the
western edge of Site 9A.
The proposed site (Site 9) is 5.0 nmi (9.3 km) from Hilo Harbor, and was
last used for disposal in 1977. It is selected for designation over Site 9B
because half of Site 9 is a flat plain and the other half has very irregular,
mounded topography; whereas only one-third of Site 9B is a flat plain, and
two-thirds are troughs and low-relief, hilly topography.
2-14
-------
In general, Site 9B supports more diverse invertebrate fauna than the
proposed site and is over 50% more diverse in polychaete distribution.
Additionally, the proposed site is approximately 9 m deeper than Site 9B.
MONITORING. SURVEILLANCE. AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Despite their greater depths, the proposed and alternative sites are close
to shore and the costs for monitoring transportation are comparable to those
for continental U.S. sites. However, because of infrequent dredging, disposal
of small volumes, and disposal of relatively clean material, significant
adverse impacts are not likely to occur, and site measurements would provide
sparse data on environmental effects. Future monitoring will be considered at
the South Oahu Site (since it receives the greatest volume of dredged
material) to add to evidence already gathered on benthic community recovery.
If monitoring data at the proposed South Oahu Site indicate evidence of
adverse effects, the other disposal sites will be considered for monitoring at
the discretion of the CE. Further details of the monitoring program are
provided below and in Appendix D.
There are no significant differences between the proposed and alternative
sites concerning the surveillance of disposal operations. The proposed sites
are close to shore, thus hopper dredge vessels can be observed or tracked by
USCG vessels to ensure that disposal occurs within site boundaries.
Economic considerations are comparable for the proposed and alternative
sites. All sites under consideration are adjacent to the dredging operations.
There are no site-use conflicts whereby dumping would interfere with, or
degrade economic resources. Most commercial fishing at the present time is
for surface and midwater fish; trawling for demersal shrimp is presently not
practiced commercially in Hawaii. If and when commercial bottom shrimp
trawling is reestablished in Hawaii, it is important to note that the proposed
sites have no commercial potential because of low concentrations of shrimp
(Goeggel, 1978; Maragos, 1979, in consultation with National Marine Fisheries
Service).
2-15
-------
DETAILED BASIS FOR THE SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED SITE
Part 228 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations describes general and specific
criteria for selection of sites to be used for ocean dumping. In brief, the
general criteria stat that site locations will be chosen "...to minimize the
interference of disposal activities with other activities in the marine
environment.,." and so chosen that "...temporary perturbations in water
quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing...can be
expected to be reduced to normal ambient seawater levels or to undetectable
contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline,
marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery."
In addition, ocean disposal site sizes "...will be limited in order to
localize for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts and
permit the implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance programs to
prevent adverse long-range impacts." Finally, whenever feasible, EPA will
"...designate ocean dumping sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf and
other such sites that have been historically used." The proposed sites
satisfy all of these criteria.
The 11 specific site selection criteria are presented in Section 228.6 of
the Ocean Dumping Regulations. Each factor is briefly discussed in turn below
to document why the proposed sites were selected over the other alternatives.
wore detailed information for the 11 factors is contained elsewhere in this
Els and will be cited as appropriate,
"GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION, DEPTH OF WATER,
BOTTOM TOPOGRAPHY AND DISTANCE FROM COAST"
The proposed South Oahu Site is located over the shelf-slope break. Its
center coordinates are latitude 21°15'10"N and longitude 157°56'50"W. Water
depths range from 400 to 475 m. The bottom slopes gently towards the south-
southwest. Seafloor investigations performed at the former Pearl Harbor and
Honolulu Sites show the bottom topography to be smooth and covered primarily
with sand-sized calcareous sediment. The nearshore side of the proposed site
is approximately 3.3 nmi (6.1 km) from the nearest land. The proposed site is
1.1 nmi (2.0 Km) long and 1.4 nmi (2.6 km) wide.
2-16
-------
Tne four remaining proposed sites (Nawiliwili, Port Allen, Kahului, and
Hilo) are located over the shelf-slope break (Figure 2-6). These sites are
circular, having radii of approximately 920 m.
The proposed Nawiliwili Site has center coordinates of latitude 21°55'00"N
and longitude 159°17'00"W. Water depths range from 840 to 1,120 m. The shelf
slopes to the southeast, with the slope increasing near the deepest portion of
the site. Bottom photographs show a rolling topography strewn with rocks and
boulders. The proposed site is approximately 4.0 nmi (7.4 km) from the
nearest land.
The proposed Port Allen Site has center coordinates of latitude 21°50'00"N
and longitude 159°35'00"W. Water depths range from 1,460 to 1,610 m, with the
shelf sloping towards the southwest. Bottom photographs show a flat, sandy
bottom with rocks, boulders, and cobbles. The nearest land is approximately
3.8 nmi (7 km) from the site.
The proposed Kahului Site has center coordinates of latitude 21°04'42"N and
longitude 156°29'00"W. The depths within the proposed site range from 345 to
365 m, and the bottom slopes gently to the north-northeast. Bottom topography
is smooth, undulating, and primarily composed of silty clay. The nearest land
is approximately 5.6 nmi (10.4 km) from the site.
The proposed Hilo Site has center coordinates of latitude 19°48'30"N and
longitude 154°58'30"W. Depths at the proposed site range from 330 to 340 m.
The bottom is generally flat in the western portion of the proposed site with
a gradual slope towards the south. The topography of the eastern half is
irregular and the slope is steeper than that of the western portion. The
bottom is covered with granular material, occasional large rocks and pebbles.
The nearest land is approximately 4.5 nmi (8.3 km) from the site.
2-17
-------
KILOMETERS
567
• HILO
• SOUTH OAHU
0 KAHULUI
• NAWILIWILI
* PORT ALLEN
-T
3 4
NAUTICAL MILES
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
Figure 2-6. Depth Profiles of the Proposed Sites
(vertical scale = 5x horizontal scale)
2-18
-------
"LOCATION IN RELATION TO BREEDING, SPAWNING,
NURSERY. FEEDING. OR PASSAGE AREAS OF LIVING
RESOURCES IN ADULT OR JUVENILE PHASES"
All of the listed activities occur to some degree within the oceanic
regions of the proposed sites. However, no stage in the life histories of any
of the region's commercially valuable organisms is known to be dependent on
the proposed sites or their respective vicinities. Little is known about
summer fish migration or spawning, but available information does not suggest
these are important at the sites. However, disposal operations will be
scheduled, when possible, to avoid periods when the disposal sites are visited
by humpback whales or migrating and spawning fish until additional pertinent
data are available.
"LOCATION IN RELATION TO BEACHES AND
OTHER AMENITY AREAS"
The center of the proposed sites range from 3.3 to 5.6 nmi (6.1 to 10.4 km)
in distance from the nearest land and nearest recreational areas. These
distances ensure that the dredged material will either be swept farther from
the coast by offshore currents, or will be diluted and dispersed by the
longshore currents, which will eventually transport the material to offshore
areas. The surface turbidity plume will not be visible from shore.
Therefore, the use of the proposed sites will not adversely affect recreation,
coastal development, or any other amenities associated with the shoreline.
"TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF WASTES PROPOSED
TO BE DISPOSED OF, AND PROPOSED METHODS
OF RELEASE, INCLUDING METHODS OF PACKING
THE WASTE, IF ANY"
Dredged material to be disposed of at the proposed sites must comply with
EPA Environmental Impact Criteria outlined in Part 227 Subparts B, C, D, and E
of the Ocean Dumping Regulations. In all cases, in accordance with Subpart C,
the need for ocean disposal must be demonstrated. Upon designation of the
proposed sites, the types and quantities of wastes currently disposed of will
be permitted.
2-19
-------
All dredged material now projected for disposal following site designation
will be dredged from six Hawaiian harbors. In addition, the State of Hawaii
or counties in Hawaii may also consider the disposal of similar types of
dredged material from other coastal areas at the designated sites. Hopper
dredge vessels with capacities of at least 2,680 yd3, and having subsurface
release mechanisms will be used to transport and dispose of the dredged
material. The dredged material will not be packaged in any way.
"FEASIBILITY OF SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING"
Although the proposed sites are close to shore, they are located in deep
water where open ocean conditions prevail. Strong winds and high waves are
common factors, and all sites except the proposed South Oahu Site would be
difficult to monitor because of the distance between research centers on Oahu
and the outer islands. As a consequence, monitoring costs have been and will
be high.
"DISPERSAL, HORIZONTAL TRANSPORT AND VERTICAL
MIXING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA. INCLUDING
PREVAILING CURRENT DIRECTION AND VELOCITY"
The dredged material is dispersed rapidly at all proposed sites. The
surface plume has a width of approximately 100 m which persists for less than
an hour (Smith, 1979). The heavier components of the dredged material sink to
the ocean bottom immediately (within 4 minutes), while the finer material is
carried away from the site before settling on the bottom (Chave and Miller,
1977b).
The currents at the proposed sites generally flow alongshore or offshore.
Current velocities range from 5 to 100 cm/sec at the surface, 5 to 40 cm/sec
at mid-depth, and 8 to 50 cm/sec at maximal depth. The physical oceanographic
characteristics of the proposed sites are described in Chapter 3 and in
Appendix A. The physical action of site environments on the materials dumped
is described in Appendix C.
2-20
-------
"EXISTENCE AND EFFECTS OF CURRENT AND
PREVIOUS DISCHARGES AND DUMPING IN THE
AREA (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS)"
Sites previously utilized for deep-ocean disposal of dredged material were
investigated in studies sponsored by the CE and the Department of Navy. In
addition, post-disposal surveys were conducted at the proposed sites.
Significant adverse in situ effects of present or previous dredged material
disposal activities have not been demonstrated at any of the proposed sites,
nor at any other sites utilized for disposal.
"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 use of the proposed sites does not interfere with the listed
activities. Interference with shipping is negligible since, at most, disposal
occurs about 10 times a day for a maximum of 90 days every 5 or 10 years (or
as required at Pearl Harbor), and each disposal operation is accomplished in
approximately 3 minutes. Interference with fishing and fish culture is
insignificant since fishing near the proposed sites is minimal and presently
limited to surface trolling, bottom fishing for deepwater snappers, and
midwater fishing for akule and large tunas. The cyclic schedules of the
disposal operations result in a maximal marine blockage at the proposed sites
of approximately 45 hours every 5 or 10 years. The disposal operations do not
interfere with recreational activities, since the proposed sites are only
briefly occupied by the dredge vessel, and the disposal plume is short-lived
(less than 1 hour). Mineral extraction and desalination do not currently
occur at or near the proposed sites; the effect of dumping on future
activities of this nature is not known.
2-21
-------
"THE EXISTING WATER QUALITY AND ECOLOGY OF
THE SITE AS DETERMINED BY AVAILABLE DATA
OR BY TREND ASSESSMENT OR BASELINE SURVEYS"
Environmental studies were conducted before and after the 1977-1978
disposal cycle at all proposed sites. In addition, studies during disposal
were conducted at the proposed South Oahu Site. (See Chapters 3 and 4, and
Appendices A and C.) The water quality and ecology of the sites do not differ
significantly from adjacent areas where disposal has not occurred, and no
adverse environmental impacts have occurred as a result of dredged material
disposal.
"POTENTIALITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OR
RECRUITMENT OF NUISANCE SPECIES IN
THE DISPOSAL SITE"
Survey work conducted at the proposed sites revealed no development or
recruitment of nuisance species. Neither the effects of disposal nor any
components in the dredged material would attract such fauna.
"EXISTENCE AT OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY
TO THE SITE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT NATURAL
OR CULTURAL FEATURES OF HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE"
No such features exist at or near the proposed sites.
PROPOSED USE OF THE SITES
Any future use of the p^posed sites for ocean dumping must comply with EPA
Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria, requirements which bring prospective
dumping into compliance with the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA) and the Ocean Dumping Convention.
2-22
-------
RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
The purpose of monitoring a dredged material disposal site is to ensure
that no long-term adverse impacts develop unnoticed, particularly adverse
impacts which are irreversible or involve the irretrievable loss of resources.
Some of the suggested studies may be necessary to evaluate the suitability of
specific materials for dumping at the proposed sites; hence, they need not be
duplicated in the monitoring program for ongoing ocean site evaluation.
Ideally, effects are assessed by determining the degree to which the
environmental conditions at the site vary from the pre-disposal (baseline)
conditions after disposal operations. Therefore, an effective monitoring
program is usually based on comprehensive pre-disposal baseline surveys of the
sites, which have already been performed at all sites by the CE and the
Department of Navy. The data collected to date indicate few significant
adverse impacts. The suggested elements of further environmental studies are
presented in Appendix D.
TYPES OF MATERIAL
Most dredged material is comprised of terrestrial silt and clay mixed with
sand. Detailed characteristics of the material dredged in 1974 and 1977-1978
are presented in Appendix B.
The materials previously dumped were in compliance with the interim
regulations in effect prior to the EPA/CE bioassay procedures manual (1977),
with the possible exceptions of greater amounts of oil and grease found in
Pearl Harbor sediments. However, oil sheens were not visible upon release at
the disposal site. Trace metal contents in the dredged material were less
than 50% greater than those found in sediments at the proposed sites, and no
significant concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons have been reported.
Representative samples should be collected periodically from the hoppers after
filling and before disposal, and a complete physical and chemical profile
should be performed on these materials. The dredged material must not contain
any materials prohibited by MPRSA and must comply with the Ocean Dumping
2-23
-------
Regulations and Criteria specifically applicable to dredged material. These
studies will be performed during the evaluation to determine if the materials
are suitable for dumping and need not be duplicated during routine operations.
To date, no adverse environmental effects of ocean dumping of dredged
materials in Hawaii have been demonstrated. To alleviate any adverse effects
which may be observed in later monitoring, disposal operations may be altered.
However, materials other than the type dredged from Pearl, Honolulu,
Nawiliwili, Port Allen, Kahului, or Hilo Harbors may not be acceptable for
disposal at the proposed sites.
PERMISSIBLE MATERIAL LOADINGS
Since cumulative effects (either in the form of accretion of dredged
material at the proposed sites or changes in the biota) have not been
demonstrated at the proposed sites, the assignment of an upper limit beyond
3
which adverse effects would occur is difficult. A total of 2,715,200 yd of
dredged material was ocean-dumped in 1977 and 1978 at the proposed sites, of
which 87% was dumped at or near the proposed South Oahu Site. Post-disposal
surveys did not indicate any significant mounding or adverse ecological
impacts. Further, dredged material disposal operations occur approximately
every 5 years at Honolulu, Nawiliwili, and Port Allen Harbors, and approxi-
mately every 10 years at Hilo and Kahului Harbors. Pearl Harbor is dredged
whenever necessary. The projected volumes and cycles are presented in Table
2-1. The continued dumping at the proposed sites of the projected quantities
will have insignificant adverse impacts.
DREDGING AND DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
The periodic dredging of sediment from harbor channels and basins
previously involved the use of federally owned and operated hydraulic suction
hopper dredges. The maintenance dredging of the harbors was last performed in
1977-1978 by the self-propelled hopper dredge vessel CHESTER HARDING.
2-24
-------
TABLE 2-1
PROJECTED VOLUMES AND DREDGING SCHEDULES
Proposed
Disposal
Site
South Oahu
Nawiliwili
Port Allen
Kahului
Hilo
Dredging
Location
Honolulu
Pearl Harbor
Nawiliwili
Port Allen
Kahului
Hilo
Maintenance
Cycle (years)
5
Whenever
required
5
5
10
10
Last
Dredged
1977
1978
1977
1977
1977
1977
Next
Scheduled
Dredging
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
Projected
Volume o
(1,000 yd )
600
2,000
80
200
40
100
Sources: Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977; Chave and Miller, 1978,
Previous maintenance dredging was performed by the dredge vessels DAVISON and
BIDDLE. Whether federally owned hopper dredges will again be used to dredge
Hawaiian harbors depends on the result of competitive bids between Federal and
private industry dredges .
The CHESTER HARDING measures 94 m in length, 17 m in beam, 6 m in loaded
draft, and has eight hopper bins. The total capacity of the eight bins is
2,680 yd . Powerful hydraulic suction pumps on the vessel pull the water-
sediment slurry from the harbor bottom into the hopper bins. After the bins
are fully loaded, the two suction pipes are raised and the dredge vessel
proceeds to the disposal site. The transit time from Honolulu Harbor to the
proposed South Oahu Site is 25 to 30 minutes (Tetra Tech, 1977).
At the disposal site, the. vessel slows to less than 2 knots and disposal
operations commence. Water is pumped into the bins to produce a flushing
head, hastening disposal. Pumps near the hoppers churn the contents of the
bins to ensure complete flushing of the dredged material (Smith, 1979).
Normally, the four aft and four forward bin doors are opened as two separate
units (Johnson and Holliday, 1977). The release of the dredged material is
usually accomplished in about 3 minutes (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977).
2-25
-------
Dredging operations continue 24 hours a day, with a 2-day break every 14 days
for fueling and maintenance, until all scheduled areas of a harbor have been
dredged (Chave and Miller, 1977b). Disposal methods practiced by the CE at
the proposed sites are acceptable for future dumping activities.
DISPOSAL SCHEDULES
Dredged material disposal scheduling is entirely dependent upon the
availability of a hopper dredge, which must be shared with other dredging
projects on the Pacific Coast.
Efforts will be made (during advanced planning) to schedule disposal to
avoid periods when the disposal sites are used by humpback whales (November to
May) or by migrating and spawning fish (summer season); present-day
information on these subjects is sparse and requires more investigation.
2-26
-------
Chapter 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
r-
In describing the affected environment, data are presented
pertinent to (1) the oceanographic characteristics, (2) the
aesthetic, recreational, and economic characteristics, and
(3) inputs to the sites other than dredged material. More
detailed site-specific information is included in
Appendix A.
OCEANOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED SITES
The five dredged material disposal sites proposed for designation are
offshore of Honolulu (Oahu), Nawiliwili (Kauai), Port Allen (Kauai), Hilo
(Hawaii), and Kahului (Maui).
Data have been compiled from numerous sources for the proposed sites.
Collectively, these data have been reviewed to characterize a range of
conditions indicative of a general oceanic site. Several oceanographic
surveys were performed before and after the 1977-1978 dredging cycle near the
proposed South Oahu Site, and at least one survey was conducted before and
after disposal operations at each of the other sites. The Pacific Ocean
Division (POD) of the CE funded studies at the proposed South Oahu Site
(former Honolulu Site) before, during, and after disposal operations in
1977-197b. The Department of the Navy simultaneously funded similar studies
at the proposed South Oahu Site (former Pearl Harbor Site). The study sites
were near each other, overlapping the proposed South Oahu Site. The CE
performed environmental studies before and after disposal operations at
Nawiliwili, Port Allen, Kahului, and Hilo. At least two alternative sites for
each harbor were evaluated as candidate sites before disposal, and active
sites were surveyed after disposal in 1977.
The following discussion is supplemented with site-specific information
where pertinent.
3-1
-------
GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
The Hawaiian Islands were formed by gradual build-up of materials from
volcanic activity. Basaltic flows and ejecta formed mountains which rise
9,100 m above the seafloor and 4,500 m above sea level, but erosion and
subsidence have interacted to destroy and/or wear down the islands. Coral
reefs surround the islands and grow upward as the islands submerge.
Weathering by wind and rain contributes to the decay of the islands and causes
much of the eroded material to be deposited in the inshore regions. Carbonate
sands are formed by abrasion of adjacent coral reefs and accumulation of tests
(.shells) of neritic foraminifera as well as tests of pelagic foraminifera
washed from the offshore waters.
Most geological studies performed in the marine environment surrounding the
islands concentrated on the littoral zone, to depths of 150 m, and the deep
ocean, at depths of about 2,000 m. Little work has been done between these
two depths; most of the information used in this section is derived from
studies performed to support the dredged material disposal site selection and
monitoring surveys.
BATHYMETRY
Sonic depth recorders were used to obtain detailed bathymetric maps for
each of five selected and five alternative sites during CE studies conducted
before 1977 disposal operations (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977). The
proposed sites are offshore at depths greater than 330 m, over bottom areas
which slope seaward. Bottom photography shows a typically flat or gently
sloping, sandy or silty bottom strewn with rocks, cobbles, boulders, rock
pavements, and occasional outcrops. Ripple marks, indicating moderate current
activity, have been observed. The water depth ranges, sediment charac-
teristics, and approximate distances offshore of proposed sites are presented
in Table 3-1.
3-2
-------
TABLE 3-1
PROPOSED SITE DEPTHS, OFFSHORE DISTANCES,
AND SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Site/Island
South Oahu/
Oahu
Nawiliwili/
Kauai
Port Allen/
Kauai
Kahului/
Maul
Hilo/
Hawaii
Water
Depth Range (m)
400 - 475
840 - 1,120
1,460 - 1,610
345 - 365
330 - 340
Distance
From Shore
(Site Center)
3 .2 nmi
(5.9 km)
3 .4 nmi
(6.3 km)
3.8 nmi
(7.0 km)
6.4 nmi
(11.8 km)
5 .0 nmi
(9.3 km)
Sediment Characteristic
Silty Sand
Silty Sand
Silty Sand
Silty Sand
Silty Sand
Sources: Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977; Chave and Miller, 1977a
Sediment analyses were performed by Neighbor Island Consultants (1977)
before disposal of dredged material. A more recent study was performed by
Goeggel (1978) after the disposal of dredged material; these data are
therefore more representative of present site characteristics. Goeggel used
cores, grabs, and dredges to collect sediment samples.
Offshore sediments are of two general types: carbonate and basaltic (Table
3-2). With the exception of the proposed Nawiliwili and Hilo Sites, carbonate
is the dominant sediment constituent. Neighbor Island Consultants (1977)
reported carbonate values of 74% and basalt values of 12% at the proposed
Nawiliwili Site before dredged material disposal at this site, while Goeggel
(1978) reported values of 29% and 46%, respectively. Goeggel (1978) suggested
that this shift in sediment composition was due to introduction of dredged
materials. Nawiliwili is the only proposed site where such a significant
change (pre-disposal versus post-disposal surveys) in sediment composition has
occurred.
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-2
MEAN PERCENTAGES OF CARBONATE AND BASALT
COMPOSITION AT THE PROPOSED SITES
Site
South Oahu
Nawiliwili
Port Allen
Kahului
Hilo
Carbonate
(%)
89
30
43
56
17
Basalt
(%)
6
46
6
12
42
Sources: Goeggel, 1978; Chave and Miller, 1977a;
Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977.
GRAIN SIZE
Site sediments are principally sands with various amounts of silt, clay,
and gravel. Grain-size distributions for each of the proposed sites are
listed in Table 3-3.
TABLE 3-3
SEDIMENT MEDIAN DIAMETERS AT THE PROPOSED SITES
Grain Size (%)
Sediment Type
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
South
Oahu*T
12
75
13
Nawiliwili*
6
92
2
Port
Allen*
1
63
36
Kahului*
11
80
9
Hilo*
1
77
22
Sources: *Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977; Goeggel,
1978 (pre-disposal and post-disposal)
TChave and Miller, 1978 (post-disposal)
3-4
-------
The proposed South Oahu, Port Allen, and Kahului Sites have sediments with
similar characteristics before and after disposal (Goeggel, 1978). However,
Nawiliwili post-disposal samples were much finer in comparison to pre-disposal
samples; post-disposal sediments from Hilo show variable results. The
analyses of the dredged material disposed of at Hilo showed that the dumped
material had characteristically finer grain size than the pre-disposal
sediment. No other observed evidence (e.g., discoloration, layering, micro-
scopic analyses) indicated that dredged material had been deposited in the
area.
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
METEOROLOGY
Visibility
Visibility is usually excellent near the Hawaiian Islands. Decreased
visibility is normally due to rain or mist, but rarely due to fog.
Interference with shipping due to foul weather is rare (U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, 1978). Visibility exceeding 10 nmi (18.5 km) occurs nearly 90% of
the time. Visibility of less than 0.5 nmi (0.9 km) occurs most often during
January, March, October, and November for the windward (northeast) side, and
February and December for the leeward (southwest) side of the islands. The
frequency of this decreased visibility is only 0.1%, or less than 1 hour per
month, and annual frequency of visibility below 0.5 nmi (0.9 km) is less than
0.05%, or less than 4.5 hours a year (U.S. Navy Weather Service Command,
1971).
Winds and Storms
In general, higher wind velocities are more common on the windward
(northeast) side, while periods of light winds occur more frequently on the
leeward (southwest) side of the islands. High winds of less than hurricane
classification usually occur during the late fall and winter months. On an
annual basis, winds are generally easterly to windward (northeast), and evenly
divided between northeasterly and easterly to leeward (southwest) of the
3-5
-------
islands. Southerly winds, especially southwesterly, called "Kona winds,"
increase in frequency from August to October until April or May (U.S. Navy
Weather Service Command, 1971).
Hurricanes have been recorded for Hawaii since 1950. Between 1950 and
1974, 13 hurricanes passed within 430 nmi (800 km) of the State. A partial
list of those hurricanes which influenced the State are listed in Table 3-4.
August is the most likely month of occurrence; however, tropical storms have
occurred in July, September, and December. The majority of the storms
approached the islands from the east (Haraguchi, 1975).
TABLE 3-4
PARTIAL LIST OF HURRICANES
Hurricane
Month/Year
Effect
Hiki
Delia
Nina
Unnamed
Dot
Diana
Doreen
Aug 1950
Sep 1957
Dec 1957
Aug 1958
Aug 1959
Aug 1972
Jul-Aug 1973
Sustained winds of 109 kph
Heavy rains, flooding
High surf
11-m surf
Peak winds of 148 kph
$100,000 damage
$500,000 damage
Wind gusts of 166 kph, heavy rain
$5.7 million damage to crops
and buildings
9-m waves
High surf
Source: Haraguchi, 1975
3-6
-------
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water Masses
There are three major water masse" around the Hawaiian Islands: North
Pacific Central (NPC), North Pacific Intermediate (NPI), and Pacific Deep
Water (PDW) (Bathen, 1975; Sverdrup et al., 1942). The approximate depths,
locations, and characteristic temperature and salinity ranges for each water
mass are listed in Table 3-5.
TABLE 3-5
MAJOR WATER MASSES OF THE NORTH PACIFIC
Water Mass
NPC
NPI
PDW
Depth (m)
100-300
300-1,500
1,500-bottom
Temperature (°C)
10 - 18
5-10
1.1 - 2.2
Salinities (g/kg)
34.2 - 35.2
34.2 - 34.5
34.6 - 34.7
NPC= North Pacific Central
NPI= North Pacific Intermediate
PDW= Pacific Deep Water
Source: Bathen, 1975; Sverdrup et al., 1942
The NPC Water Mass has maximal salinity, while minimal salinity values are
found at about 350 m depth in the NPI Water Mass.
Stratification
A strong thermocline extends to depths between 275 and 365 m in the
offshore region (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977). Below 300 m, the
strength of the stratification decreases significantly. The weakest
stratification occurs in February, while the strongest stratification develops
in July and persists with little change until October (City and County of
Honolulu, 1972).
3-7
-------
Density profiles near the proposed South Oahu Site show the water to be
usually stable above 25 m during most of the year, and always stable below 25
m (City and County of Honolulu, 1972).
Currents
Water circulation around the islands is driven by combinations of forces
including tides, West Wind Drift, circulation of the Eastern Pacific Gyre, and
local wind and eddy systems. Observed circulation, however, does not always
correspond to predictive models. While currents appear to be tidally
dominated at most locations around the islands, current reversals frequently
do not correlate with tidal changes (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977). The
westerly drift through the islands (normally expected as a result of the Trade
Winds) is observed at only a few locations. In some cases, mean flow in the
inter-island channels opposes this westerly flow. The clockwise
(anticyclonic) Eastern Pacific Gyre shifts north and south; however, the
seasonal pattern is unclear and its influence on the islands is not well
defined. Eddies have been observed on the leeward side of the islands, but
these are poorly understood transient features of Hawaiian Islands
circulation.
Current patterns at the proposed sites show a marked tidal influence, but
some general trends are apparent. Surface currents range from 5 to 100
cm/sec, mid-depth currents range from 5 to 40 cm/sec, and bottom currents
range from 8 to 50 cm/sec (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977; Chave and
Miller- 1977b; bathen, 1974). Currents at all depths show a general offshore
or alongshore flow.
CHEMICAL CONDITIONS
WATER COLUMN
Studies of the water chemistry of the proposed South Oahu Site show that
the region is more oceanic than coastal in character (R.M. Towill Corp., 1972;
Tetra Tech, 1977; Chave and Miller, 1977a). The other proposed sites are also
regarded as oceanic in nature, since they are far enough offshore and not
greatly influenced by the local land masses.
3-8
-------
Dissolved Oxygen
I tie saturation level (solubility) of dissolved oxygen in seawater depends
upon the temperature and salinity. At 25°C and 35 g/kg salinity, seawater is
saturated with an oxygen concentration of 4.87 ml/liter. From September 1976
to April 1977, dissolved oxygen concentrations in the surface waters at the
proposed South Oahu Site were supersaturated, increased slightly between
depths of 25 and 100 m, then gradually decreased with depth. Most dissolved
oxygen values at the proposed sites remain above 4 ml/liter (Chave and Miller,
1977a,b). Characteristic oxygen profiles for the Pacific Ocean show surface
oxygen concentrations ranging from approximately 5 ml/liter to a minimum of
less than 1 ml/liter between depths of 150 and 400 m, then increasing to
approximately 3 ml/liter near the bottom (Sverdrup et al., 1942).
During December 197b, the pH of surface waters at the proposed South Oahu
bite averaged 8.1, increased to 8.2 between 25 and 50 m depth, then decreased
to a minimum of 7.9 at 400 m depth. During April 1977, pH values were
markedly lower ; averaging 7.6 at the surface, increasing to 7.7 between 100
and 150 m depth, and finally decreasing to 7.6 at 400 m depth (Chave and
Miller 1977a,b). In general, seawater pH ranges from 7.5 to 8.4, averaging
about 8.2 (Home, 1969).
Trace Metals
The total water column concentrations of silver, cadmium, chromium, and
copper at the proposed South Oahu Site are below the minimum detection limit
of 1 jjg/liter. Lead and nickel are below the minimum detection limits of
5 ^g/liter and 4 ^g/liter, respectively. Analyses for mercury and zinc
yielded abnormally high values believed to be caused by sample contamination
(Chave and Miller, 1977a),
3-9
-------
Nutrients
Nutrients are inorganic or organic compounds or ions, the main diet of
primary producers, i.e., phytoplankton. Nutrients include inorganic
phosphate, nitrate, nitrite, ammonium, and hydrated silicate, and are consumed
by plankton in upper oceanic layers where light conditions favor photo^
synthesis and growth.
At the proposed South Oahu Site, nutrient concentration measurements of
phosphate, total phosphorus, and nitrate-nitrite concentrations, are low in
the surface layers, increasing with depth, with the greatest increases
occurring below 150 m. These measurements are typical of oceanic waters.
Ammonium concentrations vary, generally decreasing with depth (Chave and
Miller, 1977a).
At leeward stations, nitrate was undetectable in surface waters, increasing
with depth, and reaching a maximum of 40 fxg-at N/liter at 800 m depth
(Gundersen et al., 1972). Maximal nitrite concentrations of 0.06 to
0.07 p.g-at N/liter are consistently found between 100 and 200 m depth,
diminishing to undetectable levels with depth. Ammonium concentrations were
usually greater in the upper water column. Typical nitrate profiles in the
Pacific exhibit surface concentrations about 2 pig-at N/liter, increasing to
approximately 38 fig-at N/liter at 1,000 m depth, remaining uniform with
increasing depth (Gross, 1972).
SEDIMENTS
Trace Metals
Comparative Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) of pre-disposal trace metal
concentrations in sediments of the proposed sites indicated no significant
differences (95% confidence level) among the sites (see Appendix C). Cadmium
concentrations in sediments ranged from 3.9 to 6.3 mg/kg, with a mean of
4.8 mg/kg. The highest cadmium concentrations occurred at the proposed South
Oahu and Kahului Sites, while the lowest concentrations occurred at the
proposed Hilo Site (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977; Goeggel, 1978; Chave
3-10
-------
and Miller, 1978). Mercury concentrations in sediments ranged from 0.09 to
0.9 mg/kg, with a mean of 0.33 rag/kg. The highest mercury values were found
at the proposed South Oahu Site, while the lowest concentrations occurred at
the proposed Kahului Site (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977; Goeggel, 1978).
Copper concentrations in sediments ranged from 10.9 mg/kg at the proposed
Kahului Site, to 45.5 mg/kg at the proposed South Oahu Site, averaging 31.1
mg/kg (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977; Goeggel, 1978; Chave and Miller,
1978). Concentrations of lead in sediments ranged from 16.9 to 59 mg/kg, with
a mean of 34.2 mg/kg. The highest lead concentrations were found at the
proposed South Oahu Site, while the lowest lead concentrations occurred at the
proposed Nawiliwili, Port Allen, and Hilo Sites (Neighbor Island Consultants,
1977; Goeggel, 1978; Chave and Miller, 1978). Table 3-6 lists concentration
values. Youngberg (1973) noted that the cultivated soils on the island of Oahu
were higher in concentrations of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese,
nickel, and zinc than uncultivated soils, suggesting the influence of
anthropogenic activities (e.g., domestic sewage disposal, irrigation, and
construction materials which contain these metals).
TABLE 3-6
SEDIMENT TRACE METAL CONCENTRATIONS AT
THE PROPOSED SITES
Proposed
Site
South Oahu
Nawiliwili
Port Allen
Kahului
Hilo
Grand
Mean
Trace Metal
Cadmium
Range
4.0-6.3
3.9-4.8
4.9-5.0
5.7-6.1
Mean
5.2
4.4
5.0
5.9
3.4
4.8
Mercury
Range
0.50-0.90
0.27-0.50
0.27-0.50
0.09-0.20
0.10-0.59
Mean
0.7
0.39
0.39
0.15
0.35
0.4
Copper
Range
17.6-45.5
13.8-28.7
13.8-28.7
10.9-38.3
33.9-38.1
Mean
31.0
21.2
21.1
24.6
36.0
26.8
Lead
Range
38.1-59.0
16.9-32.2
16.9-32.2
23.6-40.9
19.5-29.0
Mean
48.6
24.6
24.6
32.3
24.3
30.9
Units = ppm or mg/kg dry weight
Sources: Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977; Goeggel, 1978;
Chave and Miller, 1978
3-11
-------
BIOTA
Trace Metals
Trace metal concentrations in shrimp muscle tissues (Heterocarpus ensifer),
collected by Chave and Miller (1977b) in Mamala Bay, are listed in Table 3-7.
Copper and zinc were the only metals detected.
TABLE 3-7
TRACE METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN SHRIMP (Heterocarpus ensifer)
COLLECTED AT THE PROPOSED SOUTH OAHU SITE
Station
Si (dump site)
S2 (control)
S7 (dump site)
S8 (control)
Date
7/15/77
7/15/77
12/77
12/77
Ag
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cd
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cr
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cu
12
19
8
8
Ni
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pb
ND
ND
ND
ND
Zn
12
12
7
8
Units = mg/kg wet weight
ND = not detectable
Source: Chave and Miller, 1977b
Results of trace metal analyses of preserved zooplankton samples are
presented in Table 3-8 (Chave and Miller, 1978). Samples were either whole or
split, with the exception of one select sample which consisted entirely of
chaetognaths.
3-12
-------
TABLE 3-8
TRACE METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN ZOOPLANKTON COLLECTED AT THE
PROPOSED SOUTH OAHU SITE
Date
7/21/76
6/15/77
6/15/77
9/13/77
12/8/77
Tow No.
1
12
13
5
10
Whole/Split
(15/16 aliquot)
Chaetognaths
(15/16 aliquot)
Whole
Whole
Ag
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cd
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cr
ND
ND
ND
34
3
Cu
19
2
1
6
89
Ni
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pb
13
ND
/i
157
35
Zn
39
13
20
118
70
Units = ppm or rag/kg wet weight
ND = not detectable
Source: Chave and Miller, 1978
BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Biota in trie water and in benthic environments of the dredged material
disposal sites are described below. Water column biota include phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and nekton. Benthic biota include the foraminifera, polychaetes,
mollusks, Crustacea, and other invertebrates.
WATER COLUMN
Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton are small, free-floating algae which produce the organic
matter upon which the rest of the marine food chain is built. Chlorophyll £
concentrations are customarily used to indicate phytoplankton biomass. In
February 1977, at the proposed South Oahu Site, chlorophyll £ concentrations
3 3
increased from 0.025 mg/m at 15 m depth to 0.050 mg/m at 30 m depth, then
decreased with depth (Tetra Tech, 1977). In April 1977, the chlorophyll a_
concentrations in the upper water column were lower than the February values,
and increased to maximal level at 150 m depth. Chlorophyll a_ concentrations
in the lower water column (300 to 450 m depth) were similar for both
samplings. Considerable temporal variability occurs in the upper portions of
3-13
-------
open-ocean Hawaiian waters (Cattel and Gordon, 1971). Since the compensation
depth was approximately 112 m, the chlorophyll £ concentrations at 300 m and
450 m depths are probably degraded products of chlorophyll, and are not living
bioraass.
At other locations in the Hawaiian Islands, chlorophyll a_ concentrations
increase with depth (0.07 to 0.30 mg/rn3) to reach subsurface maxima at the
compensation depths (Bathen, 1977; Gilmartin and Revelante, 1974).
Chlorophyll a_ concentration at compensation depth is usually double that of
the overlying waters.
Primary productivity investigations in Hawaiian waters show that carbon
fixation potential reached maximum at 1100 and 1400 hours, with a noontime
depression. The minimum was between 2100 and 0300 hours, with a maximum-
minimum ratio of 8.4:1 (Gilmartin and Revelante, 1974).
Zooplankton
Zooplankton are minute, weakly swimming animals, normally considered as the
second trophic level of the oceanic food chain. The Zooplankton found at the
proposed South Oahu Site by Chave and Miller (1977a) were dominated by
copepods (numerically, about 80% of the local zooplankton). Chave and Miller
3
also reported that the zooplankton biomass of 3.3 mg dry weight/m is slightly
higher than the zooplankton biomass of 2.2 mg/m reported by King and Hida
(1954), as adapted from Wiebe et al. (1975). The conditions in other proposed
sites approximate the proposed South Oahu Site values.
Nekton
Nekton (e.g., fish, cephalopods, and marine mammals) can swim strongly,
either maintaining their position or moving against currents. Nekton are
subdivided into three groups: micronekton, demersal nekton, and pelagic
nekton. hicronekton are weakly swimming nekton (e.g., mesopelagic fish and
squid). Demersal nekton are extremely motile members of the nekton which live
on the bottom, and pelagic nekton inhabit the overlying waters. Many nektonic
organisms are highly motile, migrate over long distances, and have unknown
3-14
-------
depth ranges; therefore, information on such organisms is limited and
qualitative. Typical habitats and associated fish fauna for the Hawaiian open
coast are depicted in Figure 3-1.
The proposed South Oahu Site has approximately half the micronekton biomass
predicted by offshore studies. Fish exist in smaller proportions of total
samples due to differences in water depths between offshore sample sites and
the proposed site. Micronekton remain below 200 m depths during the day, thus
they would be expected to be sparse at the proposed South Oahu, Kahului, and
Hilo Sites. Micronekton populations at the deeper proposed sites (Nawiliwili
and Port Allen) are similar to the offshore region inventories.
Trawling studies at the proposed Nawiliwili, South Oahu, Kahului, and Hilo
Sites revealed the demersal fish, greeneye, to be the most abundant species
(Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977). The studies confirmed that the general
ichthyological communities at various depth ranges of the Hawaiian upper slope
zone inhabit the proposed sites equally (Struhsaker, 1973). Rattails and
flatfishes are abundant at all sites.
Pelagic nektonic predators include marine mammals, tuna, marlin, barracuda,
and sharks. The majority of the fish are broadcast spawners, whose eggs are
usually small and planktonic. The common Hawaiian nearshore and offshore
marine mammals are listed in Table 3-9.
BENTHOS
Sediment type and water depth vary among the sites and are important
factors in the analyses of benthic faunal compositions. The proposed
Nawiliwili arid Port Allen Sites are in deep water (840 to 1,610 m) , while the
other proposed sites are shallower (330 to 475 m). The proposed sites at
Nawiliwili, Port Allen, and Kahului have similar sediments of silty sand.
Benthic fauna at the proposed sites (Table 3-10) are dominated in abundance
and diversity by small infaunal and tube-dwelling polychaetes. Several other
groups are present in much fewer numbers, or are locally abundant (e.g.,
Nematoda, Sipuncula, Crustacea, Mollusca, and Echinodermata).
3-15
-------
INSHORE
OFFSHORE
REEF
LITTORAL
PELAGIC
0
25
50
75
100 ^
>^'
125 =
150 g
175
200
225
250
.SURGE ZONE
REEF FISH
OPELU AKULE
OPAKAKA
\ KAWAKAWA '
\ 'YEILOWFIN
s* SKIPJACK MARLIN
\
FLYING FISH
MAHIMAHI
SAILFISH
BIGEYE TUNA
ALBACORE
DEEPWATER SNAPPERS
MESOPELAGIC FISH
RATTAILS
GREENEYE (35U+m)
Figure 3-1. Typical Hawaiian Marine Open Coast
Habitats and Associated Fish Fauna
Source: After Gosline and Brock, 1965
TABLE 3-9
COMMON HAWAIIAN MARINE MAMMALS
Scientific Name
Common Name
WHALES
Globicephala macrorhynchus
Pseudorca crassidens
Feresa attenuata
Physeter catodon
Megaptera novaeangliae
Pilot Whale
False Killer Whale
Pygmy Killer Whale
Sperm Whale
Humpback Whale
DOLPHINS
Steno bredanensis
Stenella attenuata
S. longirostris
Tursiops gillii
Peponocephala electra
Rough-toothed Dolphin
Spotted Dolphin
Spinner Dolphin
Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin
Hawaiian Dolphin
Source: Tetra Tech, 1976
3-16
-------
TABLE 3-10
BENTHIC ORGANISMS COLLECTED AT THE PROPOSED SITES
Parameter
Percent Composition
Epif auna
Percent Composition
Infauna
No. Micromollusks/ctn
No. Foraminifera/ml
Ratio: Planktonic/
Benthic Foraminifera
No. Polychaetes/liter
No. Cnidaria/liter
No. Nematoda/liter
No. Sipuncula/liter
No. Cirripedia/liter
No. Other Crustacea/liter
No. Aplacophora/liter
No. Echinoidea/liter
No. Holothuroidea/liter
No. Ophiuroidea/liter
No. Nemertea/liter
South Oahu
56*
44*
11. 3-13. Ot
**
262
574t
3,116*
0.8T
1.8*
19. 9T
17.6*
1.4*
0.4*
0.8*
0.7t
< 0.1*
0.6*
0.4T
0.2*
<0.1*
0.1*
0.3*
0.1*
Nawiliwili
87.5*
12.5*
12. 9-15.21
849 T
909*
5. IT
3.7*
20. 4t
21.8*
3.6*
<0.1*
0.4*
1.4T
<0.1*
0.3*
<0.1*
<0.1*
0.1*
0.5*
0.2*
Port
Allen
55*
45*
1-31T
295t
992*
4.2t
3.2*
17. Ot
31.0*
0.5*
<0.1*
0.1*
0.3t
<0.1*
0.1*
0.3t
0.2*
<0.1t
<0.1*
<0.1*
0.2*
<0.1t
<0.1*
Kahului
89*
11*
l,161t
1,971*
1.3t
1.8*
47. 7T
17.5*
1.0*
<0.1*
0.3*
1.7T
<0.1*
0.2*
LOT
<0.1*
1.3T
<0.1*
0.2*
0.1*
<0.1*
Hilo
61*
39*
2.8-3.6!
436T
818*
3.2T
3.3*
7.2*
0.7*
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
0.1*
<0.1*
0.1*
0.2*
0.2*
<0.1*
Sources: * Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977
t Goeggel, 1978
** Chave and Miller, 1977b
3-17
-------
Most organisms collected from the sites are detritivores (detritus eaters)
which feed on organic particulate materials attached to sand grains or in the
water column, larger organic remains (e.g., dead organisms, rotting vegetable
material), and feces from marine animals. Some detritivores are nonselective
deposit feeders, and others are selective particle feeders. The water depths
at all sites are well below the photic zone, thus producers and herbivores are
absent. Filter or suspension feeders (e.g., sabellid or serpulid tube worms
and some mollusks) sieve organic particles from the water column. Other
feeding types include browsers (e.g., micromollusks and carnivores).
Foraminifera
Foraminifera are benthic and planktonic protozoans possessing calcium
carbonate shells. Certain forams are common at all sites and are not
depth-restricted. The deeper proposed sites (Nawiliwili and Port Allen)
exhibit lower species diversities than the other sites. Porcelaneous species
are uncommon and agglutinated species are abundant in deeper sites, while at
the shallower proposed South Oahu, Kahului, and Hilo Sites the reverse is
true.
The proposed Nawiliwili and Port Allen Sites have higher planktonic-to-
bentnic foraminifera ratios than the South Oahu and Kahului Sites. The
numbers of planktonic tests are higher at the Nawiliwili and Port Allen Sites
than at other sites, thus reflecting the important role of planktonic
foraminifera as a source of sediment. The depths at the proposed Hilo Site
are comparable to those at the proposed South Oahu and Kahului Sites, yet the
ratios of planktonic-to-benthic foraminifera are higher; therefore more
characteristic of deeper locations. This discrepancy appears to be caused by
the bottom traits beyond Hilo, which permits a larger portion of planktonic
foraminifera to exist closer to shore.
Polychaetes
The benthic fauna at the proposed sites are dominated in abundance and
diversity by small infaunal and tube-dwelling polychaetes. The predominant
feeding types are deposit feeders, with predacious carnivores the second most
3-18
-------
numerous. Suspension feeders represent a small percentage of total abundance.
The numbers of families and species are few at the proposed Nawiliwili and
Port Allen Sites, and more profuse at the other three proposed sites.
Mollusks
Mollusks are of two types: micromollusks and macromollusks. Micromollusks
are less than 0.5 mm in greatest dimension, and act as indicators of different
types of benthic communities (Kay, 1973). Micromollusks at the proposed sites
have two components: shells of mollusks characteristic of depths of 20 to
150 m (shallow-water species), and those known only at depths greater than
150 m. The shallow-water micromollusks at all sites are dominated by
representatives of two families. Their occurrence in sediments at the
proposed sites is believed to be due to transport from shallower depths or to
their occurrence as fossils in subtidal fossil reefs. Macromollusks were rare
or absent in the samples taken from the proposed sites.
Crustaceans
Benthic crustaceans found at the proposed sites are dominated by the
shrimps of the genus Heterocarpus. The mean numbers per trap, weights, and
carapace lengths of the shrimp, II. ensifer, caught at the sites are given in
Table 3-11. The shrimps, II. ensifer and 11. laevigatus, were collected at all
sites, and although the former is smaller and less commercially valuable than
the latter, it is much more abundant. A survey of the deepwater shrimp
resources in Hawaiian waters was conducted by the National Marine Fisheries
Service between 1971 and 1973 (Struhsaker and Aasted, 1974). Analyses
indicated a depth range for H. ensifer from 137 to 660 m, with peak abundances
between 365 and 440 m. II. laevigatus is found at depths from 430 to 825 m,
with maximal abundance between 440 and 655 m.
Other Invertebrates
The abundance of invertebrates other than polychaetes, mollusks, forami-
nifera, and shrimp in the sediments of the proposed sites is insignificant
3-19
-------
TABLE 3-11
PARAMETERS FOR SHRIMP (Heterocarpus ensifer)
CAUGHT AT THE PROPOSED SITES
Parameter
Mean Number
Per Trap
Mean Weight (g)
Mean Carapace
Length (cm)
South Oahu
*
52
283
3.8
1.8
Nawiliwili
81
8.5
2.7
Port
Allen
104
8.3
2.7
Kahului
141
9.7
2.7
Hilo
35
8.7
2.6
Sources: Goeggel, 1978
*Chave and Miller, 1977b
(Taole 3-10). All Bryozoa are erect foliose forms, a type of growth form that
requires a hard, stable surface for attachment. All cnidarians (corals),
chitons, and probably some of the bryozoans were dead when collected. These
organisms may indicate immigrant materials (e.g., transport of skeletons by
currents from shallow water, or residual materials from submerged reefs).
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Threatened and endangered species of the Hawaiian Islands include the
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus
schauinslandi), and the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). The humpback whale
breeding grounds are in nearshore Hawaiian Island waters from November until
May. Calving occurs mainly between January and March. Areas frequented by
the humpback whale during these months are shown in Figure 3-2.
The monk seal is endemic to the extreme Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
The green sea turtle is the only common offshore reptile in Hawaiian
waters. Green turtle breeding (nesting) grounds are entirely in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, primarily at French Frigate Shoals.
3-20
-------
160"W
159°
158°
157°
156°
155°
u>
I
S3
A NAWILIWILI
PORT ALLEN
it
SOUTH OAHU
23 2 KAHULUI
MAUI /"I5.
KILOMETERS
NAUTICAL MILES
Proposed sites
Environmental Impact Study Corp., 1978
High-use areas
Scares et at, 1977
Numbers seen within area during March 1976 (Woiman and Jurasz, 1977)
22° N
Figure 3-2. Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Distribution in Hawaii
-------
RECREATIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND AESTHETIC CHARACTERISTICS
The unique setting of the Hawaiian Islands strongly influences their
economics due to the State's popular recreational activities. Hawaii's
economic lifeline relies upon a few major industries: tourism, defense, and
Federal nonmilitary expenditures (Federal civilian jobs, etc.) account for 81%
of the State's annual income (NOAA, 1978), with tourism as the State's largest
employer.
TOURISM
Tourism is now the State's largest industry, and is directly influenced by
the aesthetic and recreational value of the coastal waters. At least 7 of the
12 principal recreational activities conducted near the proposed sites involve
the use of the coastal waters (Table 3-12). The offshore recreational
activities available to tourists are numerous, thus enhancing the value of the
coastal areas in the Hawaiian economy.
Since Hawaii achieved statehood in 1959. the growth rate of visitors has
increased at an annual rate of 17.7%. In 1973, more than 3.6 million visitors
to the islands spent nearly $900 million (Tetra Tech, 1976; NOAA, 1978).
Tourism, as uppermost element in civilian employment, generates 19.5% of all
the State's jobs.
Recreational facilities are far from the disposal sites and are mainly
concentrated on the island of Oahu, where an estimated 70% of all visitor
2
facilities are located in a 1.8 km area in Waikiki (NOAA, 1978). A
significant proportion (nearly 40%) of the resident population inhabits the
Mamala Bay shoreline. Tourists and residents alike use the recreational
coastal waters intensively.
At other proposed sites, the coastal waters are used extensively by island
residents. Present economic use of the other islands is minor when compared
to Oahu, but represents the greatest potential for future growth because of
the exhaustion of prime sites for hotels and visitor facilities on Oahu.
3-22
-------
TABLE 3-12
RANKING OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
NEAR THE PROPOSED SITES
Activity
Swimming/ Sunbathing
Diving
Surfing
Fishing
Boating
Canoeing
Walking/ Jogging
Picnicking
Camping
Hiking
Bicycling
Attending Outdoor
Events
South Oahu
2
-
4
3
-
-
1
5
6
7
2
4
Nawiliwili
1
9
6
5
7
7
4
2
8
9
3
6
Port Allen
1
8
6
5
7
8
3
3
6
7
2
4
Hilo
1
8
6
5
7
-
2
4
8
8
3
3
Kahului
3
6
7
6
—
-
2
5
—
7
4
1
Overall
Rank
1
8
6
5
7
8
2
4
7
7
3
4
Source: Aotani and Hartwell Associates, 1975
NATIONAL DEFENSE
The second most important State industry, which creates employment and
income, is national defense. Hawaii was chosen as the key Pacific military
base because of its central location between the Far East and the U.S.
mainland. In 1975, the defense sector provided 19% of all civilian jobs and
24.9% of the export income (NOAA, 1978).
Most military activities in Hawaii are centered around Pearl Harbor and
Mamala Bay. Mamala Bay encompasses many restricted zones due to the U.S. Navy
operation of Pearl Harbor (Figure 3-3).
The Pearl Harbor Naval Defense Area, outside the mouth of Pearl Harbor, is
closed to all unauthorized ship traffic. West of the Naval Defense area is a
zone where normal surface traffic is allowed; however, no anchoring, dredging,
dragging, seining, or other fishing activities are permitted which might foul
underwater installations. The only other restricted area in Mamala Bay is the
explosives anchorage area, which is reserved for nitrate-laden vessels.
3-23
-------
to
I
(1) OFFSHORE PIPELINE TERMINAL ANCHORAGES, CLOSED TO ALL
VESSELS EXCEPT COMMERCIAL VESSELS INVOLVED IN LOADING
AND UNLOADING ACTIVITIES.
(2) SUBMERGED PIPELINES.
(3) NAVAL FIRING AREA, CLOSED TO ALL TRAFFIC.
(4) NO ANCHORING OR DREDGING, DRAGGING, SEINING OR OTHER
FISHING OPERATIONS WHICH MIGHT FOUL UNDERWATER
INSTALLATIONS WITHIN THE AREA, HOWEVER NORMAL SURFACE
TRAFFIC PERMITTED.
(5) SMALL ARMS FIRING AREA, CLOSED TO NAVIGATION AT
PRESCRIBED TIMES.
(6) PEARL HARBOR NAVAL DEFENSE AREA. UNAUTHORIZED VESSELS
ARE PROHIBITED.
(7) "PAPA HOTEL" <21"I6'17" N., 157'56'33" W.». UNMARKED. VESSEL
APPROACH POINT FOR ALL VESSELS BOUND FOR PEARL HARBOR.
(8) EXPLOSIVE ANCHORAGE AREA. ANCHORAGE RESERVED FOR NITRATE-
LADEN VESSELS.
(9) SAND ISLAND SEWER LINE. ANCHORAGE PROHIBITED WITHIN
600m OF LINE.
ANCHORAGES
(2)
RESTRICTED
AREA (1)
CABLE AREA
MAMALA BAY
NALITK Al Mills
Ml OMIT) RS
Figure 3-3. Restricted Zones in Mamala Bay
Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1978
-------
FISHERIES
Commercial fishing is mainly confined to surface or pelagic offshore
fishing. However, bottom fishing for demersal snappers and groupers occurs,
although the catch is small compared to pelagic fisheries. Commercial
fishing in 1975 contributed approximately $7.5 million to the State economy
which exceeded $650 million. The dollar equivalent amount of fish caught in
the fishery zones (where the proposed sites are located) was less than 12% of
the State's total, with the majority caught near Hilo. The fishery zones are
vast compared to the proposed sites (see Figure 3-4). A tabular presentation
of the catch values and their percentages of the State's total and major
catches appears in Table 3-13. ,
Many species of fishes and invertebrates form the commercial and
recreational fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands. They may be classified by
depth ranges into the following general ecological groups:
• Demersal inshore (0 to 65 m)
• Pelagic inshore (20 to 100 m)
• Demersal shelf-edge (65 to 225 m)
• Pelagic shelf-edge (100 to 200 m)
• Demersal upper slope (deeper than 225 m)
• Pelagic offshore (deeper than 200 m)
The regions of the proposed sites include the demersal upper slope and
pelagic offshore. Three species of shrimp provide for small commercial
fisheries in the demersal upper slope group: Penaeus marginatus (200 to
225 m), Heterocarpus ensifer (137 to 660 m), and E. laevigatus (430 to 825 m).
However, demersal shrimp trawling in Hawaii is not presently a viable
shellfishery and no commercial shrimp trawlers are working in Hawaiian waters.
Thus, the resource presently exists without economic value in Hawaii's
fishery, yet still remains a potential fishery (Maragos, 1979). The
concentrations of shrimp at the sites are insufficient for commercial
interest.
3-25
-------
160°W
159°
158°
157°
156°
155°
u>
i
NAWILIWILI
PORT ALLEN
A * PROPOSED SITE
22° N
Figure 3-4.
State Fish and Game Catch Areas in Vicinity of the Proposed Sites
(Numbers Indicate Specific Catch Areas)
Source: Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977
-------
TABLE 3-13
FISHERY STATISTICS FOR 1975-76 IN THE
VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED SITES
i
to
Proposed Site
South Oahu
Kahului
Hilo
Nawiliwili
Port Allen
Total
Value
(Thousands of
Dollars)
200
39
338
190
112
879
Percent of Total
Hawaiian Fisheries
2.6
0.5
4.5
2.5
1.5
11.6
Principal
Catch (
age of total site
<~. CO
C 3
3 H
C
o "4-4
co » co
-r-> 0 C
Q. -i 3
•H ^ H
* * >
0)
3 -i-4 00
^ Cf »)^
< 5 to
45
8
80
77
45
*O CO
CO O
O CO
CO
cfl tJ 4)
C 0) U
3 >H -,
i— 4 (4
CO d)
> CL
41 CU
Vi CO
O C
CO
0 >-,
CO CO
-) M
•^^ ^4
CO 0)
3 3 X!
3 3 O
j
7 22
92
20
23
21
Source: Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977
-------
Fisheries near Mamala Bay in 1975-76 were valued at approximately $200,000
(2.6% of the total Hawaiian fishery, Table 3-13). Fishing for akule
(Trachurops crumenophthalmus) . opelu (Decapterus pinnulatus), and ulua
(Carangidae spp.) was 26% of the total fishery in 1975-1976 and the major part
of the shallow water fishery. Uku (Aprion virescens) is also concentrated at
Barbers Point in Mamala Bay near the proposed South Oahu Site. Fishing for
aku (Katsuwonus pelamis) is the major portion of fishery near the dredged
material disposal site; however, the majority of aku are taken well seaward of
the site. In 1977, the total catch was valued at $237,000, with aku
representing more than half the dollar amount. Data for the first half of
1978 indicated that the fisheries value increased to over $300,000.
The value of the 1975-1976 fishery surrounding the proposed Nawiliwili Site
was reported to be $190,000 (2.5% of the total Hawaiian fishery). The major
contributions to the fishery were aku, ahi (Neothunnus macropterus), bigeye
tuna (Parathunnus sibi), and albacore (Germo alalunga), with tuna comprising
77% of the fishery. The inshore akule fishery was 8% of the total fishery,
while assorted reef fishes and squid constituted the remainder. Fishery
values in 1977 increased to $383,000, with bigeye tuna representing over 60%
of the dollar value.
The value of the 1975-1976 fishery in the area surrounding the proposed
Port Allen Site was $112,000 (1.5% of the total Hawaiian fishery). The total
value in 1977 declined to $57,000. Aku, ahi, and bigeye tuna, combined, were
45%, striped marlin (Makira audax), 2%, and inshore akule, 34% of the total
fishery. Miscellaneous reef and pelagic fishes and invertebrates constituted
the remainder.
The value of the 1975-1976 fishery in the proposed Hilo area was about
$338,000 (4.5% of the total Hawaiian fishery); the value in 1977 was only
$217,000. The large tuna species, especially ahi, were the major fisheries
during the summer and autumn, representing about 80% of the year-round catch
from the area. The inshore akule fishery was 6.5% of the catch, while
deepwater snappers comprised 2% of the catch.
3-28
-------
The value of the fishery near the proposed Kahului Site was approximately
$39,000 (0.5% of the total Hawaiian fishery) in 1975-1976, and $36,000 in
1977. Akule represented 8% of the area's catch. Most of the fishery
consisted of invertebrates: opihi (Helcioniscus spp.), lobster, and octopus.
Shallow-water reef fishes such as weke (Mulloidichthys spp.) were also caught
in large numbers.
All sites are statistically insignificant and negligible in the areas where
the foregoing data were obtained with respect to fisheries.
NAVIGATION
Ocean surface transportation is Hawaii's lifeline; dredging activities are
indispensable for maintenance of harbor depths. Consumer goods and raw
materials are imported to, and exported from Hawaii. Honolulu Harbor is the
focal point of all shipping, annually handling over 8 million tons of incoming
cargos, and 5 million tons of outgoing cargos. The majority of cargo ship
traffic travel is trans-Pacific, not inter-island. Most traffic originates
from California ports, the remainder from the east coast and other Western
Pacific ports.
Tne 8 million short tons of cargos handled in 1970 by Honolulu Harbor were
double the volume of 1961. Approximately half the cargos were foodstuffs and
petroleum, the remainder consisting of building materials, chemicals, primary
metal products, and farm products. In 1970, imports totalled nearly 5.5
million tons and exports totalled 2.6 million tons. The presence of a Foreign
Trade Zone in Honolulu Harbor stimulates foreign trade, and encourages port
usage by international businessmen.
Pearl Harbor, a strategic military base of the United States, contributes
significantly to traffic through Mamala Bay. Cargo traffic in Pearl Harbor
totalled nearly 4.5 million tons between 1964 and 1971, but steadily decreased
from 530,000 in 1964 to 188,000 tons in 1971. The cargos handled in Pearl
Harbor are all military cargos.
3-29
-------
There are no established shipping lanes into or out of the Mamala Bay
Harbors. Pilots board vessels bound for Honolulu approximately 2 miles south
of Honolulu Channel. All vessels bound for Pearl Harbor must pass through the
approach point "Papa Hotel" to enter the harbor. Neither approach points for
Honolulu Harbor nor Pearl Harbor are marked with navigational aids.
INPUTS AT THE PROPOSED SITES OTHER THAN DREDGED MATERIAL
PREVIOUS DREDGING ACTIVITIES
The annual schedule for maintenance dredging the harbors, origin of harbor
sediments, and volumes of disposed dredged material are listed in Table 3-14.
Honolulu, Nawiliwili, and Port Allen Harbors are dredged approximately every 5
years, whereas Kahului and Hilo Harbors are dredged approximately every 10
years. Pearl Harbor is dredged as needed. Each harbor was dredged in
1977-1978. Of the total amount of dredged material in 1977-1978
(2,715,200 yd3), 71% (1,918,300 yd3) went to the Pearl Harbor Site, 17%
3
(451,770 yd ) to the Honolulu Site (for a total of 88% at the proposed South
3
Oahu Site), and the remaining 12% (342,720 yd ) to the other four disposal
sites (Figure 3-5). The proposed Kahului Site received the smallest volume of
3
material (23,500 yd ) in the 1977-1978 maintenance dredging cycle.
OTHER WASTE INPUTS
The South Oahu Site is the only proposed site where waste inputs other than
dredged material are significant. However, these inputs are derived from
nearby shallow water areas and consisted, in 1973, of approximately 23 point
3
sources which discharged 4.7 million yd of waste per day, either directly
into Mamala Bay, or indirectly into the Bay via Pearl and Honolulu Harbors.
Of these 23 sources, 13 were municipal and military sewage sources which
contributed 9% (0.42 million yd per day) of the total, 6 were strictly
thermal (cooling water) discharge sources from power-generating plants which
3
contributed 91% (4.3 million yd per day) of the total, 4 were miscellaneous
industrial sources which represented less than 0.1% (0.004 million yd3 per
day). In 1979, the number of point-source outfalls increased to 44, causing a
12% increase (0.59 million yd per day) over the 1973 discharge volumes.
These contributions are summarized in Table 3-15.
3-30
-------
TABLE 3-14
DREDGING OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
y ai .unifier
Un;dj{injj Frequency (yrii)*
Dredging Ijuatu ii icu (yJ« )
19/8
1'J//**
l'J/2
1'JftH*
lyfti1
l%»-jy/6
1 968-19691 t
m9- lyr./
Oil I/, in of Sr
-------
12%
Figure 3-5. 1977-1978 Dredged Material Source Breakdown
Source: Goeggel, 1978
3-32
-------
TABLE 3-15
POINT SOURCE SUMMARY FOR PEARL HARBOR AND MAMALA BAY
Source
Pearl Harbor
1971-73!
1979**
Mamala Bay
1971-73T
1979**
Combined Total
1971-73
1979
Number of
Permits
15
22
8
22
23
44
Total Volume
(Thousands of Cubic
Yards per Day)
3,100
3,300
1,600
2,000
4,700
5,300
Comparative Contributions* (Thousands of Cubic Yards Per Day)
Sewage
92 (3%)
123 (4%)
320 (20%)
438 (22%)
412 (9%)
561 (11%)
Industrial
Thermal
3,048 (97%)
3,125 (95%)
1,278 (80%)
1,588 (78%)
4,326 (91%)
4,713 (89%)
Other
0.4 ( 0.1%)
39 (1%)
-
1.3 ( 0.1%)
C.4 ( 0.1%)
41 ( 1%)
u>
I
Sources: * Percent contribution noted in parentheses
t Tetra Tech, 1976
** S. Konno, State of Hawaii, Dept. of Health, 1979
-------
Chapter 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Implementation of the proposed action will not significantly
degrade or endanger the marine environment or public health.
There will be few unavoidable adverse effects on the marine
environment or public health, and there will be no conflicts
between the proposed action and other existing or alternative
site uses. Appendix C contains supplemental data and text to
support the discussions in this chapter on the environmental
consequences of implementation of the proposed action.
The majority of all dredged material ocean disposal sites are located in
shallow waters less than 30 m deep. Consequently, few detailed environmental
evaluations of dredged material disposal in deep oceans exist. However, such
is not the case in Hawaii where a number of deep ocean environmental studies
have been conducted; thus, deep-ocean disposal is likely to be preferable to
shallow-water disposal for several reasons. The deep ocean covers enormous
areas and has great volumes of water for dilution. The biomass of the deep
ocean is miniscule in contrast to that of the shallow inshore waters, and the
majority of the inhabitants of the deep ocean are bottom scavengers with
burrowing habits. The deep oceans around Hawaii, and throughout the world,
are not used to any great extent for fisheries or food production. As a
result, there is no direct food-chain link from these areas to man and this
minimizes public health risks (Pequegnat et al., 1978). In support of the
preference for deep-ocean disposal sites, the Ocean Dumping Regulations
mandates that a dump site should be located, when feasible, beyond the
continental shelf.
The proposed and alternative sites are all located in characteristically
deep-ocean environments. The proposed sites are preferable to alternatives
because of some environmental characteristics which minimize or reduce
possible adverse impacts. Accordingly, this EIS is directed primarily towards
evaluating the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action,
4-1
-------
and the effects of such action on the proposed sites (in particular, the
proposed South Oahu Site, as it will receive the largest volume of dredged
material and is closest to the State's primary tourist and population center).
The other proposed sites are in potential tourism growth areas. The
characteristics and features of the alternative sites are described with
reference to decisions for selection of the proposed sites.
This chapter forms the scientific and analytical basis for comparing and
evaluating the alternatives discussed in Chapter 2, and contains the following
sections:
• Effects on Recreational, Economic, and Aesthetic Values
• Other Environmental Effects
• Potential Conflicts with Other Ocean Uses
• Potential Conflicts with Federal and State Plans and Policies
• Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects and Mitigating Measures
• Relationship Between Short-term Use and Long-term Productivity
• Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
EFFECTS ON RECREATIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND AESTHETIC VALUES
This section interprets the effects of dredged material disposal on (1)
economic values (tourism, fishing, and navigation), and (2) aesthetic values
(e.g., the potential for recruitment of nuisance species and short-term
presence of the discharge plume).
RECREATIONAL AND ECONOMIC VALUES
SITE WATER QUALITY
The discharge of dredged material at the proposed South Oahu Site will not
lower the water qualities of the region. Six daily trips (or one every four
hours) for disposal were made to the former Honolulu Site by the CE hopper
dredge CHESTER HARDING in 1977- Considering the most conservative ocean
currents at this proposed site (10 cm/sec), surface waters are replaced every
4-2
-------
seven hours. Thus, the brief occurrence (1.5 to 5 hours) of a surface plume
after disposal (Chave and Miller, 1978; Swafford, 1979) will not degrade or
reduce water quality at the proposed site.
Available data on dredged material characteristics do not indicate the
presence of pathogens which could jeopardize public health, directly or
indirectly through fisheries. Dredged materials must not contain any of the
prohibited materials cited in Ocean Dumping Regulations; however, permissible
quantities of the materials "prohibited except in trace amounts" have been
reported in dredged materials (see Appendix B). Concentrations of such
materials present no dangers to public health.
FISHING
Most fishing in Hawaii is either surface or midwater fishing; however,
bottom fishing for demersal snappers and groupers does occur. Shrimp is the
principal bottom fishing resource, but no commercial shrimp trawlers are
presently working in Hawaiian waters. However, shrimp is still a potential
fishery. Therefore, the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and State of Hawaii Department of Fish and Game urged the CE
to select sites outside the primary range of the shrimp, or beyond the
200-fathom (366 m) isobath. This general recommendation was in part a
consequence of the lack of field information from the sites at that time. Now
that detailed site-specific data are available for all sites, the need for a
depth limit was reevaluated on a site-specific basis. The recommmended sites
are all close to or exceed the 200-fathom contour while the proposed South
Oahu Site is within the range of the potentially valuable shrimp. The
proposed South Oahu Site is not favored for shrimp fishing because no
commercial concentrations of shrimp exist. Migrating shrimp have been
reported at the site after disposal operations (Goeggel, 1978, Tetra Tech,
1977; Chave and Miller, 1978) and may have been attracted to the disposal
activity. During the Phase I predisposal site survey at the former Honolulu
Site, live military ordnance was recovered by demersal trawling through the
region (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977). Thus, risks associated with
trawling outweigh the potential economic gain.
4-3
-------
The proposed Hilo Site (9) was selected in preference to alternative Site
9A because most commercial fishing in the area occurs along the western edge
of Site 9A.
Two species of shrimp of commercial value, but not in commercial
quantities, inhabit the region of the proposed and alternative Kahului Sites:
heterocarpus laevigatus, of greater value, found primarily at the alternative
site, and 11. ensifer, of lesser value, found in abundance over the entire
north main terrace off Maui (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977).
Recreational fishing from charter boats is widely practiced throughout the
Hawaiian Islands, mainly for offshore sport fish (e.g., mahimahi and
billfish). However, since such fish are taken by trolling (i.e., midwater
fishing), and since disposal operations last for short periods, disposal will
not adversely affect this activity (Maragos, 1979).
NAVIGATION
Infrequent dredging, and the short periods when dredge vessels operate at a
disposal site, ensure that disposal activities will not affect commercial or
recreational navigation at any of the proposed sites.
Adverse weather conditions which would affect dredged material released are
quite infrequent. Visibility in the Hawaiian Islands is consistently
excellent, thereby reducing potential collisions at sea during disposal
operations. Extreme winds and storms are infrequent. Hurricane records since
1950 list only seven known tropical depressions which affected Hawaii
(Haraguchi, 1975).
Recreational boating is a major popular pastime in the Islands, and several
harbors provide adequate docking. No adverse effects on recreational boating
will result from dredged material disposal.
4-4
-------
TOURISM
The use of the proposed sites for deep-ocean dredged material disposal will
not jeopardize coastal water attractiveness to tourists for several reasons.
All sites are far from tourist recreational areas. Dredging and disposal are
infrequent, and volumes of dredged material for disposal are minor inputs to
the waters when compared to inputs from other sources. Strong ocean currents
prevent the material from washing towards Hawaiian beaches.
In addition, hopper dredge operations are unobtrusive to ship traffic and
not likely to attract the attention of tourists. The direct benefit of
dredged material disposal is that dredging of several harbors will enhance
tourism by providing excellent navigational channels for large recreational
and commercial vessels to enter Hawaiian harbors.
AESTHETIC VALUES
Dredged material disposal will not diminish the aesthetic quality of the
recreational areas adjacent to the disposal sites. The only visible
manifestation of the dredged material release is a short-term surface plume
that is only visible to vessels and aircraft passing near the proposed sites.
The plume's duration, although dependent upon currents at time of release and
the characteristics of the dredged material being dumped, is generally from
one to five hours (Swafford, 1979). The initial width of a plume after
release was estimated by Tetra Tech (1977) to be 100 m, but plume details
became more difficult to observe with time as currents dispersed the material.
Two factors mitigate the effects of the disposal plume on aesthetic values.
The distance of the disposal sites from shore ensures that the plume will not
be visible from shore. Further, since the prevailing currents at the sites
are offshore or alongshore, the plume will not reach areas of aesthetic
value.
Pearl Harbor dredged material reportedly contained 11.9 g/kg of oil and
grease (Youngberg, 1973). However, oil sheens were not reported at the former
Pearl harbor Site, and no sheens were visible during dumping operations
(Maragos, 1979).
4-5
-------
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Key factors in the evaluation of impacts are the anticipated dispersion,
dilution, and settling rate of the dredged material after release from a
hopper dredge vessel. One method of prediction and description is mathe-
matical modeling. In Hawaii, several attempts were made to model and predict
the settling patterns of materials (Brandsma and Divoky, 1976; R.M. Towill
Corp., 1972; Johnson and Holliday, 1977; Tetra Tech, 1977). Unfortunately,
these models could not be verified during disposal operations. Subsequently,
a simplistic box model was used to make a conservative estimate of the
quantitative effects of disposal, as described below.
The fate of dredged material after release is affected by two forces:
prevailing site conditions and the contents of dredged material. The proposed
South Oahu Site is 450 m deep, has dimensions of 1.1 nmi (2.0 km) wide by 1.4
nm (2.6 km) long, and has a generally vertically uniform current of 10 cm/sec,
which flows in an offshore direction. This prevailing current velocity will
replace waters in the proposed site with upstream waters approximately every 7
hours. Disposal operations require approximately 4 hours to refill disposal
vessels with dredged material between release periods.
Hawaiian dredged material characteristics vary, but two basic types have
been reported: (1) 49% coral, 37% sand, and 14% granular shell material
(Tetra Tech, 1977), and (2) a mean for all harbors of 60% silt and clay and
40% sand. Samples of both types were collected from the CE hopper dredge
vessel CHESTER HARDING during the 1977-1978 operations. (See Appendix B.)
heavier components of dredged materials (rocks, coral heads, and pebbles)
will descend immediately, while fine sands (0.1 mm) descend much more slowly
(at a rate of 1.8 cm/sec), requiring 7 hours to settle (Graf, 1971). Settling
rates for silts and clays are even slower (0.3 cm/sec), requiring approxi-
mately 34 hours to reach bottom (Chave and Miller, 1977b). Material composed
of 60% silt and 40% clay will thus take longer to settle. For example, 23% of
the material (by weight) would fall within 6 hours, 44% in 2-1/2 days, with
4-6
-------
the remainder being transported out of the region (see Appendix C). Figure
4-1 illustrates the settling of dredged material after release, and depository
patterns for dredged materials are shown in Figure 4-2 (Tetra Tech, 1977).
An expanded review of previous modeling efforts is presented in Appendix C
with further descriptions of impact assessment calculations.
EFFECTS ON WATER COLUMN
TURBIDITY
Turbidity of the receiving waters is increased for a short period (2 to 5
hours) due to dredged material disposal. The highest concentration of
suspended matter observed by Tetra Tech during the 1977-1978 disposal
operations was approximately 30 mg/liter. Chave and Miller (1977b) reported
surface concentrations of over 60 mg/liter 14 minutes after material release.
It is concluded that the suspended loads are not sufficiently great to cause
any short-term or long-term adverse effects (see Appendix C).
NUTRIENT RELEASES
Phytoplankton are at the base of the food chain and require nitrogen and
phosphorus to photosynthesize and grow. Most oceanic waters are limited in
nitrogen content. Concerns created by nutrient releases (particularly
ammonia) from dredged material disposal activities stem from two opposing
effects which releases might have (Pequegnat et al., 1978). Nutrient releases
can stimulate biological activity, leading to rapid growth of undesirable
organisms, or else the nutrients (particularly ammonia) act as toxins. The
potential occurrence of either effect depends upon environmental factors such
as oxygen levels, and mixing and dilution rates.
Windom (1972, 1975, 1976) reported ammonia to be the only constituent,
monitored during initial disposal operations in North Carolina, South
Carolina, and California, which was consistently released in great volumes.
No data for ammonia concentrations are available for the dredged material;
however, Youngberg (1973) reported total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) values of
4-7
-------
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS WITHIN
WASTE TRAIL
COLLAPSE
AT
PYCNOCLINE
MAIN WASTE
MASS
FALL
VELOCITY
WASTE PLUME FOLLOWING RELEASE
WASTE PLUME
DISSIPATING
DUE TO
CURRENTS
AND
DIFFUSION
PARTICLES
SETTLING OUT
OF PLUME
TURBIDITY FLOW RADIUS
TURBID CLOUD
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
WASTE DtBRIS RADIUS
WASTE DEBRIS
1/2" -1»" FtEIGHT
Figure 4-1. Dredged Material Release Scenario
Source: Goeggel, 1978
4-8
-------
DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM FROM DISPOSAL SITE (m)
DISPOSAL
SITE
NUMBERS ARE SEDIMENT THICKNESS IN CM
Figure 4-2. Depository Patterns of a Single Discharge (2,681 yd )
-------
825 mg/kg in Pearl Harbor sediments. While there is no consistent
relationship between TKN and ammonia in dredged materials, by assuming that
the ammonia concentration is 75% of the TKN value, an order of magnitude
estimate can be deduced as to the effects of ammonia release on productivity.
Thus, with each discharge by the CHESTER HARDING of dredged material, an
estimated maximum of 736 kg of ammonia is released into the water. If
distributed throughout the water column at the proposed South Oahu Site, the
ammonia concentration would be increased approximately 0.31 jjg/liter to
4.7 jug/liter. Using the Eppley and Thomas (1969) conversion of ammonia to
phytoplankton, a phytoplankton biomass increase of approximately 5% per dump
may occur within the site. However, rapid dilution and transport would reduce
the concentration before this increase could occur.
Toxicity of ammonia to marine organisms is not well known. However, lethal
effects have been reported at much higher concentrations than those expected
to occur at all sites (Natarajan, 1970; Brown and Currie, 1973; Wuhrman and
woker, 1948). Even under the most extreme conditions, there appears to be no
potential for toxic effects of ammonia upon the biota (see Appendix C).
OXYGEN DEMAND
Release of dredged materials in water often causes a small initial oxygen
sag which varies from 0.006 to 0.02 mg/liter/minute (Lee et al., 1975). The
upper limit of these values, when extrapolated, reveal a dissolved oxygen
3
demand, in the first hour after dumping, of 1.6 gm O^/m /hr, or approximately
0.008% of the oxygen in the proposed South Oahu Site.
Complete oxidation of the organic matter found in dredged material disposed
at the site with each dump would require approximately 6 percent of the oxygen
within the proposed South Oahu Site. However, Goeggel (1978) reported that
during disposal operations, surface dissolved oxygen concentrations were
reduced for a few minutes before returning to ambient levels. In other
instances, oxygen reductions of lesser magnitudes were observed. Such
depressions are insignificant on a short-term basis and will not have any
adverse effects on biota.
4-10
-------
TRACE METAL AND ORGANOHALOGEN ACCUMULATION
The toxic levels of most metallic compounds for marine organisms have not
been established, partially due to the extreme variabilities in the
sensitivities exhibited by different organisms during different life-stages of
the same organism. Trace metals present in dredged material may follow many
pathways when introduced to the site environment. Three possibilities are:
(1) the trace metals become part of the site sediment, (2) the trace metals
may be released into the water column of the site while the dredged material
is settling to the sea floor and after it has settled, (3)- the trace metals
may be ingested by both pelagic and benthic organisms.
Studies at the Hawaiian disposal sites (Chave and Miller, 1978; Goeggel,
1978) revealed that concentrations of several trace metals in the site
sediments after dumping were elevated with respect to pre-disposal values (see
Appendix A, Table A-6); this suggests the possibility of trace metal
accumulation in the sediments due to dumping. However, definitive conclusions
from these data are lacking because (1) post-disposal control site metal
concentrations were also elevated with respect to pre-disposal values, and (2)
the average pre-disposal and post-disposal metal concentrations were
associated with such large standard deviations that the ranges of values
overlapped.
Laboratory and field tests on dredged material (Lee et al., 1975; Chen et
al., 1976) indicated that, under certain conditions (e.g., oxidizing or
reducing environments), some trace metals were released from dredged material
into sea water in concentrations above background levels. Lee et al. (1975)
concluded that manganese was released in the greatest quantities under both
oxidizing and reducing conditions. Under reducing conditions, substantial
amounts of iron and possibly lead were also released. Zinc was taken up from
the water under oxidizing and, perhaps, under reducing conditions, while
copper, lead, and cadmium were neither released nor taken up under oxidizing
conditions. The actual increases over background values which did occur were
miniscule (parts per billion or less), so that considerable analytical
difficulties were encountered. Furthermore, there is little evidence to
indicate that such low levels would cause adverse effects on marine organisms
4-11
-------
during the extremely short time before the concentrations were diluted to the
original background levels, or if the metals were precipitated (Pequegnat et
al., 1978).
The possibilities of water column accumulation of trace metals at the
Hawaiian disposal sites are extremely low, as illustrated by assuming an
extreme case, where, after release of one dump, all of the metals contained in
the load of dredged material were evenly distributed throughout the water
volume of the proposed South Oahu Site, mercury concentrations would increase
by 0.4 ng/liter, c-admium by 0.6 ng/liter, lead by 40 ng/liter, and copper by
50 ng/liter for the Pearl Harbor sediments. Considering these increases for a
single dump, it would take nearly 8,333 dumps into the same volume of water to
equal the permissible EPA (1976) Water Quality Criteria level for cadmium, and
over 250 dumps for mercury, discounting the ambient concentrations of these
metals at the site (see Table 4-1).
There are no bioassay data on pelagic or benthic organisms with respect to
dredged material previously dumped at any of the sites. Heavy metal body
burdens were found in shrimp in the proposed South Oahu Site vicinity and
compared with biota at control stations (Chave and Miller, 1977b; 1978).
These data showed no significant (t-test) differences in concentrations of
trace metals. However, dredged material was also found at the control site,
thus invalidating these data from consideration as control data. Thus, no
hard empirical data exist for estimating the potential for bioaccumulation of
trace metals from dredged material previously dumped. However, past dumping
is believed to have presented no public health threat for several reasons:
(1) fishing in Hawaii is conducted primarily at surface and midwater depths,
(2) no shellfishing (including shrimp trawling) occurs near the sites, and (3)
disposal occurs for only 45 hours extended over a few months every five or ten
years at each site. In accordance with the Ocean Dumping Regulations, future
materials intended for disposal at the sites will be tested for potential to
bioaccumulate, and materials which cannot comply with the regulatory criteria
will not be permitted for open-ocean dumping, and other disposal methods will
be needed.
4-12
-------
TABLE 4-1
TRACE METAL CONCENTRATION INCREASES AFTER ONE DUMP OF DREDGED MATERIAL*
Metal
Mercury
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
Manganese
Pearl Harbor
Sediments
Contribution
(ng/liter)
0.4
0.6
40
50
300
Honolulu Harbor
Sediments
Contribution
(ng/liter)
0.8
4.3
131
94
237
Water Quality
Criteria
(EPA, 1976)
100 ng/liter
5,000 ng/liter
0.01 multiplied by
96-hour LC^ value
0.1 multiplied by
96-hour LC value
100,000 ng/liter
* Evenly mixed throughout the water column
t Criterion exists for freshwater organisms only
Dredged material, from Pearl Harbor only, has been reported to contain
detectable quantities of organohalogens. (See Appendix B.) Such
concentrations, extrapolated throughout the water column, are much less than
EPA Water Quality Criteria limits.
WATER COLUMN TRAPPING
Marine life in the path of denser dredged material may be trapped, carried
to the bottom, and smothered. Microscopic plants (phytoplankton) and animals
(zooplankton) and small fish (micronekton) will be in the path of dumped
material. Decay of dead organisms carried to the bottom will consume oxygen
and may lead to a reduction of oxygen at the sediment-water interface.
Several investigators (Gunnerson and Emery, 1962; Olson et al., 1941;
Welch, 1952) have suggested that high-density dredged material, during its
fall to the bottom, may trap planktonic organisms, carrying them to the ocean
floor. Available studies on biota trapping are minimal, but it can be
expected that the ability of an organism to withstand being carried to the
4-13
-------
bottom is directly related to its ability to swim and the size of each
plankton. Great pressures and temperature differentials must also be
considered.
Potentially, a single dump of dredged material could trap and carry to the
bottom 1% of the phytoplankton biomass, 0.3% of the zooplankton biomass, and
0.2% of the micronekton biomass in the proposed South Oahu Site. Most of
these organisms move with the currents, and the water in the proposed South
Oahu Site will be replenished between each dump, thus there will be no
significant adverse impact on the local planktonic community due to trapping
of organisms by the descending dredged materials. Other proposed and
alternative sites are similar to the proposed South Oahu Site, therefore the
same water column trapping effects would occur.
EFFECTS ON THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
The Hawaiian Islands provide a critical habitat for three threatened and
endangered marine organisms: the green sea turtle, Hawaiian monk seal, and
humpback whale. Green sea turtle nesting grounds are confined entirely to the
northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The distribution of the monk seal is centered
primarily on the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Dredged material disposal
produces localized environmental effects which are not expected to affect
these populations. However, the effects on the humpback whale and green sea
turtle, of short-term turbidity resulting from dredged material disposal, are
not known at this time.
During breeding season, humpback whales are sensitive to human presence and
activities. Dredged material disposal, conducted at a time when whales are
actually present within the site vicinity, would most likely induce avoidance
behavior. Out of the breeding season, humpbacks have been reported to be
undisturbed by boat and ship traffic which is not directed towards them
(.Norris and Reeves, 1978). Figure 3-2 in Chapter 3 shows that none of the
proposed disposal sites are within areas frequently visited by the whales.
However, dumping operations will be scheduled and conducted in a manner which
minimizes the potential for disturbing humpbacks during breeding season
(November to May).
4-14
-------
In the future, Federal, State, or county "humpback parks" or critical
humpback whale habitats may be established. Dredged material disposal
activities must not conflict with these areas or the goal of protecting
humpback whales in their wintering grounds.
EFFECTS ON BENTHOS
Principal effects of dredged material disposal are upon bottom life.
Bottom impacts evaluated include organism trapping, benthic smothering
(burial), alteration of sediment distribution size, associated benthic
community change, and mounding. The intake potential of toxic materials by
organisms was previously discussed for plumes and sediments.
BENTHOS SMOTHERING
As distance from shore and water depth increase, the benthic biomass
dramatically decreases (Moiseev, 1971; Rowe and Menzel, 1971; Thiel, 1975).
Pequegnat et al., (1978) reported that, on a worldwide basis, the average
deep-ocean biomass is about 0.01% of life on the continental shelf.
Nevertheless, while abundance is low, some organisms in the direct path of
disposal will be buried.
The ability of organisms to survive burial is related to habitat and body
or shell morphology. Organisms of similar lifestyle and morphology react
similarly when covered with sediment (Hirsch et al., 1978). For example, all
epifaunal organisms (animals living above the bottom) are usually killed when
trapped under deposited dredged material, while infaunal organisms (those
living in the sediments) migrate in varying degrees. Hirsch et al. (1978),
report studies which determined that mud crabs and amphipods. (which have
morphological and physiological adaptations for crawling through sediments)
were able to migrate vertically through deposits tens of centimeters thick.
Similarly, Maurer et al. (1978) reported that the majority of animals tested
were able to migrate vertically, with as much as 32 cm of dredged material
piled on top of them.
4-15
-------
More severe effects are anticipated when organisms are buried under exotic
sediments (i.e., those in or on which the organisms do not normally live),
compared to conditions when they are buried under sediments similar to those
at the disposal site. For example, adverse effects are generally minimal when
sand is placed on a sandy bottom, and are maximal when mud is deposited over a
sand bottom. Smaller organisms and animals in poor physiological condition
are usually more susceptible to the effects of burial than the larger
organisms (Morton, 1976; Saila et al., 1971, 1972). Crustaceans react to
oxygen deficiency by increasing ventilation, and if the weight of sediments
interferes with this activity, they quickly die. Some bivalve mollusks can
incur an oxygen deficit, and certain polychaetes can reduce their metabolic
activity when oxygen levels are low, thus increasing the time available for
escape.
Comparisons of grain-size distribution of dumped dredged material and
sediments at the proposed disposal sites are presented in Table 4-2. It can
be seen that sediments at the proposed South Oahu Site resemble the materials
dredged from both Pearl and Honolulu Harbors. While sand usually predominates
at the other proposed sites, primarily silt will be dumped; however,
terrestrial silts do form a portion of the deep-ocean oozes around Hawaii.
Thus, the materials introduced into the proposed sites are not entirely
foreign to the environment and are not expected to have significant effects
(Maragos, 1979).
Epifaunal organisms are more abundant at the sites than infaunal organisms.
These benthic organisms live in a deep sea environment with low sedimentation
-4
rates, approximately 2.0 x 10 cm/year (R.M. Towill Corp., 1972). The
epifauna are dominated by tube-dwelling polychaetes and micromollusks. In a
worst-case estimate, these organisms succumb to burial by 5 cm of sediment.
The infauna are dominated by detritivore and carnivore polychaetes having
greater burrowing abilities than epifaunal organisms. Such organisms may
succumb to burial by greater than 30 cm of sediment thickness. Infaunal
2
organisms will be smothered within a 2,400 m area, while epifaunal organisms
2
will be smothered within a 5,000 m area. These account for 0.05% of the
infauna and 0.1% of the epifauna within the site which may be adversely
affected by each dredged material discharge.
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-2
GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISONS OF SEDIMENTS
AT THE PROPOSED SITES AND DREDGED MATERIAL TO BE DUMPED
Proposed Site/Source
South Oahu Region
Disposal Site
Dredged Material/
Pearl Harbor
Honolulu Harbor
Port Allen
Disposal Site
Dredged Material/
Port Allen Harbor
Nawiliwili
Disposal Site
Dredged Material/
Nawiliwili Harbor
Kahului
Disposal Site
Dredged Material/
Kahului Harbor
Hilo
Disposal Site
Dredged Material/
Hilo Harbor
Composition (%)
Gravel
10-14 (a,b)
1 (a)
6 (a)
11 (a)
1 (a)
Sand
75-76 (a,b)
58 (c)
39 (d)
63 (a)
9 (d)
92 (a)
8 (d)
80 (a)
22 (d)
77 (a)
13 (d)
Silt/Clay
10-15 (a,b)
42 (c)
51 (d)
36 (a)
91 (d)
2 (a)
92 (d)
9 (a)
78 (d)
22 (a)
87 (d)
Sources: (a) Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977
(b) Chave and Miller, 1978
(c) Youngberg, 1973
(d) Goeggel, 1978
All alternative sites have either biologically richer and/or more diverse
benthic communities than the proposed sites. In general, commercially
valuable shrimp are more abundant at the alternative sites. Thus, dredged
material disposal will likely have more of an adverse smothering effect on the
alternative sites than on the proposed sites.
4-17
-------
FAUNAL SHIFTS
Previous biological surveys at the proposed sites have produced consider-
able qualitative data. The biomass or species mapping, however, cannot be
determined from available data. Generally, the organisms at the proposed
sites have adapted to fairly stable oceanic conditions. The inshore or
estuarine organisms are much more tolerant of changes in environmental
conditions. Numerous studies have demonstrated grain size to be important in
the distribution of benthic life (Sanders, 1958; Wieser, 1959; Rogers, 1976;
Harman, 1972). A change in substrate may be expected to cause the species to
shift. Accordingly, the Ocean Dumping Regulations specify that "...material
proposed for dumping is substantially the same as the substrate..." at the
disposal site. Materials which do not comply with this guideline must undergo
further testing.
The materials to be dumped at the proposed South Oahu Site are typically
characterized by a 40% to 50% silt/clay proportion which does not immediately
settle and will not alter the substrate substantially. The bulk of dredged
material proposed for dumping at the proposed South Oahu Site is composed of
sand and gravel, and presents no great variation in disposal site substrate.
Stress upon the benthic biota and organism tolerance of stress is still
comparatively unknown (Goeggel, 1978). Most dredged material studies have
usually indicated that stress is minor and of short duration. Data collected
during and after the 1977-1978 disposal operations in Hawaii are in agreement
with these conclusions (Goeggel, 1978; Chave and Miller, 1978). The only
variation in community shift was the increase at the proposed South Oahu Site
of the shrimp Heterocarpus ensifer (Tetra Tech, 1977; Goeggel 1978).
MOUNDING
Dredged material will not cause mounding at any proposed site sufficient to
cause adverse impacts, even though large volumes may be dumped. Comparisons
of bathymetry at the proposed South Oahu Site (former Honolulu Disposal Site)
before and after dumping of 456,500 yd3 in 1977-1978 (Neighbor Island
4-18
-------
Consultants, 1977; Goeggel, 1978) show no changes in depths. Changes which do
appear are beyond the accuracy limits of the navigational and sonar equipment
used in the surveys.
An approximation of the buildup at the proposed South Oahu Site is
evaluated in several ways. First, if the entire amount of dredged material
taken from Honolulu and Pearl Harbors during 1977-1978 (a total of 487 loads)
were to be released by the CHESTER HARDING at the proposed site, the maximal
sediment thickness of dumped dredged material would range from 80 m thick at a
downstream distance of 100 m to about 4 cm thick 3.3 km downstream. Second,
3 3
if 1 million m (1.3 million yd ) of dredged material were to be uniformly
2
distributed over the proposed South Oahu Site area (5.2 million m ), the
result would be a uniform sediment thickness of 19 cm. Since the alternative
sites are similar to the proposed sites, buildups would be similar.
IMPACTS ON OTHER OCEAN USES
SCIENTIFIC USES
The proposed sites are not near any reported ecologically unique area and
have not been utilized for purely scientific studies. All oceanographic
studies performed near the proposed sites have been for the purpose of dredged
material disposal impact evaluation.
PRESERVATION AREAS
The CE (1975) reviewed the National and State of Hawaii Registers of
Historic Sites and Places, then contacted the State Historic Preservation
Officer and Archaeologist to report that no historical, geological, or
archaeological sites of interest are near the proposed sites.
Pearl Harbor Naval Base is listed in the 1972 National Register of Historic
Places (Federal Register, Feb. 1975), and Aloha Tower in Honolulu is an
important nistoric site near the proposed South Oahu Site; however, although
Historic places and locations are near the harbors, they will not be affected
4-19
-------
by maintenance dredging or ocean disposal operations. There are no marine
protection preserves in Mamala Bay, or near the other proposed sites, which
could be influenced by dredged material disposal.
INDUSTRIAL USE AREAS
The only areas of industrial usage near the proposed sites are close to the
South Oahu Site. Three areas of Mamala Bay have permanent industrial
installations. The Sand Island Outfall extends 1,100 m from Sand Island and
discharges sewage at a depth of 12 m; anchoring is prohibited within 600 m of
this pipeline. Two offshore pipeline terminals for unloading oil from tankers
are off Barbers Point, approximately 20 miles (37 km) west of the proposed
South Oahu Site. The area is closed to all vessels except commercial vessels
involved in loading or unloading activities. A cable area exists southwest of
Diamond Head.
OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION (OTEC)
OTEC is a method for producing energy from the ocean by using the warm
surface waters to vaporize a working fluid (e.g., ammonia), then using the
cold, deep ocean waters to condense the vapor. The world's first OTEC plant,
constructed by Lockheed Missiles and Space Company and others, is situated off
Keahole Point, Hawaii. A second preoperational platform is presently under
construction and will be tested off the Kona coast (Hawaii) in 1980 (Sands et
al., 1976).
Candidates for OTEC siting require an annual average temperature gradient
of at least 17°C between the surface and waters 700 to 1,000 m in depth. The
possibility of siting a plant near any of the proposed sites is unlikely since
OTEC plants require areas with the above depths. The two Kauai sites (Port
Allen and Nawiliwili) are in water deep enough for an OTEC plant; however, the
bottom is too steeply sloped for mooring a platform. The implantation of a
transmission cable through the sites is a possible conflict which can be
avoided by planning.
4-20
-------
OCEAN INCINERATION
In 1976, a site 100 nmi (180 km) southwest of Honolulu was tentatively
selected by EPA for ocean incineration of organochlorine wastes. Dredged
material disposal will not interfere with this activity.
DEEP-OCEAN MINING
There is no planned mining of manganese nodules or other deep-ocean mineral
resources near any proposed sites. Potential mining areas are generally much
farther offshore.
SAND MINING
Studies have been conducted on the possibilities and economic future of
sand mining in the inshore waters off Hawaii. There is no potential conflict
with dredged material disposal operations, inasmuch as sand mining is
restricted to water depths of less than 15 m (Maragos et al., 1977).
CORAL HARVESTING
Precious coral harvesting is a continuing industry in the Hawaiian Islands.
The proposed sites are not near any of the resource areas (Grigg, 1979;
Maragos, 1979).
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND
MITIGATING MEASURES
Few unavoidable adverse environmental effects will be created by the ocean
disposal of dredged material at the proposed sites. Unavoidable adverse
effects can be categorized as short-term or long-term. Short-term effects
are:
• Elevated concentration of suspended material in the water
4-21
-------
• Short-term dissolved oxygen decrease and ammonia increase in the
water
• Possible attraction to or avoidance of the area by fish
• Biota trapping
The first three of these adverse effects are mitigated naturally by rapid
dilution of the discharge plume in the water. Some water column biota may be
trapped as the dredged material falls to the ocean floor. Some benthic
organisms will dig out and escape.
The longer-term unavoidable adverse effects are:
• Biota smothering
• Accumulation of material on the ocean floor
The biomass at the proposed sites is small, and the few organisms which
cannot dig out represent an insignificant proportion of the inhabitants. The
extent of biota smothering will be decreased by dumping at one specific area
in a proposed site. The infrequency of disposal operations is also a
mitigating factor for biota smothering.
Scientific knowledge of summer fish spawning and migration is minimal, thus
summer ocean disposal should be eliminated until more information is obtained.
The Ocean Dumping Regulations require reviews of physical characteristics
and chemical constituents of the dredged material. Materials which do not
comply with MPRSA will not be ocean-dumped.
Representative samples will be collected periodically from the dredge
vessel hoppers after they have been filled in the harbor and before release at
a site, to obtain a better characterization of the materials. Profiles of
physical and chemical characteristics will be obtained by measurements. These
data can be compared to pre-dredging harbor sediment values to determine the
4-22
-------
nature of the materials being dumped at the proposed site. The data will also
provide information on the temporal changes of trace metals in the dredged
harbor materials.
To evaluate the effects of dredged material ocean disposal over a longer
time period, an environmental monitoring program will be considered by the CE
for each disposal cycle at the proposed South Oahu Site, since it receives the
greatest volume of dredged material. If monitoring at South Oahu indicates
evidence of adverse effects, the other disposal sites will be considered for
monitoring, at the discretion of CE. The monitoring plan will concentrate on
the benthos, to determine benthic community recovery rates, long-term effects
on benthos, and dredged material distribution on the site floor.
Periodic water measurements made during the disposal operation will provide
information on the direction and rate of settling of the various fractions
dumped, and will refine data concerning the descent and dispersion of the
dredged material after release.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE AND
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The sites proposed for designation are used for occasional sport fishing,
but there is little nearby commercial fishing. Sportfishing occurs only in
surface waters, and is independent of the quality of the bottom conditions.
Designation of these sites will not adversely affect commercial ship traffic,
other existing or potential site uses, or ecologically sensitive areas.
The Mamala Bay region, (where the proposed South Oahu Site exists),
receives several point-source discharges from industrial and municipal
outfalls. Ocean disposal of dredged material will not affect the long-term
productivity of this or the adjoining area.
The designation of the proposed sites for continued use for short-term
ocean disposal will not jeopardize long-term productivity of the sites.
4-23
-------
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENT
Resources which would be irreversibly and irretrievably committed upon
implementation of the proposed action include:
• Loss of energy in the form of fuel required for transport of
dredging vessels to and from the proposed sites.
I
• Loss of constituents such as trace metals in the dredged material,
i
because existing technology is not adequate to recover them
efficiently.
• Loss of insignificantly few benthic organisms smothered by dredged
material during disposal operations.
4-24
-------
Chapter 5
COORDINATION
PREPARERS OF THE EIS
The preparation of this EIS was a joint effort employing members of the
scientific and technical staff of Interstate Electronics Corporation and the
Pacific Ocean Division of the Army Corps of Engineers. The preparers and the
sections of the EIS for which they were responsible are presented in Table
5-1.
TABLE 5-1. LIST OF PREPARERS
Author
M.D. Sands
J. Donat
M. Howard
S. Sullivan
J. Maragos
M. Lee
Summary
X
Chapter
1
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
X
X
X
X
6
X
X
X
Appendix
A
X
X
X
X
X
B
X
X
X
X
c
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
X
X
F
X
M. DALE SANDS
Mr. Sands, the principal author of this EIS, possesses a B.S. degree in
chemistry and biological sciences and an M.S. degree in environmental health
sciences (envr, .onmental chemistry). He prepared the Summary, Chapters 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5, and Appendix D of the EIS. As EIS coordinator, he directed
writing efforts on other sections of the EIS, edited all chapters, and
maintained liaison with EPA headquarters and the Pacific Ocean Division of the
Army Corps of Engineers.
5-1
-------
JOHN R. DONAT
Mr. Donat holds a B.S. degree in chemical oceanography. He assisted with the
writing of Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and Appendixes A, B, C, and F.
MATTHEW HOWARD
Mr. Howard holds a B.S. degree in physical oceanography. He assisted in the
preparation of Chapters 3 and 4 and Appendixes A, B, and C.
STEPHEN M. SULLIVAN
Mr. Sullivan holds a B.S. degree in biological oceanography. He assisted in
the preparation of Chapters 3 and 4 and Appendixes A and C.
MICHAEL LEE
Mr. Lee is an environmental biologist at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Resources Section, Pacific Ocean Division, Honolulu, Hawaii. He
holds a B.S. degree in marine biology. Mr. Lee assisted in editing the entire
EIS.
JAMES E. MARAGOS
Dr. Maragos is Chief of the Environmental Resources Section, Pacific Ocean
Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu, Hawaii. He holds a B.A.
degree in zoology and a Ph.D. in biological oceanography. Dr. Maragos
assisted in editing the entire EIS.
5-2
-------
COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT EIS
The following persons submitted written comments:
Sidney R. Caller
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs
U.S. Department of Commerce
Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology
Washington, D.C. 20230
(February 4, 1980; February 12, 1980)
George C. Steinman
Chief, Environmental Activities Group
Office of Shipbuilding Costs
U.S. Department of Commerce
Maritime Administration
Washington, D.C. 20230
(December 28, 1979)
James W. Rote
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Director, Office of Fisheries and Habitat Protection
Washington, D.C. 20235
(February 6, 1980)
Doyle E. Gates
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southwest Region
Western Pacific Program Office
P.O. Box 3830
Honolulu, Hawaii 96812
(January 9, 1980)
5-3
-------
Robert B. Rollins
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Survey
Rockville, Maryland 20852
(December 28, 1979)
R. Kifer
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Washington, D.C. 20235
(January 1, 1980)
Kisuk Cheung
Chief, Engineering Division
U.S. Department of the Army
Pacific Ocean Division, Corps of Engineers
Building 230
Fort Shatter, Hawaii 96858
(January 2, 1980)
R.D. Eber
CDK, CEC, USN
Facilities Engineer
Headquarters, Naval Base Pearl Harbor
Box 11U
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860
(January 11, 1980)
5-4
-------
Frank S. Lisella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Bureau of State Services
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Public Health Service
Center for Disease Control
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
(January 9, 1980)
Patricia Sanderson Port
Regional Environmental Officer
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of the Secretary
Pacific Southwest Region
Box 36098
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
(December 18, 1979)
Donald R. King
Director, Office of Environment and Health
Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20520
(February 5, 1980)
Adair F. Montgomery
Chairman, Committee on Environmental Matters
National Science Foundation
Washington, D.C. 20550
(January 14, 1980)
5-5
-------
James S. Kumagai, Ph.D.
Deputy Director for Environmental Health
State of Hawaii
Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801
(January 11, 1980)
Richard L. O'Connell
Director, Office of Environmental Quality Control
Office of the Governor
550 Halekauwila Street
Room 301
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(January 15, 1980)
Susumu Ono
Chairman, Board of Land and Natural Resources
State of Hawaii
Department of Land and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 621
Honolulu, Hawaii 96809
(December 19, 1979)
Ah Leong Kara
State Transportation Planner
State of Hawaii
Department of Transportation
869 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(January 8, 1980)
5-6
-------
Wallace Miyahira
Director and Chief Engineer
Department of Public Works
City and County of Honolulu
650 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(December 28, 1979)
George S. Moriguchi
Chief Planning Officer
Department of General Planning
City and County of Honolulu
650 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(December 5, 1979)
Toshio Ishikawa
Planning Director
County of Maui
Planning Department
2UU South High Street
Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii 96793
(December 7, 1979)
Sidney Fuke
Director, Planning Department
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
(December 20, 1979)
5-7
-------
Tyrone T. Kusao
Director of Land Utilization
Department of Land Utilization
City and County of Honolulu
650 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(December 12, 1979)
Doak C. Cox
Director, Environmental Center
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Crawford 317
2550 Campus Road
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
(.January 15, 1980)
Kelley Dobbs
Greenpeace Foundation
P.O. box 30547
Honolulu, Hawaii 96820
(January 14, 1980)
Kenneth S. Kamlet
Assistant Director, Pollution and Toxic Substances
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(January 15, 1980)
5-8
-------
Chapter 6
GLOSSARY, ABBREVIATIONS, AND REFERENCES
GLOSSARY
Aesthetics
Ambient
Pertaining to the natural beauty or attractiveness of
an object or location.
Pertaining to the existing conditions of
surrounding environment.
the
Appropriate sensitive At least one species each representing filter-feeding,
benthic marine deposit-feeding, and burrowing species chosen from
organisms among the most sensitive species accepted by EPA as
being reliable test organisms to determine the
anticipated impact on the site.
Appropriate sensitive At least one species each representative of phyto-
marine organisms plankton or zooplankton, crustacean or mollusk, and
fish species chosen from among the most sensitive
species documented in the scientific literature, or
accepted by EPA as being reliable test organisms, to
determine the anticipated impact of the wastes on the
ecosystem at the disposal site.
Assemblage
Atmosphere
Background level
basalt
Baseline data
Bathymetric gradient
Bathypelagic zone
Benthos
A group of organisms sharing a common habitat.
A unit of pressure equal to the air pressure at mean
sea level, comparable to 760 mm of mercury.
The naturally occurring level of a substance within an
environment prior to the unnatural addition of that
substance.
An aphanitic crystalline rock of volcanic origin,
composed largely of dark minerals such as pyroxene and
olivine.
Data collected prior to the outset of actions which
have potential of altering an existing environment.
The rate of change in depth of the bed of a body of
water.
The biogeographic realm of the ocean lying between
depths of 1,000 and 4,000 m.
A category of marine organisms that live on, in, or
near the bottom of the ocean.
6-1
-------
Bioaccumulation
Bioassay
Biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD)
Biomagnification
Biomass
Biota
Biotic groups
Calcareous
Calcareous ooze
Carbonates
Carbon fixation
Carcinogen
Carnivorous
Chaetognaths
Chlorophyll _a
Chronic effect
The uptake and assimilation of substances, such as
heavy metals, leading to a concentration of these
substances within an organism's tissue, blood, or body
fluid.
Exposure of a test organism to samples of contaminant-
laden water under controlled conditions to determine
the contaminant concentration lethal to the organism
over varying lengths of time.
The amount of dissolved oxygen used up during the
oxidation of oxygen-demanding material.
The process by which the concentration of a substance
can be greatly increased as organisms in the lower
levels of a food chain are ingested by animals in the
upper levels.
The physical mass (weight) of living organisms
considered in total. Used in expressing population
density.
Pertaining to life and living organisms, collectively
plants and animals.
Organisms which are ecologically, structurally, or
taxonomically grouped.
Consisting of or containing calcium carbonate.
A fine-grained pelagic deposit which contains more than
30 percent calcium carbonate, derived from the skeletal
material of various planktonic animals and plants.
Salts or esters of carbonic acid.
Process by which primary producers (phytoplankton)
utilize inorganic carbon for the production of energy
in photosynthesis.
A substance or agent producing or inciting cancer.
Eating or feeding on animal tissues.
Small, elongate, transparent, wormlike animals pelagic
in all seas from the surface to great depths. They are
abundant and may multiply into vast swarms.
A specific green pigment used in photosynthesis which
serves as a convenient measure of phytoplankton
biomass.
A toxic effect which does not directly result in the
death of an organism but in some way reduces the
survivorship of that organism over a long period.
6-2
-------
Circulation pattern
Coelenterates
Compensation depth
Continental shelf
Continental slope
Copepods
Crustaceans
Current drogue
Current meter
Cyclonic eddies
Demersal
Density
Detritivore
Detritus
Diatom
Diffusion
The general geometric configuration of oceanic currents
usually applied in synoptic oceanography.
A large, diverse group of simple animals possessing two
cell layers and a digestive cavity with only one
opening. This opening is surrounded by tentacles
containing stinging cells.
The depth in the ocean at which oxygen production by
photosynthesis equals that consumed by plant
respiration during a 24-hour period.
The continental margin extending seaward from the coast
to a depth of about 200 m.
The steeply descending slope lying between the
continental shelf and the deep ocean floor (abyssal
plain).
Minute, shrimplike crustaceans, most species of which
range between about 0.5 and 10 mm in length.
Animals with jointed appendages and a segmented
external skeleton composed of a hard shell or crust.
The group includes barnacles, crabs, shrimps, and
lobsters.
Device placed somewhere in the water column which moves
along with the current for a cumulative distance over a
specified time period, thus displaying average current
velocity, by observation and calculations.
Any device for measuring and indicating speed or
direction (often both) of flowing water.
Mesoscale (50 to 100 km) features of oceanic
circulation in which water flows in a circular pattern
around cold core waters.
Living on or near the bottom of the sea.
The mass per unit volume of a substance.
An organism which ingests detritus.
Loose material (organic or inorganic) that results
directly from disintegration.
A microscopic, planktonic plant with an external
skeleton of silica; abundant worldwide.
Transfer of material by eddies or molecular movement.
Results in dissemination of matter under the influence
of a concentration gradient, with movement from the
stronger to the weaker solution.
6-3
-------
Dilution
Discharge plume
Dispersion
Dissolved oxygen
Dissolved solids
Diversity
Dominance
Dry weight
Ecosystem
Echinoderms
Eddy
Endemic
Epifauna
Epipelagic
Erosion
Estuary
A reduction in concentration through the addition of
ambient waters.
The region of fluid derived from the discharge pipe
which is distinguishable from the surrounding water.
The dissemination of discharged matter over large areas
by the natural processes of turbulence currents.
The quantity of oxygen dissolved in a unit volume of
water; usually expressed in ml/liter.
The dissipation of solid matter in solution, such as
salt dissolved in water.
A measure of the variety of species in a community that
takes into account the relative abundance of each
species.
A species or group of species which largely control the
energy flow and strongly affect the environment within
a community.
The weight of a sample of organisms after all water has
been removed; a measure of biomass.
A functional system which includes the organisms of a
natural community or assemblage together with their
physical environment.
Principally benthic marine animals having either
calcareous plates with projecting spines forming a
rigid or articulated skeleton, or plates and spines
embedded in the skin. They have radially symmetrical,
usually five-rayed bodies. They include the starfish,
sea urchins, crinoids, and sea cucumbers.
A water current moving contrary to the direction of the
main current, especially in a circular motion.
Restricted or peculiar to a locality or region.
Animals which live on or near the bottom of the sea.
Ocean zone ranging from the surface to 200 m in depth.
The group of natural processes (including weathering,
dissolution, abrasion, and corrosion) by which the
surface is removed from a material.
A semienclosed, tidal, coastal body of fresh and saline
water with free connection to the sea, commonly the
lower end of a river.
6-4
-------
Fauna
Flocculate
Flora
Foraminifera
Heavy metals or
elements
Herbivorous
Holothurian
Hopper dredge
Indigenous
Infauna
Initial mixing
In situ
In toto
Insular shelf
Invertebrates
Island mass effect
Isopods
The animal population of a particular location, region,
or period.
The process of aggregation into small lumps, especially
with regard to solids and colloids.
The plant population of a particular location, region,
or period.
Single-celled, planktonic or benthic protozoans
possessing shells, usually of calcium carbonate.
Elements which possess a specific gravity of 5.0 or
greater.
Eating or feeding on plants.
A worm-like animal, commonly called a sea cucumber,
which is related to starfish, sea urchins, and sand
dollars.
A self-propelled vessel which has the capabilities to
dredge, store, transport, and dispose of dredged
material.
Having originated in and being produced, growing, or
living naturally in a particular region or environment.
Animals which live buried in soft substrata.
That dispersion or diffusion of liquid, suspended
particulate, and solid phases of a material which
occurs within 4 hours after dumping.
In the original or natural setting (Latin).
In full, to the fullest extent (Latin).
The zone surrounding an island extending from the line
of permanent immersion to the depth (usually 200
meters) where there is a marked or rather steep descent
toward great depths.
Animals without backbones.
A phenomenon in which the abundance or biomass of
organisms in the immediate vicinity of an island is
markedly higher than the surrounding oceanic area.
The second largest order of crustaceans. These
flattened organisms are generally scavengers.
6-5
-------
Kona
LC5Q (Lethal
concentration 50)
LC
10
Limiting permissible
concentration (LPC)
Lipophillic
Lithogenic
Marine
Mesopelagic
Microgram-atom
(/Lig-at)
Micromollusks
Micronekton
Micronutrients
The dissociation constant of the enzyme-substrate
complex in an enzyme-activated reaction. Used in
biochemistry, especially metabolic studies and
photosynthesis, to study the effects of changes in
concentration of reactants and products on organisms.
It is measured as:
K = [E][S]
[ES]
Where [E] = concentration of enzyme
[S] = concentration of substrate
[ES] = concentration of enzyme-substrate complex.
Southerly winds in Hawaii.
In bioassay studies, the concentration of a contaminant
which causes 50% mortality in the population of the
test organisms during a unit time.
A bioassay or toxicity study in which the concentration
of pollutant which causes 10% mortality in the
population of test organisms during a unit time is
determined.
A concentration of a constituent that, after initial
mixing, does not exceed marine water criteria or cause
unreasonable acute or chronic toxicity or other
sublethal adverse effects.
Having an affinity for lipids (in the form of fats).
Of or derived from rock.
Pertaining to the sea.
Relating to the oceanic depths between 200 m and
1,000 m.
Mass of an element numerically equal to its atomic
weight in grams divided by 10^.
Tiny inollusks generally less than 0.5 mm in size.
Organisms commonly collected in a Isaac-Kidd Midwater
Trawl. This group consists of weakly swimming nekton
such as mesopelagic fish, small squid, gelatinous
organisms, and fish larvae.
Substances which an organism must obtain from its
environment to maintain health, though necessary only
in minute amounts.
6-6
-------
Micro-organisms
Microzooplankton
Mixed layer
Monitoring
Motile
Mutagen
Nannoplankton
Nekton
Nematoda
Nephelometry
Neritic waters
Nuisance species
Nutrient
Nutrient-light regime
Octocorals
Omnivorous
Organohalogen
pesticides
Organisms which cannot be detected without the aid of
magnifying equipment.
Planktonic animals with lengths between 20 and 200
microns, composed mainly of protozoans and juvenile
copepods.
The upper layer of the ocean which is well mixed by
wind and wave activity.
As considered here, the observation of environmental
effects of disposal operations through biological and
chemical data collection and analyses.
Exhibiting or capable of spontaneous movement.
A substance that tends to increase the frequency or
extent of mutation.
Minute planktonic plants and animals which are 50
microns or less in size. Individuals of this size will
pass through most plankton nets and are therefore
usually collected by centrifuging water samples.
Free-swimming aquatic animals which move independently
of water currents.
Free-living and parasitic unsegmented worms.
The determination of the concentration or particle size
of suspensions by means of transmitted or reflected
light.
Shallow waters in the marine environment.
Species of organisms which have no commercial value yet
out-compete commercially important species due to an
induced shift in environmental conditions.
Any substance which promotes growth or provides energy
for biological processes.
The overall condition of the nutrients and light in the
environment as they relate to photosynthesis.
Animals possessing soft coralline exoskeletons having
eight, or multiples of eight tentacles, such as sea
fans.
Eating animal, vegetable, and mineral substances.
Pesticides whose chemical constitution includes the
elements carbon and hydrogen plus one element of the
halogen family: fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine.
6-7
-------
or ganophosphorus
pesticides
Ortho-phosphate
Oxidation
Oxygen minimum layer
Parameters
A phosphorus-containing organic pesticide, such as
parathion or malathion.
One of the possible salts of orthophosphoric acid;
also, one of the components in seawater that is of
fundamental importance to the growth of marine
phytoplankton.
The process in which a substance gives up oxygen,
removes hydrogen from another substance, or attracts
negative electrons. Examples of oxidation are the
rusting of iron, the burning of wood in air, the change
from cider to vinegar, and the decay of animal and
plant material.
The portion of the water column in which the lowest
concentration of dissolved oxygen exists.
Any of a set of physical properties whose values
determine the characteristics or behavior of something
such as temperature, pressure and density; a
characteristic element.
Parts per thousand
(ppt; loo)
Pathogen
Pelagic
ph
Phi units
A unit of concentration of a mixture denoting the
number of parts of a constituent contained per thousand
parts of the entire mixture. Salinity in seawater,
which is expressed as grams per kilogram, or ppt (by
weight).
An organism producing or capable of producing disease.
Pertaining to water of the open ocean beyond the
continental shelf.
The acidity or alkalinity of a solution as determined
by the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion
concentration.
Logarithmic mean particle diameter obtained by using
the negative logarithm of the sediment size class
midpoints taken to the base 2:
-log_ (particle size in mm)
Photic zone
Photosynthesis
The layer of ocean from the surface to the depth where
light is reduced to 1% of its surface value.
Synthesis of chemical compounds in light, especially
the manufacture of organic compounds from carbon
dioxide and a hydrogen source, with simultaneous
liberation of oxygen by chlorophyll-containing plant
cells.
6-8
-------
Ptiytoplankton
Plankton
Polychaetes
Porcelaneous
Primary production
Radionuclides
Recruitment
Reference water
column
Release zone
Salinity
Sigraa-t (
-------
bpecitic gravity
standing stock
Stressed
Surveillance
Suspended solids
Taxon
ieratogen
Terrigenous
liiermocline
Trace metal or
element
Trade winds
Tropnic level
t-l'est
lurbiaity
The ratio of the density of substance relative to the
density of pure water at 4°C.
The biomass or abundance of living material per unit
volume or area of water.
A state resulting from factors that tend to alter an
existent equilibrium.
Systematic observation of an area by visual,
electronic, photographic, or other means for the
purpose of ensuring compliance with applicable laws,
regulations and permits.
Finely divided particles
suspended in a liquid (e.g.,
expressed as a weight per volume.
of solids temporarily
soil particles in water),
A group or entity sufficiently distinct to be
distinguished by name and to be ranked in a definite
category (adj. taxonomic).
A chemical agent which causes
formations and monstrosities.
developmental mal-
Being or relating to oceanic sediment derived directly
from the destruction of rocks on the Earth's surface.
A sharp temperature change which usually delineates a
warmer surface water layer from a cooler subsurface
layer. This phenomenon is most pronounced during
summer months.
An element found in the environment in extremely small
quantities.
The wind system, occupying most of the tropics which
blows from the subtropical highs towards the equatorial
trough; the winds are northeasterly in the Northern
Hemisphere and southeasterly in the Southern
Hemisphere.
Discrete steps along a food chain in which energy in
the form of nutrition is transferred from the primary
producers (plant) to herbivores and finally to
carnivores.
A statistical procedure for estimating and testing
hypotheses by comparing population means and variances.
A reduction in transparency, as in the case of
seawater, by suspended sediments or plankton growth.
6-10
-------
Upwelling The rising of water toward the surface from subsurface
layers of a body of water. Upwelling is most prominent
where persistent wind blows parallel to a coastline so
that the resultant wind current sets away from the
coast. The upwelled water, besides being cooler, is
rich in nutrients, so that regions of upwelling are
generally areas of rich fisheries.
Vertical The frequency of occurrence over an area in the
distribution vertical plane.
Water mass A body of water usually identified by its temperature,
salinity and chemical content, and containing a mixture
of water types.
Wet weight The weight of a sample of biomass determined before
water is removed.
Zooplankton Weakly swimming animals which are unable to resist
water current movements.
6-11
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
ANOVA
APHA
bOD
C£
cf .
CFk
cm
cm/sec
COO
°C
DMRP
e.g.
fclb
EPA
gm-G,,/m /hr
.e.
Kg
kgdw
kgww
leg/day
kg/hr
km
kph
HP Kb A
m
2
m
3
m
m/sec
jug/liter
N/iiter
mi
rng
Analysis of Variance
American Public Health Association
biochemical oxygen demand
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Latin abbr.) conferre = refer to (figure, table, or
map, etc.)
Code of Federal Regulations
centimeter(s)
centimeters per second
chemical oxygen demand
degrees Celsius
Dredged Material Research Program
(Latin abbr.) exempli gratia = for example
environmental impact statement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
grams oxygen per cubic meter per hour
(Latin abbr.) id est = that is (to say)
kilogram(s)
kilograms dry weight
kilograms wet weight
kilograms per day
kilograms per hour
kilometer(s)
kilometers per hour
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
meter(s)
square meter(s)
cubic meter(s)
meters per second
micrograms per kilogram, or millionth gram per kilogram
micrograms per liter, or millionth gram per liter
raicrogram atom of nitrogen per liter
mile(s)
milligram(s), or thousandth gram
6-12
-------
mg-C/m
, 2, .
mg-C/m /day
mg-CK/' i/Tiin
mg/Kg
mg/kgdw
ml
mm
ng
ng/liter
nmi
.2
nmi
NOAA
NTU
ppm
ppt
sec
sq
Sb
S-T-D
TKN
TOC
Tbb
USCG
U.b. A£D
viz.
XBT
yd
ydJ
milligrams carbon per cubic meter
milligrams carbon per square meter per day
milligrams oxygen per liter per minute
milligrams per kilogram
milligrams per kilogram dry weight
milliliter(s) , or thousandth liter
millimeter(s) , or thousandth meter
nanogram, or billionth gram
nanograms per liter, billionth gram per kilogram
nautical mile(s)
square nautical miles
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
nephelometric turbidity units
parts per million
parts per thousand
second(s)
square
suspended solids
salinity-temperature-depth
total Kjeldahl nitrogen
total organic carbon
total suspended solids
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Army Engineer District
(Latin abbr,), videlicet = namely
expendable bathythermograph
yard
cubic yard(s)
6-13
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association (APHA). 1975. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. Fourteenth edition. 1,193 pp.
Aotani and Hartwell Associates, Inc. 1975. State comprehensive outdoor
recreation plan - 1975. Prepared for Department of Planning and Economic
Development, State of Hawaii. 301 pp.
Ballinger, D.G., and G.D. McKee. 1971. Chemical characterization of bottom
sediments. J. Water Pollution Control Federation. 43:216-227.
Bathen, K.H. 1974. Results of circulation measurements taken during August
1972 to May 1973 in the area between Barbers Point and the entrance to
Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii. Look Laboratory Report No. 34.
Bathen, K.H. 1975. An evaluation of oceanographic and socioeconomic aspects
of a nearshore ocean thermal energy conversion pilot plant in subtropical
Hawaiian waters. Department of Ocean Engineering, University of Hawaii,
Honolulu. 925 pp.
bathen, K.H. 1977. The behavior of nearshore ocean currents, plankton
biology, benthic currents and ocean temperatures to depths of 2,200 feet
at a potential OTEC site off Keahole Point, Hawaii. College of
Engineering. University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 92 pp.
Biggs, R.B. 1968. Environmental effects of overboard spoil disposal. J.
Sanitary Engineer Division ASCE. 94(SA3):477-487-
Brandsma, M.B., and D.J. Divoky. 1976. Development of models for prediction
of short-term fate of dredged material in the estuarine environment.
Contract Report D-76-5, May 1976, prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., for the
Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Work Unit 1B02. NTIS No. AD A027131.
Brown, A.C., and A.B. Currie. 1973. Tolerance of Bulla digitalis (Proso-
branchiata) to solutions of ammonium nitrate in natural seawater. S.
Afr. J. Sci. 69:219-220.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1968. Suspended solids standards for the protection of
aquatic organisms. Twenty-second Purdue Ind. Waste Conference, Purdue
University Eng. Bulletin 129:16-27.
Cattell, S.A., and D.C. Gordon. 1971. An observation of temporal variations
of primary productivity in the Central Subtropical North Pacific. Unpub.
ms ., 13 pp.
Chave, K.E., and J.N. Miller. 1977a. Baseline studies and evaluation of the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of nearshore dredge
spoil disposal, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Part A: Baseline studies,
investigation and selection of a suitable dredge spoil site. Final
report. Prepared for Pacific Division Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Honolulu, Hawaii. Environmental Center, University of Hawaii.
164 pp.
6-14
-------
Chave, K.E., and J.N. Miller. 1977b. Baseline studies and evaluation of the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of nearshore dredge
spoil disposal, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Part B: Immediate effects of
dumping: monitoring studies. Final Report. Prepared for Pacific
Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Environmental Center, University of Hawaii.
Chave, K.E., and J.N. Miller. 1978. Baseline studies and evaluation of the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of nearshore dredge
spoil disposal, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Part C: Long-term effects of
dumping. Final Report. Prepared for Pacific Division Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Honolulu, Hawaii. Environmental Center, University
of Hawaii.
Chen, K.Y., S.K. Gupta, A.F. Sycip, J.C.S. Lu, M. Krezevic, and W.W. Choi.
1976. Research study on the effect of dispersion settling, and
resedimentation on migration of chemical consituents during open-water
disposal of dredged materials. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Contract Rep. D-76-1: 243 pp.
City and County of Honolulu. 1972. Final report: water quality program for
Oahu witn special emphasis on waste disposal. Department of Public
Works.
Cox, D.C. and L.C. Gordon. 1970. Estuarine pollution in the State of Hawaii.
University of Hawaii, Water Resources Research Center. TR No. 31.
151 pp.
Oavis, H.C. 1960. Effects of turbidity-producing materials in seawater on
eggs and larvae of the clam Venus mercenaria. Biol. Bull. 118:48-54.
Davis, H.C., and H. Hidu. 1969. Effects of turbidity-producing substances in
seawater on eggs and larvae of three genera of bivalve mollusks. The
Veiiger. 1H4) : 316-323.
Environmental Impact Study Corporation. 1978. Inventory of restricted and
sensitive marine areas within the State of Hawaii for the mooring
study - Honolulu, Hawaii. Prepared for the Department of Army Corps of
Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division.
EPA - bee U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Eppley, R.W., A.F. Carlucci, 0. Holm-Hansen, D. Kiefer, J.J. McCarthy, and
P.M. Williams. 1972. Evidence for eutrophication in the sea near
Southern California coastal sewage outfalls, July 1970. CALCOFI Report.
Eppley, R.W., J.N. Rogers, and J.J. McCarthy. 1969. Half-saturation
constants for uptake of nitrate and ammonium by marine phytoplankton.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 14:912-920.
Eppley; R.W., and W.H. Thomas. 1969. Comparison of half-saturation constants
for growth and nitrate uptake of marine phytoplankton. J. Phycol.
5:375-379.
6-15
-------
Evans, E.G. Ill (ed.). 1974. Pearl Harbor biological survey - final report.
Part 111. Naval Undersea Center, San Diego, California. NUC TN 1128.
Federal Register. 1977- Ocean dumping: final revision of regulations and
criteria. Title 40, Parts 220-228. 42 (7).
Federal Register, 1980. Criteria for the management of disposal sites for
ocean dumping; extension of interim designations. (Amendments to 40 CFR
Section 228.12.) Vol. 45 No. 11 pp. 3053-3055.
Gilmartin, M. , and N. Revelante. 1974. The "island mass" effect on the
phytoplankton and primary production of the Hawaiian Islands. J. Exp.
Mar. Biol. Ecol., 16:181-204.
Goeggel, G.B. 197&. Phase 111 Environmental surveys of deep ocean dredged
spoil disposal sites in Hawaii. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Honolulu, Hawaii. Hawaii Planning Design and Research,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Gosline, W.A., and V.E. Brock. 1965. Handbook of Hawaiian fishes.
University of Hawaii Press. 372 pp.
Grat, W.H. 1971. Hydraulics of sediment transport. McGraw-Hill Book
Company. 531 pp.
Grigg, K. 1979. Personal communication. University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Gross, M.G. 1972. Oceanography: view of the earth. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Clifts, New Jersey. 580 pp.
Gundersen, K.R., C.W. Mountain, D. Taylor, R. Ohye, and J. Shen. 1972. Some
cnemical and microbiological observations in the Pacific Ocean off the
Hawaiian Islands. Limnology and Oceanography. 17(4):524-531,
Gunnerson, C.G., and K.O. Emery. 1962. Suspended sediment and plankton over
ban Pedro Basin, California. Limnology and Oceanography 7:14-20.
Haraguchi, P. 1975. Forecasting hurricanes in the Central Pacific. U.S.
Dept. of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWSTM PR-13. 14 pp.
Harman, W.N. 1972. Benthic substrates: their effects on freshwater
mollusca. Ecology. 53(2):271-277.
Hirota, J. 1978. Personal communication. University of Hawaii.
Hirsch, N.D., L.H. DiSalvo, and R. Peddicord. 1978. Effects of dredging and
disposal on aquatic organisms. Dredged Material Research Program.
Technical Report DS-78-5. 41 pp.
Home, R.A. 1969. Marine chemistry. Wiley Interscience, New York. 568 pp.
6-16
-------
Johnson, ti.h., and B.W. Holliday. 1977. Numerical model results of dredged
material disposal at ten proposed ocean disposal sites in the Hawaiian
Islands. Miscellaneous paper H-77-6. Hydraulics Laboratory. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180.
D-691.
Johnson, J.K. 1971. Effect of turbidity on the rate of filtration and growth
of the slipper limpet, Crepidula fornicata, Lamarch, 1799. The Veliger.
14U):315-320.
K.ay, h.A. 1973. Micromolluscs. In: L.S. Lau. (ed.) The quality of coastal
waters: second annual progress report. Technical Report No. 77.
UMIhl-SEAGRANT-CR-74-05.
King, J.E., ana T.S. hida. 1954. Variations in zooplankton abundance in
Hawaiian waters, 1950-1952. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Serv., Spec. Scient. Rpt., Fisheries No. 118. 66 pp.
Koh, C.Y., and Y.C. Chang. 1973. Mathematical model for barged ocean
disposal of wastes. EPA Report EPA-660/2-73-029.
Kxmno, S. 1979. Personal communication. State of Hawaii, Department of
Healtn.
Lee, G.F., W.U. Piwoni, J.M. Lopez, G.M. Mariani, J.S. Richardson, D.H. Homer,
ana F. baleh. 1975. Research study for the development of dredged
material disposal criteria. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
btation, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 381 pp.
Lunz, G.R., Jr. 193b. Part I: Oyster culture with reference to dredging
operations in South Carolina. Part II: The effects of flooding on the
Santee River in April 1936 on oysters in the Cape Remain area of South
Carolina. Report to U.S. Army Engineer District, Charleston, South
Carolina.
Fiaclsaac, J.J., ana R.C. Dugdale. 1969. The kinetics of nitrate and ammonia
uptake by natural populations of marine phytoplankton. Deep-sea
Research. 16:415-422.
Maragos, J.E. 1979. Personal communication. Pacific Ocean Division, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Maragos, J.E., J. Roach, R.L. Bowers, D.E. Hemmes, R.F.L. Self, J.D. Macneil,
K. Ells, P. Omeara, J. Vansant, A. Sato, J.P- Jones, D.T.O. Kam. 1977.
Environmental surveys before, during, and after offshore marine
sand-mining operations at Keauhou Bay, Hawaii. Working Paper No. 28.
Sea Grant College Program, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Maurer, D.L., R.T. Keck, J.C. Tinsman, W.A. Leatherm, C.A. Wethe, M.
Huntzinger, C. Lord, and T.M. Church. 1978. Vertical migration of
benthos in simulated dredged material overburdens. Vol. I: Marine
benthos. Dredged Material Research Program. Technical Rept. D-78-35.
1U8 pp.
6-17
-------
Moiseev, P. A. 1971. The living resources of the world ocean. Israel Prog.
for Sci. Trans., Jerusalem. Nat. Sci. Found., Washington, B.C. 334 pp.
Morton, J.W. 1976. Ecological impacts of dredging and dredge spoil disposal:
a literature review. M.S. thesis, Cornell University.
Natarajan, K.V. 1970. Toxicity of ammonia to marine diatoms. J. Wat. Poll.
Cont. Fed. 42(5) :R184-R190.
Neighbor Island Consultants. 1977. Final report. Environmental surveys of
deep ocean dredged spoil disposal sites in Hawaii. Prepared for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu, Hawaii. Volumes I and II.
NOAA. 1978. State of Hawaii coastal management program and draft environ-
mental impact statement. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office of
Coastal Zone Management. 402 pp.
Norris, K.S. and R.R. Reeves (eds.). 1978. Report of a workshop on problems
related to humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaii. Oct.
1977. Final Report to U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, Contract MMFAC018.
Olson, R.A., H.F. Brust, and W.L. Tressler. 1941. Studies of the effects of
industrial pollution in the lower Patapsco River Area; I. Curtis Bay
Region. Pub. No. 43. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. Solomons
Island, Maryland.
Paffenhofer, G.A. 1972. The effects of suspended "red mud" on mortality,
body weight, and growth of the marine planktonic copepod, Calanus
helgolandicus. Water, Air and Soil Poll. 1:314-321.
Parsons, T.R. , and M. Takahashi. 1973. Biological oceanographic processes.
Pergamon Press, New York. 186 pp.
Peddicord, R.K. , V.A. McFarland, D.P. Belfiori, and I.E. Byrd, 1975. Dredge
disposal study, San Francisco Bay Estuary. Appendix G: Physical impact,
effects of suspended solids on San Francisco Bay organisms. U.S. Army
Engineer District, San Francisco, California.
Pequegnat, W.E. , in collaboration with David D. Smith, et al . 1978. An
assessment of the potential impact of dredged material disposal in the
open ocean. Technical Report D-78-2, January 1978, prepared by TerEco
Corporation, for the Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. NTIS No. AD A050
Redtield, A.C., B.H. Ketchum, and F.S. Richards. 1963. The influence of
organisms on the composition of seawater. Pages 26-77 in M.N. Hill, ed.
The sea. Vol. 2. Interscience.
Reeve, M.R. 1963. The filter-feeding of Artemia; II, in suspensions of
various particles. J. Exp. Biol. 40:207-214.
Rogers, B.A. 1969. Tolerance levels of four species of estuarine fishes to
suspended mineral solids. M.S. Thesis, University of Rhode Island.
6-18
-------
Rogers, R.M. 1976. Distribution of meiobenthic organisms in San Antonio Bay
in relation to season and habitat disturbance. In: A.H. Bouna, ed.
Shell dredging and its influence on Gulf Coast environments. Gulf Publ.
Co., Houston, Texas.
Rowe, G.T. and D.W. Menzel. 1971. Quantitative benthic samples from the deep
Gulf of Mexico with some comments on the measurement of deep-sea biomass.
Bull. Mar. Sci. 21(2):556-566.
Saila, S.B., S.D. Pratt, and T.T. Polgar. 1971. Providence Harbor
improvement spoil disposal site evaluation study - phase II. Report to
Bureau of Sport Fish, and Wildlife, Mar. Exper. Sta., Univ. of Rhode
Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.
Saila, S.B., S.U. Pratt, and T.T. Polgar. 1972. Dredged spoil disposal in
Rhode Island Sound. Tech. Rep. No. 2, Univ. of Rhode Island. 48 pp.
Sanders, H.L. 1958. Benthic studies in Buzzards Bay. I. Animal-sediment
relationships. Limnol. and Oceanogr. 3(3):245-258.
Sands, M.D., M. Andrews, M.K. Howard, M. Smookler, S.M. Sullivan. 1978.
Draft environmental impact assessment - Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
(OTEC) Preoperational Ocean Test Platform. Prepared for the U.S.
Department of Energy, Division of Solar Energy.
Sherk, J.A., Jr., J.M. O'Conner, and D.A. Neumann. 1976. Effects of
suspended solids on selected estuarine plankton, Misc. Report No. 76-1,
U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, CE, Fort Belvoir,
Virginia.
Sinay-Fnedman, L. 1979. Supplement to the draft environmental impact
assessment, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) preoperational ocean
test platform. Prepared for the United States Department of Energy.
Smith, G. 1979. Personal communication. Tetra Tech, Inc., Pasadena,
California.
Scares, M., E. Shallenberger, and R. Antinoja. 1977. Abstract submitted for
second conference on biology of marine mammals - December 1977-
State of Hawaii. 1974. The State of Hawaii Data Book. Department of
Planning and Economic Development.
Steele, J.H. 1964. A study of production in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal
Marine Research. 22(3):211-222 .
Stern, E.M. and W.B. Stickle. 1978. Effects of turbidity and suspended
material in aquatic environments: literature review. Technical Report
D-76-21, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
6-19
-------
Struhsaker, P. 1973. A contribution to the systematics and ecology of
Hawaiian bathyal fishes. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
482 pp.
btruhsaker, P., and D.C. Aasted. 1974. Deepwater shrimp trapping in the
Hawaiian Islands. Mar. Fish. Rve. 36(10):24-30.
b'wafford, B. 1979. Personal communication. Portland CE District, Portland,
OR.
Sverdrup, H.U., M.w. Johnson, and R.H. Fleming. 1942. The oceans: their
physics, chemistry, and general biology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey. 1060 pp.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1976. Environmental impact assessment: water quality
analysis - Hawaii. Prepared for National Commission on Water Quality,
Washington, D.C.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1977. Ocean disposal of harbor dredged materials in Hawaii.
Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Shatter,
Hawaii. Tetra Tech Report TC 852. 154 pp.
Thiel, H. 1975. The size structure of the deep-sea benthos. Int. Revues
Hydrobiol. 60:576-606.
R.h. Towill Corporation, 1972. Environmental assessment of maintenance
dredging operations for Port Allen Harbor, Kauai, Hawaii. 1600 Kapiolani
Blvd., Honolulu, Hawaii.
U.S. Army Corps Engineer District. 1975. Final environmental statement.
Harbor maintenance dredging in the state of Hawaii. U.S. Army Engineer
District, Honolulu, Hawaii.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. Dredged Material Research Program:
fourth annual report. Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army
Engineer waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 165 pp.
U.S. Dept. ot Commerce. 1978. United States Coast Pilot #7. Pacific coast:
California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. Fourteenth edition.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 404 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Corps of Engineers. 1977.
Ecological evaluation of proposed discharge of dredged material into
ocean waters. Implementation manual for Section 103 of Public Law 92-532
(Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972). Environ-
mental Effects Laboratory,. U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. 121 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Quality criteria for water.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Navy Weather Service Command. 1971. Synoptic summaries of meteoro-
logical observations. Volume I. Areas 1-4: Hawaiian and selected North
Pacific island coastal areas. 632 pp.
6-20
-------
U.S. Navy Headquarters, Naval Base Pearl Harbor. 1980. Personal communi-
cation, Dick Leong.
Welch, P.S. 1952. Limnology. 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, N.Y. 176 pp.
Wiebe, P.H., S. Boyd, and J.L. Cox. 1975. Relationships between zooplankton
displacement volume, wet weight, dry weight, and carbon. Fishery
Bulletin. 23(4):777-786.
Wieser, W. 1959. The effects of grain size on the distribution of small
invertebrates inhabiting the beaches of Puget Sound. Limnol. and
Oceanogr. 4(2):181-194.
Windom, H.L. 1972. Environmental aspects of dredging in estuaries. J.
Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering Div., ASCE, New York.
98:475-487.
Windom, H.L. 1975. Water-quality aspects of dredging and dredge-spoil
disposal in estuarine environments. Pages 559-571 in L.E. Cronin, ed.
Estuarine Research, Vol. 2. Academic Press, New York.
Windom, H.L. 1976. Environmental aspects of dredging in the coastal zone.
CRC Critical Rev. in Environ. Control. 6(2):91-109.
Wolraan, A.A., and C.M. Jurasz. 1977. Humpback whale distribution in Hawaii.
Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Mar. Fish. Rev. Paper 1254. 39(7).
Wuhrmann, K., and H. Woker. 1948. Toxicity of fish. II. Experimental
investigations on the toxicity of ammonia and cyanide. Schweiz.
Zeitschr. Hydrol. 11:210-244.
Youngberg, A.D. 1973. A study of sediments and soil samples from Pearl
Harbor area. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Port Hueneme,
California 185 pp.
6-21
-------
APPENDICES
-------
Appendix A
GENERIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS
CONTENTS
Section Page
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS A-l
GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS A-9
FIGURES
Number Title
A-l Grain-Size Distribution for the Proposed South Oahu Site
A-2 Grain-Size Distribution for the Proposed Nawiliwili Site
A-3 Grain-Size Distribution for the Proposed Port Allen Site
A-4 Grain-Size Distribution for the Proposed Kahului Site . ,
A-5 Grain-Size Distribution for the Proposed Hilo Site . . ,
Number Title Page
A-l Temperature, Salinity, Dissolved Oxygen, and pH near the
Proposed South Oahu Site A-5
A-2 Digitized S-T-D Data - Honolulu A-6
A-3 Digitized S-T-D Data - Nawiliwili A-7
A-4 Digitized S-T-D Data - Kahului A-8
A-5 Digitized S-T-D Data - Hilo A-8
A-6 Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Proposed Sites .... A-12
A-i
-------
Appendix A
GENERIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The physical and geological characteristics of the proposed Hawaii Sites
discussed in this appendix are supplementary to the data in Chapter 3,
"Affected Environment."
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
CURRENTS
Current measurements in the proposed sites are few in number. Three
studies were conducted near the sites: (1) Neighbor Island Consultants
(1977) deployed a moored array of current meters and surface current drogues
at the proposed sites; however, the current meters were deployed for only 12
to 24 hours, (2) Chave and Miller (1977b) recorded 35 days of continuous
current measurements at several depths near the proposed South Oahu Site, and
(3) Bathen (1974) studied the circulation of the nearshore region between
Pearl Harbor and Barbers Point. Specific information relevant to the
individual proposed sites is described below.
South Oahu Site
Bathen (1974) studied the inshore (shoreward of the 180-meter contour)
circulation between Pearl Harbor and Barbers Point. One station just south of
Pearl Harbor was north of the proposed South Oahu Site. Three current meters
were deployed for two 30-to-40-day periods August to September, and December
to January. The current meters were moored near the surface, at mid-depth,
and near the bottom. Measurements showed wide variations of directional
orientation in near-surface and near-bottom currents. At the mid-depth level,
a strong east-west directional predominance (corresponding to the tides) was
observed. Daily net transport at the surface and mid-depth was north-
northwest, towards the harbor entrance. Near-bottom net transport was slower
and generally westward. Current velocities near the bottom rarely exceeded
A-l
-------
10 cm/sec. During flood tides the flow favored a westerly direction, but
during ebb tides, currents were generally eastward. Often, an onshore-
offshore component in the flow was observed, evidently due to the daily
flooding and ebbing of Pearl Harbor. An ll-to-14-day periodicity was observed
in tfte current records from this station. For 8 to 10 days, the flow was
strong, unidirectional, and generally towards the southwest. During the
following 3 to 4 days the transport rate decreased somewhat, and the
directional flow either decreased or reversed. The cycle was then repeated
with strong directional flows.
The direction of the net transport is apparently variable. Measurements
made in 1970 show the net transport to be slightly southwesterly in direction.
Two years later, data (possibly Bathen's) showed a net north-northwest
transport (Tetra Tech, 1976). This net shift has been explained as a
consequence of the relationship between freshwater flows into Pearl Harbor and
the excess evaporation from the Harbor surface. During Kona (southerly)
winds, an increase in the onshore component of the surface flow occurs.
Chave and Miller (1977b) measured the currents near the proposed South Oahu
Site during May 1977. Current meters were deployed at three depths: 50 m,
172 m, and 356 m. Instrument malfunctions were blamed for an approximate 40%
data loss; the upper meter returned only 8 days of data from a 30-day
deployment, and the mid-depth meter returned only velocity measurements. Mean
velocity from the 8-day record was 5 cm/sec towards the southeast. Mean
velocity from the bottom current meter (full 30 days of record) was about
9 cm/sec towards the west. Maximal speeds of 40 and 50 cm/sec were reported
for the surface and bottom meters, respectively.
Neighbor Island Consultants (1977) performed a survey near the proposed
South Oahu Site. They used moored current meters and surface current drogues.
Two separate current meter deployments were made. One was deployed for 25
hours and the other for 35 days. Drogues were followed during the daylight
hours for two consecutive days. Difficulties were encountered in data
reduction and in the meters' performances; hence, only generalities can be
obtained from the results. Surface drift during the first and second drogue
deployments was consistently to the north and west. Speeds on the first day
A-2
-------
were estimated to be 5 to 10 cm/sec. On the second day speeds increased to an
estimated 67 cm/sec. Results from the 25-hour survey suggest that at 46 and
183 m depth the direction is generally to the southwest. Records from the
deeper current meters suggest that the general direction of the flow is
somewhat northerly, and speeds generally decrease with increasing depth. The
shallow current meter (23 m depth) returned 15 days of data before failing.
In general, the majority of the speeds were between 8 and 15 cm/sec. Maximal
speed recorded was 40 cm/sec. Currents tended towards every direction except
southward. Tidal effects were always apparent. At 183 m depth, a full 35
days of data were recovered. About 75% of the current speeds were between 13
and 23 cm/sec. The flow directions were generally west-northwest and east-
southeast, apparently reversing tidally along the bottom. At 366 m depth,
flow was strong to the west; however, the current speeds from this record were
clearly anomalous. The deepest meter (451 m depth) indicated that about 60%
of the current velocities were between 8 and 20 cm/sec. However, no
particular direction was dominant.
Nawiliwili Site
Neighbor Island Consultants (1977) estimated the surface currents (0 to
50 m depth) to be between 20 and 30 cm/sec in a southerly direction, based
upon current drogue trajectories. Current meters were deployed at 50 m,
180 m, and 370 m depths. Maximal current velocity was approximately
66 cm/sec. The records showed strong tidal influences and mean current speeds
were found to range from 15 to 40 cm/sec for the 370- and 50-meter records,
respectively.
Port Allen Site
Estimates of the surface currents at this proposed Site were based on the
trajectories of surface current drogues (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977).
Estimated current velocities at 3 and 18 m depth were north-northwest at
speeds of 5 to 46 cm/sec. Drogues deployed at 30 and 46 m depths showed a
mean flow towards the east. Current meters were deployed at two depths, 366
and 1,579 m. The upper meter recorded northward currents at speeds of 10 to
26 cm/sec. The extremely high values recorded by the lower meter were
believed to be in error.
A-3
-------
Kahului Site
Surface currents, estimated by current drogues, were very strong to the
west at speeds of 51 to 113 cm/sec. Current meter data indicated a consistent
flow towards the west between the surface and 45 m depth. The direction was
towards the northwest at 183 m and 360 m depth. Mean speeds decreased with
depth and were 45, 25, 17, and 15 cm/sec for depths of 15, 45, 183 and 360 m,
respectively (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977).
Hilo Site
Surface currents were estimated, from drogue movements, to be towards the
northwest at speeds ranging from 15 to 36 cm/sec. Current meter measurements
showed that current speeds decreased with depth, and simultaneously became
more consistent in direction. Mean speeds were 29, 19, 16, and 11 cm/sec for
current meters at depths of 15, 45, 183 and 341 m, respectively. Flow
directions at the deeper meters were generally towards the north (Neighbor
Island Consultants, 1977).
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
Temperature measurements were made near the proposed South Oahu Site by
C'nave and Miller (1977b), by means of expendable bathythermograph (XBT) drops
on August 3, 1976. The surface mixed layer (the isothermal surface layer)
extended from the surface to about 50 m depth. In October the surface mixed
layer had deepened to about 75 m depth. During the second survey (in October)
temperatures in the mixed layer were about 1°C higher (about 26°C). Table A-l
shows the values obtained during each survey. Observed temperatures ranged
from 10.5°C to 26.3°C .
Neighbor Island Consultants (1977) performed salinity-temperature-depth
(S-T-D) casts at each of the proposed sites; however, equipment malfunctions
prevented data (from depths shallower than about 40 m) from being recorded.
Equipment problems were blamed for the complete loss of data from the proposed
Port Allen Site. Digitized data are shown in Tables A-2 to A-5. In general,
the temperature profiles for these stations are quite similar, gradually
decreasing with increasing depths.
A-4
-------
TABLE A-l
TEMPERATURE, SALINITY, DISSOLVED OXYGEN,
AND pH NEAR THE PROPOSED SOUTH OAHU SITE
Station
1
2
3
4
Depth
(m)
0
25
50
100
200
0
25
50
150
250
0
25
50
100
200
300
0
25
50
100
200
400
Temperature
(°C)
8/3/76
25.4
25.1
24.9
22.3
14.9
25.3
25.2
25.0
19.5
13.2
25.2
25.1
24.8
21.3
16.5
10.5
—
—
—
—
—
—
9/9/76
26.3
26.2
26.2
.23.2
17.8
26.3
26.2
26.0
20.3
16.2
26.2
26.1
25.5
23.2
18.0
12.5
26.2
26.1
26.1
22.0
19.2
12.6
Salinity
(g/kg)
34.8
34.1
34.3
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.8
33.7
34.9
34.5
35.0
34.0
35.6
35.0
34.5
34.8
34.3
33.8
36.0
34.0
34.3
Dissolved
Oxygen
(ml/1)
5.7
5.5
5.5
5.3
5.1
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.4
5.1
5.5
5.6
5.5
5.2
5.0
4.8
5.4
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.4
5.2
pH
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.0
8.0
7.9
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.1
7.9
Source: Chave and Miller, 1977b
A-5
-------
TABLE A-2
DIGITIZED S-T-D DATA - HONOLULU
STATION: Honolulu #3 LAT 21015'00"N DEPTH INCREMENT: 20 m
ZERO ERROR, CONDO: +0.40 LONG 157°56'00"W DEPTH ERROR: + 2 m
ZERO ERROR, TEMP: +0.39 DATE, TIME: 7/23/76, 18:12
Increment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 END
Depth
(m)
45
67
87
107
127
147
168
187
207
227
247
267
287
307
327
347
367
387
407
427
447
455
Conductivity
(MMHOS/CM)
53.14
52.05
51.24
50.79
50.09
49.56
48.94
48.06
47.61
46.33
44.39
42.28
40.19
39.20
38.67
37.73
37.28
36.60
36.63
35.76
35.57
35.06
Temperature
(°c)
24.18
23.04
22.28
21.70
21.02
20.44
19.99
19.24
18.86
17.71
16.16
13.79
12.24
11.25
10.63
9.74
9.30
8.59
8.17
7.66
7.41
7.08
Salinity
g/kg
35.68
35.76
35.74
35.86
35.86
35.92
35.82
35.69
35.63
35.53
35.19
35.40
34.83
34.78
34.83
34.72
34.67
34.67
35.07
34.64
34.67
34.44
Sigma T
24.13
24.54
24.74
24.99
25.18
25.38
25.40
25.52
25.57
25.79
25.89
26.57
26.45
26.60
26.75
26.81
26.85
26.94
27.35
27.08
27.14
27.16
Source: Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977
A-6
-------
TABLE A-3
DIGITIZED S-T-D DATA - NAWILIWILI
STATION: Nawiliwili #1
ZERO ERROR, CONDO: 0.021
ZERO ERROR, TEMP: 0.03
Increment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Depth
(m)
76
97
117
137
157
177
197
217
237
257
277
297
317
337
357
378
396
417
437
457
477
497
517
537
568
577
597
617
637
657
677
697
717
737
757
777
797
817
837
857
877
897
917
LAT 21°55'00"N DEPTH INCREMENT: 20 m
LONG 159° 17 '00" W DEPTH ERROR: 78 m
DATE, TIME: 8/05/76, 11:45
Conductivity
(MMHOS/CM)
53.75
52.89
52.44
51.25
50.69
49.40
48.28
47.10
45.65
44.74
42.52
41.49
40.89
39.56
38.72
37.74
37.04
36.74
36.20
35.97
35.50
35.00
34.87
34.66
34.52
34.38
34.27
34.26
34.26
34.26
34.17
34.09
34.01
33.89
33.88
33.81
33.73
33.72
33.64
33.46
33.18
33.07
33.03
Temperature
(°c)
24.61
23.56
22.53
21.52
21.05
19.93
18.64
18.06
16.81
16.16
13.72
12.87
11.79
10.69
9.84
9.20
8.34
7.98
7.49
7.06
6.51
6.26
5.92
5.66
5.50
5.30
5.30
5.26
5.20
5.13
4.99
4.91
4.80
4.75
4.75
4.62
4.55
4.50
4.41
4.29
4.17
4.15
4.10
Salinity
(g/kg)
35.78
35.97
36.47
36.37
36.31
36.21
36.39
35.89
35.73
35.50
35.68
35.49
35.93
35.66
35.63
35.24
35.35
35.38
35.29
35.46
35.49
35.18
35.38
35.40
35.40
35.44
35.30
35.32
35.38
35.44
35.47
35.46
35.47
35.37
35.35
35.40
35.37
35.40
35.39
35.30
35.08
34.96
34.96
Sigma T
24.07
24.53
25.21
25.41
25.50
25.72
26.20
25.96
26.14
26.12
26.79
26.82
27.37
27.37
27.49
27.30
27.52
27.60
27.60
27.80
27.90
27.68
27.89
27.94
27.96
28.01
27.90
27.92
27.98
28.03
28.07
28.07
28.10
28.02
28.01
28.06
28.04
28.07
28.08
28.02
27.86
27.76
27-77
Source: Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977
A-7
-------
TABLE A-4
DIGITIZED S-T-D DATA - KAHULUI
STATION: Kahului #7A LAT 21°04'42"N DEPTH INCREMENT: .20 m
ZERO ERROR, CONDO: 0.00 LONG 156°2S'48"W DEPTH ERROR: 79 m; 9m
ZERO ERROR, TEMP: 0.01 DATE, TIME: 7/25/76, 11:34
Increment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Depth
(m)
77
86
106
126
146
166
186
206
226
246
266
286
306
326
346
Conductivity
(MMHOS/CM)
53.05
52.61
52.44
52.15
51.21
50.88
49.97
48.85
46.39
44.32
42.66
41.99
41.30
40.58
40.17
Temperature
(°C)
24.85
23.92
23.35
22.86
22.49
21.69
21.35
21.32
18.42
16.40
14.78
14.05
13.56
12.76
12.28
Salinity
g/kg
35.07
35.47
35.79
35.96
35.53
35.92
35.47
34.60
34.97
34.92
34.85
34.88
34.67
34.71
34.75
Sigma T
23.46
24.04
24.45
24.72
24.50
25.03
24.78
24.13
25.17
25.62
25.93
26.11
26.05
26.24
26.36
Source: Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977
TABLE A-5
DIGITIZED S-T-D DATA - HILO
STATION: Hilo #9 LAT 19°48'30"N DEPTH INCREMENT: 20 m
ZERO ERROR, CONDO: 0.035 LONG 154°58'30"W DEPTH ERROR: 61 m
ZERO ERROR, TEMP: 0.021 DATE, TIME: 7/27/76, 15:43
Increment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Depth
(m)
61
81
101
121
141
161
181
201
221
241
261
281
301
321
Conductivity
(MMHOS/CM)
50.53
50.53
50.83
50.12
48.80
46.54
44.38
42.99
42.00
39.40
38.65
38.15
37.25
36.82
Temperature
(°C)
21.91
21.26
21.65
21.25
20.00
18.11
16.05
15.00
13.73
11.54
10.31
9.45
8.88
8.72
Salinity
g/kg
35.50
36.03
35.94
35.70
35.67
35.39
35.31
34.98
35.21
34.73
35.14
35.46
35.08
34.77
Sigma T
24.65
25.23
25.05
24.98
25.29
25.56
26.00
25.98
26.43
26.49
27.03
27.43
27.22
27.01
Source: Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977
A-8
-------
bALINITY PROFILE
Wide horizontal variations in salinity were observed at three stations (1,
2, 3; Table A-l) north of the proposed South Oahu Site, and at a fourth
station inside the site during the survey performed by the Environmental
Center at the University of Hawaii (Chave and Miller, 1977b). The variations
were noted especially in waters shallower than 100 m. Below this layer, a
salinity maximum was observed, and below this maximum, salinities decreased in
value towards the bottom. Salinity values were reported only to the first
decimal place and, therefore, were not readily usable for density calcu-
lations. Values ranged from 36.0 to 33.7 g/kg.
Neighbor Island Consultants (1977) provided salinity profiles for the
proposed sites, with the exception of the proposed Port Allen Site, where the
data were lost due to equipment failure. Analogous to temperature profiles,
salinity profiles are quite similar at all stations (Tables A-2 to A-5). The
salinity maximum occurs at about 100 to 120 m depth; below this depth,
salinity slowly decreases to a depth of 380 m, and remains the same to the
bottom.
GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SEDIMNTS
Table A-b lists the characteristics of sediment samples taken from the
proposed sites, before and after dredging of the respective harbors in 1977.
Grain-size distributions show that the proposed disposal site bottoms are
composed mainly of sand, and analyses show the sediment to be chiefly calcium
carbonate at the proposed South Oahu, Port Allen, and Kahului Sites.
Sediments at the proposed Hilo Site are mainly silt and clay- The percentage
of calcium carbonate decreased in postdisposal values for all the sites except
the proposed South Oahu Site. The percentage of basalt decreased after
disposal tor the proposed South Oahu, Port Allen, Kahului, and Hilo Sites, but
increased at the proposed Nawiliwili Site. Percentages of carbon in the
A-9
-------
disposal site sediments decreased after disposal at the proposed South Oahu
and Port Allen Sites, but remained unchanged at the proposed Nawiliwili Site,
and increased at the proposed Kahului and Hilo Sites.
Grain-Size Distribution
Goeggel (1978) has determined the grain-size distribution of post-disposal
sediments for each proposed Site (Figures A-l to A-5). Grain-size distri-
butions from the Neighbor Island Consultants (1977) pre-disposal study are
plotted for comparison. Sediment distributions of the proposed Port Allen and
Soutn Oahu Sites show great similarity between pre-disposal and post-disposal
samples. Sediments collected from Nawiliwili, however, are much finer in the
post-disposal samples when compared to the pre-disposal samples. An analysis
of tne dredged material discharged at the proposed Nawiliwili Site did show a
greater percentage of finer sediments.
Analyses of the post-disposal sediments from the proposed Hilo Site showed
varied results. Some samples were similar to pre-disposal findings, while
other samples were much finer. The analysis of the dredged material dumped at
this site showed the waste to have characteristically finer grain size than
that of toe proposed Hilo Site pre-disposal sediment characteristics. No
other evidence (e.g., discoloration, layering, microscopic analysis) was
observed whicn would indicate that dredged material had been deposited in the
area.
Trace Metals
Pre-disposal and post-disposal concentrations of cadmium in sediments at
the proposed sites are each greater than in corresponding harbor sediments for
the proposed South Oahu, Nawiliwili, Port Allen, and Kahului Sites, although
tne concentration of cadmium in sediments at the proposed Hilo Site is
approximately equal to the concentration of cadmium in Hilo Harbor.
Post-disposal concentrations of cadmium in sediments are lower than
pre-disposal concentrations for all disposal sites except the proposed South
Uahu Site. Sediments at the proposed South Oahu Site show a post-disposal
decrease in cadmium concentration. The pre-disposal and post-disposal values
A-10
-------
for cadmium in sediments at all harbors are each greater than the cadmium
content of basalt, and all values are below the Federal ocean disposal
criteria for cadmium (40 CFR Section 227.6).
The pre-disposal and post-disposal concentrations of chromium in sediments
at the proposed South Oahu Site are less than the concentrations of chromium
in the sediments of Pearl and Honolulu Harbors. The post-disposal concen-
trations of chromium in sediments are higher than the pre-disposal values for
all proposed sites. All concentrations of chromium in sediments are less than
tne concentration of chromium in basalt.
The pre-disposal and post-disposal concentrations of copper in sediments at
the proposed South Oahu Site are less than the concentrations of copper in
sediments from Pearl and Honolulu Harbors. The post-disposal concentrations
of copper in sediments are higher than the pre-disposal values for all
proposed sites. All pre-disposal copper values are less than the concen-
tration of copper in basalt. Post-disposal concentrations of copper in
sediments are lower than the copper content of basalt for all proposed sites
except Port Allen, which shows a higher copper concentration.
All pre-disposal concentrations of lead in sediments at the proposed sites
are lower than the concentrations of lead in the corresponding harbor
sediments. Post-disposal concentrations of lead in sediments are higher than
the concentrations of lead in sediments at the corresponding harbors for the
proposed Port Allen and Kahului Sites. The concentrations of lead in
sediments at the proposed South Oahu, Nawiliwili, and Hilo Sites are lower
than tnose in their respective harbors. The post-disposal concentrations of
lead in sediments increased above the pre-disposal values at all disposal
sites, and all values for lead concentration in sediments are greater than the
lead content in basalt.
The pre-disposal and post-disposal concentrations of manganese in
sediments at the proposed South Oahu Site are lower than the concentrations of
manganese in sediments at Pearl and Honolulu Harbors. The post-disposal
manganese concentrations in sediments are higher than the pre-disposal
A-ll
-------
TABLE A-6
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED SITES
Grain-Size Parameter (%)
Gravel
Sand
Silt & Clay
Cadmium (ppm) (a)
(c)
Chromium (ppm) (a)
(c)
Copper (ppm) (a)
(c)
Lead (ppm) (a)
(c)
Manganese (ppm) (a)
(c)
Mercury (ppm) (a)
(c)
Nickel (ppm) (a)
(b)
Zinc (ppm) (a)
(b)
% CaCO (a)
(c)
Z Basalt (a)
(c)
I Carbon (a)
(c)
% Nitrogen (a)
(c)
South Oahu
12 (a,b)
75 (a,b)
13 (a,b)
5.4 + 1.4
5.2 t 1.8 (b,c)
18.7 + 19.7
67.1 ^ 26.9 (b,c)
17.6 + 4.7
37.8 + 32 (b,c)
38.1 + 3.6
58.7 *_ 23.2 (b,c)
191.4 + 32.8
161 t 35
0.52 + 0.32
0.85 + 1.7
35.4 + 5.1
142.3 -f 32.6
37.0 + 5.6
271.8 + 313.3
88+5
85 j- 12
4.13 + 4.22
4 + 1.8
3.67 + 0.33
0.81 + 0.86
0.40 t 0.04
1.7 + 0.8
Nawiliwili
6 (a)
92 (a)
2 (a)
4.8 t 1.8
3.9 i 1.7
37.6 + 40.6
116 + 27
13.8 + 15
28.7 + 12
16.9 + 3
32.2 + 21
90.1 + 69
526.6 + 369
0.27 + 0.2
0.50 + 0.92
52.3 + 23
172 + 114
36.1 + 25
82.0 + 23
73.7 + 10.6
29.6 + 29.5 '
11.5 + 5
46 *_ 23
1.4 + 0.4
1.43 + 1.30
0.43 + 0.04
0.13 + 0.06
Port Allen
1 (a)
63 (a)
36 (a)
5.02 + 2.5
4.93 + 1.1
186.3 + 116
210.5 + 56
28.7 t 15.3
56.5 + 12.1
19.5 + 13.2
39.5 + 2.7
118 + 64
461.2 + 305
0.1 + 0
0.12 + 0.09
57.8 + 41.3
132.6 + 21.5
49.9 + 18
72.9 + 17
59.5 + 7.7
42.8 + 13.5
10.4 + 4.0
5.5 T 2.3
2.16 + 0.2
1.67 + 0.7
0.12 + 0.02
0.23 + 0.09
Kahului
11 (a)
80 (a)
9 (a)
6.1 + 0.5
5.7 + 0.5
54.5 + 11.4
86.7 + 20.5
10.9 + 1.6
38.3 + 15
23.6 + 1.7
40.9 + 4.4
192.7 + 49
224.6 <• 53
0.2 + 0.1
0.09 *_ 0.07
49.7 + 2.4
56.9 t 8.7
42.5 + 5.8
47.6 + 5.7
76.3 + 2.1
55.5 + 8.7
14.6 + 2.2
12.2 -f 4.1
1.56 + 0.4
1.89 + 0.8
0.11 + 0.02
0.44 + 0.31
Hilo
1 (a)
77 (a)
22 (a)
3.4 + 2.2
3.4 + 0.6
147.7 + 9.7
115.3 + 30
33.9 + 4.0
38.1 + 9.6
19.5 + 2.9
29.0 + 4.3
382.1 + 45
475.1 + 187
0.1 + 0
0.59 + 1.5
187.1 t 17
125.6 + 76
72.4 + 8.2
73.4 + 8.6
18 + 1.7
16.5 + 4.4.
49.4 + 26
41.7 + 10
0.65 + 0
1.14 + 0.5
0
0.19 + 0.1
(a) Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977 (pre-dump)
(b) Chave and Miller, 1978 (post-dump)
(cj Goeggel, 1976 (post-dump)
A-12
-------
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
MEDIAN DIAMETER (mm)
1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16
1/32
10
2°
30
> 40
ee
£ 50
z
= 60
(J
70
/u
- 80
90
95
98
99
99.5
99.8
99.9
99.99
JNEIGHBOR ISLAND CONSULTANTS (1977) (PRE-DISPOSAL)
GOEGGEL (1978) (POST-DISPOSAL)
-1
2 3
Phi (9) Units
Figure A-l. Grain-Size Distribution for the Proposed South Oahu Site
A-13
-------
I
o
UJ
£
ca
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
30
40
2 50
z 6°
| 70
UJ
"• 80
90
95
98
99
99.5
99.8
99.9
99.99
MEDIAN DIAMETER (mm)
1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16
1/32
NEIGHBOR ISLAND CONSULTANTS (1977)
(PRE-DISPOSAL)
GOEGGEL (1978) (POST-DISPOSAL)
2 3
Phi (0) Units
Figure A-2. Grain-Size Distribution for the Proposed Nawiliwili Site
A-14
-------
MEDIAN DIAMETER (mm)
1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16
1/32
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
98
99
99.5
99.8
99.9
99.99
O
UJ
UJ
UJ
a.
NEIGHBOR ISLAND CONSULTANTS (1977)
(PRE-DISPOSAL)
COECCEL (1978) (POST-DISPOSAL)
Figure A-3. Grain-Sire Distribution for the Proposed Port Allen Site
A-15
-------
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
98
99
99.5
99.8
99.9
99.99
MEDIAN DIAMETER (mm)
1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16
1/32
>-
ce
ec
LU
Z
LU
U
LU
Z
-1
1 2 3
Phi (0) Units
Figure A-4. Grain-Size Distribution for the Proposed Kahului Site
Source: Goeggel, 1978
A-16
-------
MEDIAN DIAMETER (mm)
1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16
1/32
U.U 1
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
I 2°
E 30
£
> 40
OD
2 50
I 6°
S 70
Ot
LU
* 80
90
95
98
99
99.5
99.8
99.9
99.99
-------
concentrations for all proposed sites except the South Oahu Site, which shows
a lower postdisposal value. All values for manganese concentration in
sediments are less than the manganese content of basalt.
Pre-disposal concentrations of mercury in sediments are lower than
concentrations of mercury in sediments at the corresponding harbors for the
proposed South Oahu, Kahului, and Hilo Sites. Pre-disposal values were higher
than the corresponding harbor values for the proposed Nawiliwili and Port
Allen Sites. Post-disposal concentrations of mercury in sediments were lower
than the corresponding harbor values for the proposed South Oahu and Kahului
Sites, while the post-disposal values were higher than the harbor concen-
trations for the proposed Nawiliwili, Port Allen, and Hilo Sites. All values
for mercury in sediments at the proposed sites were higher than the content of
mercury in basalt, and tne concentrations at all sites are below the Federal
ocean disposal criteria for mercury (40 CFR Section 227.6) except at the
proposed Hilo Site, where post-disposal values are at criteria level. All
post-disposal concentrations of mercury in sediments are higher than the
pre-disposal values, except those for the proposed Kahului Site, which show a
decrease in post-disposal concentrations of mercury in sediments.
Pre-disposal and post-disposal concentrations of nickel in sediments at the
proposed South Oahu Site are lower than the concentrations of nickel in
sediments at Honolulu and Pearl Harbors. The post-disposal concentrations of
nickel in sediments are higher than pre-disposal values for the proposed South
Oahu, Nawiliwili, Port Allen, and Kahului Sites. Values for the proposed Hilo
bite show a decrease in post-disposal concentration of nickel in sediments.
Post-disposal nickel concentrations in sediments at the proposed South Oahu,
Nawiliwili, Port Allen, and Hilo Sites are higher than the nickel content in
basalt.
The pre-disposal concentrations of zinc in sediments at the proposed South
Oanu, Nawiliwili, Port Allen, and Hilo Sites are lower than the concentrations
of zinc in sediments from the corresponding harbors. Post-disposal sediment
zinc concentrations in sediments at the proposed South Oahu and Nawiliwili
Sites are Higher than the zinc values in the corresponding harbors.
Post-disposal zinc concentrations for the other sites are lower than the
A-18
-------
corresponding harbor concentrations. Both the pre-disposal and post-disposal
concentrations of zinc in sediments at the proposed Kahului Site approximate
the zinc content in sediments at Kahului Harbor. The post-disposal zinc
concentration values for the proposed Nawiliwili and Port Allen Sites are
higher than the pre-disposal values for these sites, while pre-disposal and
post-disposal zinc concentrations are approximately equal for the proposed
Kahului and Hilo Disposal Sites. Zinc concentrations at all proposed disposal
sites are lower than the zinc content of basalt, except for the South Oahu
Site, whose zinc content is greater than that of zinc in basalt.
A-19
-------
Appendix B
DREDGED MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
CONTENTS
Section
CHARACTERISTICS OF HARBOR SEDIMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS OF MATERIALS FOUND IN DREDGE VESSEL HOPPERS
TABLES
Number Title Page
B-i Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Harbor Sediments . . . B-3
b-2 Grain-Size Distribution of Dredged Material Sampled from Hopper . . B-7
B-3 Composite Average Hawaiian Dredged Material
Grain-Size Distribution B-8
iJ-4 Characterization of Dredged Material from the Dredge
Vessel CHESTER HARDING for Extractable Metals and Pesticide
Residues (Pearl Harbor) B-9
B-i
-------
Appendix B
DREDGED MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
The Federal government's harbor dredging program is part of a continuing
plan to maintain adequate harbor channel and basin depths to ensure safe
navigation. The deep-draft harbors considered in this EIS are dredged in
approximate 5- to 10-year maintenance cycles or on an "as-needed" basis.
Honolulu, Nawiliwili, Port Allen, Kahului, and Hilo Harbors are maintained
under the administration of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Pearl Harbor is
maintained under the administration of the Department of the Navy.
Harbor dredging is performed on an "as needed" basis. High runoff during
the interim periods may necessitate changes in dredging frequency. Kahului
and Hilo Harbors are dredged on an approximate 10-year cycle (CE, 1975).
Honolulu Harbor was dredged in 1979 as part of a Public Works operation; an
estimated volume of 720,000 yd of material was dumped at the proposed South
Oahu (.former Honolulu) Site (Maragos, 1979).
Characterization of the dredged material dumped at the disposal sites has
been difficult. The major problem lies in determining what portion of the
material drawn up the suction pipe of the dredging vessel is actually retained
in the hoppers because the material drawn up the pipe is mainly water.
Troughs at the tops of the hoppers provide a drain for excess water which is
heavily laden with suspended silt and clay. The larger particles settle to
the bottoms of the hoppers. Shipboard observations indicate that while large
amounts of silt and clay are lost overboard with the overflow during dredging
(Smith, 1979), a significant amount of fine material is retained in the
hoppers and dumped at the disposal sites (Swafford, 1979). The amount of the
fine-grain fraction which is lost or retained has not been determined. A true
representative sample of what is being dumped rather than what is being
dredged might be obtained by sampling directly from the hoppers after
completion of dredging operations and before opening the hopper doors. Due to
the difficulty in characterizing dredged material dumped at the sites, data
from the harbors and the dredge vessel are presented.
B-l
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF HARBOR SEDIMENTS
The physical and chemical characteristics of the sediments in the harbors
from which dredged materials are taken are listed in Table B-l. Sediments
from Honolulu and Pearl Harbors are predominantly sand and silt while those at
the other four harbors are mainly silt and clay. With the elutriate test,
suspended solid contents in the harbor waters were determined to range from
686 rag/kg at Port Allen Harbor to 1,793 mg/kg at Kahului Harbor. Honolulu
Harbor has an average total suspended solids concentration of approximately
832 mg/kg. No suspended solids data are available for Pearl Harbor.
Metal concentrations in harbor sediments are compared to their respective
concentrations in basalt to illustrate the contribution of these metals to the
harbors by the natural weathering of the Hawaiian Islands, which are composed
mainly of basalt.
Heavy metal concentrations in sediments are consistently higher (cadmium
excepted) at Honolulu and Pearl Harbors than at the other four Hawaiian
harbors. Cadmium concentrations in harbor sediments range from less than
2 mg/kg at Pearl Harbor to 4.6 mg/kg at Honolulu Harbor. All Hawaiian harbors
have slightly higher cadmium concentrations than the average cadmium concen-
tration in basalt (0.11 mg/kg). However, all harbor sediment cadmium
concentrations were below the interim EPA guidelines (then in effect),
obtained by multiplying 1.5 by the ambient concentrations in the sediments of
tne respective disposal sites (40 CFR 227.6[e][2]). Youngberg (1973) noted
that cadmium concentrations in cultivated soils, stream sediments, and
sediments of Pearl Harbor are higher than in uncultivated soils, suggesting
the addition of cadmium by man-made activities (cadmium is usually associated
with phosphate found in fertilizers and detergents). Youngberg also suggested
that water movement in irrigation and stream beds might concentrate the metal
from natural materials.
Chromium concentrations in sediments are available only for Pearl and Honolulu
Harbors; Pearl Harbor has the higher concentration. Both harbors are well
under the average basaltic rock chromium concentration of 244 mg/kg.
B-2
-------
TABLE B-l
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HARBOR SEDIMENTS*
Psraaeter
Grain-Site Distribution
(I) (b>
Sand
Silt
Cl.y
Total Suapended Solids
UK/UK) (d)
CsdiiiiiiU (mg/kg)
Interim EPA Guideline-
Csdmiua (mg/kg) (t)
Chcoaium (an/kg)
Lopper (ing/kg)
l.uad liny/kg)
Mantjunust tug/kg)
Mercury ting/kg)
Interim EPA CuiJeline-
Mercury (mg/kg) (t)
Nickul (me/kg)
/lilt Ue/kg)
BUU^ U8/kg) la)
Hio»j,liui,,» Ug/kg) (d)
(aj/kt) (.1)
Nutate Ug/kuJ (d)
oil nun Cieabe (g/kg) (d)
Honolulu
Harbor
39
43
IB
832
4.6 i 0.2 (d)
6.9
63.8 » 55 (d)
94.8 *. 56
6.9
100 i 59 (e)
40 » 17 (g)
160 * 190 (e)
131 » 175 (c)
105 + 212 (c)
94.1 7 193 (d)
45.5 * 6.4 (g)
110 * 210 (e)
570 •> 580 (e)
668 ^ 742 (c)
1.03 * 1.3 (c)
1.0 T 0.3U (d)
0.8 * 0.1 (g)
0.02
120 * 30 (e)
121 i 140 (c)
210 - 269 (d)
78 * 36 (g)
250 * 290 (e)
2.8
u.15
NA
53.4 ^ 29.5 (d)
3.7
0 01
0.07
0.537
0.011
0.002
Port AlUn
Harbor
9
54
37
686
3.1 •_ 0.2 (d)
8.4
NA
1 NA
34.4 f_ 4.5 (d)
NA
0.06 i 0.02 (d)
0.26
NA
86.3 ± 4.6 (d)
9.2
0.01
0.06
2.16
0.008
0.002
lahului
Harbor
22
53
25
1,793
2.8 t_ 0.1 (d)
9.1
NA
HA
34.2 *_ 10 (d)
NA
0.29 *_ 0.4 (d)
0.3
HA
49.4 ^ 4.0 (d)
4.53
0.01
0.17
1.57
0.016
0.006
Hilo
Harbor
13
65
22
1.092
3.7 t_ 0.3 (d)
4.6
NA
NA
44.9 • 3.3 (d)
HA
0.28 ;. 0.2 (d)
0.15
NA
87.4 ^ 11 (d)
8.0
0.01
0.07
2.12
0.006
0.005
Baaalt (a)
0.11 + 0.01
244 * 206
46 ^ 21
15 i 2.8
1 .336 f_ 222
0.015 * 0.0047
121 _> 112
118 i 32
* All values dry weight
I ThoBe valuua represent a 1.5 multiplication
ot the concentrationa in disposal site sediments
NA - Not available
Sources: (a) Sinay-Frieuman, 1979
(b) Uoeggel, 1978
(c) loungberg, 1973
Id) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975
(e) Evans, 1974
U) «.H. To will Corp., 1972
Ig) Tetra Tech, 1977
lit) Cox and Cordon, 1970
B-3
-------
Sediments from streams flowing into Pearl Harbor and the sediments of Pearl
Harbor itselt show higher concentrations of chromium than in the uncultivated
soils of Oahu, indicating man-made (anthropogenic) sources of chromium
(Youngberg, 1973). Some anthropogenic sources may be domestic sewage,
irrigation runoff, power plant effluent, paints, pigments, copper piping, and
electroplating.
Copper concentrations in sediments are available only for Pearl and
Honolulu Harbors. Pearl Harbor sediments have slightly higher copper
concentrations than those of Honolulu Harbor; and concentrations at both
narbors are significantly higher than a value of 46 mg/kg for basaltic copper
concentration (Sinay-Friedman, 1979). Youngberg (1973) found a significantly
greater copper content in the cultivated soils of Oahu and Pearl Harbor
sediments compared to the uncultivated soils of Oahu. He suggests that the
copper in cultivated soils may be added by fertilizers or by leaching, whereas
copper in Pearl Harbor sediments may arise from anthropogenic sources (e.g.,
paints, pigments, copper piping, electroplating, and domestic wastes).
Tne hignest lead concentrations in sediments are found in Pearl and
Honolulu harbors, with Honolulu having the maximum of 140 mg/kg. Sediments at
tne other four harbors have lead concentrations which are comparable among
themselves, yet much lower than either Pearl or Honolulu Harbors. All
narbors, however, have lead concentrations in sediments which are much higher
than the basaltic concentration of 15 mg/kg. The cultivated soils and stream
sediments of Oahu and sediments from Pearl Harbor are higher in lead
concentrations than the uncultivated soils of Oahu, indicating enrichment by
human activity (Youngberg, 1973). Some man-made sources of lead are zinc
products, paints, pigments, metal finishing, plumbing systems, and domestic
wastes.
Manganese concentrations in sediments are available only for Pearl and
Honolulu Harbors, with Pearl Harbor having the higher concentration. Both
harbors, however, contain manganese concentrations in sediments much less than
that found in basalt (1,336 mg/kg). Youngberg (1973) noted a definitely
higher manganese content in cultivated soils compared to uncultivated soils of
Oahu. He suggested that the higher manganese in the cultivated soils may be
B-4
-------
due to leaching processes in the soils caused by rainfall and irrigation.
Youngberg also observed a decrease in manganese content as the metal moves
from the soil to stream sediments, and finally into Pearl Harbor, which he
attributed to increasing dissolution of manganese.
Among the six Hawaiian harbors, Pearl and Honolulu Harbors have the highest
mercury concentrations in sediments, near 1.0 mg/kg. Sediments at the
remaining four harbors have mercury concentrations of less than 0.3 mg/kg.
All harbors have sediment concentrations of mercury which are much greater
than the mercury concentration in basalt (0.015 mg/kg). However, all harbor
sediment mercury concentrations are below interim EPA guidelines, obtained by
multiplying 1.5 by the ambient sediment mercury concentrations at the
respective disposal sites (40 CFR 227.6[e][2]). Youngberg (1973) found little
difference in the mercury content among the uncultivated soils, cultivated
soils, and stream sediments of Oahu. He stated that mercury was previously
used by the sugar industry in the form of organomercuric fungicides.
Values for nickel concentrations in sediments are available only for Pearl
and Honolulu Harbors. Concentrations of nickel in Honolulu Harbor sediments
are slightly higher than those in Pearl Harbor; and the concentrations of
nickel in the sediments of both harbors are slightly greater than or equal to
the nickel concentration in basalt. Nickel concentrations in the cultivated
soils and stream sediments of Oahu, and in Pearl Harbor sediments, are higher
than the nickel content of Oahu uncultivated soils, indicating the probability
of anthropogenic sources; the greater nickel content in cultivated soils may
be due to the addition of nickel by fertilizers, leaching from the soils by
rainfall, or irrigation (Youngberg, 1973). Youngberg mentioned that the
higher nickel content in streams could be due to the addition of nickel from
cultivated soils, and that water movement in stream beds may concentrate the
metal.
Concentrations of zinc in harbor sediments range from 49 mg/kg at Kahului
Harbor to 250 mg/kg at Pearl Harbor. Both Pearl and Honolulu Harbors have
zinc concentrations greater than that found in basalt, while the remaining
tour harbors have zinc concentrations less than that of basalt. Youngberg
U97J) observed higher zinc concentrations in cultivated soils and stream
B-5
-------
seaiments of Oahu and the sediments of Pearl Harbor than those in uncultivated
soils. He suggested that zinc is possibly being added to soils by ferti-
lizers, and that cultivation and irrigation practices may be concentrating
zinc.
Organohalogen concentration data are available for all harbors except Pearl
Harbor. In all harbor sediments, the organohalogen concentrations are less
than 0.01 ^ig/kg. No bioassay data, as specified by the ocean disposal
criteria (40 CFR 227.6[e][3]), are available for the Hawaiian harbors, with
respect to organohalogens. Due to their low concentration, bioassays may not
be warranted for this purpose.
Oil and grease concentrations in the Hawaiian harbors range from 2 mg/kg at
Port Allen and Nawiliwili to 11.96 g/kg in Pearl Harbor. No surface sheen
data, as specified in the ocean disposal criteria (40 CFR 227.6[e][4]), are
available for oil and grease concentrations in the Hawaiian harbors. However,
oil sheens were not observed during the disposal of Pearl Harbor dredged
material, the only harbor where oil and grease content is elevated.
Concentrations of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) in harbor sediments range
from 0.54 mg/kg at Nawiliwili Harbor to 690 mg/kg at Pearl Harbor. The
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of the sediments in the Hawaiian harbors
ranges from 2.8 mg/kg at Pearl Harbor to 9.3 mg/kg at Honolulu Harbor.
CHARACTERISTICS OF MATERIALS FOUND IN DREDGE VESSEL HOPPERS
Only one record was found of a sample of dredged material, taken directly
from the hopper aboard the CE hopper dredge CHESTER HARDING, for which
grain-size analysis was available (Tetra Tech, 1977). The grain-size analysis
(Table B-2) indicates that 49.7% of the material was coral pebbles with
particle diameters between 4 and 11.2 mm. Granular shell and coral debris
with particle diameters between 2 and 2.83 mm constituted 13.8% of the
material. The remainder of the sample was composed of calcareous sands with
particle diameters between 0.18 and 1.41 mm.
B-6
-------
Samples of dredged material were taken by personnel aboard the CHESTER
HARDING during the 1977 dredging operations at each of the five deep-draft
harbors maintained by the CE and at Pearl Harbor. Samples were collected by
passing a container through the flow of sediment-water slurry as it left the
dredge pipe just before entering the hopper bins.
TABLE B-2
GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF DREDGED MATERIAL SAMPLED FROM HOPPER
Description
Coral Pebbles
(49.3%)
Granular Shell
and Coral Debris
(13.8%)
Calcareous Sand
(36.9%)
Total:
Size Class
(rf)
-3.5
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Median
Diameter
(mm)
11.20
8.00
5.66
4.00
2.83
2.00
1.41
1.00
0.71
0.51
0.31
0.25
0.18
Weight
(%)
30.4
8.4
4.9
6.0
6.8
7.0
7.8
7.6
3.0
6.0
5.4
2.4
4.3
100.0
Source: Tetra Tech, 1977
The composition of the dredged material was found to vary greatly from
harbor to harbor, and in one case (Honolulu Harbor) intraharbor samples were
highly variable, ranging from mostly sand to mostly silt and clay. Pearl
Harbor sediments were chiefly silt and clay. Port Allen had nearly as much
silt as Pearl Harbor, but less clay. The average of the Honolulu Harbor
samples showed the sediments to be 50% sand and gravel and 50% silt and clay.
Nawiliwili Harbor sediments were largely silt and clay. Sediments at Kahului
Harbor were mostly sand and gravel, with minor silt and clay contents.
B-7
-------
The percentages of material in each size class for each sample from all
harbors were summed, and average grain-size distributions were tabulated.
Distributions represent an unweighted average composition of the type of
material dredged in Hawaii (Table B-3). Silt and clay constitute about 60% of
the typical samples, and the remaining 40% is sand and gravel-sized material.
TABLE B-3
COMPOSITE AVERAGE HAWAIIAN DREDGED MATERIAL
GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle diameter
(mm)
25.0
19.1
12.7
9.50
4.75
2.00
0.953
0.850
0.478
0.425
U.254
0.250
0.200
0.075
0.074
0.050
0.037
0.027
0.022
0.020
0.019
0.015
0.011
0.010
0.008
0.0058
0.0050
0.0042
0.0030
0.0020
0.0014
0.0013
0.0012
0.0011
Composition
/ a/ \
\ /o /
0.1
0.3
0.9
1.5
0.6
1.5
2.9
0..2
3.2
0.5
4.7
0.1
6.9
16.4
1.0
3.4
5.5
4.8
2.5
1.3
1.6
6.0
5.3
1.4
4.2
5.4
2.2
2.0
2.7
1.9
1.7
2.0
5.0
0.3
100.0
Cumulative
4.9
23.4
72.6
91.0
100.0
Source: Modified from U.S,
Engineers, 1975
Army Corps of
B-J
-------
Heavy metal and pesticide characteristics of dredged material samples,
taken from Pearl Harbor by the CE hopper dredge CHESTER HARDING (Chave and
Miller, 1977a), are listed in Table B-4. Concentrations of cadmium and
chromium in the hopper samples are higher than the concentrations of these two
metals in the Pearl Harbor sediments, while the concentrations of copper,
lead, and zinc are lower in the hopper samples. Hopper samples showed
concentrations of nickel similar to those in the sediments of Pearl Harbor.
These differences can be explained in that the sediment data (Youngberg, 1973)
were collected at points in time different from the hopper samples (Chave and
Miller, 1977a). Dredging and sampling techniques and analysis procedures are
also influential variables. Natural variability of metal content in the
sediments of Pearl Harbor, as shown in Table B-l, is a prime consideration for
these concentration differences. Pearl Harbor has four embayments, or lochs,
each receiving unique flows of runoff and wastewater; thus, value variability
is greatly dependent upon sampling locations. Metal concentrations may also
vary with time, when runoff volumes, wastewater volumes, and ship traffic
fluctuate.
TABLE B-4
CHARACTERIZATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL FROM THE DREDGE VESSEL
CHESTER HARDING FOR EXTRACTABLE METALS AND PESTICIDE RESIDUES (PEARL HARBOR)
Metal /Pesticide
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Dieldrin
Lindane
Chlordane
ODD
DDT
Content (rag/kg)
3.0 +_ 1.0
203 +_ 49
67 +_ 2
106 _+ 26
40 +_ 13
119 _+ 36
0.4 +_ 0.2
28 +_ 19
1.2 +_ 1.2
1.6 +. 0.8
ND
Source: Adapted from Chave and Miller, 1977b
B-9
-------
Appendix C
IMPACT EVALUATION
CONTENTS
Section Page
PREVIOUS MATHEMATICAL STUDIES C-l
DISPOSAL OPERATIONS C-5
WATER COLUMN IMPACTS C-7
BENTHIC IMPACTS C-18
TABLES
Number Title Page
C-l Potential Impact Summary C-2
C-2 Settling Velocities for Sand and Coral Particles C-6
C-3 Grain-Size Distribution of Dredged Material C-9
C-4 Dredged Material Thickness Deposited by 2,681 yd Dump C-10
C-3 Average Z Scores of Four Sediment Trace Metals at the
Hawaiian Dredged Material Disposal Sites by
Site, Time, and by Site and Time C-21
C-i
-------
Appendix C
IMPACT EVALUATION
The proposed and alternative sites considered in this EIS differ from
typical CE dredged material sites, in that these sites are in subtropical deep
water, with depths ranging from 330 m at Hilo (Hawaii) to 1610 m at Port Allen
(.Kauai).
Several surveys have been conducted near the proposed South Oahu Site over
the past decade, with two studies performed at each of the other proposed
sites. Sediment sample collections at these sites were not too successful and
the data are not as complete as anticipated. However, the approach taken here
will- be to consider potential environmental impacts for the oceanic
environment.
Potential environmental impacts, caused by dredged material disposal at the
proposed and alternative sites, may be divided into general site impacts,
water column effects, and benthic effects (Pequegnat et al., 1978). (See
Table C-l.)
Major elements in impact evaluation are the expected dispersion, dilution,
and settling rates of dumped materials. An expanded view of previous
mathematical modeling attempts is presented, with a discussion of the basic
model used for impact evaluation.
PREVIOUS MATHEMATICAL STUDIES
Spatial and temporal distribution parameters of dredged material after
release from a disposal vessel are bases for attempts to describe environ-
mental impacts of ocean disposal. One method of prediction/description is by
use of mathematical modeling. To date, modeling of dredged material
deposition, particularly in deep-ocean environments, has had limited success.
C-l
-------
TABLE C-l
POTENTIAL IMPACT SUMMARY
o
IxJ
Potential Impact
General Site Use
Navigation
Fisheries
Other Waste Inputs
Military
Industrial
Scientific. Study Areas
Recreation
Preservation Regions
Water Column
Plume Effects
Biota Trapping
Toxin Uptake/
Accumulation
Benthos
Organism Smothering
Toxin Uptake/
Accumulation
Community Structure
Shift
Mounding
Oxygen Demand for
Degradation
Sphere
Phytoplankton
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Zooplankton
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nekton
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Benthos
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Commerce
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Military
X
X
X
X
Aesthetics
X
X
X
X
Man
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Pequegnat et al., 1978,
-------
The basis for the CE Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP) modeling
attempts is the model created by Koh and Chang (1973). In the Koh-Chang model
(originally designed for the Great Lakes), dredged material has two
components - a solid portion and a liquid portion. The solid portion is
assumed to separate into discrete particles which fall through the water
column at known, empirically determined rates. The fluid portion is miscible
with ambient fluid. Currents are assumed to be horizontally and temporally
invariant, but current velocities and directions may vary vertically. Density
structure can be arbitrary in the vertical, homogeneous in the horizontal, and
stationary in both directions. The model does not explicitly consider effects
of flocculation and hindered settling of dredged materials, although some
modifications in settling velocities are permitted.
Further refinements of the Koh-Chang model were made by Brandsma and Divoky
U97t>; for the DMRP; and in contract with Tetra Tech Inc. (1977). The
Koh-Chang model was used as a basis for development of two models more
applicable to disposal of dredged material in a dynamic estuarine setting.
The Brandsma and Divoky model was applied to dredged material disposal
operations in Hawaii by two groups - Johnson and Holliday (1977) and Tetra
Tech (1977). R.h. Towill Corporation (1972) developed a different model and
applied it to dredged material disposal operations at Port Allen.
The models were not successful in describing the short-term destinations of
dredged material after disposal. The Brandsma and Divoky model (applied by
Johnson and Holliday- and Tetra Tech) failed, chiefly due to inadequate or
incorrect descriptions of dumped materials. The R.M. Towill Corporation
(1972) model is also inadequate. Brief reviews of their findings are given
below.
Johnson and Holliday (1977) applied the Tetra Tech model (Brandsma and
Uivoky, 1976) to ten proposed and alternative dredged material disposal sites
in Hawaii. The conclusion was that most material leaves the site boundaries
as suspended sediment. This was in conflict with the findings of researchers
who monitored disposal at the proposed South Oahu (former Honolulu) Site,
where the majority of the dredged material fell to the bottom within 20 to 30
C-3
-------
minutes. The chief reason that the model did not accurately predict actual
occurrences is due to complexities of describing physical properties of the
dredged material.
Johnson and Holliday underestimated the grain sizes of the dredged
material. They used a sediment composition based upon typical river sediments
whicn enter the Gulf of Mexico, and not upon actual waste sediment sizes
characteristic of regions with coral reef fringes. Field observations
indicated that substantial portions of the material are gravel and rock.
Cohesive material settled to the bottom of the dredge vessel hoppers, so that
the materials had lower moisture contents and higher bulk values than
anticipated. It was believed that the material fell in masses rather than in
finely divided clouds. The inappropriate sediment composition data caused the
inaccuracies, as noted above.
Tetra Tech (1977) used the model of Brandsma and Divoky (1976) to estimate
deposition patterns at the proposed South Oahu (former Honolulu) Site. The
ambient current structure, measured by Neighbor Island Consultants (1977), was
applied, as well as the grain-size analysis of a sample taken from the CHESTER
3 3
HARDING. Two release volumes were analyzed - 220 yd and 1,766 yd . The
3
model predicted that a discharge of 220 yd would eventually cover an area of
2 2
0.7 to 2.4 nmi (2.4 to 8.2 km ), while the larger discharge would cover an
2 2
area of about 0.8 to 1.5 nmi (2.7 to 5.1 km ). The smaller area of coverage
from tne larger volume is due to greater initial release momentum. According
to the model, the sediment thickness should be 0.16 mm or less, even under the
release point. Tetra Tech (1977) warns that these results may be misleading,
because observers aboard the dredge vessel reported seeing coral fragments, in
the hopper, of a size considerably larger than those measured in the hopper
sediment sample.
The k.w. Towill Corporation (1972) model was developed on the basic
assumption that the dredged material separates into individual particles and
descends through the water column at laboratory-determined particle settling
velocities. The particles were predicted to be under the influence of a
uniform horizontal current until they reached the ocean floor. The model's
limitations are that flocculation, diffusion, stratification, plume formation,
C-4
-------
2
and variable currents were not included. A maximal deposition of 4.25 mg/cm
was predicted 11 nmi (20.4 km) downcurrent at a 1,500 m water depth, from
3
release of 246,000 yd of dredged material. Noncohesive sand particles were
used for this prediction, in contrast to the cohesive silt-clays charac-
teristic of Hawaiian dredged material. The effect of such a difference would
result in less dispersion of the Hawaiian dredged material (Neighbor Island
Consultants, 1977).
Neighbor Island Consultants (1977) referred to studies by the San Francisco
District Corps of Engineers. Despite disposal operations being conducted in
shallow water, the studies could apply to Hawaii, because the dredge vessel
CHESTER HARDING was used in San Francisco to dispose of dredged material
similar to the Hawaiian material. The principal point of the San Francisco
studies was that only dredged material with low moisture content was
discharged by the hopper dredge. The material was dumped in 100 m of water,
rapidly sank to the bottom, and mounded in large clumps. No significant plume
remained visible in the water.
DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
The proposed South Oahu Site will be the most heavily used of all proposed
sites. The next disposal cycle is scheduled for 1982, when an estimated
2.6 million yd will be dumped. The volumes are expected to be temporally
3
constant. About 28 weeks would be required to dispose of 2.6 million yd of
dredged material. In the 1977-1978 dredging cycle, there was a 2-day period
allotted every 14 days for barge maintenance. All material is dredged and
3
dumped by a hopper dredge; the CHESTER HARDING (capacity 2,681 yd ) was used
during the 1977-1978 cycle. The time required for disposal is 2 to 3 minutes,
with the barge decelerating to a speed of 0 to 2 knots before release of
material.
Barge contents have only been sampled a few times (Chave and Miller, 1977b;
Tetra Tech, 1977) for dredged material from Honolulu Harbor, which was 49%
coral pebbles, 37% sand, and the remainder granular shell and coral debris.
Average settling velocities for sand and coral particles are listed in
Table C-2.
C-5
-------
TABLE C-2
SETTLING VELOCITIES FOR SAND AND CORAL PARTICLES
Particle Diameter (mm)
11.2
8.0
5.66
4.00
2.83
2.00
1.41
1.00
0.71
0.51
0.31
0.25
0.18
Time to Settle at 450 m depth
(Seconds)
1,000
1,125
1,250
1,452
1,800
2,250
2,813
3,462
4,500
6,818
13,235
16,071
25,000
(Hours)
0.28
0.31
0.35
0.40
0.50
0.63
0.78
0.96
1.25
1.89
3.68
4.46
6.94
Sources: Chave and Miller, 1977b; Tetra Tech, 1977
When dredged material falls through the water column, natural ocean
turbulence and momentum-induced turbulence interact to dilute and disperse the
material, and the material spreads horizontally as it approaches the sea
floor. Immediately upon release of a load of dredged material at the proposed
South Oahu (former Honolulu) Site, a surface plume about 100 m in width, with
sharply defined outlines, was visible for less than an hour (Smith, 1979).
Heavier and larger components (rocks, coral heads, and pebbles) will reach
bottom in 4 to 5 minutes after discharge. Fine sands (less than 3 0, or
1/8 mm) have a much slower rate of descent (1.8 cm/sec), and are expected to
scatter on the bottom over a 7-hour period at the proposed South Oahu Site.
The last few fine sand particles to land will fall on the site fringe. Coarse
silts are estimated to settle at the rate of 0.3 cm/sec, and would take 34
hours to reach bottom at the proposed South Oahu Site (Chave and Miller,
1977b).
With the exception of silts, the material will be dispersed approximately
2,5UO m from the release point. All dredged material from a single dump, with
a grain size greater than 0.18 mm, will be deposited over an area between 200
C-6
-------
and 600 meters wide and 2,500 meters long, with a thickness of 1 cm. The
remaining sediment will be distributed outside the site boundaries over a vast
area.
The amount of horizontal spread occurring below the surface was decided
somewhat arbitrarily. Based upon the single-dump depositional pattern
observed by Chave and Miller (1977b), the values of 200 m and 600 m were
decided to be the width of the deposition pattern at the closest and farthest
points, respectively, from the release point. The amount of horizontal
spreading was determined to be linear between the two downstream distances.
WATER COLUMN IMPACTS
The effects on the water column from the disposal of dredged material may
be subdivided into four categories: plume effects, biota trapping, intake and
biomagnification of toxic constituents, and substrate resuspension.
Plume effects are influenced by transport conditions at the sites, which
determine the concentration and duration of increased suspended loads at each
site. Nutrient release into the water column occurs immediately after
clumping. The magnitude of ensuing phenomena is influenced by the effect of
the dredged material on the photic zone, site mixing, dilution, and the
dissolved oxygen available. During disposal operations, an immediate oxygen
demand is expected (Pequegnat et al., 1978).
Biota in the path of the dense dredged material may be trapped, carried to
the bottom, and smothered en route or on the sea floor. Phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and nekton are exposed to this jeopardy. On the bottom, organism
decay consumes oxygen and may cause chronic reduction of oxygen at the
sediment-water interface.
Toxic constituents, trace metals, and chlorinated hydrocarbons from the
plume may be ingested by the biota. Most trace metals and hydrocarbons make
filter-feeding organisms particularly susceptible to accumulation.
Chlorinated hydrocarbons are not highly soluble in water, but have been
reported to be caused by oil and grease, due to their lipophillic character.
C-7
-------
Plume effects after dumping are short-term phenomena. Various estimates
have been made for plume width and length with time. There are four main
elements of plume behavior: plume transport, increased turbidity effects,
consequences of nutrient release, and the oxygen demand during disposal
operations.
TRANSPORT MECHANISMS
The fate of dredged material at the deep ocean sites has been investigated
by means of a simplistic model. The model yields sediment thickness estimates
3
after release of 2,681 yd (one barge load) of material dredged from Honolulu
Harbor. Dredged material, sampled from a hopper in the dredge vessel CHESTER
HARDING, was analyzed by Tetra Tech (1977).
The model assumes that the dredged material will fall through the water
column at discrete particle settling velocities. These velocities were
obtained from Graf (1971) and are shown in Table C-3. Due to the inherent
complexities and lack of information on the effects of flocculation, hindered
settling, clumping, drag, and initial jet descent, they were not considered.
Most omissions were based on the knowledge that the dumped dredged material
lacked any silt or clay fractions. The mean water depth at the proposed South
Oahu Site is 450 m, and the sea floor was assumed to be flat and smooth. The
other sites, excluding Kahului, are deeper than 450 m.
In order to model a worst-case condition, currents were assumed to be
stationary and vertically uniform. A horizontal current velocity of 10 cm/sec
was used in all calculations. While the effects of turbulent entrainment were
assumed, the magnitude of the horizontal spreading of the dredged material
cloud was not determined explicitly. The width of the depository pattern was
estimated on the basis of field studies by Chave and Miller (1977b). The
depth at the site studied was shallower than the proposed South Oahu Site, but
current velocities were greater than those used in the calculations. The
depository pattern is about 200 m wide 100 m downstream, and estimated to be
600 m wide 2.5 km downstream.
C-8
-------
TABLE C-3
GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF DREDGED MATERIAL
Description
Coral Pebbles
(4y.33i)
Granular Shell and
Coral Debris
(io.8%;
Calcareous band
130. *X)
Median Diameter
6
-3.5
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
turn
11.20
8.00
5.66
4.00
2.83
2.00
1.41
1.00
0.71
0.51
0.31
0.25
0.18
Weight
(%)
30.4
8.4
4.9
6.0
6.8
7.0
7.6
7.6
3.2
6.0
5.4
2.4
4.3
Settling
Velocity
(cm/sec)
45
40
36
31
25
20
16
13
10
6.6
3.4
2.8
1.8
Sources: Tetra Tech, 1977; Graf, 1971
'i'he model calculations were as follows: the time for each particle size
(Table c-4) to fall 450 m at the calculated settling velocity was determined.
This time was translated into a horizontal distance traveled by a particle
carried by a unidirectional current at 10 cm/sec. By this means, particles
which are 11 mm in diameter settle at a speed of 45 cm/sec, requiring 1,000
sec to fall 450 m, and travel a horizontal distance of 100 m from the disposal
point. Grains having a diameter of 0.18 mm require 25,000 sec to fall 450 m,
and travel about 2.5 km downstream before reaching bottom. In order to smooth
the depository pattern into uniform distributions, rather than single point
accumulations, it was assumed for a given grain-size value (e.g., 2.00 mm),
that tne actual composition of the size fraction was uniformly distributed
between adjacent size categories (e.g., 1.41 mm and 2.83 mm). The smoothing
calculations assumed that the volume of material reported for a discrete grain
size would be deposited uniformly between the horizontal distance traveled by
ttie adjacent grain sizes. For the largest and smallest grain sizes, uniform
deposition over a length equal to twice the distance to the adjacent grain
size was assumed.
C-9
-------
TABLE C-4
DREDGED MATERIAL THICKNESS DEPOSITED BY 2,680 YD DUMP
Downstream Distance
from the Release Point
(m)
80
100
112
125
145
180
225
281
34b
450
682
1,324
1,607
2,500
100
112
125
145
180
225
281
346
450
682
- 1,324
- 1 ,607
- 2,500
- 3,333
Sediment Thickness
Between Distances
(cm)
13.0
16.5
5.2
2.7
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.1
0.43
0.15
0.053
0.068
0.015
0.008
Sources: Graf, 1971; Cnave and Miller, 1977b
Thicknesses of sediments from a single discharge of 2,680 yd , as a
function of downstream distance from the initial release point, are listed in
Table C-4. Sediment thicknesses range from 17 cm at a point 100 m downstream
to 0.008 cm at a distance of 3.3 km from the point of discharge. No
deposition is predicted for downstream distances less than about 80 m. The
reason for this is that the Tetra Tech sampling procedure did not recover the
coarse material consisting mainly of coral and other large debris; however,
tnis material was observed among the hopper contents (Tetra Tech, 1977). It
is probable that these pieces of material settled to the bottom of the hopper
during dredging and thus may have escaped the sampling device. Bottom
photographs taken by Tetra Tech (1977) show coarse material and coral pieces
directly beneath the initial release point. Acoustic tracking of the dredged
material following its release indicates that the coarse fraction falls to the
bottom in less than 4 minutes (Tetra Tech, 1977). The model predicts that the
coarse fraction oi the dredged material will fall to the sea floor within the
first few minutes following release, but the finer fractions may take up to 7
hours to reach bottom. Silt and clay fractions would take much longer to
reach bottom, perhaps a few days. It is not probable that any of the material
could be trapped by the density of the water column.
C-10
-------
In contrast, there is evidence that the dredged material may consist of
considerable fractions of silt and clay. Barge samples from the harbors
contained silt and clay fractions of about 60%, with the remainder (40%) being
sand and gravel-sized material.
TURBIDITY
Ocean disposal of dredged material causes a short-term increase of
turbidity in the receiving waters. One barge load (2,680 yd ), evenly
distributed throughout the proposed South Oahu Site, would be approximately
1 part per million (by volume).
The relationship between increased turbidity and primary production is one
of the least understood aspects of dredged material disposal. Little is known
about durations of turbidity after dumping. Most investigators analyzing
effects of disposal concluded that the reduced water transparency was of short
duration, beneficial nutrients were released, and no gross adverse effects
were observed.
Stern and Stickle (1978) reviewed numerous analyses of turbidity and
suspended material impacts upon development of phytoplankton populations. It
was found that the most frequently cited negative aspect of turbidity is
reduced photosynthetic activity due to decreased light penetration.
Several studies (Reeve, 1963; Sherk et al., 1976) found that planktonic
crustaceans could not select between nutritive and non-nutritive particles,
and the maximal filtration rate was independent of the nature of the
particles. Paffenhofer (1972) studied the effects of suspended solids on
growth, body weight, and mortality of the copepod, Calanus helgolandicus, and
reported that the molting ability was substantially reduced, growth and
movement were hindered, and ovarian development was absent when 10 mg/liter
suspended solids were present. However, since the surface plume is visible
for less than 1 hour at the proposed South Oahu Site, the increased turbidity
is estimated to be present less than 4 hours, and no adverse effects are
anticipated.
C-ll
-------
Most studies of turbidity effects upon benthic organisms were concerned
with coelenterates (corals), crustaceans, and mollusks. Most corals exist in
waters shallower than the sites. However, precious pink and gold corals were
reported to exist at depths to 550 m, but have not been reported near the
proposed sites.
The phylum Mollusca includes slugs and snails (class Gastropoda), squids
and octopi (class Cephalopoda); and clams, oysters, and mussels (class
Pelecypoda). Many mollusks, particularly members of the class Pelecypoda, are
filter feeders, thus susceptible to mechanical or abrasive action of suspended
sediments, e.g., clogging of gills and irritation of tissues (Cairns, 1968).
bivalves are more or less stationary, so they frequently respond to increased
levels of turbidity and suspended sediment by tightly sealing their valves.
Thus, they may survive adverse conditions for several days by avoiding direct
contact with the surrounding water. Bivalve mortalities are only observed
after at least 5 days of constant exposure to extremely high (100 g/liter)
suspended sediment concentrations (Peddicord et al., 1975).
Bivalve larvae and eggs settle and develop normally under most dredging and
dredged material disposal conditions (Lunz, 1938), and grow even faster in low
concentrations of turbidity-producing substances (Davis and Hidu, 1969).
However, Davis (1960) and Davis and Hidu (1969) reported that the percentage
of normally developing eggs and larvae decreased as the concentration of
suspended materials increased.
The effects of turbidity and suspended material on gastropods have not been
extensively studied. Johnson (1971) investigated turbidity effects on the
rate of filtration and growth of the slipper limpet, Crepidula fornicata. The
shell growth rate decreased as turbidity increased, perhaps because of
inadequate food intake, due to clogging of the filtering mechanism by
suspended materials. Filtration rates decreased when turbidity levels
increased, with a pronounced reduction as the concentration increased from 0.2
to 0.6 g/liter.
C-12
-------
Studies of effects of suspended solids have been performed on benthic
crustaceans (shrimps, crabs, amphipods, and isopods), and the results indicate
that these organisms are not greatly affected by high suspended solid
concentrations. Peddicord et al. (1975) found that the amphipod Anisog^mmarus
conferricolus was the most sensitive crustacean tested, with a 200-hour LC5Q
of 35 g/liter. The crab Cancer magister, was similarly tested and had a
200-hour LC5Q value of 329 g/liter.
Turbidity and suspended material may affect fishes directly or indirectly.
Direct effects include lethal agents and factors which influence physiological
activities (reproduction, growth, development) or produce abrasive wear on
tissues. Indirect effects include modifications to habitats and food chain
organisms.
Rogers (1969) exposed several species of marine fish to a variety of
suspended particles, and concluded that the suspended solids affected fish
either by coating and clogging gills, or by abrasion of the branchial
epithelium.
The highest suspended solid concentration reported for the dredged material
disposal plume at the proposed South Oahu Site was about 30 mg/liter (Tetra
Tech, 1977), therefore no effect is expected from increased turbidity during
disposal.
NUTRIENT RELEASE
Phytoplankton require certain nutrients to photosynthesize and grow. The
most important nutrients are nitrogen and phosphorus, which can be completely
depleted in surface water during intense biological activity, thus limiting
the growth of phytoplankton.
The release of nutrients from sediments which have been mechanically
disturbed, as in dredging, has not been intensely studied; however, several
scientists have investigated the problem in recent years due to its obvious
relationship to water quality and biological activity. Biggs (1968), for
example, reported nitrogen and phosphorus levels 50 to 100 times above ambient
C-13
-------
in the immediate vicinity of dredged material disposal sites. Windom (1975,
1976) reported vast increases in ammonia at disposal sites, but little change
in nitrate and phosphate. In another study, Windom (1972) found ammonia to be
the only constituent of the many monitored elements which was consistently
released in large quantities during initial dispersion of dredged sediments
into water. In some cases, phosphate was released, but in others it was not,
behavior which Windom (1972, 1975) could not explain. Recent work with the
EPA-CE elutriate test, especially by Lee et al. (1975), has done much to
clarify the behavior of phosphate and other constituents of dredged material
during disposal, and has shown the predominant importance of oxygen
concentration as a controlling factor.
Phytoplankton generally show a preferential usage of ammonia for obtaining
nitrogen, since ammonia can be used directly for amino acid synthesis by
transamination, while nitrate and nitrite must be reduced before being used by
a cell (Parsons and Takahashi, 1973). If surface phytoplankton productivity
is greatly stimulated as a result of ammonia and other nutrient releases
during disposal, the possible consequences of these activities must be
considered. Even though it seems unlikely that adverse effects would result
from increased productivity in the open ocean, the fact remains that oxygen
depletion will ensue when surface organisms die and sink. If poor renewal of
deeper water occurs, oxygen depletion could follow. Furthermore, increased
surface productivity could possibly add to organic carbon loading on the sea
floor, which will occur as dredged material settles.
Eppley and Thomas (1969) found the phytoplankton growth rate relative to
nutrient depreciation and concentration to be estimated by the equation:
M = M
max
where M and M are the growth rate and maximal growth rate, respectively, K
1 s
is the half-saturation constant, and S and S are the initial and final
nutrient concentrations, respectively. Eppley et al. (1972) estimated M to be
approximately 1.5 doublings/day in oligotrophic waters. Maclsaac and Dugdale
(1969) report a Kg range of 0.1 to 0.6 mg-at NH^/liter for the oligotrophic
C-14
-------
tropical Pacific, while Eppley et al. (1969) found the K values for oceanic
s
phytoplankton to range between 0.1 and 0.4 mg-at NH,/liter. Using a K value
*T S
of 0.4 mg-at NH4/liter, the growth rate of the phytoplankton in the
ammonia-enriched site would be approximately 0.3 doublings/day. Since
phytoplankton moving through the site have an exposure time of 4 hours, a
biomass increase of about 5% could possibly occur within the site. A
potential growth rate of 0.3 doublings/day is quite slow, and comparable to
the measured growth rates in the Sargasso Sea and other nutrient-depleted
waters. Therefore, eutrophication caused by nutrient release from the
disposal of dredged material will not occur.
Toxicity of ammonia to marine organisms is not well known. Natarajan
(1970) reported ammonia-inhibited photosynthesis by marine diatoms at 55 to
71.1 mg/liter. Brown and Currie (1973) found that concentrations of 50 to 100
mg/liter affected behavior and 300 mg/liter caused disability in a prosobranch
gastropod (Bulla digitalis). Ammonia was lethal to dogfish (Squalus cephalis)
after three hours at concentrations of 1.2 mg/liter (Wuhrmann and Woker,
1948).
If all the ammonia from a single discharge is released as the dredged
material falls to the bottom, the ammonia will be distributed vertically over
450 m and laterally over 200 m, while the 10-cm/sec current will move the
material a distance of 240 m horizontally in 40 minutes. If 736 kg of ammonia
is released with each discharge, the maximal concentration of the ammonia is
3.4 mg/liter. This concentration will decrease rapidly and is less than
concentrations found to affect the biota, therefore no effect from ammonia
toxicity is anticipated.
OXYGEN DEMAND
Dredged material contains substances which are susceptible to oxidation by
dissolved oxygen. The release of dredged material often causes an initial
oxygen decrease (Lee et al., 1975). The dredged material dumped is
predominantly sand with a coarse silt-clay fraction, from which most fine
clays have been winnowed by the dredging activities. No barge samples have
been analyzed for organic content; however, as a worst-case estimate, the
C-15
-------
organic content sampled in the harbor sediments will be considered equivalent
to the concentration being dumped. It is expected that most of the finest
sediments (high in total organic carbon) are washed overboard during the
dredging operation. The available organic carbon values for Pearl Harbor
sediments were determined by the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) method. In this
method, a small quantity of sediment is digested with a potassium dichromate
solution in boiling sulfuric acid. The positive interference of chlorides
with this method is well known, and compensated by the addition of mercuric
sulfate (APHA, 1975). The method is almost identical to the procedure
outlined by Ballinger and McKee (1971) with respect to the chemical
characterization of bottom sediments for organic carbon. The COD values
reported are within the accepted range for sewage sludge (Ballinger and McKee,
1971). These values will be used in an order-of-magnitude estimate to assess
the quantity of dissolved oxygen required to degrade the organic material.
Total organic content of the organic carbon concentration, based upon COD
volumes, are 80,000 mg/kg in Honolulu Harbor (R.M. Towill Corp., 1972) and
90,000 mg/kg in Pearl Harbor (Youngberg, 1973). The barge vessel CHESTER
/• O
HARDING holds approximately 4.5 x 10 kg (2,680 yd ) of dredged material;
therefore, approximately 400,000 kg of organic carbon could be released each
dump. Using the Redfield et al. (1963) ratio (2.45 ml of oxygen to degrade
1 mg of carbon), approximately 9 x 10 ml of oxygen are required to degrade
totally the organic carbon from a single discharge. Therefore, the oxygen
required to degrade the organic carbon from a single dump is approximately 6%
of the oxygen within in the site, assuming the average dissolved oxygen
concentration in the water column to be 5.3 ml/liter (Chave and Miller,
1977a). This estimation is based upon complete oxidation. The initial sag
associated with disposal varies from 0.006 to 0.02 mg/liter per minute. The
upper limit of these values can be extrapolated to an initial oxygen demand in
2 3
the first hour of 1.6 x 10 gm-02/m /hr (Lee et al., 1975).
BIOTA TRAPPING
Phytoplankton are expected to be more affected by trapping than zoo-
plankton. However, there are no studies which distinguish the effects of
various sediment grain sizes on the plankton, thus it will be arbitrarily
C-16
-------
assumed that sediment particles of sizes greater than approximately 0.2 mm can
trap phytoplankton, while particles larger than 2 mm can trap zooplankton.
Phytoplankton and zooplankton range in size between approximately 0.01 to
10 mm and 0.1 to 30 mm, respectively. As a worst-case estimate it will be
assumed that micronekton can be trapped and carried to the bottom by falling
sediments of sizes greater than 10 mm. Approximately 95%, 60%, and 30% of the
dredged material is greater than 0.2 mm, 2 mm, and 10 mm, respectively.
Phytoplankton contribute to primary productivity above the light
compensation depth of 100 m; hence, only the upper 100 m of the water column
will be considered. The greatest water volume above 100 m depth affected by
f O
the descending sediment of size 0.02 mm or larger is approximately 6 x 10 m .
The average phytoplankton chlorophyll a_ concentration in the water column is
3 ~ 3
approximately 0.2 mg/m (Hirota, 1978), which can be converted to 20 mg C/m
(Steele, 1964; wiebe et al., 1975); therefore the phytoplankton biomass
trapped by tne falling sediment and carried to the bottom is estimated to be
Q
1.2 x 10 mg C. This biomass can be compared to the estimated phytoplankton
9
biomass in the site, approximately 10 x 10 mg C. Therefore, the phyto-
plankton biomass trapped by the falling sediment of a single discharge is
approximately 1% of the phytoplankton biomass at the proposed South Oahu Site.
Another means of comparison is to relate the amount of phytoplankton
trapped and carried to the bottom to the productivity in the surrounding
waters. Productivity around the Hawaiian Islands is approximately 100 mg
2
C/m /day (Sands et al., 1978), with an average productivity estimated at
3
1.0 mg C/m /day. Since the volume of water above 100 m in the site is 520 x
10 cubic meters, the expected productivity in the proposed South Oahu Site is
520 x 10 mg C/day. Therefore, the estimated loss of phytoplankton biomass
due to trapping is comparable to the biomass produced in an average 5.5-hour
period.
Chave and Miller (1977a) reported an average zooplankton biomass of
3
approximately 1.1 mgdw/m . The volume of water affected by the falling
s o
sediment (of size 2 mm) is approximately 10 x 10 m . Therefore, the
C-17
-------
zooplankton biomass estimated to be carried to the bottom is 11 kgdw. Since
the zooplankton biomass estimated for the proposed South Oahu Site is
2,600 kg, the zooplankton biomass carried to the bottom is only 0.4% of the
zooplankton biomass within the site.
Chave and Miller (1977a) estimated the micronekton biomass to average
3
1.3 mg wet wt/m . The expected extent of effect of sediment larger than 10 mm
f O
is approximately 5 x 10 m ; thus, an estimated 6.5 kgww of micronekton will
be carried to the bottom with each dump. This is only 0.2% of the micronekton
biomass within the site.
RESUSPENDED SEDIMENTS
The available data will not support a profound assessment on the
possibilities of dredged material resuspension and transport. However, some
observations are relevant. Chave and Miller (1977a) and Neighbor Island
Consultants (1977) performed grain-size analysis of bottom sediments before
disposal of dredged material, then reported sparse silt and no clay-sized
fractions. The silt and clay fractions were probably winnowed away by the
bottom currents. Post-disposal samples showed that minor silt or clay
fractions were deposited on the bottom sediments. Therefore, the silt and
clay dumped at the site are most likely transported away from the site before
reaching the bottom. Bottom currents in the dump sites are usually energetic
enough to disperse these particles offshore with the net current drift.
BENTHIC IMPACTS
The principal effect of dredged material disposal will be upon the benthos.
Evaluated benthic impacts include: organism smothering, toxic constituent
accumulation (trace metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons), faunal shift, and
mounding.
The benthic biomass at the proposed sites is not known; however, an
estimate of the impact of disposal on the benthic community can be made. The
proposed sites generally have flat bottoms with monotonous features, and the
C-18
-------
benthic biomass is distributed evenly. The impact of disposal becomes a
function of bottom area impacted. Previous calculations (above) described the
expected bottom deposits from a single discharge.
TRACE METAL ACCUMULATION
Youngberg (1973) reported that the average trace metal concentrations in
Pearl harbor sediments were 1.1 mg/kg mercury, 620 mg/kg manganese, 88.7 mg/kg
lead, 1.4 mg/kg cadmium, and 110 mg/kg copper. These dredged materials may be
deposited on sediments at the proposed South Oahu Site which have average
trace metal concentrations of 0.7 mg/kg mercury, 176.2 mg/kg manganese,
48.6 mg/kg lead, 5.85 mg/kg cadmium, and 23.8 mg/kg copper. The Ocean Dumping
Regulations (CFR 40 Section 227.6) permit the disposal of sediments with
mercury and cadmium concentrations 1.5 times the concentrations in the
receiving sediments. Since the permissible concentrations of all other trace
metals are based on bioassay determinations, and no bioassays have been
performed for dredged materials, it is not possible to predict the effect of
the accumulation of trace metals. Furthermore, bioassays of endemic deepwater
organisms for predicting trace metal accumulation are unfeasible due to
difficulty in collection and culture of test organisms. However, the copper
concentration in the sediments being dredged is markedly higher than the
concentration in the sediments at the proposed South Oahu Site.
Comparative analyses of variance (ANOVA) of four trace metals (cadmium,
copper, lead, and mercury) concentrations in the sediments of the proposed
disposal sites were performed to determine: (1) whether significant
differences exist among the sites, and (2) whether significant differences
exist in the metal concentrations before disposal and after disposal. The
analyses indicated no significant differences among the sites at the 95%
confidence level (see Table C-5). However, a significant statistical
difference does exist between pre-disposal and post-disposal metal concen-
trations, the post-disposal values being higher.
C-19
-------
MOUNDING
Dredged material mounding on the sea floor is dependent upon several
factors: the quantity and physical nature of dredged material dumped, methods
of disposal, the water column depth of the site, and the speed and direction
ot the currents at the site. The condition which favors mounding would be a
large amount of cohesive or dense material released instantaneously from a
stationary source into calm shallow water.
C-20
-------
TABLE C-5
AVERAGE Z SCORES OF FOUR SEDIMENT TRACE METALS (Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg)
AT THE HAWAIIAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES
BY SITE, TIME, AND BY SITE AND TIME*
\. Proposed
X^ite
Time ^v
Pre-
Uisposal
Post-
Disposal
Average
Z Scores
By Site
Nawiliwili
-0.44
(11)
-0.19
(20)
-0.28
(31)
Port Allen
-0.31
(20)
0.14
(32)
-0.03
(52;
South Oahu
-0.03
(12)
0.24
(89)
0.21
(101)
Kahului
-0.15
(21)
0.06
(56)
0.01
(77)
Hilo
-0.37
(9)
-0.19
(40)
-0.23
(49)
Average
Z Scores
by Time
-0.24
(73)
0.08
(237)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: Z SCORES BY TIME AND SITE
Source of Variation
Main effects
Time
Sites
2-Way interactions
Time and sites
Explained
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
13.447
4.097
7.753
0.508
0.508
13.956
292.037
305.992
Degrees of
Freedom
5
1
4
4
4
9
300
309
Mean
Square
2.689
4.097
1.938
0.127
0.127
1.551
0.973
0.990
F
2.763
4.209
1.991
0.130
0.130
1.593
Signif .
of F
0.019
0.041
0.096
0.971
0.971
0.117
310 cases were processed.
0 cases (0.0 pet) were missing.
MULTIPLE CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS BY TIME AND SITE
Grand Mean » -0.00
Variable «• Category
Time
1 Pre-dumping
2 Post-dumping
Site
1 Nawiliwili
2 Port Allen
3 Honolulu 4
Pearl Harbor
4 Kahului
5 Hilo
Multiple R squared
Multiple R
Sample
Size
73
237
31
52
101
77
49
Adjusted for
Unadjusted Independents
Dev'n
-0.24
0.08
-0.28
-0.03
0.21
0.01
-0.23
ETA
0.14
0.17
Dev'n
-0.21
0.07
-0.25
0.01
0.18
0.02
-0.24
BETA
0.12
0.16
0.044
0.210
* Sample sizes appear in parentheses.
Sources: Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977; Chave and
Miller, 1977a; 1978; Goeggel, 1978
C-21
-------
Appendix D
SUGGESTED ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
CONTENTS
Section Page
DREDGED MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION D-2
DISPERSION STUDIES D-3
BENTHIC STUDIES D-4
D-i
-------
Appendix D
SUGGESTED ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
The Ocean Dumping Regulations established that the impact of disposal on
the disposal site and surrounding marine environment be evaluated
periodically. The information used in evaluating disposal impact may include
monitoring survey data; thus, "if deemed necessary" by CE or EPA, the District
Engineer (DE) may establish a monitoring program to supplement historical site
data and dumping history (40 CFR 228.9). The DE provides the basis of the
monitoring plan by determining the appropriate monitoring parameters: the
frequency and the areal sampling extent. The factors considered in this
determination are the frequency and volumes of dredged material disposal, the
physical and chemical nature of the dredged material, the dynamics of the
site's physical processes, and the life histories of the species monitored.
Benthic and short-term water column effects are inevitable within the
confines of any dredged material disposal site. The primary purpose of the
monitoring program is to determine whether disposal at the site is signi-
ficantly affecting areas outside the site. Consequently, the monitoring study
must survey the site and surrounding areas, including control sites and areas
which are likely to be affected (as indicated by environmental factors, e.g.,
prevailing currents and sediment transport). The results of an adequate
survey will provide early indication of potential adverse effects radiating
from the site. Knowledge of the gradients facilitates predictions of future
impacts on areas surrounding the disposal site and provides direction for
management of future disposal activities.
In the preparation of this EIS, some information was not available to
permit more complete descriptions of disposal effects at the proposed sites.
Studies whicn would provide these data include: (1) dredged material
characterization as determined by sampling material from the dredge vessel
hopper before release at the site, and (2) dispersion studies to identify
where less-dense materials will settle. In addition, more information on the
benthic biology recolonization and recovery rates beyond that already provided
D-l
-------
by past studies at the sites would be useful. Furthermore, the proposed
dredged material characterization studies need not be duplicated if performed
as a result of other requirements to test the suitability of dredged
materials.
It is not necessary to perform these studies immediately, since there have
been no significant adverse impacts reported or presently expected because of
dredged material disposal at the proposed sites, assuming disposal of
comparable types of materials as previously studied* These studies should not
be performed at all sites during each disposal cycle. Rather, they will be
performed at the discretion of the CE official and the EPA Regional
Administrator who will determine optimal conditions for success.
Fundamental considerations for each of these three studies are presented
below.
DREDGED MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
The relationship between measured harbor sediments and sediments in the
dredge vessel hoppers before release has not been established. Results of
analyses of samples collected from the dredge vessel are not consistent, but
this may be due to the paucity in sample numbers and spatial harbor
variability. Measurements of all parameters in harbor sediments provide only
a gross estimate of the possible constituents present. During the actual
dredging process, some of the finer silts and clays remain at the dredging
site because they are decanted off before they have a chance to settle in the
hopper bins.
During the disposal cycle., representative samples will be collected from
the dredge vessel hoppers before dumping. Suggested parameters to be measured
include trace metals (cadmium, mercury, lead, copper), organohalogens,
ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total organic carbon, and grain-size
distribution.
These data will provide information on the spatial variability of
constituents within the dredging site and, if continued over several cycles,
-------
the temporal variations of dredged materials. It may be more appropriate, as
stated previously, to consider these studies as part of evaluations to
determine suitability of materials for dumping.
DISPERSION STUDIES
Descent of sediment particles through the water to the ocean floor is
dependent upon particle sizes and weights. Dense pieces of dredged material
will settle quickly to the bottom, and remain within the designated site
boundaries. Less dense particles in the dredged material require several
minutes to hours to settle, and may be transported out of the site by ocean
currents.
Dredged material characterization will provide more accurate data on the
relative compositions of dredged material fractions. Field observations
during disposal will help to refine the predicted locations of settling.
It is suggested that the parameters (including turbidity and/or in situ
nephelometry profiles) are to be measured in the water at the disposal site,
and will be designed to determine vertical and horizontal distributions of the
dredged material released at the site. Samples of total suspended solids
should be collected periodically to compare nephelometric profile data to
actual weight (of suspended matter) per volume measurements. However,
previous studies of this type were of limited success due to the rapid transit
through the water column of the dredged material, thus turbidity-suspended
solid profiles were not particularly valuable. Hence, additional studies must
be carefully designed and alternate approaches carefully considered.
BENTHIC STUDIES
Tne low biomass at the sites ensures that minimal organism trapping and
smothering will occur. Furthermore, benthic organisms appear to recolonize
the site quickly after disposal. However, because of the low frequency of
disposal operations (every five or ten years), it would be valuable to measure
the biomass of the raacroinfaunal organisms before the next disposal cycle.
D-3
-------
These measurements will be compared to data obtained in the 1977-1978 studies
to determine the biotic recovery rates at the sites. Sediment samples for
geological or chemical analyses should be collected at fairly low cost during
the same operation.
D-4
-------
Appendix E
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1977
PART VI
V5 MM
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OCEAN DUMPING
Final Revision of Regulations and Criteria
Those Regulations not pertinent to the ocean disposal of
dredged material have been screened out
E-l
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
PART 225—CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DREDGED MATERIAL PERMITS
Sec.
226.1
226.2
225.3
226.4
General.
Review of Dredged Material Permlta.
Procedure tot Invoking economic
Impact.
Waiver by Administrator.
AOTHOBITY: 33 TJ.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
§ 225.1 General.
Applications and authorizations for
Dredged Material Permits under section
103 of the Act for the transportation of
dredged material for the purpose of
dumping it in ocean waters will be eval-
uated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers in accordance with the criteria
set forth In Part 227 and processed In ac-
cordance with 33 CFR 209.120 with spe-
cial attention to i 209.120(g) (17) and 33
CFR 209.145.
§ 225.2 Review of Dredged Material Per-
mits.
(a) The District Engineer shall send
a copy of the public notice to the ap-
propriate Regional Administrator, and
set forth in writing all of the following
Information:
(1) The location of the proposed dis-
posal site and its physical boundaries;
(2) A statement as to whether the
eite has been designated for use by the
Administrator pursuant to section 102
(c) of the Act;
(3) If the proposed disposal site has
not been designated by the Administra-
tor, a statement of the basis for the
proposed determination why no pre-
viously designated site Is feasible and a
description of the characteristics of the
proposed disposal site necessary for Its
designation pursuant to Part 228 of
this Subchapter H;
(4) The known historical uses of the
proposed disposal site;
(5) Existence and documented ef-
fects of other authorized dumpings that
have been made in the dumping area
(e.g., heavy metal background reading
and organic carbon content);
(6) An estimate of the length of time
during which disposal will continue at
the proposed site;
(7) Characteristics and composition
of the dredged material; and
(8) A statement concerning a pre-
liminary determination of the need for
and/or availability of an environmental
impact statement.
(b) The Regional Administrator will
within 15 days of the date the public
notice and other information required
to be submitted by paragraph (a) of
§ 225.2 are received by him, review the
information submitted and request from
the District Engineer any additional In-
formation he deems necessary or ap-
propriate to evaluate the proposed
dumping.
(c) Using the information submitted
by the District Engineer, and any other
Information available to him, the Re-
gional Administrator will within 15 days
after receipt of all requested informa-
tion, make an independent evaluation
of the proposed dumping in accordance
with the criteria and respond to the Dis-
trict Engineer pursuant to paragraphs
(d) or (e) of this section. The Regional'
Administrator may request an extension •
of this 15 day period to 30 days from the
District Engineer.
(d) When the Regional Administrator
determines that the proposed dumping
will comply with the criteria, he will so
inform the District Engineer In writing.
(e) When the Regional Administrator
determines that the proposed dumping
will not comply with the criteria he
shall so inform the District Engineer in
writing. In such cases, no Dredged Ma-
terial Permit for such dumping shall be
issued unless and until the provisions of
8 225.3 are followed and the Administra-
tor grants a waiver of the criteria pur-
suant to § 225.4.
§ 225.3 Procedure for invoking eco-
nomic impact.
(a) When a District Engineer's deter-
mination to issue a Dredged Material
Permit for the dumping of dredged mate-
rial Into ocean waters has been rejected
by a Regional Administrator upon appli-
cation of the Criteria, the District Engi-
neer may determine whether, under § 103
(d) of the Act, there is an economically
feasible alternative method or site avail-
able other than the proposed dumping
In ocean waters. If the District Engineer
makes any such preliminary determina-
tion that there is no economically feasi-
ble alternative method or site available,
he shall so advise the Regional Adminis-
trator setting forth his reasons for such
determination and shall submit a report
of such determination to the Chief of
Engineers in accordance with 33 CFR
§8 209.120 and 209.145.
(b) If the decision of the Chief of
Engineers Is that ocean dumping at the
designated site Is required because of the
unavailability of feasible alternatives, he
shall so certify and request that the Sec-
retary of trie Arrny seek a waiver from
the Administrator of the Criteria or of
the critical site designation in accord-
ance with g 225.4.
§ 225.4 Vi'aiior I>y .Vlnmii trutor.
The Administrator shall grant the re-
quested waiver unless within 30 days of
his receipt of the notice, certificate and
request In accordance with paragraph
(b) of § 22S.3 he determines In accord-
ance with this section that the proposed
dumping will have an unacceptable ad-
verse effect on municipal water supplies,
shellfish beds and fishery areas (includ-
ing spawning and breeding areas), wild-
life, or recreational areas. Notice of the
Administrator's final determination un-
der this section shall be given to the
Secretary of the Army.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11,
E-2
-------
2176
RULES AND REGULATIONS
PART 227—CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUA-
TION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR
OCEAN DUMPING OF MATERIALS
Subpart A—General
nl
iih
lii
Subpart A—General
§227.1 Applicability.
i
i!l'
iincl
JIM
'£"1
nl
:il:
ttrn m OTflrn B0a
(b) With respect to the criteria to be
used in evaluating disposal of dredged
materials, this section and Subports C,
D, E, and G apply in their entirety.
M
cam
:]•:•
i-
or a permit bo dump dredged ma-
terial must comply with all of Subparts
C, D, E, G and applicable sections of B,
to be deemed to have met the EPA cri-
teria for dredged material dumping
promulgated pursuant to section 102(a)
of the Act. If, in any case, the Chief
of Engineers finds that, in the dispo-
sition of dredged material, there is no
economically feasible method or site
available other than a dumping site, the
utilization of which would result in non-
compliance with the criteria established
pursuant to Subpart B relating to the
eJects of dumping or with the restric-
tions established pursuant to section
102(c) of the Act relating to critical
areas, he shall so certify and request
that the Secretary of the Army seek a
waiver from the Administrator pursuant
to Part 225.
nh!
ktfmi!
"hiJ
M
I.MiLl!
.\.'£ :•:
; a
1:
tfil
L
I
[
t
fl
I
i
I
iii
I
fl
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 7—TUtiDAV, JANUARY 11, 1977
E-3
-------
2177
Subpart B—Environmental Impact
i 227.4 Criteria for (Evaluating envirom-
t
This Sutopart B sets specific environ-
mental Impact prohibitions, limits, and
conditions for the dumping of materials
into ocean waters. If the applicable pro-
hibitions, limits, and conditions are sat-
isfied, 1ft Is the determination of EPA
that the proposed disposal wiH not un-
duly degrade or endanger the marine en»
vironment and that the disposal will pre-
sent:
(a) No unacceptable adverse effects on
human health and no significant dam-
age to the resources of the marine en-
vironment;
(b) Ho unacceptable adverse effect on
the marine ecosystem;
(c) Ho unacceptable adverse persist-
ent or permanent effects due to the
damping of the particular volumes or
concentrations of these materials; and
(d) No unacceptable adverse effect ©n
the ocean for other uses as a result of
direct environmental Impact.
§ 227,5 Prohibited materials.
The ocean dumping of the following
materials wfll not be approved by EPA or
the Corps of Engineers under any cir-
cumstances:
(a) High-level radioactive wastes as
defined in 8 227.30;
FiDEBAl REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11. 1977
-------
2478
RULES AND REGULATIONS
or less than 50 percent greater than the
average total mercury content of natural
sediments of similar lithologlc charac-
teristics as those at the disposal site; and
(2) Cadmium and Its compounds are
present In any solid phase of a material
in concentrations less than 0.6 mg/kg,
or less than 50" percent greater than the
average total cadmium content of nat-
ural sediments of similar lithologlc char-
acteristics as those at the disposal site;
and
(3) The total concentration of organo-
halogen • constituents In the waste as
transported for dumping Is less than a
concentration of such constituents
known to be-toxic to marine organisms.
In calculating the concentration of or-
ganohalogens, the applicant shall con-
sider that these constituents are all bi-
ologically available. The determination
of the toxtelty value will be based on ex-
isting scientific data or developed by the
use of bloassays conducted In accordance
with approved EPA procedures; and
(4) The total amounts of oils and
greases as Identified In paragraph (a) (4)
ot this section do not produce a visible
surface sheen In an undisturbed water
sample when added at a ratio of one part
waste material to 100 parts of water.
(f) The prohibitions and limitations of
this section do not apply to the constitu-
ents identified In paragraph (a) of this
section when the applicant can demon-
state that such constituents are (1)
present in the material only as chemical
compounds or forms (e.g., inert insoluble
solid materials) non-toxic to marine life
and non-bloaccumulatlve In the marine
environment upon disposal and thereaf-
ter, or (2) present in the material only
as chemical compounds or forms which,
at the time of dumping and thereafter,
will be rapidly rendered non-toxic to ma-
rine life and non-bioaccumulative in the
marine environment by chemical or bio-
logical degradation in the sea; provided
-they will not make edible marine orga-
nisms unpalatable; or will not endanger
human health or that of domestic ani-
mals, fish, shellfish, or wildlife-
(g) The prohibitions and limitations
of this section do not apply to the con-
stituents Identified In paragraph (a) of
this section for the granting of research
permits if the substances are rapidly
rendered harmless by physical, chemical
or biological processes hi the sea; pro-
vided they will not make edible marine
organisms unpalatable and will not en-
danger human health or that of domestic
animals.
(h) The prohibitions and limitations
of this section do not apply to the con-
stituents identified in paragraph (a) of
this section for the granting of permits
for the transport of these substances for
the purpose of Incineration at sea If the
applicant can demonstrate that the stack
emissions consist of substances which are
rapidly rendered harmless by physical,
chemical or biological processes in the
Ma. Incinerator operations shall comply
with requirements which will be estab-
lished on a case-by-case basis.
;
m
:
i
!
ff
Iff
HI
§ 227.9 Limitations
waste materials.
on quantities of
Substances which may damage the
ocean environment due to the quantities
in which they are dumped, or which mny
seriously reduce amenities, may be
dumped only when the quantities to be
dumped at a single time and place are
controlled to prevent long-term damage
to the environment or to amenities.
§227.10 H;i7.irJs to fitliinp, n.-n ic.-itimi.
shorelines or beaches.
(a) Wastes which may present a seri-
ous obstacle to fishing or navigation may
be dumped only at disposal sites and un-
der conditions which will ensure no un-
acceptable interference with fishing or
navigation.
(b) Wastes which may present a haz-
ard to shorelines or beaches may be
dumped only at sites and under condi-
tions which will Insure no unacceptable
danger to shorelines or beaches.
§ 227.13 Dredged materials.
(a) Dredged materials are bottom sed-
iments or materials that have been
dredged or excavated from ihQ navigable
waters' of the United States, and their
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 47, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1977
E-5
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
2179
disposal Into ocean waters Is.regulated
by the UB. Army ,Corps of Engineers
using the criteria of applicable,sections
of Parts 227 and 228. Dredged material
consists primarily of natural sediments
or materials which may be contaminated
by municipal or industrial wastes or by
runoff from terrestrial sources such as
agricultural lands.
(b) Dredged material which meets the
criteria set forth In the following para-
graphs (1), (2). or (3) is environmen-
tally acceptable for ocean dumping with-
out further testing under this section:
(I) Dredged material Is composed
predominantly of sand, gravel, rock, or
any other naturally occurring bottom
material with particle sizes larger than
silt, and, the material is found In areas
of high current or wave energy such as
streams with large bed loads or coastal
areas with shifting bars and channels; or
(2) Dredged material Is for beach
nourishment or restoration and is com-
posed predominantly of sand, gravel or
shell with particle sizes compatible with
material on the receiving beaches; or
(3) When: (1) The material proposed
for dumping Is substantially the same as
the substrate at the proposed disposal
site; and
(ii) The site from which the material
proposed for dumping Is to be taken is
far removed from known existing and
historical sources of pollution so as to
provide reasonable assurance that such
material has not been contaminated by
such pollution.
(c) When dredged material proposed
for ocean dumping does not meet the
criteria of paragraph (b) of this section,
further testing ©f the liquid, suspended
particulate, and solid phases, as defined
in § 227.32, Is required. Based on the re-
sults of such testing, dredged material
can be considered to be environmentally
acceptable for ocean dumping only under
the following conditions:
(1) The material Is to compliance with
the requirements of § 227.6; and
(2) (1) All major constituents of the
liquid phase are in compliance with the
applicable marine water quality criteria
after allowance for Initial mixing; or
(ii) When the liquid phase contains
major constituents not included In the
applicable marine water quality criteria,
or there Is reason to suspect synergistic
effects of certain contaminants, bioas°
says on the liquid phase of the dredged
material show that It can be discharged
so as not to exceed the limiting permis-
sible concentration as defined Sn para-
graph (a) of | 227.27; and
(3) Blcassays on the suspended par-
ticulate and solid phases show that it can
be discharged so as not to exceed the
limiting permissible concentration as de-
fined In paragraph (b) of § 227,27.
fd) For 'she purposes of paragraph (c)
<2>, major constituents to be analyzed
in the liquid phase are those deemed
critical by the District Engineer, after
evaluating and considering any com=
oients received from the Regional Ad-
ministrator, and considering known
sources of discharges in the area.
Subpart C—Need for Ocean Dumping
§ 227.14 Criteria for evaluating the need
for ocean dumping and alternatives
to ocean dumping,
This Subpart C states the basis on
which an evaluation will be made of the
need for ocean dumping, and alterna-
tives to ocean dumping. The nature of
these factors does not permit the pro-
mulgation of specific quantitative cri-
teria of each permit application. These
factors will therefore be evaluated If ap-
plicable for each proposed dumping on
an Individual basis using the guidelines
specified in this Subpart C.
§ 227.15 Factors considered.
The need for dumping will be deter-
mined by evaluation of the following
factors:
(a) Degree of treatment useful and
feasible for the waste to be dumped, and
whether or not the waste material has
been or will be treated to this degree
before dumping;
(b) Haw materials and manufactur-
ing or other processes resulting In the
waste, and whether or not these mate-
rials or processes are essential to the
provision of the applicant's goods or
services, or If other less polluting mate-
rials or processes could be used;
(c) The relative environmental risks,
Impact and cost for ocean dumping as
opposed to other feasible alternatives
including but not limited to:
(1) Landfill;
(2) Well Injection;
(3) Incineration;
(4) Spread of material over open
ground;
(5) Recycling .of material for reuse;
(6) Additional biological, chemical, or
physical treatment of intermediate or
final waste streams;
(7) Storage.
(d) Irreversible or irretrievable conse-
quences of the use of alternatives to
ocean dumping.
§ 227.16 Basis for determination of
meed for ocean dumping.
(a) A need for ocean dumping will be
considered to have been demonstrated
when a thorough evaluation of the fac-
tors listed In § 227.15 has bden made,
and the Administrator, Regional Admin-
istrator or District Engineer, as the case
may be, has determined that the follow-
ing conditions exist where applicable:
(1) There are no practicable Improve-
ments which can be made to process
technology or in overall waste treatment
to reduce the adverse Impacts of the
waste on the total environment;
(2) There are no practicable alterna-
tive locations and methods of disposal
or recycling available, Including without
limitation, storage until treatment fa-
cilities are completed, which have less
adverse environmental impact or po-
tential risk to other parts of the environ-
ment than ocean dumping.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (a) of
this section, waste treatment or im-
provements in processes and alternative
methods of disposal are practicable when
they are available at reasonable incre-
mental cost and energy expenditures
which need not be competitive with the
costs of ocean dumping, taking Into ac-
count the environmental benefits derived
from such activity, Including the rela-
tive adverse environmental impacts as-
sociated with the use of alternatives to
ocean dumping.
(c) The duration of permits issued un-
der Subchapter H and other terms and
conditions imposed in those permits shall
be determined after taking into account
the factors set forth in this section. Not-
withstanding compliance with Subparts
B, D, and E of this Part 227 permittees
may, on the basis of the need for and
alternatives to ocean dumping, be re-
quired to terminate all ocean dumping
by a specified date, to phase out all ocean
dumping over a specified period or peri-
ods, to continue-research and develop-
ment of alternative methods of disposal
and make periodic reports of such re-
search and development in order to pro-
vide additional Information for periodic
review of the need for and alternatives
to ocean dumping, or to take such other
action as the Administrator, the Re-
gional Administrator, or District Engi-
neer, as the case may be, determines to
be necessary or appropriate. s
Subpart D-—Impact of the Proposed Dump-
ing on Esthetic, Recreational and Eco-
nomic Values
§ 227.1f Basis for determination.
(a) The Impact of _ dumping on es-
thetic, recreational and economic values
will be evaluated on an individual basis
using the following considerations:
(1) potential for affecting recreational
use and values of ocean waters, Inshore •
waters, beaches, or shorelines;
(2) potential for affecting tbe recrea-
tional and commercial values of living
marine resources.
(b) For all proposed dumping, full
consideration will be given to such non-
quantifiable aspects of esthetic, recrea-
tional and economic Impact as:
(1) responsible public concern for the
consequences of the proposed dumping;
(2) consequences of not authorizing
the dumping Including without limita-
tion, the impact on esthetic, recreational
and economic values with respect to the
municipalities and Industries involved.
§ 227.18 Factors considered.
The assessment of the potential for
Impacts on esthetic, recreational and
economic values will be based on an eval-
uation of the appropriate characteristics
of the material to be dumped, allowing
for conservative rates of dilution, dis-
persion, and biochemical degradation
during movement of the materials from
a disposal site to an area of significant
recreational or commercial value. Tb&
following specific factors will be consid-
ered In making sucfe an assessment:
(a) Nature and extent of present and
potential recreational and commercial
use of areas wfaicto might be affected by
the proposed dumping;
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1977
E-6
-------
2480
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Cb) Existing water quality, and nature
and extent of disposal activities, to the
areas which might be affected by the
proposed dumping;
(c) Applicable water quality stand-
ards;
(d) Visible characteristics of the ma-
terials (e.g., color, suspended particu-
latcs) which result in an unacceptable
esthetic nuisance In recreational areas;
fe) Presence in the material of patho-
genic organisms which may cause a
public health hazard either directly or
through contamination of fisheries or
shellflsheries;
d) Presence in the material of toxic
chemical constituents released In vol-
umes which may affect humans directly;
(g) Presence in the material of chem-
ical constituents which may be bloaccu-
mulated or persistent a.nd may have an
adverse effect on humans directly or
through food chain Interactions;
(h) Presence In the material of any
constituents which might significantly
affect living marine resources of recrea-
tional or commercial value.
g 227.19 Assessment of impact.
An overall assessment of the proposed
dumping and possible alternative meth-
ods of disposal or recycling will be made
based on the effect on esthetic, recrea-
tional and economic values based on the
factors set forth In this Subpart D, In-
cluding where applicable, enhancement
of these values, and the results of the
assessment will be expressed, where pos-
sible, on a quantitative basis, such as
percentage of a resource lost, reduction
in user days of recreational areas, or
dollars lost in commercial fishery profits
or the profitability of other commercial
enterprises.
Subpart E—Impact of the Proposed
Dumping on Other Uses of the Ocean
§ 227.20 Basis for determination.
(a) Based on current state-of-the-art,
consideration must be given to any pos-
sible long-range effects of even the most
Innocuous substances when dumped in
the ocean on a continuing basis. Such a
consideration is made in evaluating the
relationship of each proposed disposal
activity In relationship to its potential
for long-range impact on other uses of
the ocean.
(b) An evaluation will be made on an
individual basis for each proposed dump-
Ing of material of the potential for effects
on uses of the ocean for purposes other
than material disposal. The factors to be
considered in this evaluation include
those stated in Subpart D, but the eval-
uation of this Subpart E will be based
on the impact of the proposed dumping
on specific uses of the ocean rather than
on overall esthetic, recreational and eco-
nomic values.
§227.21 Uses considerscl.
An appraisal will be made of the nature
Mid extent of existing and potential uses
of the disposal site Itself and of any areas
which might reasonably be expected to
be affected by the proposed dumping, and
« quantitative and qualitative evaluation
made, where feasible
lie proposed dumpln
oses considered shall
limited to:
(a) Commercial fls
areas;
(b) Commercial f
areas;
(c) Commercial fl
areas;
(d) Recreational fl
areas;
(e) Recreational
areas;
(f) Recreational fi
areas;
(g) Recreational u
beaches ;
(h) Commercial na
(i) Recreational n£
(j) Actual or antic
yf living marine resc
(k) Actual or antic
of non-living resourc
jut limitation, sand
and other mineral d<
exploration and dev
shore marine termina
development; and
(1) Scientific reseai
§ 227.22 Assessment
The assessment o:
uses of the ocean will
porary and long-rang
state of the art, but ]
ivill be placed on any
irievable commitmen
would result from the
Subpart F — Special R
terim Permits Unde
Act
I'm: i ' ' 'i: ••]• •-••in
; ;.; ! : 11! 1 1
, E . i ] ! ' . li
l',i :• •!:•;;, :l ,!
ni il 'i:i!! ill: i "
' i.l ':: Imliiii', "
1 !,•:-:, ::'
:>) ll]'.ii[;ini; 1 : ! "
.:;:ii!';:.
ii •!!: •: MI!
i ' • ' ' 1 ( i t :
•••'' ' 1;lli ' IlK'l'l'-i
, :..: ;• i?:l:i:'..t !::)!/;
,) :::i!;i!i. : ;l[>n
: >! !i K ::'['. .j1: :i
i i i :•: iii n:;:l !
' j ' ) ' ! 1 1 * ' 1 K ' ' ' ' ' i ' '
<:<•:', IK linn
ll' Ill'-ll'l' '! II II 1
,K : nl i •.:•...:. 111'!
: il >!ll : :i
hlng in open ocean h: o!\ i'! ::• ;:ih :>: i
'. '(' ' " 'llli'lll.'ll
ishing in coastal (. > ,'. dh • :; ::
shing in estuarine ;i: : i:iil i.!1::' ::i!i
shing in open ocean ; . ,.: ,,.; |-imll.,.t,
R&hing in coastal :K, i. . . i . 1
shing in estuarine ';jp • ^ '•]"' '"••"•'•*'•'• '•
5e of shorelines and (ll; •
ivigatlon; : : i :L 1:1 :i :hi :.: i
ivigation; '"Hi1 : ; i:nr : ion, !
ipated exploitation ; > : 1 :ln! >"•. '
urces; !• f ; ms: iinsii i '•: li
ipated exploitation n:1 '>• n ;:i 1 : o( ::i
es, including with- • f si] i;!: :iini i
and gravel places •• i ,li'i l:'i • ::.;
jposits, oil and gas '.'•'•' t -mi :': : '.:i!:il]]:i
elopment and off- ! ' ' ' > i : : ( v ' f i
1 or other structure 'ill cir'c 111; ::' In;
ch and study. K P" • n: :;>: .1 ...
of impact. , j .... j ' '. ',, , ,
consider both tem- nl ,:ii :;: MI| : i
e effects within tho ' ' i ; r > . ' : 1 1 1 1 1 1 ]
>articular emphasis ,11 n: ; i' : : :
Irreversible or irre- •:'. >]• i mi i ••:
t of resources that mni ; j;.[ i, \;]-\ ,,< ,;,
proposed dumping. \ ••.•;[ ni : !•: Im-liu
equirements for In- , . '
r Section 102 of the ; ;;| -J ,;; ., v •. ; ' ;
1 :n ;: : ah n •.. 'ii1; :<••: :i:m; iiii! :';•!!
! l(MBaaHi(inetjilt |lftn» mmRifiTnl nn \\frm \\m
}oa !,: ii'!.:1 iihlii, ;::'!':':!.! u : ;!•:.
i< ^ Mil : > i i i ' !' ' ' i : :( ' ' i ' i il 1 i i '
1 i,ln:' : ; ::!r; ' =;, ii,i,l ::! • ,; ;»:• i;- \i
! i!Eti ! ii;. ' ill! i :: :i(: .f- i.cul :! (.
•i!',[i ills ' '; :. ••'! 'ilC'iij ;::: :<: ••;' :"• i;
' •' i 1 F 1 [ ' I Ml |-
:o ; i ni : i; , r
: i '.', ; i ;•'(
!H"i|.::i. i"iial : .. ,,,., ... , . . , . ,
i ,:i \; In i,1. :;•. : • ••': m H1 lii .: >:
\ ] : , • i ] : M ] ••:.:.:•..! 1 1 '' \ - • • • ' : • ^ ( ^ • •
, • • ' i '< • 1 1 < 1 1 •!• i ' • • . ' -i' ', '>[ ( ' I " ' i ' ' ' il "
,!iiiii '"i:-:.t .::!!: ..:::.:
:! ilni in in; ;
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
2481
Subpart G—-Definitions
§ 227.27 limiting permissible concen-
tration (LPC).
(a) The limiting permissible concen-
tration of the liquid phase of a material
Is:
(1) That concentration of a constitu-
ent which, after allowance for Initial
mixing as provided In § 227.29, does not
exceed applicable marine water quality
criteria; or, when there are no applicable
marine water quality criteria,
(2) That concentration of waste or
dredged material In the receiving water
which, after allowance for Initial mixing,
as specified In 5 227.29, will not exceed a
toxldty threshold denned as 0.01 of a
concentration shown to be acutely toxic
to appropriate sensitive marine orga-
nisms In a bloassay carried out In ac-
cordance with approved EPA proced-
ures.
(3) When there is reasonable scien-
tific evidence on a specific waste mate-
rial to Justify the use of an application
factor other than 0.01 as specified In
paragraph (a) (2) of this section, such
alternative application factor shall *e
used in calculating the LPC.
(b) The limiting permissible concen-
tration of the suspended partlculate and
solid phases of a material' means that
concentration which win not cause un-
reasonable acute or chronic toxlclty or
other sublethal adverse effects based on
bloassay results using appropriate sen-
sitive marine organisms in the case of
the suspended partlculate phase, or ap-
propriate sensitive benthlc marine orga-
nisms In the case of the solid phase; or
which will not cause accumulation of
toxic materials In the human food chain.
These bioassays are to be conducted In
accordance wlUi procedures approved by
EPA, or. In the case of dredged material,
approved by EPA and the Corps of En-
gineers.1
(c) "Appropriate sensitive marine or-
ganisms" means at least one species
*An Implementation manual Is being de-
veloped Jointly by EPA and the Corps of En-
gineers, and announcement of the availa-
bility of the manual will be published In the
FEDESAI REGISTER. Until this manual Is avail-
able. Interim guidance on the appropriate
procedures can be obtained from the Marine
Protection Branch, WH-548, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Wash-
ington, DO 30460, or the Corps of Engineers,
u the case may be.
each representative of phytoplankton or
zooplankton, crustacean or mollusk, and
fish species chosen from among the most
sensitive species documented In the sci-
entific literature or accepted by EPA as
being reliable test organisms to deter-
mine the anticipated impact of the
wastes on the ecosystem at the disposal
site. Bioassays, except on phytoplankton
or zooplankton, shall be run for a mini-
mum of 96 hours under temperature, sa-
linity, and dissolved oxygen conditions
representing the extremes of environ-
mental stress at the disposal site. Bio-
assays on phytoplankton or zooplankton
may be run for shorter periods of time
as appropriate for the organisms tested
at the discretion of EPA, or EPA and the
Corps of Engineers, as the case may be.
(d) "Appropriate sensitive benthic
marine organisms" means at least one
species each representing filter-feeding,
deposit-feeding, and burrowing species
chosen from among the most sensitive
species accepted by EPA as being reli-
able test organisms to determine the an-
ticipated Impact on the site; provided,
however, that until sufficient species are
adequately tested and documented, In-
terim guidance on appropriate orga-
nisms available for use will be provided
by the Administrator, Regional Admin-
istrator, or the District Engineer, as the
case may be.
§ 227.28 Release zone.
The release zone Is the area swept out
by the locus of points constantly 100 me-
ters from the perimeter of the convey-
ance engaged In dumping activities, be-
ginning at the first moment In which
dumping Is scheduled to occur and end-
Ing at the last moment In which dump-
Ing Is scheduled to occur. No release zone
shall exceed the total surface area of
the dumpsite.
§ 227.29 Initial mixing,
(a) Initial mixing is denned to be
that dispersion or diffusion of liquid,
suspended particulate, and solid phases
of a waste which occurs within four
hours after dumping. The limiting per-
missible concentration shall not be ex-
ceeded beyond the boundaries of the dis-
posal site during Initial mixing, and shall
not be exceeded at any point In the
marine environment after Initial mix-
ing. The maximum concentration of the
liquid, suspended partlculate, and solid
phases of a dumped material after ini-
tial mixing shall be estimated by one
of these methods, In order of preference:
CD When field data on the proposed
dumping are adequate to predict Initial
dispersion and diffusion of the waste,
these shall be used, If necessary. In con-
junction with an appropriate mathe-
matical model acceptable to EPA or the
District Engineer, as appropriate.
(2) When field data on the dispersion
and diffusion of a waste of character-
istics similar to that proposed for dis-
charge are available, these shall be used
In conjunction with an appropriate
mathematical model acceptable to EPA
or the District Engineer, as appropriate.
(3) When no field data are available,
theoretical oceanic turbulent diffusion
relationships may be applied to known
characteristics of the waste and the dis-
posal site.
(b)- When no other means of estima-
tion are feasible,
(1) The liquid and suspended par-
ticulate phases of the dumped waste
may be assumed to be evenly distributed
after four hours over a column of water
bounded on the surface by the release
zone and extending to the ocean floor,
thermocline, or halocline if one exists,
or to a depth of 20 meters, whichever is
shallower, and
(2> The solid phase of a dumped
waste may be assumed to settle rapidly
to the ocean bottom and to be distributed
evenly over the ocean bottom In an area
equal to that of the release zone as de-
fined in § 227.28.
(c) When there Is reasonable scien-
tific evidence to demonstrate that
other methods of estimating a reason-
able allowance for Initial mixing are
appropriate for a specific material, such
methods may be used with the concur-
rence of EPA after appropriate scien-
tific review.
§ 227.30 High-level radioactive wnstc.
High-level radioactive waste means
the aqueous waste resulting from the
operation of the first cycle solvent ex-
traction system, or equivalent, and the
concentrated waste from subsequent ex-
traction cycles, or equivalent. In a fa-
cility for reprocessing Irradiated reactor
fuels or irradiated fuel from nuclear
power reactors.
§ 227.31 'Applicable marine water qual-
ity criteria.
Applicable marine water quality cri-
teria means the criteria given for marine
waters In the EPA publication "Qual-
ity Criteria for Water", as published In
1976 and amended by subsequent sup-
plements or additions.
§ 227.32 Liquid, suspended paniculate,
and solid phases of a material.
(a) For the purposes of these regu-
lations, the liquid phase of a material,
subject to the exclusions of paragraph
(b) of this section. Is the supernatant
remaining after one hour undisturbed
settling, after centrlfugatlon and filtra-
tion through a 0.45 micron filter. The
suspended partlculate phase Is the su-
p'ernatant as obtained above prior to
centrifugatlon and filtration. The solid
phase Includes all material settling to
the bottom hi one hour. Settling shall
be conducted according to procedures
approved by EPA.
(b) For dredged material, other ma-
terial containing large proportions of in-
soluble matter, materials which may in-
teract with ocean water to form Insolu-
ble matter or new toxic compounds, or
materials which may release toxic com-
pounds upon deposition, the Administra-
tor, Regional Administrator, or the Dis-
trict Engineer, as the case may be, may
require that the separation of liquid,
suspended partlculate, and solid phases
of the material be performed upon a
mixture of the waste with ocean water
rather than on the material Itself* »
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1977
E-8
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
such cases the following procedures shall
be used:
(1) For dredged material, the liquid
phase is considered to be the centrifuged
and 0.45 micron filtered supernatant re-
maining after one hour (undisturbed
settling of the mixture resulting from
a vigorous 30-minute agitation of one
part bottom sediment from the dredging
site with four parts water (vol/vol) col-
lected from the dredging site or from the
disposal site, as appropriate for the type
of dredging operation. The suspended
particulate phase is the supernatant as
obtained above prior to centrifugation
and filtration. The solid phase is con-
sidered to be all material settling to the
bottom within one hour. Settling shall
be conducted by procedures approved by
EPA and the Corps of Engineers.
(2) For other materials, the proportion
of ocean water used shall be the mini-
mum amount necessary to produce the
anticipated effect (e.g., complete neutral-
ization of an acid or alkaline Waste)
based on guidance provided by EPA on
particular cases, or in accordance with
approved EPA procedures. For such ma-
terials the lio^iid phase is the filtered and
centrifuged supernatant resulting from
the mixture after 30 minutes of vigorous
shaking followed by undisturbed settling
for one hour. The suspended particulate
phase is the supernatant as obtained
above prior to centrifugation and filtra-
tion. The solid phase Is the insoluble ma-
terial settling to the bottom In that
period.
PART 229—CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGE
MENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN
DUMPING
:• :1: ,;;:•: ; •: mil
1 i ! I* SM1 titi
i :: !, ,;• .' . '' ' . '!j : j ' '• .
" : " :•.:,;• nl •; !.: :;i ;i > 'ii '. (••
a , , |,',
' r '' i" iiii 'ii : i1 'i i ii i ''
e ,1- ,;•::> i:. , :: :, i,n . ,. ,; i ,i, ]
e ::,ij l:|!l!:i:.::1l;i:i:::1 :: " l:> ,
i i-'i.1:1,:;!-^;: ••!!":»! = •""
1 i: !•: i :iii:i.:,i ':;>• :,: ;.: : n ; "•,:]: ,
6 .;• |;| ;, • ; ; ].,, • •, :.. >.,'.
? in i: i '•.; '.:i :;i i
1 'I'' ' III • 1' •••!••- || i • v | • •
i:i::: ../ ; :•: :•• in :n :.; •.: •: . ,:•;::
> ;•• •' '. : ::'!l ; '" '••'•'-'
' .:.: .: 'i n ]:;•: :<:> i :• ': ;,: : ; :!,
a , ., M|l]1, . . .. | ,jj.. |. ! ,
i :" I:'!,,;, . i, i',;,'1!'" .; :' ,::• : .; ::• '
i ;•• ;; i i
s ' :' ''-I,
I •'•••••• »":•:.: >!!" • -
a " • "• '•• ' • • •'• •' ' ' •
- (||, ,. ,.. ,|l]r... . • ., L|j
,i i • , : i , ., , L| .
t [ •••[[••:,'•. ; IE :
* ;.[|1!: •;,.; ;:;,;;,:
'. "!''! ;'.'", ,''.'.'.' '' , '.
.: ' : '. ":'! ,r:;j :j |' • •' |' ; |
..'.,',,..
,, !,. ,.,, | . ,(,|. | | ,, ,(l , ,
i '| "| |i| i|' '"'ill | I
i |||| c '..LI! '|]V ,!(•'•'• • i
II ' 1,1 I1' III"",'' V ' •
i. '"In I'M- • ' | :
1, ;i' n;, :,i] o:l i i| n:i ,: , i
: ,: ; ' :
3 :
[ |j^t||[|tH^!|itllfflMftffi^^l^iffi
U BKleuilti ILBWtnl allli! ILtlBtM oil nKiiiB D«D
! ] ii;..:i> :il: :, lii ; i S
a njUBMJ^m!|M|ljxm
I i ; i ' : ! ::i 1 i
1 3] l] ;' !( i: " !' I : E
: : 1 . -
. !- i: i i | : • 1 ! i t i
1 i : . . : i ! 1 i i : L :
'
,.•,..., 'i]'-.1' • ' ' [ii|
i :l .! r i :i ii • : : i
WhW TINH tWiJl HtWKlttHH U
i : i ' • i ' ' '
1 ' !.:• ; li i nl ill ;i •!
,•
i ; I'M |
• \ •'•'.', ii i • :
, |:n i. • ' i;1: :i: ,1:
' 'l! •.;.•, , il: '; . :"
'!; .,• , .:. :.:", " ii :.,
•i-; !'• :. Miiii, '•;:!: !•.
;! '1C Mi1 :n :: :- ::••: ' i MMI !il :•
1 , ' ; | ; 1 1 , i , .i 1 1 . !
1 ; •:
''•.,,] 1:11 ::' iil : i :. ;; :i
' l • i :: :
- II, ! , l| . I
L : iii' :: '• : '.•,:<: u- ;]: • ,
111 fm mfflmmraffl fflmjlftnfl Bfl mfrn
I . i i.;i:li':i \i\i\-: ' : n: ::ii :::
E!:| in i • : :i :': _i; :i: ,;i:-! i •:
, "! !" • '•
( ;. §228.4 IVoccdurrs for «o
; i; - sites.
< • ill. , , 1 . . . . ilh ..
j | •;,; ;' ' : '• ; |i|:
ir,.,'; i |iulil!!.:iE : .iii i'!.:' :' :l
!:•::: \>[ !:n i • :'!r . 1 11:1 :: ,
[ t ^ ii i , , , , |f J i , i
t | • 'i :; , Mil i • •'• : ;
•' ! Mil'!1' i ; ' ' 1 ' " ' i i M ; i ' ! '
I - : . i | i] | < ' 1 1 1 'I'll1; f ' ' '
t : :i: :• . .. •,•.:!; ... , i1 r.:.
In "'I'll r ' ; l •>' i i1!' ''
• 1 in ; : : i i!n 1:- : i
1 • I/ i i'liihiir ::' n: ".*: '•,'.'. :
1 • : : : '
l : ! :i:ii i i.:. , :i: I.
fmnn ittm HrfrffWlffrtin-nrn rrnrHl t
1 • 1 |, ,;• •• .!• ;,,,.•
E • 1 !l!!ll|l!ll ' il: : :.
: • I.MII il, ii' :: :ci
1 ; jl: :lll. . i,!.. i ii illllli il,! .,:;
1 iii.l: ::: i'- i 'In;!! iin
i = V- 'r -,',i i;1: ,-i'ii, ;,: :i ;! i i.
• i;:.;!.:'1 ;. ;; ';. .' ;:;,;/ ;: "'.
, = :illl '1 1 1" ''T'1 : "
; llli'i/'i r • i '• '•"•:',',',,'• '•"
, 3 1
i Hi'1 i ; ;r: ! " '•• ' l(
: I :i.i , 'P'.I in''.: , ,: :,•!•:! ,:. ::
( : r ;:: : :;> i'ii1 ,,! •' 111 •.',». • >ii Ilh:
: :.',.. 'I : IN
...... Inii
li:
ill !!i
.:•:'
•
:..
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1977
E-9
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
2183
:n i
':
hi II i
III
!•
W
(e) Dredged Material Permits.
(1) Areas where ocean dumping of
dredged material Is permitted subject to
the specific conditions of Dredged Ma-
terial permits issued by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers wfll be designated by
EPA by promulgation In this Part 228,
and such designation will be made based
on environmental studies of each site, re-
gions adjacent to the site, and on histori-
cal knowledge of the Impact of dredged
material disposal on areas similar to such
sites in physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal characteristics. All studies for the
evaluation and potential selection of
dredged material disposal sites will be
conducted in accordance with the appro-
priate requirements of § § 228.5 and 228.6,
except that:
(1) Baseline or trend assessment re-
quirements may be developed on a case-
by-case basis from the results of re-
search, Including that now In progress
by the Corps of Engineers.
(ii) An environmental impact assess-
ment for all sites within a particular ge-
ographic area may be prepared based on
complete disposal site designation or
evaluation studies on a typical site or
sites In that area. In such cases, sufficient
studies to demonstrate the generic sim-
ilarity of all sites within such a geo-
graphic area will be conducted.
(2) In those cases where a recom-
mended disposal site has not been desig-
nated by the Administrator, or where it
is not feasible to utilize a recommended
disposal site that has been designated by
the Administrator, the District Engineer
shall, in consultation with EPA, select a
site In accordance with the requirements
of 55 228.5 and 228.6 (a). Concurrence by
EPA In permits Issued for the use of such
site for the dumping of dredged material
at the site will constitute EPA approval
of the use of the site for dredged material
disposal only.
(3) Sites designated for the ocean
dumping of dredged material in accord-
ance with the procedures of paragraphs
(e) (1) or (e) (2) of this section shall be
used only for the ocean dumping of
dredged material under permits issued
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
§ 228.5 General criteria for tlic selection
of rites.
(a) The dumping of materials into the
ocean will be permitted only at sites or
in areas selected to minimize the inter-
ference of disposal activities with other
activities In tiie marine environment,
particularly avoiding areas of existing
fisheries or shellflsherles, and regions of
heavy commercial or recreational navi-
gation.
(b) Locations and boundaries of dis-
posal sites will be so chosen that tempo-
rary perturbations in water cjuality or
other environmental conditions during
. Initial mtging caused by disposal opera-
tions anywhere within the site can be ex-
pected to be reduced to normal ambient
seawater levels or to undetectable con-
taminant concentrations or effects be-
fore reaching any beach, shoreline, ma-
rine sanctuary, or known geographically
limited fishery or shellflshery.
(c) If at anytime during or after dis-
posfol site evaluation studies, It is deter-
mined that existing disposal sites pres-
ently 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 ter-
minated as soon as suitable alternate dis-
posal sites can be designated.
(d) The sizes of ocean disposal sites
will be limited in order to localize for
identification and control any Immediate
adverse Impacts and permit the Imple-
mentation of effective monitoring and
surveillance programs to prevent ad-
verse long-range impacts. The size, con-
figuration, and location of any disposal
site will be determined as a part of the
disposal site evaluation or designation
study.
(e) EPA will, wherever feasible, desig-
nate ocean dumping sites beyond the
edge of the continental shelf and other
such sites that have been historically
used.
§ 228.6 Specific criteria for site selec-
tion.
(a) In the selection of disposal sites,
in addition to other necessary or appro-
priate factors determined by the Admin-
istrator, the following factors will be
considered:
(1) Geographical position, depth of
water, bottom topography and distance
from coast;
(2) Location In relation to breeding,
spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage
areas of living resources in adult or Ju-
venile phases;
(3) Location in relation to beaches and
other amenity areas;
(4) Types and quantities of wastes
proposed to be disposed of, and proposed
methods of release, including methods of
packing the waste, if any;
(5) Feasibility -of surveillance and
monitoring;
(6) Dispersal, horizontal transport and
vertical mixing characteristics of the
area, including prevailing current direc-
tion and velocity. If any;
(7) Existence and effects of current
and previous discharges and dumping In
the area (including cumulative effects);
(8) Interference With shipping, fishing,
recreation, mineral extraction, desalina-
tion, fish and shellfish culture, areas of
special scientific importance and other
legitimate uses of the ocean;
(9) The existing water quality and
ecology of the site as determined by
available data or by trend assessment or
baseline surveys;
(10) Potentiality for the development
or recruitment of nuisance species In the
disposal site;
(11) Existence at or In close proximity
to the site of any significant natural or
cultural features of historical Impor-
tance.
(b) The results of a disposal site eval-
uation and/or designation study based
on the criteria stated in paragraphs (!)«.
(11) will be presented in support of the
site designation promulgation as an en-
vironmental assessment of the Impact of
the use of the site for disposal, and will
be used in the preparation of nn environ-
mental Impact statement for each site
where such a statement is required by
EPA policy. By publication of a notice in
accordance with this Part 228, an envi-
ronmental impact statement, in draft
form, will be made available for public
comment not later than the time of pub-
lication of the site designation as pro-
posed rulemaking, and a final EIS will be
made available at the time of final rule-
making.
§ 228.9 Disposal site monitoring.
(a) The monitoring program, If deemed
necessary by the Regional Administrator
or the District Engineer, as appropriate,
may Include baseline or trend assess-
ment surveys by EPA, NOAA, other Fed-
eral agencies, or contractors, special
studies by permittees, • and the analysis
and interpretation of data from remote
or automatic sampling and/or sensing
devices. The primary purpose of the
monitoring program Is to evaluate the
Impact of disposal on the marine en-
vironment by referencing the monitoring
results to a set of baseline conditions.
When disposal sites are being used on a
continuing basis, such programs may
consist of the following components:
(i) Trend assessment surveys con-
ducted at Intervals frequent enough to
assess the extent and trends of environ-
mental Impact. Until survey data or
other Information are adequate to show
that changes In frequency or scope are
necessary or desirable, trend assessment
and baseline surveys should generally
conform to the applicable requirements
of i 228.13. These surveys shall be the
responsibility of the Federal government
(FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1977
E-10
-------
2484
RULES AND REGULATIONS
§ 228.12 Delegation of management au-
thority for interim ocean diimping
sites.
(a) The following sites are approved
for dumping the indicated materials on
an interim basis pending completion of
baseline o'r trend assessment surveys and
designation for continuing use or ter-
mination of use. Management authority
for all sites is delegated to the EPA or-
ganizational entity under t&tich each site
Is listed. The sizes and use specifications
are based on historical! usage and do not
necessarily meet the criteria stated m
ttiis Part. This list of interim sites wDJ
remain to force for a period not to esceed
three years from the date of final pro-
mulgation of UiJs Part $28, eseepfe for
tfcms sites approved for continuing 533*
* disapproved for use by pRKaolgaikai
ta thte Part during tbat pesioti of time
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL «, NO. 7—TUESDAY, MNUAftY It, \9f7
E-ll
-------
Appendix F
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ON THE DRAFT EIS
The Draft EIS (DEIS) was issued on 9 November 1979. The public was
encouraged to submit written comments. This appendix contains copies of
written comments received by EPA on the DEIS. There was a great variety of
comments received, thus EPA presents several levels of response:
• Comments correcting facts presented in the EIS, or providing
additional information, were incorporated into the text and the
changes were noted.
• Specific comments which were not appropriately treated as text
changes were numbered in the margins of the letters, and responses
prepared for each numbered item.
Some written comments were received after the end of the comment period.
In order to give every consideration to public concerns, the Agency took under
advisement all comments received up to the date of Final EIS production.
The EPA sincerely thanks all those who commented on the DEIS, especially
those who submitted detailed criticisms that reflected a thorough analysis of
tne EIS.
F-l
-------
COMMENT
RESPONSE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology
Washington 0 C 20330
I20S1 377-3JJIX 4335
February 4, 1980
I
ro
Mr. Henry L. Longest, II
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Longest:
This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement
entitled, "The Designation of Five Hawaiian Dredged Material
Disposal Sites." The enclosed comment from the Maritime
Administration is forwarded for your consideration.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide this comment
which we hope will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate
receiving eight (8) copies of the final environmental impact
statement.
Sincerely,
EPA gratefully acknowledges the letter from the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Affairs, United States Department of
Commerce.
( /••!'
Sidney R. (Jailer
Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Environmental \ffairs
Enclosure
Memo from:
George C. Steinman
Chief, Division of Environmental
Activities
Office of Shipbuilding Costs
MarAd
-------
/"""""S.
f V \
UNITED STATES OEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Maritime Administration
December 28, 1979
MEMORANDUM FOR:
2 Subject: Envi
Dr. Sidney R. Caller
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Affairs
: Environmental Protection Agency Draft Envir
Impact Statement for the Designation of Five
Hawaiian Dredged Material Disposal Site's (DBS
CN 7911.10)
ronmental
CN 7911.10)
2 EPA thanks the Chief of the Division of Environmental Activities,
Office of Shipbuilding Coats, Maritime Administration, United States
Department of Commerce, for reviewing the Draft E1S.
The subject document has been reviewed for comment as requested
by your memorandum of November 15, 1979. The proposed action
amends the 1977 interim designation of the EPA Ocean Dumping
Regulations and Criteria by altering the locations of three
dump sites, adding two new dump sites, and making final
designations of all five sites. All the sites are located
close to shore but in deep water where open ocean conditions
prevail. The dredged material, which is mostly terrestrial
silt and clay mixed with sand, is dispersed rapidly at all
five proposed sites. Currents generally flow alongshore or
offshore.
We concur with the analyses and conclusions contained in the
DEIS and have no critical comments to submit. Please send us
a copy of the FEIS.
GEORGE C. STEINMAN
Chief, Division of Environmental Activities
Office of Shipbuilding Costs
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMEPCF
The Assistant Secretary for Science and Tec
Washington. D.C 20230
February 12, 1980
Mr. Henry L. Longest, II
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations
U, S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Longest:
This is reference to your draft environmental impact statement entitled,
"The Designation of Five Hawaiian Dredged Material Disposal Sites." The
enclosed comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
are forwarded for your consideration.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these comments^ which
we hope will be of assistance to you* We would appreciate receiving eight
(8) copies of the final environmental Impact statement.
Sincerely.
j EPA gratefully acknowledges the letter and enclosed raernos from the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs, United States
Department of Commerce -
dthie'y V. CaJ/er'
Deputy Afisfsjfant Secretary
for Environmental Affairs
Enclosures
Meroos froo:
Mr. James Wp Rote
National Marine Fisheries Service
F/HP - NOAA
Mr. Robert B. Rollins
National Oceanic Survey
OA/C5 - NOAA
Mr. R. Kifer
OCZM - NOAA
-------
I
en
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmoapnarlo Ad
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southwest Region
Western Pacific Program Office
P. 0. Box 3830
Honolulu, Hawaii 96812
January 9, 1980
F/SWpa:JJN
Mr. T. A. Wastler
Chief, Marine Protection Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Wastler:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the
draft environmental impact statement (DOC DEIS No, 7911.10) for The
Designation of Five Hawaiian Dredged Material Disposal Sites dated
October 1979.
In order to provide as timely a response to your request for
comments as possible, we are submitting the enclosed, comments to you
directly, in parallel with their transmittal to the Department of
Commerce for incorporation in the Departmental response. These comments
represent the views of the NMFS. The formal, consolidated views of
the Department should reach you shortly.
Sincerely yours,
)
Doyle E. Gates
Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Gary Smith,F/SWE3, w/encl.
Office of Habitat Protection, F/HP
(A copies) w/encl.
-------
Comments on DEIS No. 7911.10 - The Designation of Five Hawaiian
Dredged Material Disposal Sites
General Congnent_s_
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was consulted during
the planning and selection s tages For the designation of deep- ocean
disposal sites in the Hawaiian Islands for continued disposal of dredged
material. This included narrowing an original fourteen proposed sites
down to the fiv*? sites considered in the subject DEIS.
The Nl'tFS feels chat existing fisheries and endangered species under
our jurisdiction will probably not be adversely impacted by the proposed
action, primarily because of the depths of the selected sites and the
planned infrequent use of these sites. However, because of the importance
A— 1 of the nearshore waters surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands to two
marine animals on the endangered species list, we feel the DEIS should
include sections in chapters 3 and 4 specifically dealing with endangered
species. The two species of concern are the endangered humpback whale
(Megapcera novaeangliae) and the threatened green turtle (Chelonia mydas) .
This section should include, a caveat indicating that the effects of
short-term turbidity, such as occurs during dredged material disposal, on
humpback whales and green turtles , is not known at this time.
Specific Comments
Chapter 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION.
"Interference w:Uh Shj.ip_p_ln.gJ__Fts_hing_ _.._..'
Page 2-20, paragraph 1. This paragraph states that the only fishing which
occurs near the proposed disposal sites is miduater trolling. Mid water
trolling should be changed to surface trolling. In addition, some bottom
4=2 handlining for deep water snappers and midwater handlining for akule and
large tunas occurs near several of the proposed sites.
Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT •
BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Nekton
Page 3-14, paragraph 4. Scientific names should be used for these pelagic
nektonic predators the first time they appear in the text. Common names
preceding the scientific name should be the same throughout the DEIS. As
4—3 an examPl£» in this paragraph yellowfin tuna and skipjack tuna are used
while on page 3-27 the Hawaiian names ahi and aku are used respectively
for these tuna.
. , .
4" 1 The SLi88esCed information on the two endangered species has been
incorporated into Chapters 3 and k under sections entitled
(
Threatened and Endangered Species. The caveat concerning effects
of short-terra turbidity on these endangered species has been included
under the sarae secClon in Chapter U.
4-2 The suggested changes have been incorporated into the text and appear
in ChaPCer 2 of the pinal EIS under the section "Detailed Basis for
Selection of the Proposed Sites,' subsection "Interference with
Shipping, Fishing...
4™ 3 These changes have been incorporated into the text of the Final EIS
and appear in chapter 3 under the section "Recreational, Economic and
Aesthetic Characteristics, subsection "Fisheries.
-------
Page 3-14, paragraph 5. As presented in General Comments above, the
discussion of endangered and threatened species should be expanded and
placed in a separate section in this chapter of the DEIS.
This paragraph states that "the green sea turtle is the only common
offshore reptile, whose breeding grounds are on the leevard side of the
islands." Although It is the only common marine reptile in Hawaiian
4- —41 waters, green turtle breeding (nesting) grounds at present are entirely
in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, primarily at French Frigate Shoals.
In addition, the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) is indeed
endemic to the Hawaiian Archipelago. However, it is rarely found in the
main islands thus dredged material disposal at the proposed sites will
not adversely impact this endangered seal.
Page 3-16,, Table 3-9. Common Hawaiian Marine Mammals^. There are several
errors in this table as follows: 1. There is no known pilot whale,
Dclphinus me las. The pilot whale found in Hawaiian waters is Gl ob 1 cejahala
macrorhynchus, 2. The common name for Stenella attenuata is spotted
A_ C dolphin. 3. The common dolphin, Delphinus delphls^, and the Pacific white-
sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliguidens, are unconfirmed in Hawaiian
waters; therefore they are certainly not common Hawaiian marine mammals.
4. Only one species of bottlenose dolphin occurs in Hawaii, Turslops
gilli.
Fisheries
Page 3-23, paragraph J^. This paragraph states that "commercial fishing
(in Hawaii) is confined to surface or pelagic offshore fishing, with little
bottom fishing." This statement is misleading. Bottomfishing for
4—6 demersal snappers and groupers is an important segment of Hawaiian com-
mercial fishing, even though the catch is relatively small compared to
the pelagic fisheries.
Page 3-2 7^ paragraph 3. The paragraph discusses fisheries in Mamala Bay
and indicates that fishing for aku is the major fishery at the dredged
material disposal site. Actually the majority of aku are taken well
A _ "7 seaward of the proposed disposal site. Ulua should be followed by (Caranx
" ' and Carangoides spp.)
Chapter 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A _ Q
Page 4-3, paragraph 3. Again the statement is made that "little or no
demersal (bottom) fishing" occurs in Hawaii. This should be corrected.
Page 4-5, paragraph 4. This paragraph discusses recreational fishing
from charter boats and states that mahimahi, swordfish and billfish are
caught. Swordfish are not taken by recreational charter boats which fish
— 4 This information has been added to Chapter 3 of the Final EIS under
the section "Threatened and Endangered Species.
4—5 Table 3-9 in the Final EIS has been changed to reflect these
comment s.
*- 6 1
~/ J
4*- 6 1 This passage has been amended in the Final EIS to include this
information and appears in Chapter 3 under the section "Recreational,
Economic , and Aesthetic Characteristics, subsection "Fisheries.1
Tne family name Carangidae is used in the final EIS for ulua instead
of the two species names suggested .
4—Si These changes have been made and appear in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS
4— 9 J under the section "Effects on Recreational, Economic, and Aesthetic
Values, subsection "Fishing"
-------
by surface trolling. Long-line fishing is not commonly conducted as a
recreational fishing method.
We hope these comments will be of assistance to you. Please send
us a copy of che final EIS as soon as it becomes available.
00
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY
RocKville Md 30952
OA/C52x7:SKM
TO: PP - Richard L. Lehman
FROM: OA/C5 - Robert B. Rollins /
SUBJECT: DEIS £7911.10 - The Designation of Five Hawaiian Dredged
Material Disposal Sites
The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of the National
Ocean Survey's (NOS) responsibility and expertise and in terms of the impact
of the proposed action on NOS activities and projects.
The following comments from the Ocean Dumping and Monitoring Division,
NOS, are offered for your consideration.
The letter enclosed with the DEIS is most important. It indicates
that the DEIS is for site designation only. It contains information of
use to determining acceptability of given dredged material for ocean
dumping but it is not to be considered a final argument for such
acceptability.
The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations are specific on what needs to be
considered for site designation. Those regulations are Appendix F of
the DEIS and 11 specific considerations are on page F-10. These consti-
tute the cookbook for a site designation DEIS.
On pages 2-14 to 2-21, the 11 considerations are separately dis-
cussed and this is the heart of the DEIS. The basic conclusion of the
DEIS is that the five sites should be designated as dredged material
disposal sites because they are locations of low resource value where
any suspended or dissolved remnant of a dump will be carried seaward
or parallel to the shore while being mixed with surrounding water. I
have no data or information which will cause me to disagree with that
conclusion.
Specific Comments:
P. xii, paragraph 4: Mention is made of a huge assimilative capacity
at the disposal sites, yet a definition of assimilative capacity is not
5—1 given in the DEIS. What does huge mean? Relative to what? What does
"assimilative capacity" mean?
the sentence in question has been changed in the Final EIS to read:
"The proposed disposal sites can receive dredged materials without
jeopardizing the life-support systems of marine biota due to the
extent of dilution which occurs (approximately 1:1,000,000).
-------
5— 2 ^e word "significant" has been deleted from the two cited paragraphs
in the Final EIS. The phrase ''suspended participates" has been
changed to "suspended particulate matter.
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
P. xii: THE EIS is riddled with confusion, three examples of which
are found on this page. In paragraphs 2 and 3, the word "significant"
appears twice as an adjective and in both cases it is completely unclear
as to its meaning. What is "significant dilution and transport"? In the
last sentence on the page, what are "suspended particulates"? Particulate
sediments? Organisms?
P. 2-18, paragraph 1: The discussion of dilution and dispersion of
spoil plumes is too brief to be sufficient. Uhat does "sufficiently
diluted and dispersed" mean? By what standards, and relative to what?
The same comments apply to paragraph 2 on page 2-19. In both cases, all
quantitative comments about plume behavior should be supported by a refer-
ence to the original source of the information, even though in these cases,
the references are discussed in more detail in later chapters.
Page 3-3: First word on first line, "Goeggel" should not be there.
Page 3-7: The paragraph about currents includes not one reference
to original sources of information. The references should be included.
Page 3-9: Under Trace Metals, some elements "below minimum detec-
table levels" - what are those levels? Also, the Zn and Hg concentrations
are given and said to be 10 to 1000 times higher than listed average con-
centrations. If the data are to be given, then some explanation of why
the measured concentrations are so high should also be present.
Pages 3-10 to 3-12: The discussion and tables dealing with metal
contents of sediments and organisms are meaningless as they stand. The
figures should be presented in relation to what is known of chemical
dynamics and toxicities of the metals.
Pages 3-12 to 3-20: The summary of biological conditions should be
presented in a comparative manner to demonstrate similarities and dif-
ferences, if any, between the regions discussed and surrounding areas.
The section is incomplete without this broader, regional perspective.
This section could also be improved by expanding the descriptions of
the various communities with names and number of species occupying them.
The last paragraph on page 3-16, for example, could be improved greatly
by inclusion of a few numbers. What does "dominated in abundance and
diversity" mean? How many are "several"? What does "fewer numbers"
mean?
Page 4-12: It is unlikely that dredged material would be declared
acceptable only on basis that Hg and Cd levels in site sediments would
increase by 50 percent or less. This criteria would be sufficient if,
for some reason, bioassays were deemed unnecessary.
The example on the bottom of the page is not comprehensible. If
dredge material could be uniformly distributed in the water column, one
would be seeking other disposal sites.
5 — 3 The discussion of dilution and dispersion of the dredged material
plume is a summary of more detailed information found in Appendices A
and C of the Draft and Final EIS. However, appropriate references
have been included as suggested. The word '"sufficiently" has been
deleted from the cited phrase.
5—4 The detection limits and an explanation of the high zinc and mercury
values have been included in the Final EIS in Chapter 3 under the
section entitled "Chemical Conditions, subsection "Trace Metals"
The detection limits for silver, cadmium, chromium, and copper were
1 fjig/liter. The detection limits for lead and nickel were 5 ^g/liter
and 4 /jg/liter, respectively. The high values for mercury and zinc
occurred due to sample contamination (K. Chave, personal
communication, 1980). (See Comment and Response #9-3.)
5—5 The information contained in these tables is presented as background
description for characterization of the disposal sites. Toxic
concentrations of metals in sediment have not been established.
5—5 Complete biological studies were conducted (see Chapter 3 for
references) at the South Oahu Site only. Chapter 3 of the DEIS
described differences between the pelagic communities at this site
and communities in other regions of the Hawaiian Islands. Chapter 3
discussed members of the site biota which could be potentially
impacted by dredged material dumping. Regarding use of qualitative
descriptors of abundances in the DEIS text, reference to an
accompanying table had been omitted inadvertently. This table (3-10)
had been included in the DEIS and is included in the Final EIS.
b*"/ The tables and discussion using the 50% increase criterion have been
deleted from this section of the Final EIS, The section entitled
"Toxin Accumulation" has been rewritten as a result of Comment
1*25-10, and is now entitled "Trace Metal and Organohalogen
Accumulation.
5—3 The example cited in the section entitled "Trace Metal and
Organohalogen Accumulation" may be viewed as an extreme case, since,
in reality, the metals contained in the dredged material do not
readily enter solution. The example is merely illustrating that,
given the volume at the disposal site and assuming that all metals
contained in the dredged material entered solution completely, the
increases in metal concentrations of the water column are extremely
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Ocaanic and Atmospheric Adminfatratlon
n i n 111 nnnrr oczi'
Washington, o.c. 20235
DATE: January 7, 1980
TO: PP/EC - R. Lehman
FROM: CZM - R. Kifer
SUBJECT: DEIS 7911.10 - The Designation of Five Hawaiian Dredge Material
Disposal Sites - CZM Conment
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment upon the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for The Designation of Five Hawaiian
Dredged Material Disposal Sites.
6-1
The Sanctuary Programs Office of the Office of Coastal Zone Management
(OCZM) is concerned about potential impacts of the proposed action on the
marine environment in general and on the particularly sensitive resources
of areas which have been suggested for possible marine sanctuary status.
At the present time, there are no marine sanctuaries nor active candidates
for marine sanctuary designation within the proposed disposal areas.
However, the interisland waters of Maui County, including waters of the
Pailolo Channel near Kahului Harbor and Kahului Disposal Site, appear on
the Marine Sanctuary List of Recommended Areas (44 FR No. 212 October 31,
1979). Moreover, the recent Hawaiian Humpback Whale Workshop (Haul:
December 12-14, 1979) convened by OCZM recommended the establishment of
a Humpback Whale Marine Sanctuary to encompass all waters within the
100-fathom isobath surrounding the High Hawaiian Islands (from Kaula
Island in the northwest to the Island of Hawaii in the southeast). OCZM
is discussing the outcome of the workshop with various government, sci-
entific and environmental entities and is evaluating the recommended
site according to Marine Sanctuary Regulations (44 FR No. 148 July 31,
1979) for possible selection as an Active Candidate for marine sanctuary
designation. While the boundaries of the recommended marine sanctuary
and proposed dredge disposal sites do not overlap, they are within close
proximity of each other. It is therefore recommended that appropriate
monitoring studies be undertaken to determine to what extent the marine
environment within these especially sensitive areas would be affected by
disposal operations, especially the likelihood of dredged materials moving
into d marine sanctuary (40 CFR 55 228.10[b]) should one be designated.
— | Model ing studies on dredged material dispersion were discussed at
length in Appendix C of the DElb, subsection entitled "Previous
Mathematical Studies. Future environmental studies to provide
additional dredged material dispersion data were recommended )n
Appendix D of the DEIS, which included thorough characterizations of
the dredged materials, turbidity and/or nephelometry profiles of I. he
disposal site water column , and total sue pr-nded soli_ds load. These
a t nd if-jH will be performed at the discretion of the District Engineer
(or fcPA Regional Administrator), who will determine the opt]ma 1
renditions tor success. When any marine .r, anctuary near a disposal
s L l L> jppi: ars to b<-- influenced by dredged material dinpos.il
op., rat ions , tin- s turjy plan will be reviewed and amended -is iifr;d.jd ,
-------
6-2
OCZM Is particularly concerned about the welfare of the endangered
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 1n relation to any disposal
activity. Figure 3-2 (p 3-17) in the DEIS acknowledges the presence of
humpback whales within the proposed disposal areas. This concurs with
the findings of whale surveys conducted by the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS: 1976-79) and several independent scientific surveys
(1976-78). While the effect of dredge disposal on humpbacks has not yet
been ascertained, it is strongly recommended that, should disposal be
carried out as planned, extreme caution be exercised to avoid disposal
if and when humpbacks are reported at or near the disposal sites. Since
humpback residency is seasonal (winter/early spring), it is suggested
that disposal be avoided during this time, especially during what are
believed to be important calving, nursery, and possible courtship and
breeding periods, until it is certain that dumping operations do not
interfere with these key life history events. Further consultation with
NOAA (NMFS and OCZM) is recommended to coordinate scheduling of disposal
operations to avoid adverse impacts on the whales during their winter
residence in Hawaii.
Subsections entitled "Threatened and Endangered Species, relative to
humpback whales and other Hawaiian waters species, have been added to
the Final ELS in Chapters 3 and 4. Several factors would mitigate
disposal effects on these mammals: (1) the sites are not greatly
frequented by humpback whales (see Figure 3-2, Chapter 3), (2) as
described in Chapter 4, humpback whales are apparently undisturbed by
surface traffic not specifically directed at them (Norris and Reeves,
1978), and (3) the proposed dredged material disposal would be a
short-term infrequent activity. Due to potential effects of disposal
on the whales, advanced planning schedules will attempt to avoid
breeding and calving seasons (November to Hay) until additional data
are available. (See Comment and Response #15-2.)
As acknowledged in the DEIS, "an effective monitoring program is
usually based on a comprehensive predisposal baseline survey of the site"
5—3 (P 2-22) and of the proposed dredge operation site. OCZM therefore
recommends that the following environmental parameters and consequences
be given full consideration prior to dredge and disposal operations:
° relationship between and compatibility of sediments at disposal
I sites and those to be dredge/disposed, especially since regulations
__i specify that "... material proposed for dumping is substantially
f\> the same as the substrate ..." at the disposal site. On page
4-19 it is stated that "the bulk of dredge material proposed for
dumping at the South Oahu Site is composed of sand and gravel,
and presents no great variation in disposal site substrate."
No such evaluation is provided for other proposed sites and in-
tended dredge materials. Table 4-5 (p 4-19) does, however, present
grain size distribution comparisons. Sediment compositions given
in this table appear to be significantly different. For example,
sediment at the proposed Nawiliwili Site has a 2% silt-clay
composition whereas sediment to be dredged from the Nawiliwili
Harbor has a 92% silt-clay composition. Since "there is evidence
that the dredged material may consist of considerable fractions
of silt and clay" (p C-10), OCZM recommends further study to
determine if dredged materials are compatible with sediments of
the disposal site.
0 the physical and chemical relationship between measured harbor
sediments and sediments in the dredge vessel hoppers before release,
Some of the future study subjects recommended by the Office of
Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) are already included in Appendix D
(e.g., physical/chemical characterization of sediments in dredged
vessel hoppers, measurement of benthic biomass, and recruitment/
recovery rates). Other OCZM-recommended studies are subjects for
research (e.g., effects of turbidity on marine mammals, cumulative
effects of organic carbon loading, and dredged material plume effects
on holoplankton and meroplankton). The remaining study recommended
by OCZM, "Determination of Sediment Composition,' is listed in the
Ocean Dumping Regulations for testing candidate materials for
dumping. Except for the studies prescribed by the Ocean Dumping
Regulations, all recommended studies will be given full discretionary
consideration by the District Engineer (or EPA Regional
Administrator).
the effect of turbidity on marine mammals,
-------
° the organic content of dredged material,
° the cumulative effect of organic carbon loading on the ocean
bottom and in overlying waters (from organic content of dredged
material, biotic trapping and benthic smothering) and the potential
impact of simultaneous increase in oxygen demand and reduction in
primary productivity due to turbidity and phytoplankton trapping.
° the effects of suspended and settling sediment on the plankton
and an recruitment/settlement of planktonic larvae and juveniles;
° measurement of benthlc biomass and recruitment/recovery rites
at the disposal sites and at the dredged sites,
0 bioassays of key organisms at disposal sites and at dredge sites.
Thank you for considering these recommendations.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
BUILDING 23O
2 January 1980
Mr. T. A. Vastier
Chief, Marine Protection Branch (WH-548)
US Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Hastier:
Inclosed are our review comments on the Draft Environmental Impact State-
Bent (DEIS) for Hawaii Dredged Material Disposal Sites Designation. For
your information, my staff has worked closely with your agency in preparing
the DEIS, and the consents provided in the inclosure are mostly minor
editorial suggestions. However, we suggest that you reconsider recommenda-
TI
I tions on avoiding sinner disposal operations based upon reasons provided
*^ in consents 1 and 5 in the inclosure. We feel that the preparers have done
a cosnenda&le Job( and we have appreciated the opportunity to assist in
preparation and review of the DEIS.
Sincerely yours,
1 Incl Jj**? KESUK CHEUNG
As stated f Chief, Engineering Division
-------
HO.
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
cn
OS ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, PACIFIC OCEAN
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS:
DESIGNATION OF FIVE HAWAIIAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES
2 January 1980
PAGE PARA COMMENT
General Corps maintenance dredging schedules for Hawaiian harbors
are established according to dredging requirements at
Honolulu Harbor because of Its larger dredging volume
and relative Importance among the five Federal harbors
maintained by the Corps. Although the dredging cycle
la 5-10 years for the harbors, all five harbors are
Included in each cycle, If the hopper dredge schedule
allows. Also, Pearl Harbor Is Included In each cycle on
request from the Navy. The ongoing dredging work at
Honolulu Harbor Is scheduled to be completed In the second
half of calendar year 1980. The purpose of this work is
to deepen the normal operating depths of the harbor.
However, this dredging work will postpone the need for
maintenance dredging In Hawaiian harbors until 1986, as
now scheduled.
xl 3 The next dumping at the Port Allen site Is scheduled
for 1986.
xll 3 Suggest adding "(1,000 yd)" at the end of the sentence.
xll 1 & 2 The next dumping at the Kahului and Hilo sites Is
scheduled for 1986.
xlv Conclu- We recommend the conclusions be revised to read:
8lone "Efforts will be made during advanced planning to
schedule disposal to avoid summer months until more data
on summer fish migration and spawning are evaluated."
Dredging In Hawaii depends, to a large degree, upon the
availability of hopper dredges with home ports on the
mainland (outside Hawaii}. The owners generally assign
their dredges according to priority. Therefore, the
Corps cannot give assurances that dredging In Hawaii will
be avoided during summer months. Based upon available
information, It Is highly unlikely that fish spawning or
migration will be affected by Infrequent and temporary
disposal activities. Furthermore, observations during
ocean disposal indicate that most dredged material
descends quickly through surface waters and reaches the
bottom within minutes. Thus, the imposition of con-
straints against summer disposal may have severe opera-
tional and economic consequences and is probably not
environmentally justified. However, the Corps will
7-1
7*2 Noted.
7—3 Change made.
7 — 4 Change made.
7—5 Change made. Information on summer spawning and migration was
requested from the State of Hawaii Department of Fish and Game, and
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). No data are currently
available for the disposal site vicinities.
-------
Contents (continued)
SO.
5
(coot'd)
FACE PARA
7-6
7-7
7-8
7-9
7-10
7-11
7-12
7-13
Kill
1-3
1-7
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-8
COMMENT
attempt to accommodate non-summer dredging by advanced
achedullng. Furtheroore, we suggest that EPA request
input froB the State of Hawaii, Division of Fish and
Game and the national Marine Fisheries Service on the
availability of data and significance of summer spawning
and migration In the vicinity of the disposal sites.
Suggest revising the third sentence to read: "However,
the shrimp are not present in conaercially valuable
concentrations and no commercial shrimp fishing is
practiced there..."
Clarify that the EIS was prepared in 1975.
Revise second sentence to read: "Maintenance dredging
of federal projects In the Hawaiian Islands Is conducted
by the CE, and peralt."
Suggest clarifying sentence to read: "Ocean disposal
of materials from 6 deep-draft harbors should continue
as the most practical method of disposal."
Add to the second sentence: "The absence of continental
shelves and slopes brings deep ocean waters close to
shore to provide optimal locations "
Clarify the sentence to read: "Except at Alternative
Site 9A, which was rejected for environmental reasons
during earlier studies,...."
Land disposal should be one of the alternatives listed
and considered in the EIS.
Suggest revising second sentence and remainder of
paragraph to read: "Land based disposal for these six
deep-draft harbors is discounted because of the lack
of land, high cost, and public health considerations
(USAED, 1975). However, land disposal and other
alternatives have been adopted for the other federally
maintained harbors In Hawaii, precluding the need for
ocean disposal. All of these other harbors, except
Kawalhae Deep Draft Harbor, are shallow draft, small-
boat harbors."
7*«6 Change made.
7 — 7 Change made.
Sentence now reads: "Maintenance dredging of CE projects in the
Hawaiian Islands are conducted by the CE... ',
7—9 Change made.
7»1Q Change made.
7»»1 1 Change made.
7^1 2 Change made.
7*-13 *" expanded discussion of land disposal including the suggested
information has been added to Chapter 2 (section entitled "No-Action
Alternative") .
-------
t» (caotinuwi)
»O. PACE PABA COMMEHT
7-14 2-10 1 In Une 11, change "Crowe" to "Chave." 7—14 <-tiange <»*de-
7~15 2-10 3 Suggest reviling first two sentences to read: "In
1976-1977, the CE studies... contour. At that tine. 7-15 Ctian8e made-
deep—water sites were required...."
7-16 2-13 3 Suggest revising second sentence to read: "Site 9A 7-16 Cha[18e malle-
was dropped from consideration early during the studies
since the western edge of the site was discovered to
be on a very steep cliff..."
7—17 2-13 6 Suggest changing first sentence to read: "Despite their 7—17 Sentence now reads: "Despite their greater depths, the proposed and
greater depths, the proposed and alternative sites are , , . , . ,
° . -f .. i .. ., ,., L alternative sites are close to shore, and the costs for monitoring
not far offshore conpared to continental sites because
of the absence of continental slopes and shelves from transportation are comparable to those for Continental U.S. sites.
Hawaii."
7—18 2-14 3 Suggest clarifying the next to last sentence to read: 7 — 18 tnaoSe made.
"...It Is Important to note that the proposed sites have
no commercial potential because of low concentrations of
shrimp."
7-19 2-16 Pig Suggest adding the following to the caption: "Note: The 7~19 Change made.
2-6 vertical axis has been exaggerated 5 tines relative to
the horizontal axl B." -* o n „ •
/—/ll sentence now reads: As a consequence, monitoring costs have been
7—20 2-19 1 Suggest adding to end of the last sentence "...and are and will be high.
expected to remain high."
7—21 2-21 5 Suggest revising last two lines to read: "Bivironmental 7 — 21 Sentence remains as written in the DEIS since it clarifies the
conditions at the site after disposal operations vary f 11
from the predlsposal (baseline) conditions. Therefore, ' ^'
an effective monitoring...."
7-22 2-22 1 Suggest adding to the second line: "Fortunately such 7-22 Sentence now reads: "Therefore, an effective monitoring program is
environmental studies were sponsored by the Corps and usually based on comprehensive pre-disposal baseline surveys of the
the Havy and have been performed at all sites." .
sites, which have already been performed at all sites by the CE and
7—23 2-23 1 The 1,558,000 cubic yards of dredged material Is the Department of Navy.
& 3-29 Indicative of only 1977 dredging activity. In 1978,
on additional 1,155,000 cubic yards were dredged from
Pearl Harbor and ocean dumped. Therefore, the percentages 7 — 23 Change made.
for 1977-1978 should be revised accordingly.
7 — 24 2-23 Table The next scheduled dredging should be revised to 1986. 7-24 Cnan8e made.
7—25 3-1 3 Suggest revising the last half of paragraph 3 to read 7 — 25 Change made.
"...(former Pearl Harbor site). The study sites were
near to each other, overlapping the proposed south Oahu
site. In addition, the CE sponsored environmental
-------
CO
Comments (continued)
NO. PAGE PARA
25
(cont'd)
7-26 3-2
7-27 3-8,
4-2,
4-3,
6-20
7-28 3-9 2
7-29 3-w i
7-30 3-18 2
7-3] 3-22 2
7-32 3-27 1
7-33 3-27 2-4
3-28 1-2
7-34 3-29 4
COMMENT
studies before and after disposal operations at Nawiliwili>
Port Allen, Kahului, and Hilo. At least two alternative
sites at each of these locations were investigated and
evaluated as candidate sites before disposal and the
sites utilized were also surveyed after disposal in 1977.
Amplify that ''using sonic depth recorders, oceanographers
prepared detailed bathymetric maps for each of five
selected and five alternative sites as a part of the
CE sponsored studies conducted prior to 1977 disposal
operations (NIC, 1977)."
The State of Hawaii's water quality standards have been
recently revised. Therefore, please update all
comments referencing the standards.
Clarify whether trace metals were measured in the
sediments or water column.
Suggest adding to the beginning: "Very detailed
studies of benthos were performed before and after
dredging in 1977 at all sites (NIC, 1977; Goeggel, 1978;
Miller and Chave, 1977a, 1978)."
Suggest including "Porcelaneous" to the glossary.
Suggest emphasizing that most of these recreational
activities are well shoreward of the sites.
Suggest revising last part of paragraph to read:
"Although there is interest to establish commercial
harvesting of these species in Hawaii, it is not being
practiced at the present time. Thus, the resource exists
without sufficient economic incentive in Hawaii's
fishery, yet still remains a potential fishery. In any
case, the concentrations of shrimp at the sites are too
low for commercial interest." We also suggest you
coordinate the sections on the deep-water shrimp fishery
with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Add to the end of these paragraphs: "The proposed
site covers only a very small percentage of the area
from which these statistics were gathered." We further
suggest that you specify the exact percentages,,
Suggest modifying first two sentences to read: ',..
dredged material are significant. However, these inputs
are derived from nearby shallow water areas and consist
of approximately 23 point sources
4
7^26
Change made.
7 *~2 7 Change made .
7^23 This section on trace metals has been rewritten as a result of this
comment and Comments #6-4, and #10-3.
7 *" L.y Sentence not included since a discussion of the studies on the
proposed sites appears at the beginning of Chapter 3 of the Final
7*=3Q Chan8e made.
7 "* 3 1 Change made .
7^32 Revision not made since existing text already reflects the point.
Deepwater shrimp fishery information was coordinated with NMFS via
information from the Honolulu Laboratory.
7 "3 3 Revision added to the last paragraph in the section to avoid
repetition. The exact areal percentages were unavailable. Suf fice
that the areal percentages were miniscule (i.e., less than 1%).
™^ Change made.
-------
HO.
7-35
7-36
7-37
7-38
7-39
(continued)
PAGE PARA
3-30
3-31
4-1
4-3
Table
3-14
Fig
3-5
7-40
7-41
7-42
7-43
4-5 1
4-5 3
4-6 3
4-7 5
Include 1978 dredging of 1,155,000 cubic yards for
Pearl Harbor.
Revise percentages to consider 1978 dredging work.
Suggest revising the beginning of the paragraph after
the abstract to read: "Outside of Hawaii, the majority
of all dredged material disposal..."
Suggest adding at the end of third sentence: "However,
such is not the case in Hawaii where a number of deep
ocean environmental studies have been conducted, and
deep ocean disposal is likely..."
Suggest modifying the middle portion of the paragraph
to read: "Therefore, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and State of
Hawaii Division of Fish and Game urged the CE to select
sites outside the primary range of the shrimp, or beyond
the 200-fathom (366m) isobath. This general recommenda-
tion was in part a consequence of the lack of field
information from the sites which was lacking at that
time. Now that detailed site specific data are available
for all sites, the need for a depth limit was reevaluated
on a site specific basis. The recommended sites are all
close to or exceed the 200-fathom contour."
Suggest revising second sentence to read: "The proposed
south Oahu site is not favored for shrimp fishing be-
cause commercial concentrations of shrimp are lacking.
Migrating shrimp have been reported at the site after
disposal operations (Tetra Tech, 1977; Goeggel 1978;
Chave and Miller, 1978} and may have been attracted to
the disposal activity."
Suggest modifying first sentence to read: "Two species
of shrimp of commercial value, but not in commercial
abundance, inhabit the region..."
Clarify that "all sites are far removed from tourist
destination areas."
Modify the first sentence to read: "&redged material
characteristics vary, but two basic types have been
reported: (1) harbors maintained by the Corps show
a mean of 49% coral....; and (2) adding Pearl Harbor
to the list, a mean for all harbors..,."
7~35 Change made.
7—36 Change made.
7=37 Revision not made since existing text reflects the suggestion.
7_38 Cnan8e made.
7—3Q Change made.
7—40 Change made.
Lhange made .
7—4-2 Change made.
7 — 43 Revision not made since existing text reflects the suggestion.
-------
Comments (continued)
ro
o
NO.
7-44
7-45
7-46
7-47
7-48
7-49
7-50
7-51
7-52
7-53
PAGE
4-11
4-18
4-20
4-21
4-21
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-24
4-25
P,
1
1
3
1
3
4
2
2
1
2
7-54
7-55
7-56
5-2
Please specify the location of Windom'e ammonia study.
Please clarify that five out of six harbors have very
similar sediments and explain the origin of the two
basic sediment types (marine carbonate and terrigenous
basalt).
Suggest adding to last sentence: '...similar In proportion
to the quantities disposed."
Change "Liaison" to "Preservation.
Clarify that the Barbers Point pipeline terminals are
some 20 miles to the west of the proposed south Oahu site.
Clarify that all candidate OTEC sites are many miles from
any of the proposed disposal sites.
Suggest changing the "OCEAN INCINERATION" subheading to
"INCINERATION AT SEA."'
Suggest clarifying the first sentence to read: "Only a
portion of the proposed...."
Suggest modifying the first effect to read: "Possible
attraction to or avoidance of the area by fish."
Recommend adding after the last sentence the following:
"These studies will help augment comparable studies
already performed at all of the sites during earlier
studies."
The new 1978 regulations to implement the National
Environmental Policy Act now require outside consultants
who have contributed to the preparation of an EIS to
issue a disclosure statement.
Suggest adding to the biographical sketch of Mike Lee
the following: "In addition, Mr. Lee prepared the
1975 EIS on Harbor Maintenance Dredging in the State
of Hawaii and assisted in the development, evaluation,
and review of CE sponsored environmental studies at the
disposal sites."
Suggest adding the following to the biographical sketch
of James Maragosj "In addition, Dr. Maragos designed
and supervised all CE sponsored deep-ocean environmental
studies conducted after 1975 and coordinated the results
of these studies with other agencies."
7 — 44 Change made.
7—45 Discussion of the similarity of the harbor sediments to each other is
not relevant to the paragraph cited. The crux of the paragraph in
question LS that the dredged sediments are sufficiently similar (both
in grain size and composition.) to the sed intents at the proposed
disposal sites, such that the severe effects anticipated are avoided
when benthic organisms are buried under exot ic sed iments.
7—4-6 Revision not made since existing text reflects the suggestion.
7 = 47 Change made.
7—48 Change made.
7 — 49 Revisions not made since existing text reflects the suggestion.
7—50 Revisions not made since existing text reflects the suggestion.
7— 51 Revisions not made since existing text reflects the suggestion,
y_CO Change made.
7—53 Revision felt unnecessary.
7_ tj^l As required by NEPA, Final Regulations, 1978, a list of preparers of
the EIS, their personal qualifications, and the sections of the
document for which they were responsible were included in the DEIS.
(See Chapter 5.)
7—55 Addition unnecessary.
/*" DO Addition unnecessary.
-------
e (continued)
HO. PACE PARA COMMENT
7-57 5~2 Suggest adding brief biographical sketches for Keith 7~57 Addition unnecessary,
Chave and Jacquelline Miller, the principal investigators
for all Navy studies performed at the south Oahu site.
7—58 6~2 ^- Suggest changing to "Eloaccumulation. /~t)O
7-59 6-2 2 Suggest revising the entry for bloassay to read; 7-^Q Change made.
"Exposure of a test organism to samples of contaminant /"~O_7
laden water under controlled conditions to determine
the contaminant concentration lethal to the organism
during various lengths of time."
/— 60 6-3 2 Add to the entries for continental shelf and slope the 7" 60 Addition unnecessary.
following: "Hawaii, an oceanic island archipelago,
lacks continental shelves and slopes."
_ 7_A1 Addition unnecessary.
/—D I 6-3 3 Suggest adding "Aquatic" to the beginning of the entry
for crustacean.
7-62 6~3 * Suggest revising the entry for current drogue to read: 7~62 Change made.
"...along with the current, giving the cumulative
distance over a specified time period."
7 — fi3 Addition unnecessary.
7 ""63 6-3 6 Suggest adding to the entry for cyclonic eddies the
following: "Common off the leeward sides of the
major Hawaiian Islands. '
7-64 6-4 1 Suggest revising the entry for diversity to read: 7" 64 Addition unnecessary.
"...takes into account both the number of species and
relative abundance of each species."
7-65 6-4 10 Revise the entry for estuary to read: "A semi- 7~65 Change made.
enclosed, tidal, coastal body of fresh and saline water...
7-66 6-4 17 Suggest revising definition of Holothurlan to read: 7~66 Change made.
"A worm-like animal, commonly called sea cucumber,
which Is related to sea stars, brittle stars, sea urchins,
and sand dollars."
7-67 6~6 1 Correct the definition of microgram-atom to read: 7~67 Change made.
"... atomic weight In grams divided by one million.
7-68 A"1 2 Clarify in the introductory paragraph that 35 days of 7-68 ChanSe made'
continuous current measurements at several depths were
obtained off the south Oahu site.
-------
Comments (continued)
I
ro
ro
7-69
7-70
7-71
7-72
7-73
7^74
C-3
C-4
7-75 D-I
7-76 E~1 c° E
7^77 General
COMMENT
Change 1,000,000 cubic yards to 720,000 cubic yards. The
quantity of dredging is estimated at 920,000 cubic yards.
Of this amount, 200,000 cubic yards are to be disposed
of on Sand Island.
Clarify in the last sentence that, to date, modeling of
dredged material deposition, particularly in deep ocean
environments, has had limited success.
Suggest adding the term "ablation" to the glossary.
Suggest you clarify or speculate on the reasons why
the modeling efforts were not particularly accurate
(i.e., adhesion, cohesion factors, dredged material
falling in chunks rather than discreet particles,
water depths at sites exceeded the reasonable limits of
the models, etc.).
Clarify that very extensive biological studies were
performed on the benthos even though biomass was not
emphasized in these studies. The investigators con-
centrated on other benthic parameters since biomaes was
so low at the sites. In addition, we suggest that
more of the benthic biological data from the Corps
studies be included in the appendix to provide the
reader with more information on the extent of past
studies on deep-water benthos at the sites.
Suggest that the paragraph be revised to reflect that
it will not be possible from bioassays to accurately
predict the effect of the accumulation of trace metals.
For one, it is difficult to collect or use test organisms
which naturally occur at the deep ocean disposal sites
because of significant environmental factors (especially
pressure and light) which cannot be duplicated in the
laboratory to a satisfactory level to perform bioassay.
Furthermore, the review of other data collected during the
field studies indicates that bioaccumulation of trace
metals at the site will not be a problem since sediment
analyses indicated that heavy metal concentrations will
not exceed EPA criteria.
Suggest retitling the appendix to "FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES."
Suggest substituting the new water quality standards
for the old standards.
The Navy has advised us that they request that the Draft
EIS be revised to indicate that dredged material from
Pearl Harbor will be disposed of at the proposed south
Oahu site annually.
Change made.
7 — 70 Change made .
7—71 "Ablation1' has been deleted from the text of the Final EIS.
7—7? Additional information on the modeling efforts has been added to the
text of the Final EIS in this section.
/~ /O A description of the studies on the benthos of the disposal sites
appears in the body of the main text in Chapters 3 and 4 where the
Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences are discussed.
Further clarification is unwarranted since the append ices are
supplementary to the main text and are not intended to present
intormat ion of primary importance.
In keeping with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for
preparing EIS's, sources of supplemental data and information are
cited in the text. The reader may then refer to these sources if
additional information is required. This alleviates exhaustive
discussions of information not directly necessary for assessment of
the proposed action.
7=- 74 ^ugges tion incorporated.
7™ 75 Change maae ,
7~ 76 'l'he ''°^d" State °f Hawaii Water Quality Standards (Appendix E of the
OElb) and associated discussion (at x, xvii, xviii, 1-12, 3-8, 4-2,
4-4, and 4-2 Jj have been deleted from the Final EIS in response to
Comments £24-32 and #13-2.
7-77
Change made,
-------
HEADQUARTERS
NAVAL BASE PEARL HARBOR
ro
CO
002:09P2:SH:mm
Ser 62
11JAN198Q
Mr. Henry L. Longest, II
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Longest:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for Hawaii Dredged Material Disposal Sites
Designation (October 1979)
Your letter of November 9, 1979, forwarding the subject Draft
EIS for review, has been received and reviewed with comments
as follows-.
a. The U. S. Navy concurs in the designation of the
proposed South Oahu site as shown on Figure 2-1. It should
be noted, however, that the proposed Oahu site may receive
dredged material from Pearl Harbor every year vice every
ten years. The dredged material will be material resulting
from maintenance dredging at selected berthing areas within
Pearl Harbor.
b. It is suggested that the subject report be revised to
indicate that dredged material from Pearl Harbor will be
disposed of at the proposed South Oahu site annually.
A letter with similar comments was provided by the Pacific
Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, to the
Department of the Army, U. S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu
on 20 December 1979.
Sincerely,
tPA acknowledges Che letter and associated comments from Pearl Harbor
Naval base Headquarters. The suggested revisions have been made and
are retlected in the following sections: Summary ("Proposed Action,
"Affected Environment"), Chapter 1 ("Introduction"), Chapter 2
(synopsis box, "The Proposed Sites" "Detailed Basis for Selection of
the Proposed Sites, "Proposed Use of the Sites"), and Chapter 3
("Inputs at the Proposed Sites Other Than Dredged Material").
Copy to:
COMPACNAVFACENGCOM
CO PWC PEARL
R. D. EBPR
CD?. ' - ""i
F^Cil! j I;.-'. 'I.^CR
BY LiinuCTiON OF THE COMMANDER
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
January 9, 1980
71
ro
Mr. Henry L= Longest, II
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Water Program Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, B.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Longest:
We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the Hawaii Dredged Material Disposal Sites Designation. We
are responding on behalf of the Public Health Service and are offering
the following comments for your use in the preparation of the final EIS.
We note the proposed action involves the designation of five deep-ocean
sites in the Hawaiian Islands (3 sites currently being used and 2 new
sites) for continued open water disposal of dredged material from six
harbors.
We are primarily concerned about the adequacy of the monitoring program
to be implemented during and after dredging operations. It Is important
that the designated sites and the immediate area be monitored to justify
9—°j the sites' continued designation and to document and prevent, if possible,
any adverse effects associated with open dumping. We have special concerns
regarding the potential impacts upon food-chain organisms that are directly
or indirectly consumed by people.
We recognize that all dredged materials to be dumped at the designated
sites must comply with the Ocean Dumping Regulations. However, the EIS
gives the impression that all dredged materials from Pearl, Honolulu,
Nawiliwili, Port Allen, Kahului, or Hilo Harbors are and will be acceptable
for disposal at the five designated open water sites. Is this the situa-
Q—2 tion or will a case-by-case analysis be made of the sediments of each
proposed dredging area before each dredging season to determine their
continued compliance with the Ocean Dumping Regulations? The extent of
permit dredging in the six harbors and any potential "hot spots" should
be mentioned.
Total mercury concentrations were found to be variable at the proposed
South Oahu site ranging from less than 1.0 to 4.4 ug/liter with a mean of
2.1 ug/liter. Since the water quality criteria for mercury in seawater
Q —3 is 0-1 ug/liter, an explanation is necessary on what may be responsible
for the high levels found at the South Oahu site. Were similar levels
found at the other sites to be designated? The possible effects of such
levels upon marine organisms should be disclosed.
_7 ™ J Since there have been no significant adverse impacts reported or
presently expected because of dredged material disposal at the
proposed site, monitoring will not be performed during each disposal
cycle at every site. In accordance with Section 228.9 of the Ocean
Dumping Regulations, monitoring will be performed at the discretion
of tne District Engineer or Regional Administrator.
9=>2 The need for further testing of the dredged material is determined by
noncompliance of the material with the Ocean Dumping Regulations,
specifically, 40 CFR Section 227.13b. Compliance with the criteria
cited excludes dredged material from testing but the examination of
compliance/noncompliance will be made before each dumping eyele.
9-= 3 The high values for mercury in the proposed South Oanu Site water
column taken from Chave and Miller (1977a) are believed to be caused
by contamination (K. Chave, personal communication, 1980). The
mercury concentrations for all other samples (16) were below
detectable limits. This information has been added to Chapter 3
(section "Chemical Conditions, subsection "Trace Metals") of the
Final EIS. (See also Comment and Response #5-4.)
-------
9-4
9-5
Page 2 - Mr. Henry L. Longest, II
In computing the "EPA criteria for cadmium, .6 mg/kg or a concentration
. . .less than 50 percent greater than the average total cadmium content
of natural sediments of similar lithologic characteristics as those at
the disposal site," please clarify whether "natural sediments" refer to the
original undisturbed sediments at a site prior to any local disposal or to
any existing sediments at a disposal site.
It appears that little consideration has been given to upland disposal
sites or alternative uses of dredged material. In view of the haulage
distances to the designated sites and the rising costs for fuel, the EIS
should address the potential energy costs for any long haulages. It
may be appropriate to give consideration to pumping and stockpiling
the material onshore and using it as a useful resource material rather
than disposing it as a waste. Measures should also be taken to reduce
the frequency and amount of dredging In the harbors.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this EIS. Please send us two
copies of the final EIS.
Sincerely yours,
Frank S. Lisella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Bureau of State Services
I
ro
en
9 —4 "Natural sediments" refers to original undisturbed sediments before
disposal of any material. The "50% greater" interim guideline used
in the DEIS (at 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, A-10, A-18, B-2, B-3, B-5,
and C-18) was applied to a pooled mean of the cadmium and mercury
concentrations, respectively, in sediment samples taken from the
disposal site region.
9—5 A discussion of the feasibility of land disposal of dredged material
in Hawaii has been included in the Final EIS (Chapter 2, section
entitled "No-Action Alternative") in response to this comment and
comment #11-1.
No up-to-date estimates of potential energy costs for ocean disposal
of dredged material versus land disposal are available. In the CE
EIS on Harbor Maintenance Dredging (1975), actual dredging
expenditures (1968-1973) on federally funded maintenance dredging
projects showed that unit costs of a project using ocean disposal
ranged from $0.46 to $1.55/yd while the unit costs of a project
using land disposal ranged from $3.11 to $6.28/yd - These estimates
are based on the total cost of the project.
The economics of ocean versus land disposal of dredged material in
Hawaii is not the only major issue. The risk to public health must
be considered since contamination of groundwater resources as a
result of land disposal may occur. At the present time, the risk to
public health and the cost discourage the use of land disposal.
However, the need for ocean disposal must be demonstrated each time
an application for ocean disposal is made. At that time, the
availability of other feasible alternatives must be assessed.
Regarding measures to reduce the frequency and amount of harbor
dredging, dredging of Hawaii' s harbors will occur as frequently as
required, and usually depends upon the shoaling rates for individual
harbors. Approximate volumes of material, which might be removed
during one dredging cycle, have been computed for Hawaiian harbors
based on records maintained at CE.
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION
BOX 36O98 . 45O GOLDEN GATE AVENUE
SAM FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 941O2
(415) 556-82OO
ER-79/1079
December 18, 1979
Henry L. Longest, II
Deputy As sis Cant Adrolnis trator
for Water Program Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Longest:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the draft environmental
statement for Dredged Material Disposal Sites Designation for Hawaii
(ER 79/1079) and offers the following comments.
no
CTi
General Comments
The statement is outstanding for its detailed information on sediments at
dredge disposal sites and Its analysis of environmental impacts of dredge
disposal. The only limitation appears to be In specific data on that
portion of the proposed South Oahu site not covered by studies on CE
Study Site 3 or the former Pearl Harbor Site.
Specific Comments
Page 3-2, Bathymetry and Page A-9, Sediments. It is stated that "With
the exception of the proposed Nawiliwili and Hilo Sites, carbonate is the
dominant sediment constituent" (p. 3-2, last par.), but later it is
10" 1 sCateti that "analyses show the sediment to be chiefly calcium carbonate
at the proposed South Oahu, Nawiliwili, Port Allen, and Kahulul Sites"
(p. A-9, last par.). These statements appears contradictory with regard
to the Nawiliwili Site.
Page 3-3, Bathymetry and Page 3-4, Grain Size. Table 3-1 shows silty
clay to be the sediment characteristic at three sites, whereas table 3-3
shows the sediment at these same sites to consist of 63 to 80 percent
10™2 9anc^ and ^ to 36 percent silt and clay. The text suggests that the
differences result from differences between predisposal and post disposal
surveys, but It would be helpful to clarify any such differences in the
two tables.
sO~l Tne inf°rmation in these two sections has been changed so that data
presented are now consistent.
\\J-L. The data presented in these two tables have been reviewed and changed
and are now consistent.
-------
Page 3-11, Table 3—6. It would be more appropriate to present the
analysis of variance (A N 0 V A) table here instead of just the resultant
|Q —3 mean. The reviewer can be misled by the table, especially if sample
sizes vary considerably.
Page 4-16, Table 4-4. The presented water quality criteria for lead of
0.1 aultiplied by 96-hour 1C 50 value is for fresh water. The American
Fisheries Society Water Quality Section, in their review of the 1977 EPA
Red Book (April 1979) has a recommended criteria for marine waters of
4 tig/I. The lead content of sediments from Honolulu and Pearl Harbors
are considerably higher than this figure. Before a final selection is
Enade of the South Oahu site, a lead content analysis should be made
|Q —4 °f selected benthic organisms in the plume areas of the dump site.
Particular attention should be paid to the shallow water area northeast
of the proposed site since a strong component in the current has been
identified for that direction (Chsve and Miller 1978, Bathen 1974).
Thank you for the opportunity to review this EIS. If you have questions
about these comments, please contact me directly.
Sincerely yours,
I
no
Patricia Sanderson Port
Regional Environmental Officer
Director, OEPR (w/copy incoming)
Director, Heritage Conservation
Director, National Park Service
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service
Director, Geological Survey
Director, Bureau of Land Management
Dir., nCRS
Dir., NPS
Dir., FWS
.ecreation Service
Reg.
Reg.
Reg.
Reg.
Reg.
SHPO
Dir., GS
Dir., BLM
1 Q— 3 The suggested information has been added to the Final EIS in the for
of Table C-5.
1Q — ^ The lead concentration criterion recommended in the American
Fisheries Service (AFS) review is 0.004 mg Pb/liter (or 400 ng/
liter). As stated in the DEIS, the increase of lead concentration in
the water column after a single dredged material discharge is
40 ng/liter from Pearl Harbor sediments, and 131 ng/liter from
Honolulu Harbor sediments. These values are liberal estimates, in
that they are based on/' a total leach of all metals from the dumped
material into the water. Total leaching does not actually occur in
-------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Waih.nj.lo- D C 30b?O
BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS
February bf 1980
I
ro
oo
_1
— 2
Mr. T. A. wastler
Chief, Marine Protection Branch
WH-548
£nvironrr.ental Protect ion Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear -ir. Was cler:
The Department of State has reviewed the Environmental
Protection A-jency's "Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(tIS) for Hawaii Dredged Material Disposal Sites Designa-
tion" and would like to of f er the following comments.
7ne London Dunving Convention (Annex III) stipulates
that the practical availability of alternative- land-based
methods of treatment, disposal or elimination of wastes
should be taken into account in establishing criteria for
ocean dumping; this stipulation has been included in U.S.
criteria. The Dt)IS should, we believe, discuss in oreater
detail why land-based alternatives may not be feasible in
the Hawaiian case. Land-based alternatives .iiay be feasible
even if no significant environmental consequences may result
f roin the use of ocean alternative. Also, land-based alter-
f id tives need not be ruled out even if they are More costly.
rie consider it important to comply with the Convention in
this regard and to discuss land-based alternatives
thoroughly. This is particularly important for, as
Lvir. Longes t's tr
-------
11-3
TJ
ro
receive by far the uost contaminants, the rJIS should rnaka
it clear why an alternative outside tne catch areas was not
selected to mini.niae eaten contamination. It should also
explain why site 9, relatively shallow, was chosen over 9^
or vhicn the presence or
absence of Annex I materials and compliance or non-
compliance with the Convention are to be determined with
respect to solid-phase dredge materials. It is not clear
Eroni the OBIS whether tests have been made. The UJIS,
page xiii, also states that the "dredged materials comply
witli federal regulations for Minimizing environmental
impacts" and (page 4) "permissible quantities of une
materials prohibited except in traee amounts have been
reported in dredged materials". It would oe nelpful if
the text clarified how and where this was determined.
•-Ve appreciate the opportunity to review the draft
impact statement.
Very truly your.s,
Donald R. King
Director
Office of Environment and Health
j ^ — 3 ^ section of Chapter 4 ("Toxin Accumulation") and a section of
Appendix B ("Characteristics of Harbor Sediments") in the DEIS were
misleading with respect to the EPA interim guide 1ines for sediment
heavy metals in effect at the time of the last CE dredging project in
Hawaii. The section in Chapter 4 has been rewritten and renamed
"Trace hetal and Organohalogen Accumulation" and the section in
Appendix B has been clarified on this matter.
Under the existng Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria, full
evaluation of dredged material (i.e., further testing or bioassays)
prior to disposal is required when the material does not fall into
one of the three categories described in Section 227.13b (40 CFR,
January 11, 1977). These tests were not performed during the last
dredging cycle; therefore, interim guidelines in effect at the time
(.such as the 1,5 multiplication factor [Section 227. 6e ] ) were used to
provide an illustration of relative concentrations. The lack of
bioassay data on the dredged material from the last dredging cycle is
not meant to serve as a precedent for the exclusion of future dredged
material from such testing.
Discussion of the compliance of dredged materials with the
Regulations and permissible quantities of materials prohibited,
except in trace amounts, was provided in Appendix B of che DEIS under
the sections "Characteristics of Harbor Sediments" and
"Characteristics of Materials Found in Dredge Vessel Hoppers. These
sections indicated that cadmium and mercury in the harbor sediments
during the last dredging cycle were below the EPA allowable limits.
Urganohalogen concentrations were below 0.01 jig/kg; however, bioassay
data were unavailable. Although no surface sheen data, as specified
by the Ocean Dumping Regulations, are available for the harbor
sediments, no surface sheens were observed during disposal of the
sediments dredged from Pearl Harbor. (See also Comments and
Responses V24-9 and #24-10.)
-------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WASHlNljTON. D.C. 20550
January 14, 1980
co
o
Mr. T, A. Wastler
Chief, Marine Protection Branch (WH-548)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Wastler:
The Environmental Protection Agency's DEIS for Hawaii Dredged
Material Disposal Sites Designation has been reviewed by
individuals in the National Science Foundation's Divisions of
Earth Sciences, Ocean Sciences, and Applied Research. Relevant
comments from these reviewers follow:
"There seems to be very sparse and only generalized
knowledge of the current patterns at each site. My
concern is that due to this very limited data, they
really don't know where the fine grained material will
12-] 9°- Some may even tend to return to shore. Without
the total current regime nailed down, the rest is not
too meaningful. There is no sure way of predicting
where the material will end up or if it will stay where
first deposited."
"The five proposed sites appear to be an adequate solution
to the disposal problem...! did find one disturbing state-
ment which may reflect people's concern for EIS studies:
12-2 Dredged Material disposal has occurred at the proposed
sites since 1977 and no long-term adverse effects have
been demonstrated."
I hope these few remarks are helpful in completing your final EIS.
Sincerely yours,
Adair F. Montgomery
Chairman, Committee on
Environmental Matters
Specific knowledge of current patterns at the five sites is presently
limited. Accordingly, knowledge of fine-grained fraction dispersive
patterns of the dredged material upon dumping is limited. However,
Appendix D of the DEIS recommended stud ies to provide such
information. Based upon present knowledge of material dispersal and
past dumping impacts at the proposed sites, delay of site designation
until study completion is not warranted. Determinations based on
current patterns from another ocean disposal site outside of Hawaii
are not applicable because of the localized character of current
patterns.
Dredged material disposal has already occurred in varying volumes at
or in the vicinity of the proposed disposal sites since the early
1900's. Studies on ocean dumping effects in Hawaiian waters have
been performed periodically since 1972, and no long-term adverse
effects have been demonstrated to date.
-------
GCORQE R ARIYOSHI
GOVERNOR OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
PO Bo* 0378
HONOLULU. HAWAII 96801
January 11, 1980
Henry N Thompson M A
lames S Kumagai. Ph D . P E
Deputy Direclor ol Heallh
Mr. Henry L. Longest, II
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Longest:
Subject: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Designation of Five
Hawaii Dredged Material Disposal Sites
~n
i
CO
Thank you for allowing us to review and comment on the subject EIS. We submit the
following comments for your information and consideration:
1 . The subj ect EIS should address the need to monitor dredged material from Pearl
Harbor for radioactive wastes. The disposal of dredged material which may
include radioactive wastes into an ocean disposal site could create adverse
impacts upon the affected marine environment.
— j
In general , the disturbance of the hot torn sediments
adverse impacts upon fish and other marine biota.
in Pearl Harbor could have
Public Health Regulations , Chapter 3 7- A, Water Quality Standards , requires
monitoring and surveillance to minimize the impact of dredging in a closed
embay me nt such as Pearl Harbor . The subj ect EIS should describe the monitoring
and surveillance procedures recommended for dredging a harbor such as Pearl
Harbor.
2. Page 1-12: It Is stated that once the site is designated, it must be monitored
for adverse disposal impacts. Who will be monitoring the disposal site? Such
monitoring will be expensive because of the depth of the ocean at the sites and
the difficulty of sampling under such conditions .
? On the same page, second paragraph of page 3-8, and second paragraph of page 4-23:
It states that a portion of the site is within the 3-mile limit- EPA assumes
that within the 3-milc limit, the State has jurisdiction; outside of the 3-mile
limit, the State does not. We are not aware that this stated jurisdictional
1 imit has been established without any question by the State.
1 3""1 Tnere are no indications of the presence of radioactive wastes in the
sediments from Pearl Harbor.
This EIS specifically assesses the impacts of dredged material
disposal. Impacts of dredging operat ions at the actual site of
dredging are assessed prior to approval of each project.
"1 *3_ 9 Monitoring of the Hawaiian dredged material disposal sites for
adverse disposal impacts will be funded and administered by the
Pacific Ocean Division of the CE. This has been clarified in
Chapter 1 of the Final EIS under section "Federal Legislation and
Control Programs, subsection "Ocean Disposal Site Designation.
Discussions in the DEIS relating to the State of Hawaii jurisdiction
over the South Oahu Site (DEIS 1-12, 3-8, 4-2, 4-4, and 4-23) have
been deleted from the Final EIS in response to Comment #24-32.
In response to this comment, the sections in question (Chapter 3:
section "Chemical Conditions, subsection "Water Quality Class-
ification;11 Chapter 4: section "Potential Conflicts with Federal,
State, and Local Plans and Policies") have been deleted from the
Final EIS.
-------
Mr. Henry L. Longest, II
-2-
January 11, 198C
I
CO
PO
3. Bottom of page 2-13: It states that the proposed and alternative sites are
far offshore compared to continental U.S. sites. Why not? If monitoring wi
"]3_3 be very difficult, perhaps the sites should be moved further from shore. Thi
greater distance would diminish the need for monitoring, especially the bottc
conditions.
4. Top of page 2-14 and page 4-25: The stated less than 130,000 cubic yards per
year "cutoff point" for monitoring requirements for disposal quantities shoulc
13 — T- be discussed in more detail. How was the decision for the 130,000 yard cutoff
point arrived at?
5. Figure 4-2 of page 4-10: The depository patterns of a single discharge is quite
interesting. What might be even more useful would be the depository pattern at
the disposal site weighed by current distribution frequency. This could be
"] 3 — 5 similar to the "windrose" that's used in air pollution situations, perhaps a
"current rose" could also be used to determine what the depository patterns might
be at the dredge spoils disposal site.
6. Second paragraph of page 4-20: It is stated that the dredged material will not
cause mounding at any of the proposed sites sufficient to cause adverse impact.
What happens to the material if it doesn't mound? Where is It going? Is there
13 — 6 sufficient dispersal of the material such that at any one point, there will not
be significant buildup of material sufficient to cause suffocation of burrowing
marine organisms?
We realize that the statements are general in nature due to preliminary plans being
the sole source of discussion. We, therefore, reserve the right to impose future
environmental restrictions on the project at the time final plans are submitted to
this office for review.
Sincerely,
ft*
W JAMES S. KUMAGAI, Ph.D.
Deputy Director for
Environmental Health
cc: Office of Environmental Quality Control
j j— j The sentence has been changed to read: "Despite their greater
depths, the proposed and alternative sites are closer to shore and
the costs for monitoring transportation are comparable to those for
continental U.S. sites. Great water depths dilute waste plumes
close to shore, relative to similar U.S. mainland sites; those sites
farther offshore would not diminish monitoring requirements. Dredged
materials consist primarily of sediments, which, upon release, sink
rapidly to the bottom of the site, thus bottom effects are possible
and must be monitored.
1 3~4 ^ne 130,000 cubic yards "cutoff point" was meant to be an estimate
for establishing monitoring need. The Final EIS has been changed to
explain that monitoring will be considered at the South Oahu Site
curing each cycle, because the greatest volume of dredged material
(of all Hawaiian sites) is dumped there. If monitoring is performed
and indicates adverse dumping effects at the South Oahu Site,
monitoring should be considered for the other Hawaiian disposal
sites, at the discretion of the CE and the EPA Regional
Administrator.
i 3~5 ln essence, the dump pattern resembles a current rose. For a
''worst-case" estimate, the most conservative current speed data in a
particular direction was used in dump pattern calculations. However,
concerns exist with respect to the most liberal current velocity
towards shore, which is mitigated by current data showing that
predominant currents flow alongshore or offshore at all disposal
sites. Current data on disposal sites are insufficient to provide
any realistic "current rose" diagram.
I 3—6 Post-dump bathymetrie surveys of the sites in 1977 indicated no
significant changes from pre-disposal conditions, thus the material
must have been uniformly dispersed over the plume area and/or carried
outside tne site.
Smothering of benthie fauna in certain places is possible; however,
infrequent dumping leaves sufficient time for recolonization of all
benthos. Furthermore, the sites do not contain (nor are they near)
any important commercial living resource, critical habitats, or food
source areas. In fact, the proposed sites were chosen because of
these specific considerations.
-------
OEOHOC H- AWVO8HI
GOVEHNOA
RICHARD O'CONNELI
DRECIOH
TELEPHONE NO.
STATE OF HAWAII
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
»0 HALtKAUWILA ST
ROOM 301
HONOLULU HAWAII 96813
January 15, 1980
Mr. T. A. Wastler, Chief
Marine Protection Branch (WH-S48)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Wastler,
T|
I
to
co
"J4 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Hawaii Dredged Material Disposal
Sites Designation
We have coordinated review of the subject EIS by
State and County agencies and are forwarding the comments
that have been received.
We trust that our comments will be helpful in the
preparation of the Final EIS.
Sincerely,
"j 4 EPA acknowledges the Office of Environmental Quality Control, Office
of the Governor, State of Hawaii, and appreciates its coordination of
the review by various State and County agencies in Hawaii.
RidtSrd'L. O'Connell
Director
Attachment
-------
List of Conunentors on the Draft EIS for Hawaii Dredged Material
Disposal Sites.
Aeenc>
Comment Date
State of Hawaii -
Department of Land and Natural Resources December 9, 1979
Department of Transportation
City and County of Honolulu -
Department of Public Works
Department of General Planning
County of Maui - Planning Department
County of Hawaii - Planning Department
January 8, 1980
December 28, 1979
December 5, 1979
December 7, 1979
December 20, 1979
i
U)
-------
SUSUMU ONO. CHAIRMAI
EDGAR A. HAMASU
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P. O. BOX. 821
HONOLULU, HAWAII 9SBO9
DIVISIONS:
CONSBWATKM AMD
RESOURCES ENFORCEMBCT
CONVEYANCES
FISH AND GAME
FOB85THY
LA*m MANAGEMENT
STATE PARKS
WATER AND LAW DEVELOPUEMT
December 19, 1979
REF NO.: APO-1181
I
co
tn
15-1
15-2
Office of Environmental
Quality Control
State of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the draft EIS for ocean dumping in
Hawaii.
We note that the Maui and Hawaii Island sites are in
waters less than 400 meters deep where bottom profiles are
rugged. These sites are important to bottom fishing, and
we prefer that sites in deeper water be chosen instead.
The draft EIS records observations of humpback whales
outside of the breeding grounds. Accordingly, we
recommend that dumping be scheduled so as not to interfere
with migratory and behavioral patterns of the humpback
during their November through May visits.
Very truly yours.
SUSUMU ONO, Chairman
Board of Land and Natural Resources
[ 5— 1 Information from Che Hawaii State Department of Fish and Game
indicates that the majority of fishing near these two sites occurs
above 300 m. No bottom fishing is currently practiced near these
sites, although organisms which could be fished commercially are
present. It is important to note that use of these areas for dredged
material disposal would only occur for brief periods every 10 years.
Therefore, it is believed that choosing dumping locations in deeper
water is unnecessary.
15~2 This recommendation has been included in the Final EIS, as a result
ot this comment and Comment if6-2, in the Summary (sect ion
"Conclusions".), Chapter 2 (section "Detailed Basis for Selection of
Proposed Sites,' subsection "Location in Relation to Breeding...";
sect ion "Proposed Use of the Sites," subsection "Disposal
Schedules") , and Chapter 4 (section "Threatened and Endangered
Species").
-------
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
January 8, 1980
flYOKICMI HiGASI1
n:nrCI-
tin'!
JAMES n C'
JAM^S B McO
DOUGLAS S SA-
JACK K SL
IN Ht I'l V (IF I I
STP 8.5
I
co
Dr. Richard O'Connell
Office of Environmental
Quality Control
550 Halekauwila St., Room 301
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Dr. O'Connell:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Hawaii Dredged Material Disposal
Sites Designation
Thank you very much for forwarding the above-captioneil
EIS for our review. We have the following comments to offer
on the subject:
1. As noted in the EIS, ocean disposal oftentimes is
the most expedient, prudent, and least costly
method of disposing dredged materials. The desig-
nation of ocean disposal sites in th& proximity of
our major commercial harbors will play an important
role in the maintenance dredging program of the
Corps of Engineers and State of Hawaii for these
harbors. In an effort to reduce costs and bureau-
cratic red tape, we would like to recommend that
any State dredging projects within these harbors
be exempt from testing requirements if similar
16~1 dredging operations in adjacent areas by the Corps
had been accomplished in the reasonable past.
Should historical evidence indicate that the
composition of the dredged materials from the
Corps' periodic maintenance projects for the
harbors had remained relatively constant, we feel
it can be reasonably surmised that any materials
dredged from contiguous areas in the harbor under
State responsibility is no different from those
materials extracted from the areas under the
Corps' responsibility. Therefore, to require the
State to conduct costly chemical and other testing
of the spoil from the State dredging projects
~ 1 The Ocean Dumping Regulations are not intended to introduce
unnecessary duplication of effort, or added expense, in order to
determine acceptability of materials proposed for ocean disposal. In
cases where dredging locations are virtually the same, differing only
by the authorities who manage them, it is feasible that additional
testing of dredged materials could be waived. However, this
determination mu&t be made on a case-by-case basis by the CE District
Engineer who manages each disposal site.
-------
Dr. Richard O'Connell
Page 2
January C, 1980
STP 8,5946
CO
would, we contend, be a duplication of effort,
time consuming, and costly in terms of unnecessary
energy consumption and added expense. In other
words, when a permit application by the State for
ocean disposal involving dredged materials from
the State commercial harbors^(excluding Kawaihae
Harbor) is made, EPA should review the application
using the same criteria and procedures that they
accord the Corps when reviewing their application
for a similar dredging project.
2. Al1 of the major State commercial harbors have
been accounted for except Kawaiahae Harbor. No
ocean disposal site has been designated for West
Hawaii. We assume that this lack of designation
stems from the fact that Kawaihae Harbor does not
require maintenance dredging as frequently as the
other ports and the presence of a land disposal
site at the harbor. Since the master plan for the
harbor requires that the vacant areas under the
Harbors Division's jurisdiction be fully developed,
the land disposal site will no longer be available
\ Q — 2 to accommodate the dredge material from any future
harbor dredging project. With requirements for
land disposal sites becoming continually more
stringent, we feel it might be prudent to designate
an off-shore ocean disposal site also for West
Hawaii to accommodate spoils from future dredging
projects. This would eliminate the need for a
separate study and EIS should circumstances in the
future require that such an ocean disposal site is
desirable for the area.
3. State and private dredging projects must satisfy
certain requirements before approval for ocean
dumping is granted from EPA. In many cases, the
cost to provide the necessary data for permit
approval becomes proportionately untenable when
compared to the overall cost of the project. It
is not unusual for the required testing of dredged
materials for a relatively small dredging project
16""3 to cost many thousands of dollars while, at the
same time, consideration of a land disposal site
may also be deemed not cost effective. The existence
of these- two events, then, can render many important
projects of this nature to become unfeasible to
pursue or deferred due to lack of funds. We
JO— 2 This blS is for the purpose of designating five disposal sites
necessary to fulfill present requirements of the CE, Pacific Ocean
Division. Future needs for maintenance dredging and subsequent
disposal will be evaluated when necessary. However, the Counc il on
Environmental Quality Regulations for EIS preparation (40 CFR 1500)
provide for evaluation of similar projects; an EIS on a future
proposed dredged material ocean disposal site designation for Hawaii
can "tier" upon this EIS, thus eliminating unnecessary duplications
of etfort and expense.
j 6 — 3 EPA is not required to test acceptability of materials from areas
which require future dredging. EPA's function is that of
establishing criteria and tests for acceptability of material to be
ocean-dumped. Criteria and tests are developed in cooperation with
the CE. Dredged material disposal projects are judged case-by-case,
in accordance with Ocean Dumping Regulations, i.e., demonstraCion of
the need for ocean dumps and environmental acceptability. Extensive
testing of candidate materials is required only when these materials
cannot satisfy exclusionary criteria in Section 227.13 of the
Regulations. To summarize this section: materials are environ-
mentally acceptable if they are ''naturally occurring bottom material
with particle sizes larger than silt" and "found in areas of high
current or wave energy" or ''when the material...is snhstantially the
same as the substrate at the proposed disposal sic." md t-r.-.m
sufficiently clean environment, so that contamination ••, .ML I t ku I v
-------
Dr. Richard O'Conneli
Page 3
January 8, 1300
STP 8.5946
B
GJ
00
16-4
suggest that EPA set up specific standards peculiar
to each designated ocean disposal site and test
the materials from potential areas that might need
dredging in the future, such as harbors, streams,
rivers, canals, etc.
Our final comment is specific to the EIS and takes
the form of a question: Under the section entitled
"Benthic Impacts," Appendix C, Page C-18, it
appears that a bioassay determination of toxic
constituen t accumulation of the trace metals
manganese, lead f and copper will be required for
the Pearl Harbor sediment prior to disposal at the
proposed South Oahu ocean disposal site under
40CFR227.6. Should the concentration of these
trace rnetals meet the requirements of 4QCFR227.4 (b) ,
will bioassay analyses of other dredged material
proposed for disposal at this site also be required
if these trace metals exist in lower concentrations
than in the Pearl Harbor sediments and the MFC for
mercury and cadmium are exceeded?
Sincerel
State Transportation Planner
™ 4 Bioassays of candidate materials are compulsory if they do not comply
with exclusionary criteria in Section 227.13 of the Regulations,
summarized in the previous response. Bioassays determine the degree
of lethality of all trace contaminants in dredged materials
(including, but not limited to} trace metals, oil and grease, and
organic compounds). Acceptable concentrations of specific heavy
metals do not automatically imply complete environmental
acceptability of the material, Toxicities of materials dredged from
different locations can vary widely (dependent upon the sedimentary
nature and exposure to sources of contamination); thus results of
tests of specific materials are not transferable from one sample to
another,
-------
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CITY AND COUNTY OR HONOLULU
S5O SOUTH KING STREET
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813
ENV 79-420
co
December 28, 1979
Mr. T. A. Wastler, Chief
Marine Protection Branch (WH-548)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Wastler:
Re: Draft EIS for the Designation of Five
Hawaiian Dredged Material Disposal Sites
We have reviewed the subject draft EIS and have the following
comments.
1. We have no objection to the location of the proposed South
Oahu Site in Mamala Bay for the disposal of dredged material.
The proposed site will not affect the operation of the deep
ocean sewer outfalls off Sand Island and Barbers Point (not
shown in Figure 3-3).
2. The proposed South Oahu site should be available for
occasional City and County projects which require disposal
of dredged material. Example of these projects include
I 7— | stream dredging and pipeline crossings across channels and
harbors. The use of different types of conveyance to the
dredge site other than hopper dredge vessel should be
recognized. These include hopper barges.
V
Very truly yours.
I /— \ The proposed South Oahu Site would be available to other projects,
subject to approval by EPA and the CE by means of formal permit
application procedures. In the meantime, only those dumping
operations that use hopper dredge vessels are anticipated for the
proposed site. Usage of other means of conveyance would be evaluated
during the permit application review processes.
WALLACE MIYAHIRA / L -,.
Director and Chief/Engineer \
cc: OEQC
-------
-PARTMENT OF GENERAL PLANNII*.
CITY AMD COUIMTY OF HOMOLULU
DGP11/79-3746
December 5, 1979
I
-fa.
O
Mr. Richard L. O'Connell, Director
Office of Environmental Quality Control
State of Hawaii
550 Halekauwila Street, Room 301
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
TO Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Hawaii
Dredged Material Disposal Sites Designation,
October 1979 — Comments Requested November 27, 1979
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement
with respect to our planning jurisdiction, and have no
objections to the proposed south Oahu site.
Thank you for affording us the opportunity of reviewing
the draft impact statement.
Sincerely,
IO EPA gratefully acknowledges the letter from the Department of General
Planning, City and County of Honolulu, and thanks the Department for
its review of the DEIS.
GEORGE^ .
Chief-planning Officer
GSM:fmt
-------
COUNTY OF MAUI
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ZOO S. HIGH STREET
December 7, 1979
Office of Environmental Quality Control
550 Halekauwila Street, Km. 301
Honolulu, Hawaii
96813
Dear Sir:
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Hawaii
Dredged Material Disposal Sites Designation
We have reviewed the above referenced document and our comments
^ne general disposal methods for dredged material at the Kahului
Site , and at all Hawaiian sites, were explained in Chapter 2 of the
DEIS in the section entitled "Dredging and Disposal Operations.
1. We believe said document should explain the manner, location an
19 — 1 impact in the disposal of dredged material inconjunction with the
dredging of Kahului Harbor in 1977.
2. We believe the proposed sites (7 and 7A) for Kahului Harbor is
inappropriate and that alternative sites should be considered. Our
understanding of the ocean currents, wind direction leaves us to
believe that fish, seaweed and other ocean life could be adversely
affected. The waters of the Northwest Coast of Maui (Waihee-Waiheu)
19 — 2 i-s noted for fishing, seaweed gathering and other ocean related
activities. Accordingly, great care should be taken to protect this
resource area.
3. Additional information and impact analysis would be desirable
19 — 3 i-n relating the disposal of dredged material to the near shore waters
of Waihee-Waiheu.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above
referenced document.
Very trulyi yours ,
TOSHIO ISHIKAWA
Planning Director
Mayor Hannibal Tavares
T.A. Wastler, Chief,
Marine Protection Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency
The disposal location is the CE Kahului Site 7A.
Impacts of the 1977 disposal of dredged material at the Kahului Site
7A were discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the DEIS. Briefly, studies
conducted before and after dumping showed no demonstrable impacts due
to disposal at the Kahului Site.
"2 ^e activit^65 cited are mostly confined to inshore waters along the
stretch of island from Kahului Harbor to the northwest tip of ttaui.
The data on ocean current regimes for this area of Maui indicated
northwest to west flows, away from these activity areas. Use of Site
7A for dredged material disposal is not expected to cause adverse
impacts in this resource area .
X Presentation of additional in form at ion and impact analyses relating
disposal at the proposed site to waters of Waihee-Waiheu is not
deemed necessary, for the same reasons stated in the previous
response .
-------
COUNTY OF
HAWAII
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
25 AUPUNI STREET • HILO, HAWAII 9672O
IIERBEHTT. MATAYOSHI
SIDNEY M.FUKE
Director
DUAIVEKANLHA
DeplllJ Dimlor
December 20, 1979
T
ro
20-1
Mr. Richard O'Connell, Director
Office of Environmental Quality Control
550 Halekauwila Street, Room 301
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
Draft EIS - Hawaii Dredged Materials
Disposal Sites Designation
October, 1979
Thank you for bringing the subject draft EIS to our attention.
We have reviewed the text and have found it to be rather compre-
hensive in addressing the environmental issues. Please note that
we do not have any objections to the proposed Hilo Harbor -
Disposal Site, and have no adverse comments to offer at this time.
Based on our review, we can anticipate no potentially
critical environmental constraints since the actual dredging of
Hilo Harbor is sporadically scheduled (10 years). However, we
would like to propose that periodic or continuous long termed
monitoring of the selected disposal sites for environmental impact
study should be conducted.
We have also noted that no disposal site has been designated
for the West coast of Hawaii. Although there are currently no
plans for the periodic dredging of Kawaihae Harbor, an associated
2Q — 2 disposal site may eventually be required. The subject document
should perhaps also identify potential disposal sites in this area.
Thank you for this opportunity to review the subject draft
EIS. Should you have any questions on the above, please contact
us. Mahalo.
20*"1 *n accordance with Ocean Dumping Regulations, the impact of disposal
at all designated sites must be evaluated periodically and reported
to Congress (Section 228.10). The District Engineer of the CE or the
Regional Administrator of EPA will devise appropriate monitoring
programs for each site, if deemed necessary. Appendix D in the DEIS
described recommended environmental studies for the disposal sites.
2Q — 2 ^ne CE anticipates no need to designate a disposal site for disposal
ot material dredged from Kawaihae Harbor. Consideration of a
disposal site for sediments from this harbor will be delayed until a
demonstrated need to ocean dump occurs. No current plans exist for
periodic dredging of Kawaihae Harbor, therefore, planning of a site
designation is premature.
SIDNEY PUKE
Director
BS:ak
-------
DEPARTMENT OF LAND UTILIZATION
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
December 12, 197,
79/EC-MISC(SM)
CO
Mr. Henry L. Longest II
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for l-.iLcr Program Operations
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D.C, 20460
Dear Mr. Longest:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (£13)
Hawaii Dredged Material Disposa. Sites Designation
He have reviewed the subject document and have the following
comments to offer:
1. General Comment: Between pages 3-6 and 3-7, pagus 5-1, 5-2,
6-1, 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4 were erroneously inserted.
2. Reference: Page 4-25.
Comment: What specific Federal, State of Hawaii, or City
and County of Honolulu agencies will be responsible for
21—I monitoring the effects of the ocean dumping in the disposal
sites, e.g., collecting samples, making measurements n-id
quantitative analysis?
We hope these comments provide useful input to this E-S.
Very truly yuurs,
2] —1 The District Engineer of the CE or the Regional Administrator of EPA
will devise appropriate monitoring programs for each site, if deemed
necessary. Monitoring the effects of ocean-dumping dredged material
will be implemented by tha CE. (See also Response #13-2).
TYRONE T. KUSAO
arcctor1 of Land Ulijination
TTK:sl
-------
University of Hawaii at Manoa
KuvinuuuBntal Center
Crawford 317 • 2650 Campus Road
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
Telephone (806) 948-7361
Office of the Director
January 15, 1980
RE:0296
Mr. T.A. Wastler
Chief, Marine Protection Branch (WH-548)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Wastler:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Designation of Five
Hawaiian Dredged Material
Disposal Sites
The Environmental Center has reviewed the above cited DEIS with the assistance
of Doak C. Cox, John Sorensen, Barbara Vogt, Vincent Shigekuni; Environmental Center.
In general the EIS adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of
the disposal of dredged material on the proposed five ocean sites.
One set of questions we have concerns the location of the proposed South Oahu
site. Why is the site substantially different than the previously-used Pearl
22 Harbor site, which appears to have been acceptable? While we realize that the
new proposed site is suitable as well, why expose a new location to the dredge
material given some of the uncertainties associated with long-term environmental
impacts?
Second, we feel that the EIS would be more comprehensive if the list of
references included our previous reviews of the "Dredge Spoil Disposal Criteria
and Their Rationale" and related reviews dated January 13, 1975, July 11, 1975,
and September 25, 1975. We have enclosed copies for your convenience.
We appreciate the opportunity to offer our comments on this document and hope
you will find them useful.
Sincerely,
Doak C. Cox
Director
DCC/cu
Enclosures
cc: Office of Environmental Quality Control
John Sorensen
Barbara Vogt
Vincent Shigekuni ^ EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The proposed South Oahu Site is preferable to the former Pearl Harbor
Site because it is beyond the 200-fm contour. The National Marine
Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State
Department of Fish and Game consider that potential bottom fishing
resources exist within the 200-fm contour.
-------
ATTACHMENT TO 22
RR:0.
University of Hawaii at Manoa
C«nt«r
M«ile Bldg. 10 . 2540 Mailo W«y
Honolulu. Hawaii 90822
Tilephmu (80a) M8-7W1
of DM DirMtcv
January 13, 1976
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 91111
Attn: ENPOC
ficntlmen:
DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL
CRITERIA AND'THQR MTToTJflLE
He appreciate the opportunity to comment on the "Dredge spoil disposal
criteria" and "Rationale for dredge spoil disposal criteria" proposed by EPA,
Th» following members of the University of Hawaii have contributed:
A. tl. Banner (Hawaii Inst. of Marine Biology)
Ooak C. -Cox (Environmental Center)
Richard Grigg (Hawaii Institute of .Marine Biology)
L. Stephen Lau (Water Resources Research Center)
Janies Maragos (Hawaii Inst. of Marine Biology)
Jacquelln Miller (Environmental Center)
Haury Morganstein (Oceanography)
Justin Rutka (Sea Grant)
Henry Gee (Water Resources Research Ger,t«r)
DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL CRITERIA
Dredge spoil classification and site criteria
A,
The organization or classification of the material cited under the
general heading "Dredge spoil classification and site criteria" is unclear.
Itcra ft. either has no title or "Orcdijt1 spoil classification and site criteria"
is intended to be the title 1'or K. If there is a classification intended, it
seems to be between "unpolluted" and "polluted,1 bu't the "pollute')" class is not
isentioned in Section A (or elsewhere) and tne choice of terminology is poor.
"Sand and gravel" and "othor materials" would be preferable. The usage cf the
-------
ATTACHMENT TO 22
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency I'aye 2
classification appears to indicate that it serve as a criterion in addition to
those in section B and C, however, 'Substantially sand and gravel" is the sole
criterion Indicated for present site SF 8 and the proposed site at Worro Bay.
A combination of the "sand and gravel" vs "other material' criterion and the
section B criteria is called for at the proposed site in Suisun Bay. He assurae,
but it is not clear that only section B criteria apply at all sites Identified
other than the three mentioned above. It would seem appropriate to entitle "A"
'Dredge-spoil size classification and criteria."
Me suggest that a classification and criteria based on the fraction of
suspended material, In addition to that based on the 200 mesh screen size, night
be of Importance at some near-shore disposal sites.
B. Criteria for open water sites
The title of this section is Hlsleading. It includes criteria for
fills, which are apparently intended to be mainly on land and in any case not
1n open water. As indicated above, it seems intended that these criteria are to
be additional to those based on sediment size. Section "B" would be better
titled "Other site criteria."
The subsection titles also are questionable in that the "fresh-water"
criteria apply to a shallow marine or estuarine site at a proposed site at Suisun
Bay and a 100 fathom marine site at Moss Landing.
1. Fresh water
2. Marine (shallow) and estuarine water
1^ For our coewents on items V. ar.-', 2. above, see Section III, Toxic
O* Substances, "Rationale for Dredge Spoil Disposal Criteria."
3. Rarine water - 100 fathom
"The discharge shalI consist entirely of dredge spoil obtained by
dredging at the project site." There is no definition of the "project site."
Assuaring all other criteria are met, what is the rationale behind a prohibition
of a combination of dredge spoil from more than one site?
4. Fill sites
Where the dredge spoil is to be disposed of as a fill on land or
in shallow water, there are four or more concerns related to the effects of:
i) erosion and transportation of the fill material itself from
the site;
ii) discharge of settleable material from the site;
Hi) discharge of suspended material from the site; and
io) discharge of dissolved material from the site.
-------
ATTACHMENT TO 22
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pag:
(a) A criticism of this subsection relates to the "erosion or
action" phrase. "Erosion" alone would be preferred, otherwise all eroslonal
forces need to he considered, I.e. erosion due to rainfall, fluvial, wave or
action. A more Important criticism relates to the allowance of placing dredg
spoils 1n tills liable to erosion. If the use of a fill site results from th
detrimental effects of use of an adjacent marine or estuarlne site, It Is 11 li
cal lo allow placement in a fill from which the material will be eroded and
transported to the adjacent marine or estuarfne areas whether the waters are
"surface waters" or deeper waters. In general fills should be especially prot.
from wave erosion by sea walls, rip rap, sheet piling, etc. It would seem best
require that such protection be provided unless it can be shown that the erosioi
transportation, and redepositlon of the fill material will cause no significant
problems. Fills should rarely, if ever, be placed where they are liable to fluvial
erosion. Even with protection from fluvial and wave erosion, some erosion from
wind, rainfall and surface flow will occur. Hence the application of the fresh
hater or estuarlne pollutant criteria from 1 or 2 1s appropriate. In addition
reference should be made to whatever state or local regulations are applicable lo
such erosion. In Hawaii, for example, pertinent county ordinances are being
developed subject to state standards.
The "Summary of OSDC Comments and Consideration Given in
Revision of the DSDC" accompanying the "Criteria" and "Rationale" documents indi-
cates (p. 3) that establishment of beach disposal sites has been recommended, aid
that "Dredge spoil which 1s essentially sand/or gravel may be discharged at a
beach site so long as the spoil complies with sediment analyses for the receiving
water." Dredging of sand from offshore deposits may be a useful means for the
enlargement of beaches, particularly those that have retreated as a result, of
Injudicious mining of sand from the active part of the beach system. However,
the restriction to sand and gravel particle size may not ensure that the dredged
i.jteriei will be satisfactory for be.icb enlargement from either the esthetic or
stability standpoints.
(b) The first clause of this subsection relates to the discharge
of settleable solids, "Any discharge from a land disposal site shall not contain
settloable solids in excess of 1.0 inl/l/hr. . . ."
Tho concentration limit thus proposed would make sense 1f the
sottleable solid! were subject to dilution as are dissolved solids. However,
this 1s not the caso. Tho iettlesble solids settle and accumulate with tiros on
the bottom near the discharge. In highly sensitive areas such as live coral
reefs, no discharge of selA'leable solids should be permitted. In less sensitive
arut'S a limit should ba sot, not to the concentration of suspended solids, but
to the total quantity uf suspended solids, the product of concentration,
discharge ratu, and discharge duration.
flu? iecond clause, . . nor cause a violation of applicable
water quality standards," Ir. the only part of the dredge spoil and disposal site
criteria that mjy relate to tha discharge of suspended or dissolved solids through
applicable water quality standards. In combination with subsection a), which
makes metal crlterlj applicable, It may adequately deal with potential problems
ulth dissolved solids, which inAy reach the surface and coastal waters by way of
-------
ATTACHMENT TO 22
U.S. Environmental Protection Ac-ercy Page 4
leaching and seepage. It is Suestionab1e that it deals adequately with the
suspended soli'-s.
C. Other provisions
1. The itpl ication of this subsection is that by selective dredging,
the material can be removed and d:sposed of separately from successive 6-foot
depth increments. Although it is ejected that horizontal gradients of pollutant
concentrations will in general be taich snaller than vertical gradients, scrae
provision for averaging over selectively dredgeable horizontal extents as t,-el 1
as vertical extents would seem appropriate,
Sie do not have available the "Prelisinary sailing and analytical
procedures" referred to in subsection 3. If they do not prescribe spacing for
cores, a prescription should be included in subsection 1.
Dredge spoil disposal sites
We have no comments on the specific sites listed except those in Hawaiian
waters.
Assuming that previous use of the three present Hawaiian sites listed has
already effected such deleterious -irap-acts that night result from disposal of
dredging spo1'!, we know of no reason for discontinuing their use. However, te
strongly reccnrend that the i^act of the dispose! at these sites be investigated.
Concerning the proposed future sites we have the following consents:
£» a. Honolulu and Pearl Harbor, Cahu
This site is in an area with potential for the future harvest of large
shrls^. It is near the present Honolulu site, and we see no reason why a second
site in the vicinity should b-e used.
b. Kalaupapa, Holokai
This site also Is in an area with shrisp-harvest potential. We are not
sware of any needs for dredge spoil disposal at this site, but if they exist
deeper sites are avail to! e it no great distance,
c. fe'jnaitakal, Kolokai
There appears to be a sistaie in the latitude identified for this site,
If the site is in 150 fathoms south of Kaunafcakal, it 1s very near in »r«a of
black coral. We recooend clarification of the location of the site and its
situation in water of at least 290 fathoes.
d. Kartell, Una1
The latitude identified for this site is in error, A site 3.7 «11es
south of HaneK in ISO fatboas is in an area of bastes and gold coral. We
recsteeind that the site be roved west or H5W to a depth of 1000 ft.
-------
ATTACHMENT TO 22
U.S. Envlronraental Protection Agency Page 5
e. Kahu'u*. foul
Th= depth ami location olien for tlits site do not at|re«. A sKa at
100 fn would La doit t.o 'jOoc! snrinip ard civib ground;.. Me r^ccinrend that t!;e
site ba located well beyond the ItW fm contour, and if possible to the 50C fr,
COn toy.
t. Kdw-rihae. Hawaii
As proposed this site would be just outside a black, coral area and
Just inside gold and pink coral areas. We recommend that the site be located
at least 10 mil as offshore in 300 fm and preferably in r.ore than 500 fm.
9. H1lo. Hawaii
A very rodest increase in the distance of this site from Hilo would
locate It In water of 1000 fm. depth, which we recociiiend.
He strongly recommend investigation of the bottom and near-bottom conditions
it eacn of the sites proposed before it is used and monitoring of the effects of
dredge spoil dispose! subsequently.
farther coiniiont
Section II of the "Rationale" document constitutes a set of criteria additional
to those now included 1n the "Criteria" docunent. That section should be added
to the "Criteria" dorument.
RATIONALE FOR
DREDGE SPOIL DISPOSAL CRITERIA
The "Rationole" document Is actually a combination of rationale for some of
the criteria in the "Criteria" document and additional criteria. For soire of the
criteria In the "Criteria" document, no rationale 1s presented in the "Rationale"
document.
II. General requirements for open water and fill sites
This section does not present rationale. It constitutes a set of criteria
additional to those 1n the "Criteria" document and should be transferred in its
entirety to the ''Criteria" document.
A. Water Uses
Two additional criteria for prohibition of dredge spoil disposal should
be added tothe present five criteria:
1, ProhiLition of dredge spoil disposal on coral reefs or in areas from
which spoil materials may be transported and deposited on live coral reefs, except
-------
ATTACHMENT TO 22
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 6
where the fill over the coral reef 1s undertaken deliberately and with all due
regard to state and local regulations. The exception (which 1s perhaps covered
1n section D) should rarely be made.
2. Acknowledgement and restriction of disposal sites where crustacean
fisheries may be affected should be included 1f the other specific fisheries are
1temized.
B. Water Quality Standards
3. Is there any biological or environmental basis for the 50% figure
cited? Temporarily suspended fine sediments should be Included.
C. Toxic substances
1. Bloassay
Is "bloassay" the proper term or Is "biological survey" what Is
Intended?
2. This paragraph implies preliminary analyses. Who Is responsible and
what are the accepted analyses procedures.
III. Toxic Substances
The toxic substances 1n this section include only four heavy metals—mercury,
cadmium, lead and zinc. While these four metals are Indeed among those of high
toxlclty, especially the first three, several other metals such as arsenic,
chromium, nickel, and copper are not Included. In an earlier version of the docu-
mcnt. most or all of these omitted metals were included. The present omlsiion is
not explained.
Section III sets forth the recommended concentrations for toxic metals
(mercury, cadmium, lead, zinc) in receiving waters as contained 1n proposed water
quality criteria published by EPA 1n October I973. These concentrations ate
substantially higher than those known for Hawaiian coastal waters. However, there
1s no explicit statement 1n the subject review document regarding the applicability
of these proposed roncontratlons.
The same section olludos to the concentrations of toxic pollutants in back-
ground and polluted sediments In ths coastal waters and cites data from California
locations. It should be pointad out that a body of similar data has been developed
for some Hawaii coastal waters. These data are used in the subsequent parts of
this review.
The biological significance of toxic metals in waters and sedimentsfound In
coastal water is little known and understood as the subject review document
correctly points out. Here, the concept of biological availability of these
toxic metals whither 1n coastal waters or coastal sediments Is not recognized in
the subject review document. A recent study conducted 1n Hawaii (Quality of
-------
ATTACHMENT TO 22
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 7
Coastal Waters Project) on the biological availability of toxic metals found i ,
coastal water and sediment to several Hawaiian estuarine biota shows that the
availability is related to the type of sediment and its organic fraction. The
same study found several fish off a primarily agricultural coastal land with
mercury concentration over the allowable 0.5 ppm set by FDA for edible fish an'
yet the maximum mercury concentration ever found in the coastal sediment was
0.22 ppm, satisfying the proposed 1.5 ppm mercury concentration in the dredge
spoil for marine (shallow) and estuarine water.
IV. Other pollutants
Criteria for pesticides in dredge spoil should be provided, but there is
not enough known about all the pesticides to set quantitative limits. Unlike
heavy metals which have an acute toxicity, pesticides at conc3ntrations less than
lethal doses result in chronic toxicity involving changes in (1) reproduction,
i.e., chlorinated hydrocarbon activating enzymes in the liver to eliminate estro-
gen, making calcium unavailable for strong eggshell production in birds,
(2) stimulatory effects on thyroid activity of fishes, (3) reduced number of
eggs in spawning fish.
It is also difficult to come up with quantitative criteria because many
insecticides such as DDT are constantly recycled in the biosphere, and food webs
are complex enough so that concentrations at various trophic levels must be
determined first.
V. Recommended criteria
B. Criteria for open-water sites
1. Fresh water criteria and
2. Marina (shallow) and estuarine water
We have examined the proposed criteria in the light of known published
Hawaiian data. If limited in accordance with these criteria, disposal of dredged
spoils will be generally acceptable in •freshwater or estuarine water sites on the
basis of time and areal averages of the Hawaiian data. The acceptable situations
include relatively undeveloped land such as Kahana Bay area, urban domestic land
developir.ent r.uch as Hjwaii-Kji M
-------
ATTACHMENT TO 22
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Page ((
of the sediment would normally collect more man-developed toxic substances than
f-he deeper sections 1n the sediment. The Hawaii data were all surface samples
taken within the top few Inches and hence, probably represent the extreme condi-
tions representing higher concentrations of pollutants than those averaged from
a 5-foot core.
Biological availability of the toxic substances in dredge spoil to
marine biota is of greatest ecological importance. Hence, we question the
significance of the criteria for toxic metals such as mercury, without discri-
roin tion of the biological availability a.id type of mercury.
The following comments apply to specific subsections:
1. Freshwate"- criteria. Because these criteria are extended in the
"Criteria" document to certain marine and estuarine sites, some rationale should
be presented for this extension.
4. Fill sites are not open-water sites. This section should logically be
a major one--"C. Criteria for fill sites."
5. General condition-;. Since these apply to both fill and open-water sites,
this should also be a major section--"D. General conditions."
Further comment
No rationale is presented in the "flationale" document for the dredge spoil
disposal site selection. Appropriate rationale for continuing the use of existing
_ disposal sites may well lie in the likelihood that most of the detrimental effects
I of the use of these or similar sites have already been induced if these sites have
Ol been used in the past. Clearly, part of the rationale for the proposed sites, as
INJ for the existing sites, consists of proximity to ports at which dredging has been
or is to be performed. But the reasons for selecting the particular blocks of
ocean proposed for the disposal of dredge spoils in the future are unclear. To
what extent have depth criteria been used? To what extent have bottom slope
criteria or the proximity to submarine canyons been used? To what extent are
depth and bottom conditions so uniform that within wide areas tlie selection ir,
arbitrary, and necessary only to confine future disposals to the same site? As
indicated by our comments on specific Hawaiian sites, no consideration has been
given to the distribution of sea-bottom or near-bottom resources such as manganese
crusts or nodules, precious coral, or shrimp, or to the effects of disposal of
dredge spoil on these resources.
ADDITIONAL COMMENT
Although we recognize that the criteria and rationale presented in the
documents reviewed above pertain only to dredge spoil disposal and not to the
dredging operation Itself, we feel impelled to comment that many of the important
-------
ATTACHMENT TO 22
U.S. tnvironnientiil Protection Agency i'ago 9
detrimental effects of dredging in Hawaii reidie to the dredging ilself.
First, drei^ir.g of a living coral reef. -is for ship end boat channels,
directly destroys a fart of 'i:a 1 iving cyrol reef.
Second, dredging of a reef inay alter the pattern of waves, currents, and
sediment transport. For example, at Kapaa, Kauai, the dredging of a coral reef
lad to the interruption of the Bittern of shoreward sand transport and thp
relreat of the beach. On Oahu, tl,c dredging of a channel connecting the e/.U r-'• W- '•**/
Ooak C. Ci«
Director
cc: A. H. Banner
71 R. Grigg
Ul L. S. Lau
LO J. Haragos
M. Horganstein
J. Rutka
-------
ATTACHMENT TO 22
RII:'J029
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Eiivlrormionli.l Ontnr
M«ilo Bldg. 10 • 21, in Mnilr Way
Honolulu, Hiwill 9692)
T«lephon» (608! 949-7381
Gflie* ol tin Dlnatar
July 11, ly/s
Hr. R. L. O'Connell, Director
Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
We have received for review the revised Dredge Spoil Disposal Crltrrin-
Revislon I, pertaining to the proposed site changos for dredged material disposal
sites in Hawaiian waters. We were pleased to note your attention to many of our
earlier recommendations (January 13, 1975) concerning modifications to the
previously proposed Hawaiian waters disposal sites.
Members of the University of Hawaii who contributed to the earlier review and
who are presently on campus have been contacted for their evaluation of tne
currently proposed changes in site locations. The following comments have hoen
prepared with the assistance of:
D. C. Cox, Environmont.il Center
H. Gee, Water Resources Ito. Ctr.
R. Grigg, Hawaii Inst. of Marine Biology
J. Miller, Environmental Center
H. Morgansteln, Oceanography
In general we are In agreement with the proposed new site locations, llownvpr,
we would appreciate clarification of the following points:
We note that the £ropos_eo^ sites carry a numhnr sysl.om i .f. lion 1, llr-n ?,
Hon 3, etc. We similarly note" from your earlier documentation (10/21//1) that
certain existing dredge spoil disposal sites carry niiniljors lion 1. throuqh Hon 3.
If this number system is meaningful beyond the present coi i usuuiidcnce then
attention should be directed toward eliminating the ambiguity of similar numbers
for the 3 existing disposal sites as compared to the first 3 new sites.
-------
ATTACHMENT TO 22
K-. R. L. O'Connell 2 July 11, 1975
Proposed Sites
Hon 1. Kaua1-Naw1lfwlli 2',° 55'N, 159° 17'W
Ibn 2. Kauai-Har.apepe 21" 50'N, 159° 17'W
These sites ware previously approved 1n our review and we have no additional
commen ts.
lion 3. Oahu-llonoluiu and Pearl Harbor 21" 13'N, 157" 56' 05"W
The proposed new location for this site will increase the distance offshore
from 3.3 to 5.3 nautical miles. The depth will be Increased to 280 fathom;, only
30 fathoms over the previously proposed site. Since there 1s already an existing
dredge spoil disposal site in this vicinity at 21° 14'N and 107° 54'W (Hoi. 1. on
the Dredge Spoil Disposal Site document of 10/21/74) we do not see the need for
this additional site.
Hon 4. Molokal-Kalaupapa Harbor 21° 18' 24"N, 156° 59' 48"W
The proposed new location for this site will increase the distance offshore
from 3.1 to 5.3 nautical miles and the depth from 350 to 1000 fathoms. Rc-cunt
observations on the northeastern tip of Molokal at 200 ftli. by R. Grigg from
Star II have shown the shrimp resources in this area to be too sparse to bu of
commercial value. Hence the original dredge spoil site at 21" 15' OON, 157° 02' 00"W
seems reasonable. Please note correct spelling of Kalaupapa and Molokal.
lion 5. Holokai-Kaunakakai Harbor 21° 01' 30"N. 157° 09' 24"W
1 We had previously reconmended that this site be situated 1n water of at
Si! least 290 fathoms so as to avoid possible damage to a known black coral area.
This new site will probably be satisfactory.
lion 6. Unai-Manele 20° 37' 00"N, 156° 57' 48"W
The proposed new disposal site, lion 6., for Lanal-Manele 1s indicated as
at a depth of 300 fathoms. We wonder about the rationale for the selection of a
• He off Manele Bay? This site is very close to a volcanic pinnacle lying at i
ilnpttTnf 167 fathoms (20° 36'N .ind 156" 59'W). This pinnacle provides a unique
lubltaL for UaiiJboo and gold coral. The protection and preservation of such a
unique feature and its accompanying biota should he seriously considered. The
potential dispersal of discharge material due to currents or slight errors in
ili-.posal site location could destroy this unique habitat. We strongly urge your
i.unsideratlon of an alternate disposal site off tlio i-iiiKiKic1.il hnrdor of Kauiinliipau
mi the west side of Lanal. The depth at approximately 5 miles west of Kaumalapau
iippears to be about 350 fathoms. The distance from Manele Bay to a disposal site
h'.-re would not be greater than that to the proposed site. On the basis of dredge
hauls in similar location it seems improbable that precious corals are present at
the site off Kaumalapau.
lion 7. Mau1-Kahulu1 Harbor 21° 04' 42"N, 156° 28' 48"W _^
The latitude and longitude given for this site place the site at a slightly
shallower depth than the 200 fathoms Indicated. Commercial shrimp and crab
-------
en
o»
ATTACHMENT TO 22
Mr. R. I. O'Connell 3 July 11, 1975
';£her1es ara known to exist in this general area. Extending the site appruxitu.! U iy
an «do1t1onal 3° N latitutde to 21° 07' 42"!!. would as:ure Its depth In 200 fathin.:.,
Jiifcrtunately, ot"- original concern as toh^rm to existing shrimp and crab fisrn ius
$jena still quite valid.
,;on 8. Kawalhao Harbor 20° 02' 00"N. 156° 00' 00"W
Hie latitude and longitude given place this 'iite in approximately 250 i,itli-...,
not JCO as InJicated. Our previously stated concerns regarding black, .
ires is not recommended due to the great potential for severe negative unviix/iiw.iUI
intact. An alternative site 02' farther north at 20° 04' 00"N latitude would (.••
roughly the same distance from Kmvoiliue ilarbor but would lie in 330 fathoms, llie
potential negative impact should be somewhat reduced at this greater depth.
Iton 9. Ilawai1-Hilo Harbor 19° 46' 00"N. 154" 55' 42"W
The proposed new location will be satisfactory.
We appreciate the opportunity to have reviewed these proposed dredge spoil
sites. Please keep us Inforned of any action taken in these natters.
Yours very truly.
cc: Col. F. H. Pcndtr, Corps of Engr.
41. Gee
H. GrlBg
J. mlfer
H. Horganstein
bcc: A. H. Banner
U S. Lau
J. Haragos
J. fcitka
Coak C. Cox
Director
-------
ATTACHMENT TO 22
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Knvinmnealrt fatter
1.1 Bile OU*. ;a«2MC M.11,5 W«y
({•moluiu, Hawaii 9602:
Ttlcphnae i«K! MB-TMl
gf (he Oracle*
SepteraUr 25. 1975
KEMORABOUH
TO: Harry Akagl, OEQC
FROM: Doak C. Cox
RE: Review of Interim Final Regulations for
Discharge of Dredged and Fill Material Into
U.S. Waters (33 CFR 209)
The Environmental Center review of the above cited regulations has been
f1 prepared by the Center staff: Dan Burhans. Doak Cox. and Oacquelin Miller.
in
>j The Environmental Center review of earlier versions of these regulations
raised several questions. Some of thcseare adequately covered in the- revised
regulations however sen* remain unanswered. Tht following connenti have .is'.-f,
developed from our review of the current Interim regulations.
Section [d](2) Navigable waters (i): the term "navigable waters" is
defined "to mean waters of the U.S. including the territorial seas with respect
to the disposal of fill material and excluding the territorial seas with respect
to the disposal of dredyed material." Again we raise the question as to the
basis for a distinction between the disposal of dredged or fill material. Are
riot similar environmental concerns applicable?
Section [e](2) Discharges of dredged materiali or fill material ini;o
navigable waters. He are pleased to see the modification of this '>ectio!'. to
include consideration of the quality of the material to be discharged and its
affect on the water quality of the receiving water as we had recommended in our
earlier review.
Section [f](3) General Policies for Evaluating Permit Applications. This
section retains the procedure for simultaneous Army and~State processing of an
application for a Dept. of Army permit. Since the lack of authorization or
-------
ATTACHMENT TO 22
Harry Akagl, OEQC 2 September 25, 1975
certification by the State mandates a permit denial by the Army it would seem
that delaying the Army's processing until after State approval would be a more
efficient use of the Army's time. As we inquired in our earlier review, what
•s the rationale behind this decision.
Section [1](3) Processing applications for permits: Timing of processing
of applications, (i-iv). We were pleased to note that a schedule foV processing
of permits is Included in these revised regulations. According to the time
schedules suggested it would appear that some 12C days would be the minimum
response time to a permit request. This period of course would be lengthened
by a minimum of 30 clays if a public hearing 1s held.
Section [j](1) Public notice and coordination with interested parties, (viii)
refers to a minimum review time of 15 days HI iff a recommended 30 day review
parloa. If this 15 day poHod id Implemented tho response t;ni« to a permit
request could be shortened to approximately 60 days. We would strongly urge an
increase in the minimum review time as given in this paragraph to 30 days.
Mall turn-around times for Hawaii and parts of Alaska are surprisingly long and
a 15 day review period would leave an exceedingly brief period for actual study
and comment preparation on our part.
We appreciate the opportunity to offer our comments on these interia;
regulations. We look forward to receiving a reply to the questions and concerns
we have raised.
( ;''•'" •' '
l Doak C. Cox, Director
in
oo
-------
GREENPEACE
913 Halekauwila St.
Honolulu, HI 96814
January 14, 1980
Mr. T.A. Wastler
Chief, Marine Protection Branch (WH-548)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Wastler:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Hawaii Dredged
Material Disposal Sites^ Designation and offer the following comments.
Humpback Whales
Section 228.5(b) of "Ocean Dumping, Final Revision of Regulations and Criteria1'
i states, "Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen that temporary
perturbations in water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing
caused by disposal operations anywhere within the site can be expected to be reduced
to normal ambient seawater levels or to undetectable contaminant concentrations or
effects before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically
limited fishery or shellfishery."
It should be noted that on December 12-14, 1979, a distinguished panel of whale
scientists met as a "Technical Review Committee" in Lahaina, Maui. The meeting was
sponsored by the Marine Sanctuaries Program Office. The scientists called for a
National Marine Humpback Sanctuary to be established from the 100 fathom line shore-
ward, everywhere in the main Hawaiian Islands. The Marine Sanctuaries Program Office OO 1 AJJ- • , • c
23-1 is aow determining whether the humpback sanctuary proposal will become an active "~ ' A^itional information on humpback wha!es has been added to the Final
candidate for consideration. The sanctuary concept the scientists favored would place EIS in Chapters 3 and 4 under subsections entitled "Threatened and
high priority on research and monitoring, with new regulations for humpback protection _ , , _
to be enacted with the full input and approval of county, state and federal levels of Endangered Species. The exact locations of humpback whale breeding
of government. The Dredge Disposal Site EIS makes no mention of a possible National grounds are presently unknown and thus could not be added to Figure
Marine Sanctuary although several of the proposed and alternative disposal sites may .,_ .
be close enough to the 100 fathom curve so that suspended sediment and resultant tur-
bidity could reach them. Appendix C, page C-6, states that material with a grain size
greater than .18 mm will settle over an area 2500 meters long and that "the remaining
sediment will be distributed outside the site over a vast area."
Humpback whales are mentioned on page 3-14, where it is stated that the whales'
documented breeding grounds are not near the proposed dumping sites. It is not clear
why the possible effects on breeding grounds only are considered significant in the
EIS. In fact, the scientists who comprised the Technical Review Committee of Dec.
12-14 were of the opinion that there is presently no scientific evidence for site-
specific breeding grounds, other than a preference for shallow water In general.
GREENPEACE FOUNDATION * P.O. BOX 30547, HONOLULU, HAWAII 96820
A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION • (8O8) 537-9505
-------
cr>
O
Breeding grounds are not shown in Figure 3-2, which shows only areas of high
whale use. The scale of nautical miles on this map is incorrect.
The exact findings of the Technical Review Committee should be available soon
when their final report is published. It is expected that the final report will
state that it is unknown whether turbidity or other pollutants have negative impact
on humpbacks, and will suggest that further research be conducted to make this dett
mlnation. In the absence of evidence that turbidity has no negative impact on the
whales, no preventable sources of turbidity should be allowed to contaminate their
habitat.
The EIS contains no discussion of possible effects which ocean dumping at the
proposed or alternative sites may have on humpbacks or other cetaceans. It should t
noted that Figure 3-2 shows three of the proposed dumping sites as within areas wher
whales were seen by Wolman and Jurasz during March, 1976.
Current
It is stated on page 2-2 that the predominant flow at the South Oahu Site is
offshore. But examination of the study results shows that this clearly not the case.
It is stated on page 2-4 that the Port Allen site has "southerly current velo-
cities of 10 to 30 cm/sec." However, the currents mentioned in Appendix A, page
23 — 2 A-3, are north-northwest, east, and northward.
Also on page 2-4, it is stated that the surface current at the Nawiliwili site
is southerly, but it is not stated what the directions of flow were at the 50m,
180m, and 370m stations mentioned in the Appendix, page A-3.
Specific locations of studies cited in Appendix A should be shown on a map.
Oil Content of_ Dredged Materials
On page 2-22 it is stated that "the materials previously dumped were in compli-
ance with the regulations, with the possible exceptions of greater amounts of oil and
grease found in Pearl Harbor sediments." Page B-6 reads that "No surface sheen data,
as specified in the ocean disposal criteria (40 CFR 227.6(e)(4)), are available for
oil and grease concentrations in the Hawaiian harbors." The testing procedure speci-
fied in section 227.6(e)(4) would seem to be relatively simple to perform, and the
resultant data could be significant if it shows that dredged material from Pearl
23 — 3 Harbor would not be in compliance with criteria set forth in section 227. If such
material is found to be in non-compliance, will a waiver of the criteria be requested?
This would result in more than 50% of the materials dumped in Hawaiian waters through
1987 being in non-compliance with the criteria set forth in section 227 (as determined
from chart on page 2-23).
Initial Mixing
The EIS, in referring to concentrations of liquids, suspended particulate and
solid phases of dumped material, frequently makes use of such phrases as "if distri-
buted throughout the water column at the proposed site". It is unclear whether this
refers to the entire proposed dumping site (over 1 mile in diameter) or to the
23—4 release zone as defined in the "Ocean Dumping Regulations", Section 227.28 (approxi-
mately 100 meters radius). Use of the entire site would lead to unrealistically low
estimates of concentrations which will actually occur during the initial mixing
period. Regulations section 227.29(b) allows for estimates of concentrations by
assuming even distribution throughout the release zone when no other means of esti-
mation are feasible.
It is stated on page 4-8 that "Turbidity of the receiving waters is increased
— 5 f°r a snorc period (2 to 5 hours)...." But silt and clay would take much longer
has been changed in response to these comments.
23— 3 ^n '-^e future, materials proposed for disposal must be tested in
accordance with the Ocean Dumping Regulations. A request for a
waiver is only one of several avenues to be taken if the material was
found in non-compliance with the criteria.
23~4 Tne following considerations led to the use of entire site volume in
the calculat ion of maximal concent rat ions: The Ocea'n Dumping
Regulations allow maximum concentrations of the liquid, suspended
particulate, and solid phases of dumped material after initial mixing
to be estimated by field data on the dispersion or diffusion of the
material (Section 227.29a). The field data pertinent to the Hawaiian
sites discussed in Appendix C of the DEIS indicate that most of the
dredged material settles to the bottom of the South Oahu Site within
30 minutes. Observations of maximum current speeds at this site
yield a minimum flushing time of about one hour. Thus, it is
reasonable to assume that if material was discharged at the upstream
edge of the site, the discharge plume would be dispersed throughout
the site to its opposite side well within the 4-hour "initial mixing"
period.
2 3 ""5 The turbidity of the receiving waters of the proposed South Oahu
Disposal Site is increased (over background levels) for 2 to 5 hours,
after which turbidity levels return to normal, due to dispersion and
diffusion.
Using a conservative current speed of 10 cm/sec, a flushing rate of
7 hours was calculated for the proposed South Oahu Site. However,
current speeds at least twice, and as much as six times this speed,
have been observed. These observations are discussed in Appendix A
of the DEIS under the section "Currents. These speeds would yield a
flushing rate of as little as 1 hour. Since the time period between
dumps is about 4 hours, it is likely that the site is flushed
completely between discharges and thus no cumulative water column
effects of repeated dumps are expected.
-------
to reach bottom, even as much as a few days (page C-10), Is It meant that after 2 to 5
hours, the material is so diluted as to be invisible? Additionally, no discussion Is
made of the cumulative effect, if any, of repeated dumps over a period of days as would
occur in the dredging of a harbor.
Mater Column Impacts
23-6 The distance of 24m mentioned on page C-15 should be 240 m. 23~6 Change made.
Additional Comments on Current Section
The Chave and Miller study did not measure currents for an adequate length of
time. Only eight days of readings were taken. The Bathen study shoved a periodicity
23 — 7 °* 11 to 14
-------
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16TH 5T, N.W., WASHINGTON, DC 200J6
202—797-6800
January 15, 1980
BY HAND DELIVERY
Mr. T.A. Wastler
Chief, Marine Protection Branch (WH-548)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Comments of the National Wildlife Federation on
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
Hawaii Dredged Material Disposal Sites Designation
Dear Mr. Wastler:
Attached please find the comments of the National Wildlife
—- Federation on the referenced DEIS. As you will see, we have
I identified a number of serious legal and technical deficiencies
CTl in the Draft. We hope and expect that these will be remedied
PO in a revised version. While most of the defects are amenable
24 — 1 to correction in a Final EIS, those which relate to the lack of
bioassay and bioaccumulation test results require—in our view—
preparation and circulation of a Revised Draft EIS (or a supple-
ment to the present Draft) containing thisinformation, so that
we and other interested parties and agencies can react to it and
comment on it.
If we can be of further assistance to you or to the staff
of Interstate Electronics Corporation, please do not hesitate to
let me know.
Sincerely,
KSK/jl
Kenneth S. Kamlet
Assistant Director, Pollution
& Toxic Substances
EPA Region IX
Honolulu District, COE
Brig. Gen. Hugh Robinson
24-1 Comments and responses #24-9, -10, -11, -13, -23, and -26 in the
Final EIS address bioassay and bioaccumulation testing. There are no
additional data to provide for a revised DEIS. The Final EIS will be
available for public review and comment. All recipients of the DEIS
will also receive a copy of the Final EIS. NWF and other interested
parties and agencies are welcome to comment on EPA's responses to
their DEIS comments.
-------
National Wildlife Federation
H12 16TH ST., M.W-. WASHINGTON, D.C 20036 JO?—787-68
COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
FOR HAWAII DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES
DESIGNATION (OCTOBER 1979) January 15, 1980
The National Wildlife Federation ("NWF"), by far the nation's
largest private conservation organization, with over 4 million
members and supporters, believes that the Draft EIS is deficient in
a number of significant respects which are set forth in detail
below. Our major concerns can be summarized as follows:
1) The Draft fails to adequately consider the availability
of land-based alternatives. Conclusory references to a prior Corps
of Engineers EIS, which misstate its conclusions and fail to even
I summarize its analysis, fall far short of the detailed consideration
O\
CO of alternatives required by the National Environmental Policy Act
("NEPA").
2) The Draft fails to adequately consider even alternatives
to the locations and dimensions of ocean disposal sites.
3) The Draft fails to adequately describe the dredged
material which the sites discussed are being designated to receive.
Although bioassay and bioaccumulation testing are the mandatory
regulatory bases for determining the environmental acceptability
of dredged material for ocean dumping, the Draft limits its
description of the dredged material involved to incomplete and
out-of-date chemical test results.
-------
-2-
4) The Draft seems to unjustifiably minimize the potential
impact of ocean dumping at the proposed dumpsites on nearby and
potential fishery resources.
5) The Draft makes numerous undocumented assertions
calculated to minimize the overall environmental consequences
of dredged material ocean disposal. All evidence or indications
inconsistent with the authors' apparent preconceived notions
are disregarded.
6) The Draft contains numerous distortions and misstatements
of applicable legal requirements under the Ocean Dumping Law, the
Convention, and the Criteria.
I. Inadequate Consideration of Land-Based Alternatives
1. The transmittal letter (dated November 9, 1979) from
Henry L. Longest, II (Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Program Operations) accompanying the Draft EIS states that:
"EPA and COE policy on the ocean dumping of dredged material has
been that land-based disposal sites will be used when available
and economically feasible." The Ocean Dumping Criteria define the
feasibility and practicability of using an alternative in $227.16 (b),
as follows: "alternative methods of disposal are practicable when
they are available at reasonable incremental cost and energy
expenditures, which need not be competitive with the costs of
ocean dumping, taking into account the environmental benefits
derived from such activity, including the relative adverse
environmental impacts associated with the use of alternatives to
ocean dumping."
-------
-3-
In marked contrast to these requirements, the Draft EIS
asserts that reliance on land-based alternatives "is feasible only
under two conditions: (1) existence of technologically, environmentally
24 ~2 and economically feasible land-based disposal methods; and (2) _. _ , „_ . , ,
*-^ 24~2 The Final EIS nas keen changed to read: "This alternative is only
evidence that ocean disposal causes significantly adverse environ- feasible under either of two conditions: (1) existence of
mental consequences, thus precluding this consideration." DEIS, at technologically, environmentally, and economically feasible
land-based disposal methods, or (2) evidence that ocean disposa?
2-8 (emphasis added). The Draft, thus, incorrectly makes the . .,,,.,,
causes adverse environmental consequences which preclude its use.
demonstration of significant adverse effects of ocean dumping a
prerequisite to the consideration of land-based alternatives—an
approach not sanctioned by the Criteria and, in fact, legally
precluded by the Ocean Dumping Law and the Convention (which make
consideration of alternatives mandatory in all cases).
2. The Draft EIS makes the flat assertions that ocean
disposal is the "most viable" means for disposal of the dredged
CT, material (p. 1-1), and that an earlier "U.S. Army Engineer District...
cn
EIS entitled Harbor Maintenance Dredging in the State of Hawaii"
concluded that "ocean disposal of dredged material is the best
method at least cost, and presents the lowest risks to public
24-3 health compared to land disposal " (p. 1-3). The Draft else- 24-3 See Response #11-1.
where asserts that "(ojcean disposal of dredged materials is
preferred to other alternatives because of the lower costs and
low potential risks" (p. 2-1). No explanation or justification
is given for these conclusory assertions. The earlier Corps EIS
is the only source of authority provided for any of these statements
and no details are provided.
-------
-4-
After a fair bit of time and effort, NWF succeeded in
obtaining a copy of the September 1975 Corps EIS so heavily relied
upon by the present Draft. Contrary to the representations made
in the Draft, the Corps EIS states the following:
"Although ocean dumping is considered the primary
method, land disposal has been used in the past and
can be a viable alternative in the future." (At 3).
"Land disposal may be more feasible in the future,
if dredged spoil can be used for construction and
industrial application by governmental agencies and
industrial organizations." (At 3).
"Land disposal is a viable alternative to ocean
dumping of dredge spoil in Hawaii; however, there
are some inherent problems with land disposal that
presently make it less desirable and more costly
than ocean disposal. At the present time land
disposal of dredge spoil is not practiced in Hawaii
in relation to the maintenance of Federal harbors."
(At 47) .
It is essential, as the Draft itself mentions in passing
T{
-L (at 2-18) that, "[i]n all cases, in accordance with Subpart C,
CTt
the need for ocean disposal must be demonstrated.1 The present
Draft fails to do so.
3. Another example of the Draft's uncritical and incomplete
analysis of land-based alternatives can be found on page 2-18.
The statement is made that in addition to receiving dredge spoils
24-4 from~ six Hawaiian harbors, the designated sites may be receiving 24-4 The DEIS indicates that dredged material from many sources may be
proposed for disposal at the sites once they are designated. This is
similar types of dredge material" contributed by "Hawaii or
merely a general statement. The site designation procedure does not
counties in Hawaii" from "other coastal areas.' There is abso- determine what specific materials may be dumped in future. EPA
lutely no indication as to the need for ocean disposal in this determines acceptability of candidate materials through the permit
process, by means of the procedures in Part 227 of the Ocean Dumping
regard, where dredged material from these areas has been disposed
Regulations and Criteria. Actual details, such as need for ocean
Of in the past, and what alternatives will exist in the future. disposal and future disposal alternatives, in addition to other
factors, will be addressed as part of the site management process,
after applications for ocean dumping permits are evaluated.
-------
-5-
II. Inadequate Consideration of Alternative Site Locations and
D dimensions
1. The Draft proposes the designation of five sites.
Only a very limited number of alternative ocean disposal sites
have been considered (which is okay for the most part), and almost
nothing is said about the selection of site dimensions and
configurations and possible alternatives.
NWF is concerned that the range of options has been so
24—5 restricted, that the environmental review process and opportunity
for outside input have become trivial exercises. For example,
the Draft notes at one point that "[t]he proposed and alternative
sites are near each other, therefore the comparison of economic
factors between sites are minimal" (at 2-2) . NWF is concerned that
the proposed and alternative sites are near enough and similar
enough to one another that comparison of environmental factors
between them is not much less "minimal."
2. Examples can be given of where important decisions
on site size and location were made implicitly without discussion
or elaboration or opportunity for input or review. One example
is the proposed South Oahu Site. The careful reader in reviewing
the Draft—e.g.. Fig. 2-1 (at 2-3) and p. 2-15— would be struck
24—6 by tne fact that this site is disproportionately large in relation
to other proposed sites. Why is this? The only clue given in
the Draft is an assertion that "the size of Site 3 is no longer
sufficient to accommodate the estimated amount of future dredged
material for both Pearl and Honolulu harbors" and that "tt]he
proposed South Oahu Site...merely represents an expansion of this
site [which site?—Site 3 or the former Pearl Harbor Site?] where
no adverse environmental impacts have occurred" (at 2-11) . No
Sites (i.e., locations, configurations, and dimensions) previously
recommended by EPA, the CE, and other Government agencies, previous
disposal sites, or areas located away from steep bathymetric areas
were given preferential consideration as possible sites for
designation. Based upon these criteria, at least two sites were
considered for each harbor.
Although the proposed and alternative sites are similar, comparative
evaluation of all alternatives and environmental characteristics
favored selection of sites for designation that will result in the
least environmental impact due to disposal. Detailed comparative
evaluations for all the sites were presented in Chapter 2 of the
DEIS.
^-he proposed South Oahu Site will receive significantly more
materials than all other proposed sites; thus, to maintain a
comparable ratio of amounts of dumped material relative to volumes of
receiving waters, the South Oahu Site is proportionately larger than
the other sites. (See also Response #11-2.)
No evidence of mounding, which would impede navigation, exists at
Site 3, which has historically received material only from Honolulu
Harbor, or the former Pearl Harbor Site, which has received material
only from Pearl Harbor. The proposed South Oahu Site is larger in
volume and surface area than Site 3. Since it will receive material
dredged from both harbors, it is proposed for designation.
-------
-6-
indication is given as to whether the previous sites have begun
to fill up to the point that navigation is being impeded. No
indication is given as to how many years' capacity the proposed
site (given the proposed site size) will have, and how much of a
difference moving the site further from shore would make.
Explicit discussion of the choice of site dimensions is
especially important in view of the directive of §228.5(d)—
noted in passing in the Draft on pp. 2-14 - 2-15—that the sizes
of ocean disposal sites be minimized to facilitate regulation,
monitoring, and surveillance. See also, S228.5(b) (dealing with
choice of site locatidns and boundaries).
3. Another example concerns the selection of proposed
site 9 (Hilo Site), pictured in Figure 2-5 (at 2-9). As is
indicated by even casual examination of the figure, locations 9 and
CT> 9B are both within the 400-meter depth contour, while location 9A—
CO
only a short distance away—is beyond the 1000-meter depth contour.
If it is true, as the Draft repeatedly asserts, that the deeper the
water at the site, the better, why was the deeper alternative
24-7 not chosen in this case? Although the Draft, a few pages later 24-7 See response #11-2.
(at 2-13) does indicate that Site 9A was dropped from consideration
because "(1) the western edge of the site is on a very steep
cliff and in an area of strong upwelling, and (2) the majority of
the commercial fishing in the Hilo area is along the western edge
of Site 9A...,° no reason is given for not considering some other
site of comparable depth further north, south, or east. (Also, if
the concern was interference with or contamination of commercially
caught fisheries on the western edge of Site 9A, why was Site 9
proposed for designation—which is not that far from Site 9A and is
to the north and west of Site 9A?).
-------
-7-
4. One final example concerns the location of the proposed
South Oahu Site. Figure 3-4 (at 3-25) indicates that this site appears
24-8 to stradd:1-e two State Fish and Game Catch Areas (#0401,421) . Why 24~8 See re8P°nse *ll-2.
does the Draft fail to discuss this, and why is no consideration given
to choosing an alternative safely outside of these areas? (While the
other proposed dumpsites are also within Catch Areas, they are seem-
ingly so far within such areas that ready relocation might be much
more difficult and involve much more distance than in the case of the
South Oahu Site; also, the latter site will receive the most heavily
contaminated dredge spoils, so that it is most important for this
site to be kept as far as possible from important fisheries).
III. Inadequate Characterization of the Dredged Material to be Dumped
at the Proposed Sites
1. Fundamental to the determination of whether a particular
ocean site is suitable to receive dredge spoils is information
"^ concerning the characteristics of the dredge spoils in guestion—
IQ including detailed information on the toxicity and biological
availability of associated contaminants. Under the Ocean Dumping
24-9 Criteria (SS 227.6, 227.13), the acceptability of dredged material 24~9 Sec rcsPonse #11-3.
for ocean dumping is principally determined through bioassay and
bioaccumulation testing. Unfortunately, as the Draft EIS notes
on p. 4-12, "[n)o bioassay data are available for dredged material
previously dumped at any of the [proposed] sites.
2. This deficiency by itself would be bad enough. The
Draft EIS, however, compounds the problem by misleading the reader
into thinking that a full evaluation of dredged material is possible
24—10 even absent such test results. For example, the Draft makes the 24-10 Scl= response »ll-3.
flat (and untrue) statement (at 4-3) that "permissible quantities
-------
I
•^J
o
of the materials'prohibited except in trace amounts' have been
reported in dredged materials. It also states (at xiii) that
n[t]he dredged materials comply with federal regulations for
minimizing environmental impacts." In point of fact, determin-
ations of compliance with the Criteria (and as to whether
"permissible quantities" of Annex I constituents have been
exceeded} can only be made on the basis of bioassay and bio-
accumulation test results. To the extent the Draft suggests
(at 4-12, B-2) that 1.5X ambient sediment concentrations of
mercury and cadmium serves as an alternative regulatory criterion
that may be freely substituted for the results of bioassay and
bioaccumulation tests, it is simply in error. (See, §227.6).
3. On bioaccumulation potential, the Draft asserts that
the "potential for bioaccumulation is extremely low," citing
n[s]tudies of sediment and tissue analysis at the former Pearl
Harbor and Honolulu Sites" (at 4-15). Apart from the mere
citation of two references, however, no documentation or details
are provided. For example, there is no discussion of what
24 — 1 1 specifically these studies found, or of whether the study design
adequately reflects the requirements for field assessments of
bioaccumulation potential as set forth in the EPA-Corps Implemen-
tation Manual. The Final EIS should describe in some detail
the results of these studies and indicate how closely they satisfy
(or fall short of satisfyingJ Implementation Manual procedures.
4. The information en sediment composition that is provided
in the Draft is spotty, incomplete, and often out of date. The
24—12 Draft indicates that (as of 1973) there were "approximately 23
point sources" which served as sources of potential contamination
24~ll The Cext i° tne Final EIS has been changed to provide more discussion
of potential bioaccumulation in Chapter 4, under the subsection
entitled "Trace Metal and Organohalogen Accumulation.
24—1 2 Information on' sediment chemistry presented in the DEIS is derived
principally from five studies. The data are summarized in Table B-l
of the DEIS. These data represent the most complete and current
information available on the Hawaiian harbors. The studies span 1973
to 1978.
Under the section entitled "Other Waste Inputs^' the DEIS states that
there were 23 point-source inputs to the proposed South Oahu Site
area in 1973. Of these 23, 15 discharged into Pearl Harbor and 8
into Mamala Bay, where no dredging occurs. Of the waste from the 15
Pearl Harbor point-sources, 97% consisted of power-plant cooling
water, which, upon discharge, was essentially unchanged from its
initial characteristics. In 1979, 95% of the waste generated by the
22 point-sources in Pearl Harbor consisted of thermal discharge.
(See Chapter 3, Table 3-15.) It is expected that the number of
point-sources discharging to Pearl Harbor will decrease to
approximately 12 before the next dredging cycle because sewage
sources will be diverted through the Honouliuli Treatment Facility
(S. Konno, personal communication, 1980).
Concerning oil and grease, no surface sheen test data, as specified
by the Ocean Dumping Regulations, are available for the harbor
sediments. However, as stated in Appendix B of the DEIS in the
subsection entitled "Characteristics of Harbor Sediments, oil sheens
were not observed during the disposal of Pearl Harbor dredged
material, which is the only harbor where oil and grease content is
elevated.
-------
-9-
of the dredged material to be dumped at the South Oahu Site
(at 3-29). Elsewhere the Draft indicates (at 4-7) that "Pearl
Harbor dredged material [to be dumped at the South Oahu Site)
reportedly contains 11.9 g/kg of oil and grease." This corresponds
to an astounding 11,900 ppm. Oil is an Annex I constituent
which is subject to strict prohibitions under the Ocean Dumping
Convention. The Draft also states that, n[i]n 1979, the number
of point-source outfalls increased to 44" (at 3-31)—making it
very likely that even the limited sediment chemistry information
presented in the Draft is obsolete.
In short, despite good reason to be concerned about the
ability of dredged material—particularly from the Pearl Harbor
Site—to satisfy the Ocean Dumping Criteria, and despite major
« unknowns about potential adverse environmental impacts associated
j with ocean dumping this material, the Draft seems totally unconcerned.
Worse, it affirmatively misleads the reader into believing that
there is no cause for concern.
5. The Ocean Dumping Criteria, in Part 228, clearly
contemplate that site designation studies will be done—at least
24-13 where existing information is incomplete or inadequate to properly 24~13 Existing information is adequate to characterize the sites proposed
for final designation. Once the sites are designated, their use will
and fully characterize a proposed ocean dumpsite. NWF feels . . .
be based in part on bioaseay and bioaccumulation teat results
strongly that bioassay and bioaccumulation test results must be required for evaluating candidate materials, in accordance with the
available—and reflected in a Revised Draft EIS, open to public Ocean Dumping Regulations.
and interagency review and conunent--before a Final EIS may be
issued and the proposed site designations may be finalized.
-------
ro
-10-
6. The problem is not resolved by glib generalizations to
24-14 the effect that " Materials which do not comply with MPRSA will
not be ocean-dumped. (At 4-24).
IV. Inadequate Discussion of Potential Impacts on Nearby and
Potential Fisheries
1. The Draft makes the flat and undocumented assertion
that "[^Interference with fishing...is insignificant since fishing
near the proposed sites is minimal and presently limited to mid-
water trolling." (At 2-20). Elsewhere, however, the Draft notes
that up to 12% of the "dollar equivalent amount" of commercially
valuable fish caught in Hawaiian coastal waters is caught "in
the fishery zones (where the proposed sites are located)..., with
24 — 15 tne majority caught near Hilo. (At 3-23). Similarly, Figure 3-4
(at 3-25) indicates that all of the proposed dumpsites are located
within "State Fish and Game Catch Areas. ' And the Draft indicates
that the majority of commercial fishing occurs near the western
edge of Site 9A, which is not far from Site 9, the proposed Hilo
Site (at 2-13, 4-5). Moreover, the Draft indicates (at xiii) that
"three of the proposed sites have water depths within the range
of commercially valuable shrimp." (This statement is later
contradicted by the flat assertion (at 2-14) that "the proposed
sites have no commercial potential"([at least as far as "commercial
bottom trawling" is concerned]).
2. Although the Draft indicates (at 4-5) that "[r]ecreational
fishing from charter boasts is widely practiced throughout the
24~16 Hawaiian Islands, mainly for offshore sport fish," the flat
contention is made that "disposal will not adversely affect this
activity"—because "such fish are taken by trolling...or by
24" 1 4 ^he statement made in the DEIS "materials which do not comply with
hPRSA wil1 not be ocean-dumped. summarizes the spirit of MPRSA. As
such, it is appropriate to include in the EIS.
24—15 State of Hawaii Fish and Game areas consist of statistical regions in
which the waters surrounding the islands are divided. Figure 3-4
(Chapter 3) merely emphasizes the boundary regions of the proposed
disposal sites. (See also Comments and Responses #11-2 and #24-8.)
Two species comprise most of the fish taken in the fishing zones
surrounding the proposed sites; they are taken primarily from the
Hilo area. Catches of these large game fish should not be disturbed
by disposal activities. The fish are highly motile and dumped
dredged materials will not release potentially harmful elements to
tne water column in concentrations sufficiently high to affeet the
tish. Host important, the total time during which disposal is
planned (45 hours every 5 years, maximum) will present siight, if
any, possibility of impacts upon fisheries.
Hilo Sites 9 and 9A are fairly close to each other. However, the
bottom topographies of the sites are quite different. Additionally,
Site 9A is located adjacent to an area of strong upwelling. Factors
sucn as bottom topography and proximity to areas of upwelling
significantly affect the character of the fauna in the sites, thus
some areas are better for fishing than others; such is the case with
Sites 9 and 9A. Site 9A supports fishing activity, and was
eliminated as an alternative. (See also Comments and Responses #11-2
and «4-7.)
It is true that some of the proposed sites are within the range of
commercially valuable shrimp. However, these shrimp are not
presently being taken from Hawaiian waters for commercial purposes.
In addition, the shrimp are not sufficiently abundant at the proposed
site locations to support a fishery; thus, the proposed sites
assertedly possess no commercial fishing potential.
24 — 16 Upon release from the barge, most of Che dredged material sinks
rapidly to the bottom. The DEIS states that plumes in the water
column have not been visible more than 5 hours. Thus, the material
quickly disperses horizontally and vertically. Ingestion of
dump-associated particulates by pelagic fish is possible; however,
the time during which material resides in the water column is short.
-------
-11-
long-line fishing." The similar statement is made later (at 4-25)
that Sportfishing "is independent of the quality of bottom
conditions." This, it seems to us, is not nearly as self-evident
as the authors' of the Draft would have us believe. In the first
place, DMRP studies have demonstrated that most contaminants
associated with dredged material will be associated with the
sediment particles that ultimately settle to the bottom. Before
these particles reach the bottom they will be available for
ingestion by fish occupying mid- and upper water levels. In the
second place, it is well known that dumps attract fish and other
mobile organisms—thus maximizing the period of potential contact
between fish and contaminated sediment particles. And in the third
place, many benthic organisms—which will come in direct and
sustained contact with settled dredged material—serve as important
I prey organisms to fish, including fish taken by "trolling" and
i
"long-line fishing.'
3. Even the Corps' 1975 EIS Hawaiian Harbor Maintenance
Dredging acknowledges that dredge spoil ocean dumping may adversely
affect "benthic fishery and precious coral resources" (at 46),
and that "[a]t present there is no adequate means to identify
24-17 tne potential long-range harmful effects of the leaching out of
toxic or bioaccumulative pollutants into the marine environment
after the disposal of polluted dredge material" (at 42). The
Final version of the present EIS should endeavor to do a more
honest and analytical job of evaluating the risks to fishery resources.
The notion that "dumpe attract fish and other mobile organisms" ia
unsubstantiated.
Sportfishing in Hawaiian waters is mainly for large game fish. These
fish feed primarily on other pelagic organisms - smaller fish, squid,
and crustaceans. Thus, benthic organisms do not serve as "important
prey organisms to fish taken by trolling and long-line fishing.
24-"" 1 7 ^e D*^S has established that no benthic fisheries exist near any of
the proposed disposal sites, nor are any of the sites near areas of
precious coral harvesting.
The statement quoted from p. 42 of the CE EIS IB true. However,
within the same paragraph the CE EIS also recommends that disposal of
dredged material containing high heavy-meta 1 concentrations be
performed at "disposal sites with little or no biotic activity, and
which are located away from valuable fishery, nursery, and spawning
grounds. The five sites proposed comply with this recommendation.
The DMRP examined leaching of heavy metals from sediments. The tests
(Lee et al,, 1975; Chen et al., 1976) indicated that, under certain
conditions (i.e., oxidizing or reducing environments), some trace
metals were released from dredged material into seawater in
concentrat ions above background levels. Howeve r, the actual
increases over background values were miniscule, so that considerable
analytical difficulties were encountered. Furthermore, there is
litCle evidence to indicate that such low levels would cause adverse
etfects on marine organisms during the extremely short time be fore
the concentrations were diluted to the original background levels, or
if the metals were precipitated (Pequegnat, et al., 1978), This
informat ion has been included in Chapter 4 ("Trace Metal and
Organohalogen Accumulation") of the Final EIS.
-------
-12-
4. One cannot point simply, as the Draft EIS does, to the
asserted reduced biological productivity of the continental
slope (at xiii), as a sufficient basis for regarding deep ocean
dumpsites as automatically preferable to ones located closer to
shore, or certainly as being of no environmental concern. For
example, since deep-sea organisms must do a much more effective
24—18 J°b ^ian their nearer shore counterparts of scavenging for scarce
food, their ability to bioaccumulate toxic dredge spoil contaminants
may far exceed that of more abundant nearer shore organisms—
perhaps more than offsetting their lessened abundance in terms of
environmental impact potential. In this regard, it is relevant
that n[m]ost organisms from the sites are detritivores...which feed
on organic particulate materials attached to sand grains or in the
water column, larger organic remains..., and feces from marine
animals" (at 3-18)—precisely the sorts of things that dredge
spoil dumping will introduce.
Also, it is well-known that deep-sea organisms are more
sensitive to environmental stress than their nearshore counterparts
(since they are less accustomed to abrupt changes in environmental
conditions).
V. Unjustified and Inadequately Documented Conclusion that the
Environmental Consequences of Dredge Spoil Ocean Disposal
Are Minimal
1. The Draft repeatedly asserts (see, e.g., at xii, 2-8,
2-10, 2-19, 2-22, 4-20) that the " [environmental consequences of
deep-ocean disposal of dredged material are minimal.11 See also,
24-19 DEIS, at 4-1. And, while the Draft states that " [environmental
consequences of dredged material disposal at the proposed sites
24—Tft ^he SeneraHy reduced biological productivity of deep-ocean sites, as
compared to shallow continental shelf sites, is cited in the DEIS
Summary as merely one reason why deep sites are preferable. Also
significant is the increased dilution provided by a deep site.
It is true that most benthic organisms at the sites are detritivores.
However, the inferred link between this feeding characteristic and
potential effects of dredged material dumping is not valid. The
relationship between the scavenging ability of deep-sea organisms and
their ability to bioaccumulate contaminants has not been established.
Bioaccumulation can occur a number of ways; ingestion of contaminated
materials is indeed one mechanism. However, the degree to which
elements bound to sediments are available to organisms, even upon
ingestion, is relatively unknown. For instance, many elements simply
pass through the digestive tracts of these organisms remaining bound
to the sediment and are therefore unavailable to the animal.
The relative sensitivity to stress of deep-sea organisms, as compared
to near-shore organisms, is the subject for current study (Murphy et
al., 1979). Clones of pelagic diatoms taken from ocean waters have
been observed to be more sensitive to chemical stress than clones
from coastal waters. The inference drawn from this observation is
that the coastal organisms have adapted to the typical stressful
conditions in coastal waters receiving high use, and that their
oceanic counterparts have not adapted to stress because waters far
from shore are not experiencing the same level of use. The
application of these observations to deep-sea benthic organisms is
tenuous.
Little is known of deep-sea organisms, especially regarding their
ability to withstand stress. In addition, the degree of stress
induced by dumping dredged materials is expected to be minimal. Use
of the sites will be infrequent, and the amounts of materials dumped
at the sites will be relatively slight, with the exception of the
proposed South Oahu Site. Therefore, considerable time and
opportunity for recolonization will occur. The proposed South Oahu
Site will be monitored to determine benthic effects (see Appendix D
of the DEIS and the Final EIS for a description of these
environmental studies).
Ref: Murphy, L.S., P. Hoar, and R.A. Belastock, 1979. The effect of
industrial wastes on marine phytoplankton at Deepwater Dumpsite
106. Prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
ion* 21 pp.
24-19
The proposed sites are not used for benthic fishing (DEIS, p. 4-3),
nor are they near areas where corals are harvested (DEIS, p. 4-22).
-------
-13-
were assessed on the bases of past studies by the CE and the
Department of the Navy" (at xii-xiii), as noted previously, the
Corps EIS on which reliance is placed in fact acknowledges that
"[t]here will be a risk that benthic fishery and precious coral
resources may be adversely affected." (Corps EIS, at 46).
2. The Draft inappropriately minimizes the potential for
attraction of nuisance species at the proposed sites (at 2-21).
24"~20 As nas been demonstrated by extensive studies by Dr. Thomas Sawyer
of the National Marine Fisheries Service (Oxford, MD laboratory),
dredged material ocean dumpsites often produce gill fouling of
crabs and fish by encrustations of pathogenic protozoa.
3. Inadequate attention is given to cumulative impacts
(at 2-23)—especially in light of the fact that disposal at the
South Oahu Site is expected to occur every 4 hours (at 4-3), and
24 — 21 t*ie resultant disposal plume is expected to persist for 1-5 hours
(at 4-6). This suggests that a steady supply of dredge spoil
contaminants may be constantly introduced during a dumping operation
with little or no time between dumps for dispersion or recovery.
24-22 4- Insufficient attention is given to possible impacts
on the endangered monk seal and humpback whale (at 3-14, 3-17).
5. The Draft unjustifiably fails to consider bioaccumulation
2A*.23 an<^ uptake of contaminants among the "unavoidable environmental
effects" associated with the proposed site designations. At 4-24.
6. While noting the presence of enormous quantities of oil
and grease in Pearl Harbor dredged material (at 4-7), the Draft
24—24 fail3 to adequately address the implications of the presence in
the same dredged material of oil-soluble chlorinated hydrocarbons
(at 4-12, 4-15, B-9).
24~20 Gill-fouling in benthic organisms has been the subject of much study
by Dr. Sawyer and others, in organisms collected from Maine to North
Carolina, including organisms from disposal sites of all types;
however, the data are inconclusive. Occurrence of gill-fouling is
widespread; it is not limited to dumpsite areas, but also occurs far
away from dumpsites "(Sawyer et al., 1977). In light of this
observation, the labeling of protozoans associated with gill-fouling
as nuisance species due to dredged material disposal is
inappropriate,
Ref: Sawyer, T.D. , S.A, MacLean, J.E. Bodammer, and B.A. Rarke.
1977. Gross and microscopial observations on gills of rock
crabs (Cancer jjrrpratus) and lobsters (Homarus americanus) from
nearsbore waters of the eastern United States. In Proceedings
of the Second Biennial Crustacean Health Workshop, April 20-22,
1977. TAKU-S6-79-114. July 1979.
24~21 Dumping will occur for a maximum of 45 hours during a 5-year period.
The DEIS states that the plume occurring after a single dump has been
observed to persist for 1 to 5 hours within the site. Thus, the
material will be greatly diluted and dispersed before the next load
is introduced to the site 4 hours later, and the potential for
cumulative impacts on the water column will be negligible.
24**22 Additional information on the monk seal and humpback whale has been
added to Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final EIS under sections entitled
"Threatened and Endangered Species. (See also Comment s and
Responses #7-2, #24-1.)
24" 23 Potential for bioaccumulation is discussed in Chapter 4 of the Final
EIS within the section entitled "Other Environmental Effects.
Bioaccumulation has not been labeled an "unavoidable- effect" because
tissue and sediment analysis after dredged material disposal have
shown no evidence of accumulation. Potential for bioaccumulation of
constituents in materials intended for future disposal will be
evaluated before approval for disposal of those materials.
££$• — £_4 Despite the presence of elevated quantities of oil and grease in
Pearl Harbor sediments, concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons
were found to be low in Pearl Harbor sample materials from the
dredging vessel. Therefore, the DEIS justifiably refrains from
addressing the suggested implications.
-------
-14-
7. The discussion of oxygen demand (4-11) inappropriately
considers the amount of oxygen depletion that would occur averaged
24 — 25 over the entire dumpsite. In practice, higher, more localized
depletions are likely to be far more significant biologically
(i.e., it does an organism at point A within a dumpsite absolutely
no good if all its oxygen is gone to know that there is adequate
oxygen elsewhere within the site).
8. The Draft dismisses the possibility of adverse environ-
mental impacts associated with heavy metal content on the basis
24—26 that metal concentrations in harbor sediments are low "and thus
do not present a serious threat of accumulation in the biota.
At 4-12. What is not considered, and should be, is the fact that
the total amount of persistent metals introduced into an area may
become significant over time, even though concentrations at any
given time may be relatively low.
VI. Distortions and Misstatements of Applicable Legal Requirements
1. Table 1-1 (at 1-6) gives a misleading impression of the
24 — 27 relative roles of EPA and the Corps in the " [d] etermination of
locations for dredged material disposal sites."-
2. The same table incorrectly suggests that NOAA's
24—28 responsibilities are limited to "long-term monitoring and research"
and exclude short-time ocean dumping research.
3. The Draft incorrectly summarizes (at 1-9) Criteria
requirements applicable to the liquid phase (in terms of assuring
24-29 that "trace contaminant" levels are not exceeded) . On the one hand,
§227.13(1) of the Criteria makes compliance with the requirements
of §227.6 (subsection (c)(1) of which absolutely precludes dumping
24—25 Slight localized oxygen depletions after dumping have occurred.
Severe oxygen depletions occur when organically rich material is
degraded by chemical or biological processes which require oxygen; in
addition, inputs of oxygen to the reaction location must be limited
so that oxygen in the area is not overly renewed. Neither of these
conditions would occur with the proposed dredged material dumping.
Most of the material descends rapidly through the water column, thus
precluding oxygen depletions, except for slight temporary depressions
described in Chapter It of the DEIS.
Extensive laboratory studies (Lee et al., 1975) of oxygen uptake by
dredged materials on the bottom, indicate that even under worst-case
conditions (e.g., extreme suspended loads of materials which exhibit
high oxygen demand, and no flushing of the overlying water), only
about 6% of the oxygen contained in overlying water would be required
in the first hour after disposal; the rate of oxygen uptake would
decrease over time. Therefore, oxygen depletions associated with
bottom reactions are not expected.
24 — 26 ^e amount °f a metal in a given amount of sediment (i.e., the
concentration of that metal) remains the most important consideration
in determining its potential for impacting organisms. The key factor
lies in the exposure of site organisms to metals in natural and
dumped sediments. If the natural sediments and dumped materials
contain metals in comparable concentrations, the animals will
experience identical exposure. The volume of dumped material is
inconsequential in this case because exposure is unrelated to volume
of sediment, whether naturally occurring or not. This can be
demonstrated with a simple example: An organism which is exposed to
10 g of material containing an element in a concentration of 1 ppm,
experiences the same degree of exposure to that element as an
organism exposed to 10,000 g of material containing 1 ppm of the same
element.
24" 27 Table 1-1 in the Final EIS has been changed to clarify the roles of
EPA and CE.
24-28 Table 1-1 in the Final EIS has been changed to clarify NOAA's
responsibilities.
24"29 ^ne summarization of the criteria has been revised in Chapter 1 of
the Final EIS.
-------
-15-
dredged material the liquid phase of which contains major constituents
which exceed "applicable marine water quality criteria") a mandatory
prerequisite for the liquid phase of dredged material. On the
other hand, 5227.13(2) suggests that in limited circumstances,
bioassays must be used to ensure compliance with the limiting
permissible concentration. (The net effect of these two provisions
would appear to be that compliance with applicable marine water
quality criteria is required in all cases; however, bioassays must
be done in addition, "when the liquid phase contains major consti-
tuents not included in the applicable marine water quality criteria,
or there is reason to suspect synergistic effects of certain contaminants.
The Draft simplistically (and inaccurately) boils this down into an
alternative requirement (at whose option?) that either the liquid
fraction be shown to not exceed the marine water quality criteria,
T1
' or that it be shown to contain contaminants only in nontoxic and
^
nonbioaccumulative form.
4. As previously noted, the Draft (at 4-12, B-2) incorrectly
24—30 states that the Criteria specify a solid-phase limit for mercury
and cadmium based on a factor of 1.5X ambient levels of these metals.
5. The discussion of Impact Categories I and II (at 1-10 -
24-31 1-lD is incomplete in failing to indicate the consequences of
classifying an activity into one of the two categories.
6. The Draft incorrectly states that within the 3-mile
24—32 limit ocean dumpsites are subject "to regulation by the State of
Hawaii" under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977. (At 1-12).
24-30 See Comnent #24-9 and Comment and Response #11-3.
24""31 A discussion of the consequences has been added to Chapter 1 of the
Final EIS.
24—32 Tne Seccion entitled "State Control Programs" in the DEIS has been
deleted from the Final EIS in response to this comment with the
intent of excluding material which may confuse the reader. (See also
Comments and Responses #7-76 and #13-2.)
-------
-16-
00
24—35
In fact, as is made clear in Section 106 of the Ocean Dumping Law: 24 — 33
"After the effective date of this subchapter, no State shall
adopt or enforce any rule or regulation relating to any activity
regulated by this subchapter." (§106 (d)). 24-34
24-33 7- The Draft incorrectly states the goal of the MPRSA as
preventing "significant" degradation or endangerment of the marine
environment or public health...." (At 4-1). In fact, the Act
seeks to avoid "unreasonable" degradation or endangerment. Clearly,
even insignificant degradation can be unreasonable if acceptable
land-based alternatives are readily available.
24~34 8- Tne Draft improperly compares (at 4-14, B-3) contaminant
levels in dredged material to corresponding levels "in disposal
site sediments." Where, as here, dumpsites have been previously
used, it is obvious that one's point of reference should be
uncontaminated sediments in the vicinity of the proposed dumpsite—
not already contaminated sediments within that dumpsite.
24~35 9- The practice, referred to in several places in the Draft
(at 4-25, B-l, B-7) of collecting dredged material samples for
analysis "from the dredge vessel hoppers after they have been filled
in the harbor and before release at a site" is inconsistent with
the liquid-, particulate-, and solid-phase definitions specified
in the Criteria (§227.32) and could considerably understate the
impact potential associated with dredged material.
24-36 1°- The discussion in the Draft (at B-7, B-9) indicates t4-36
that an inadequate number and diversity of sediment samples were
taken and analyzed to properly portray the dredged material
subject to ocean dumping. As noted in the Implementation Manual,
a minimum of three samples must be taken and tested at each
dredging site.
No mention o£ che MPRSA or its goals is given on p. 4-1 of Che DEIS.
the DEIS stated on p. 1-5 that "MPRSA regulates the transport and
ultimate disposal of waste materials in the ocean.
Studies conducted at the Pearl Harbor Site have shown no significant
difference between contaminant levels in dumpsite and control site
sediments. The former Pearl Harbor Site received the majority of the
dredged materials dumped in the last dredging cycle, so that any
effects of dumping would be most obvious at this site. Although
similar environmental studies have not been conducted at other
Hawaiian sites, based upon the Pearl Harbor observations, no
discernable difference is expected between sediments at the proposed
sites and their respective control areas. Thus, comparing
contaminant levels in dredged material to corresponding levels in
disposal site sediments is justified.
'^ne D^IS presents data on the physical and chemical characteristics
of Hawaiian dredged materials dumped prior to the bioassay testing
procedures established by EPA/CE in 1977. These data came from
samples taken from the dredge vessel hoppers and are the only data
presently available for describing the materials in the EIS. In the
future, materials will be evaluated in accordance with Part 227,
Subpart B of the Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria. Only
materials which satisfy the environmental impact criteria will be
permitted for dumping.
Materials intended for future dumping must be tested in accordance
with the EPA/CE Implementation Manual. The manual was not available
for use at the time the dredged material samples mentioned in this
comment were analyzed.
-------
-17-
I
~-J
IO
VII. Miscellaneous Comments
24-37 1- The Draft notes in several places (at xiv, 2-17, 2-24, 24-37
4-24) the desirability of restricting dredged material disposal
to avoid the summer spawning period. Such a restriction should be
made an explicit condition of the published site designation (if
it is decided to proceed to final site designation) and of any
future permits issued for ocean dumping at these sites.
24~38 2. The Draft fails to discuss the pros and cons of dispersal
versus containment philosophies for dredged material .management. c4~JO
E.g., should the objective of site selection and management be
maximum dispersion or maximum containment? The objective selected
will have crucial bearing on the desired dumpsite characteristics.
Yet the Draft freely treats "strong bottom current action" (a
disperaivp forte) as a virtue in one paragraph (at 2-11) and the
status of a site as a "more stable depositional site" as a virtue
in the very next paragraph (at 2-12). Elsewhere, great reliance
is placed on the likelihood of dilution and dispersal (at 2-18).
The Final EIS should address this issue in detail.
24-39 3. The Draft contains conflicting information about the 24~39
physical characteristics of the dredged material to be dumped at
the proposed sites. For example, in the text on pp. 3-2 and 3-3,
the carbonate and basalt values for sediments at the proposed
Nawiliwili Site are given as 74% and 12* for t. 1977 study and as
27% and 46% for a 1978 study. Table 3-2, however, gives the
entirely different and unexplained values of 30% and 6%, citing
the same two studies (at 3-3). Similarly, the pre- and post-dumping
No stage in the life histories of any commercially valuable organisms
found in the Hawaiian Islands is known to be dependent on the
proposed sites or on their respective vicinities. Little is known
about sunnier fish migration or spawning, but available information
suggests that these are unimportant at the sites. However, efforts
will be made by the CE during advanced planning to schedule disposal
to avoid summer months until further data on summer fish migration
and spawning are evaluated.
The cited inconsistency between statements regarding dynamic versus
stable sites is a result of a misreading of the DEIS. As stated in
the DEIS on p. 2-11, the proposed site (1) is preferred over the
alternative site (1A) for several reasons, two of which are:
1. The proposed site (I) has only moderate bottom current activity,
whereas evidence of strong bottom current activity was indicated
at the alternative cite (1A).
2. The proposed site (1) shows lees variability of sediment regimes
and is a more stable depositional site than site 1A, the
alternat ive.
The data are, in fact, not conflicting. The carbonate and basalt
values given in the text are pro-diapooal (Neighbor Island
Consultants, 1977) and post-disposal (Coeggel, 1978). Table 3-2
lists carbonate and basalt values which are mean values of all the
raw data contained in the cited sources, oe the table correctly
Btatea .
Sediment size data listed in Table 3-1 and Table 3-3 have been
rectified in the Final EIS.
-------
-18-
§
I
sediment sizes given in Table 3-1 (at 3-3), in Table 3-3 (at 3-4),
and in the text on pages 3-4, 4-7, and B-2 seem contradictory and
impossible to reconcile. The Final EIS should attempt to present
this information more clearly and consistently (or explain the
Inconsistencies).
4. Because it is true that "(a] change in substrete may
24-40 be exPected to cause the species to shift" (at 4-18) , special attentJ
must be focused on disparities in grain size between pre- and post-
disposal sediments at the proposed dumpsites. Despite evidence
referenced elsewhere (see previous comment) of major shifts in
grain size after dumping, the Draft seeks to minimize these differences-
although it is noted in passing that "[wlhile sand usually predominates
at the other proposed sites, primarily silt will be dumped" (at 4-17).
_ More needs to be said about the environmental significance of this
shift.
1
CO
o
O£_£H The proposed Nawiliwili Site was the only location for which a "major
shift" in grain size after dumping was reported. However, the study
reporting the pre-disposal data (Neighbor Island Consultants, 1977)
indicated:
"The sediments...lacked significant sediment
within the clay size range. Cores could not be
recovered from the site because of the boulder
pavements. so
------- |